Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, tēnā tātau e te Whare. Tēnā koutou kua hara mai nei ki te tautoko i tēnei āhuatanga i tēnei rāngi, tēnā tātau.

[Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to us, the House. Greetings also to those of you who have come here today in support of this matter, greetings to us.]

I move, That the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill be now read a second time. I am grateful to the Māori Affairs Committee for its work in considering the bill and for its report on the bill, and I acknowledge all the submitters who participated. There can be no doubt that the subject of the bill has captured the hearts of many a tourist, historian, archaeologist, and writer. The brilliance of the geothermal landscape; the legacy of the late guides Sophia Hinerangi, Rangi Dennan, and the more recently departed Bubbles Mihinui; the mighty Pōhutu Geyser; the unique fact of approximately 500 hot springs; and the spectacular displays of geothermal resource are all features that make Whakarewarewa a living thermal village that is on a par with the natural wonders of the world.

A debt of nationhood is seen in the bill, which finally gives effect to the deed entered into by Ngāti Whakauē, Tūhourangi, Ngāti Wāhiao, Te Pūmautanga trustees, and the Crown. The deed entered into on 5 August 2008 transfers three areas of recreational reserve lands—the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve and the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve, which together make up the Whakarewarewa Valley land, and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve—to the iwi of Ngāti Whakauē and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao. The reserves have the status of recreation reserves and are currently administered by the Ministry of Tourism under the Reserves Act 1977.

I emphasise from the start that the bill is not part of a Treaty settlement. It was deemed appropriate for the Minister of Māori Affairs to progress the proposal outside the Treaty settlement framework because it was considered to strengthen the Crown-Māori relationship generally and it was not providing any settlement redress to Ngāti Whakauē.

I spoke earlier about some of the distinctive history attached to the area. The leadership of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao and Ngāti Whakauē approached the Government back in April 2008 with a proposal to vest the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve into a new joint trust once they had transferred to the affiliate Te Arawa Treaty settlement entity. But there is a particular story that I must tell, which helps to explain something about why we have come to this point today. In order to do so, we must travel back to the decade between 1883 and 1893 when the Whakarewarewa Valley was subject to no less than three Native Land Court hearings. The absence of fairness and transparency in the courts processes in establishing ownership over lands held according to Māori custom is now generally accepted. Suffice it to say, history reveals that the court originally established that ownership was to be shared by the hapū of Ngāti Wāhiao and Ngāti Whakauē.

Halfway through this time, a remarkable event occurred. The eruption of Mount Tarawera brought forth a torrent of mud, ash, and steam. A series of violent earthquakes occurred, and the settlements of Te Tapahoro, Moura, Te Ariki, Tōtarariki, and Waingongongo were either destroyed or buried. In the wake of the eruption, Tūhourangi evacuated from Mount Tarawera and were welcomed into Whakarewarewa, where they settled and married into Ngāti Wāhiao, and remain there to this day.

Yet the outcome of the Native Land Court hearings continues to be hotly contested by the iwi parties today. As a consequence of the court’s decision, the land surrounding the village passed into Crown ownership. But despite the Crown’s administration of these reserve lands, initially by the Department of Tourist and Health Resorts, and, more recently, by the Ministry of Tourism, the whenua itself has never ceased to hold immense significance to the iwi. It has always been, and always will be, central to the identity of Ngāti Wāhiao, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Whakauē.

Today I remain absolutely confident that all iwi and mana whenua interests in the reserves will be able to participate in the arrangements for their management and allocation in the future. The recently concluded facilitation process conducted by Te Ururoa Flavell and John Clarke—whom I acknowledge for their hard work—and the staff of Te Puni Kōkiri allowed iwi and mana whenua to discuss future management. I am pleased to hear that the four koromatua whakapapa lines will be the basis for mana whenua settlement.

The Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill supports cultural identity in so many ways, including the fast-emerging trend of iwi management of critical cultural assets, self-determination by Māori over the activities undertaken on and around the iwi kāinga, and the accompanying realisation of tino rangatiratanga.

This bill also reflects the fact that the iwi parties have agreed to initiate a process after the bill becomes law that will allow iwi to determine the allocation of mana whenua interest in the land. The bill itself does not provide for this process to occur; this is a matter for iwi parties to determine. I understand that this process will be undertaken in accordance with tikanga. The mana whenua process may result in the reserves being administered by the hapū in whom the Native Land Court originally established ownership. This is exactly how it should be, because, at the end of the day, mandating and management issues are always the domain of iwi and hapū to sort out. We all await the results with great interest.

I remind the House that many of these issues have endured over generations, and no doubt will continue to be the subject of debate amongst the people. I think that a comment from Ngāti Whakauē might apply more broadly to all hapū and iwi implicated in this bill: “Hei aha noa ake i mate ai au ka tipu aku pākārito. It does not matter if I die; I am survived by my descendants.” We know that matters of land, ownership, and tino rangatiratanga are the issues most passionately contested, jealously guarded, and vigorously upheld by the people, and they will continue to be so after this bill has passed. However, I am absolutely confident that the iwi have the capacity within themselves to manage the mana whenua process in a way that reflects their tikanga and enhances the taonga associated with this land. There is no one else better and no one more capable than tangata whenua to manage their own whenua and the taonga associated with that whenua.

I note that the iwi have agreed to maintain the reserve status, which creates an ongoing relationship with the Minister of Conservation. It is a manifestation of their rangatiratanga, their noble commitment to the Crown-iwi relationship; I am humbled by their graciousness.

He tika tonu te whakamihi ki ngā kaumātua o ngā iwi nei kua ngaro i te kitenga kanohi. Moe mai rā e koro mā, e kui mā i te pō. Ka mihi hoki ki ngā uri e whai tonu ana i ngā moemoeā o ō rātau kuia, o ō rātau koroua mō te whenua tipuna nei. E hika mā, tēnei ka whakatutuki haere i te kupu a te Karauna i kī ai, nō koutou tēnei whenua, mā koutou e whakahaere. Kei te whakamihi au ki te wāhanga o tēnei pire e kī ana, mā koutou anō e whakariterite te mana whenua i runga anō i ō koutou tikanga. Kia kaha ki a koutou. Tēnei ka tuku i te pire nei ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[It is appropriate to acknowledge the elders of those tribes who have departed this life. Slumber there in the night, ancient menfolk and womenfolk. I also acknowledge the descendants who are giving life to the dreams and aspirations of their old womenfolk and menfolk for this ancestral land. People, this fulfils and gives effect to the commitment of the Crown that this is your land, and it is for you to administer. I acknowledge the section of this bill that states that you, the people alone, will determine authority over the land according to your customs. Be strong in your endeavours.]

I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) : Otirā kei Te Kaihautū hei tuatahi māku, e tika ana kia mihi atu rā ki te riu o te waka o Te Arawa kua tatū mai i roto i te Whare i tēnei ahiahi. Nā rātou i haere tawhiti mai, runga anō i te tūmanako te tutuki pai ai te kaupapa i haria mai e rātau mai i te hau kāinga tae noa mai ki te Whare Miere. Nō reira, kai ōku pāpā, kai ōku tuākana, rangatira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Indeed, the first thing for me, Mr Assistant Speaker, and appropriately enough, is to acknowledge the bilge of the Te Arawa canoe, which has landed here in the House this afternoon. They have travelled some distance in the hope that the matter they have brought here from home to the Beehive will be successfully completed. So greetings to you, my fathers, elder siblings, and chiefs, greetings to you all.]

I briefly take this opportunity to acknowledge the presence of esteemed kaumātua, my kaumātua from Te Arawa, who have, on many occasions, travelled from their homes to support legislation to transfer iconic assets and iconic kōrero by way of legislation. It probably would suit them better to do it a different way, without the need for parliamentary interference, but we do not live in that type of society. So here we are today ensuring the passage of this particular vesting legislation.

I also acknowledge the person who is not here in the House today, the previous Minister of Maori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, and his determination to see Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke returned to its rightful owners, the iwi that has been mentioned here today. I thank the current Minister of Maori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples, for the historical overview he gave in terms of the importance of Whakarewarewa and the lands around Whakarewarewa, and also for his support of the passage of this legislation. The Minister of Maori Affairs made a number of references to history, but I do not particularly want to go into the history. It is a very emotional history. It is a history that goes back several decades to some tragic circumstances that happened to the people of Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao, including Ngāti Whakauē, and this brought about a particular relationship that cannot be severed by this House or any future generations of Ngāti Whakauē, Tūhourangi, or Ngāti Wāhiao. I will speak specifically about the technical aspects of the bill, because it is less emotional and it is more appropriate for the second reading debate on this bill.

To make my point obvious, I support the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill, and in doing so, I declare, as I did in the first reading debate on this bill, a vested interest in it. In other words, I am associated with this settlement. I also want to acknowledge the collective efforts of those members of the Māori Affairs Committee who, over a long period of time, heard submissions and went through a very difficult process to attempt to listen to all the views that were expressed, particularly the concerns from a number of groups who attended the hearings in Rotorua. Having said that, I think the Minister of Māori Affairs made a very, very relevant point, which was that some issues that were brought before the Māori Affairs Committee were best resolved by the iwi themselves. There is no way that this House can interfere, or attempt to interfere, with decisions that were made by the people, the leaders of Te Arawa some several decades ago, particularly at the time of the Mount Tarawera eruption, with all the devastation that took place as a result of that. There was the loss of life, loss of estates, loss of communities, and the displacement of people.

As I said early on, this is a very, very important transfer. I also wanted to say that this is not the first time that this type of arrangement has been entered into, particularly by the previous Government. As the Minister of Māori Affairs highlighted, this is not a Treaty settlement; this is basically a transfer of assets to their rightful owners.

I want to congratulate the Minister on acknowledging that point, and also I want to acknowledge the Government for supporting the Minister with this legislation, because it is a better way of settling longstanding grievances between iwi and the Crown. As I said earlier on, this is not the first time this has happened. I recall that only weeks before the first reading debate on this legislation we also had in the House the third reading of the Mauao Historic Reserve Vesting Bill, which basically ensured the return of the iconic maunga to the people of Tauranga Moana and the fee simple title to those people. This, of course, protected the iconic sites around the maunga and the history of the maunga by way of the Reserves Act. I congratulate the Minister and the Government on supporting him in that.

Having said that, I point out that there are other iconic places around the Bay of Plenty that deserve the same sort of attention and the same sort of treatment. I hope the Minister of Māori Affairs is able to persuade the Government to look at, for instance, the issues of Tūhoe, in particular Te Urewera forest, which is an indigenous forest that is probably recognised internationally as being one of the finest indigenous forests in the world. This is an issue for Tūhoe, particularly in terms of the return of the fee simple title of Te Urewera forest to Tūhoe people. If the Government trusts Māori people to manage Whakarewarewa and Te Roto-a-Tamaheke, and Mauao, in a way that is of an acceptable standard—and I do not see any reason why it should not—then surely it can have enough trust to trust Tūhoe and other iwi around the country that want the same sort of settlement arrangements.

So we are entering into a new approach. That new approach is one where iwi and the Crown sit down and ask each other whether they trust each other. They ask each other whether they can do this without having to open the history books and prove that they have an association with this particular piece of land, this particular piece of forest, these particular lakes, this particular foreshore and seabed, or these particular iconic sites. If both parties can say to themselves that there is a need for both parties to demonstrate trust, then I am sure that all the issues that the Māori Affairs Committee has had to hear, to deal with, and to instruct officials to facilitate a positive outcome on will not necessarily need to happen. You see, this process was delayed, and I believe it was delayed unnecessarily. However, there were those who felt that they were not part of the process or that their interests may not necessarily be protected or represented through this legislation. Therefore, the Māori Affairs Committee had no option but to listen to and respond to requests by the Minister of Māori Affairs to allow, in this case, the member for Waiariki, accompanied by Office of Treaty Settlements officials, to facilitate meetings to progress the next important stages of this legislation.

One thing we need to acknowledge is that although there was a positive outcome, there was also an issue that was best dealt with between the respective iwi. If we can, as I said earlier on, develop a high level of trust between Crown and Māori, we may overcome all those issues. In most cases, and this legislation is one of those cases, I think there may have been times when there was very little trust on either side of the table. As a former Associate Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and having been involved in negotiations for this particular transfer, I know that that was the case.

There is always room for improvement, and I have said to the member for Waiariki on many occasions that we can only get better at doing this. This particular method of transfer, in terms of Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke, is another case where trust has eventually been shown—I repeat, eventually shown.

I do not have much more to say. The Minister of Māori Affairs rightly highlighted all the technical aspects of this particular bill. I had intended to do so, but I find myself running out of time. I say to those representatives of Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa who basically drove this process and the return of these iconic sites that I once again acknowledge their efforts, particularly the difficult issues they had to deal with in terms of criticism, ridicule, and some very, very uncomplimentary remarks that were made to them. They stuck with it; they did not run away or drop the ball. There were no hospital passes. They kept on with it, and they made sure it came to a satisfactory conclusion. I acknowledge their presence here today. Kia ora.

Hon TAU HENARE (National) : I will not take up much of the House’s time. Suffice it to say that I support the second reading of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill and I support the job the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Māori Affairs Committee did. I congratulate Te Ururoa Flavell and John Clarke for their hard work in trying to get a couple of the sides together. I also acknowledge the representatives of the Pukeroa-Ōruawhata Trust and Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Whakauē, and those who represented Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust.

I leave for the last my views about Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, but I put them in this light. As someone who is Ngāti Hine-Ngāpuhi, I am Ngāti Hine through and through. I whakapapa to Ngāti Hine, but I also whakapapa to Ngāpuhi. Just because one is bigger than the other, maybe in genealogical ties, that does not mean the other organisation cannot have its place in the sun. Ngāti Hine and Ngāpuhi are moving this coming weekend to break away from one another. I hate to use the words “break away”, because how can someone break away from an ancestral tie? One might establish a new regime, but certainly someone cannot break away from his or her genealogical ties. My wish is that Tūhourangi would put in a comma in reference to Ngāti Wāhiao. I hope that one day that tie will move by, and that the people there will realise that the issue was about nothing more than placing the mana where it would do the most good for both Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao. To me, the argument was never about one being put over the top of the other; it was always about identity, whakapapa, and people generally wanting to be who they were, just as lots and lots of people want to be Ngāti Hine but not necessarily stop being Ngāpuhi—if members understand what I mean.

Hon Dr Pita Sharples: No!

Hon TAU HENARE: The member does not understand? Well, that is the Māori Party.

I finish by saying that for any transfer of goods or services that the Crown can make happen must happen as soon as possible. To have to wait around for the economic development, but not to have any tools to do the job, is a bit much to expect of people. For the local people at home and those at Whakarewarewa, I hope the transfer of assets can open up some new doors or avenues to economic development. Thank you.

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) : Tēnā koe. Tēnei e tāpiri atu āku nei whakaaro, āku nei mihi ki a koutou o Te Arawa waka kua tae mai nei ki te tautoko te pānui o tēnei wāhanga o te pire nei. Me te whakaaro anō ki a rātou e mātakitaki mai i ēnei kōrero i runga i te pouaka whakaata. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

[Greetings to you. I add my thoughts and acknowledgments to you, the canoe of Te Arawa, who have arrived here in support of this stage of the bill. I am mindful, as well, of those watching these addresses on television. So, greetings to you all.]

Kia ora, Mr Assistant Speaker. I join with my colleague Mita Ririnui in acknowledging those who have travelled from afar, from Te Arawa, to listen to the deliberations on the second reading of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. I acknowledge the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, Parekura Horomia, and the previous Māori Affairs Committee for their work with the negotiators to ensure that the passage of this bill indicated a clear intent to resolve some of the historical grievances in this area. I acknowledge those who have negotiated long and hard to ensure that this transfer takes place. I also acknowledge the current Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples, and the current Māori Affairs Committee for their work.

I will make a few contributions. I start by saying the passage of this bill has not been delayed by any decision on this side of the House. That has to be clearly stated. In fact, within the context of moving forward, Labour acknowledged that this transfer is in the Treaty settlement, and that this is a step of goodwill and good faith taken within the context of the broader negotiations that were happening in the region of te Waiariki, and certainly in the central North Island with regard to the larger central North Island collective of negotiations towards Treaty settlements in the area. I make the observation that when we can take a step of goodwill and good faith towards the bigger picture of addressing some of the historical injustices that have occurred to iwi throughout our whole country, Parliament is taking a very clear and deliberate step that says it is absolutely necessary to continue to go down this path so that people can look forward. This bill is about more than just the transfer of land; it acknowledges the past. This is about ensuring that the future will remain intact in terms of how these iwi want it to look. This is an opportunity for all parliamentarians to say we actually think this is a good road to go down. With all those sentiments, I am certainly very supportive of ensuring that this bill continues its passage to its final reading.

A number of issues were raised by the Māori Affairs Committee, one of which was the decoupling of Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao. Far be it from me to recite the histories that lie behind why that has been the case. In fact, for my part, I would like it to be recorded in Hansard that the history around the Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao relationship is best told by those people themselves. If at any point in the future people want to come back and use the passage of this bill as a reason for or against certain propositions, let it not be on the basis of what parliamentarians say; let it be on the basis, which I certainly support, of Tūhourangi, Ngāti Wāhiao, and Te Arawa telling that story. It is inappropriate, from my point of view, for a Māori MP to put somebody else’s history in this House and use that as the absolute record.

The second point that I would like to refer to is the general recognition that Te Arawa is no stranger to the opportunities of the present and of the future. They have demonstrated over time that they are entirely capable of managing their economic base, of being able to provide for their people, and of being able to look to the future. This is another small part of a bigger opportunity that is ahead for the people there. And so it should be, because from my previous experience as Associate Minister of Tourism I know that the people of Te Arawa reflect who we are in terms of our identity as Māori people within New Zealand. They have a strong role to play, and will continue to have a strong role to play, in terms of how our identity as Māori is reflected within our own country and how it is perceived within the global community. I certainly want to acknowledge that, because if we look at some of the further consequences of that, and if we look at the role that Te Puia plays in its investment in Māori arts and crafts, we see that historically, and right up until this current day, many of our own iwi are able to point to the opportunities that have been opened up to us by the old Māori Arts and Crafts Institute, and now by Te Puia.

The third point that I would like to make is raised with the greatest of respect to members of the Māori Party. It concerns the role that they took by appointing a Māori MP as a negotiator in this particular instance. I have a concern about where that leads the thinking of this House with regard to the absolute right of iwi to have a direct relationship with the Crown in their negotiations. There is a difficulty with Māori MPs acting as negotiators, albeit they represent a constituency. We should not really take the role of a conduit and stand in the way of iwi having a direct negotiating role with the Crown. I believe that in principle. This puts us in a difficult situation, because a precedent has been set by the Māori Party. But I am absolutely clear that in my rohe the Māori Party does not represent the Māori people. I say, with the greatest of respect, we should cautiously walk down this road before we start to say Māori electorate MPs can have a role in negotiating with regard to particular interests that we might have as our own hobby horses in our own electorates. We all have the same scenarios happening. Tau Henare raised one, and we can point to the fisheries issues there. We have some issues, too. But I hesitate and err on the side of caution in favour of a direct negotiating relationship between iwi and the Crown. Māori MPs per se should not be taking on that role. I caution future thinking in this regard, with the greatest of respect.

The bill is a clear signal that there is an optimistic future ahead for Te Arawa. The bill is a starting point; it is part of a bigger picture. I am absolutely confident that the people of Te Arawa will continue to walk down their path of self-determination, opportunity, economic benefit, and growth, for the well-being of not only their own people but also their region and certainly those of us at large amongst other iwi. I commend the bill to the House. I hope that its smooth passage to its third reading happens forthwith, in a speedy way. Finally, to the clerks of the committee, and to all the advisers who provided advice to the Māori Affairs Committee, tēnā mihi atu ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora mai tātou.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tēnā koutou katoa. Tēnā koutou Te Arawa iwi and hapū katoa. In acknowledging the travellers who have come so far, and are still travelling on this journey towards resolution, the Green Party supports the second reading of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. We appreciated Dr Pita Sharples’ historical kōrero regarding the whenua of Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi and Ngāti Whakaue. It is very important to acknowledge the issue that Dr Sharples raised about the bill not being a Treaty settlement but a vesting law based on transferral of assets to their rightful owners.

As a Pākehā, I acknowledge that these matters belong to tangata whenua. It is through their generosity that the land itself in this case has also been given some reserve status. But I also feel whakamā speaking about these matters when I do not know the place intimately, as tangata whenua do. If we do not know how the land is, how it smells at dawn, and how the rivers run, we do not understand what we are talking about when we talk about the return or the transfer of assets. Many of us grew up knowing very little about the realities for mana whenua of places such as Whakarewarewa. We went for our holidays and we enjoyed the visit, but we did not even know how to pronounce the names. We learnt about the eruption of the maunga Tarawera without understanding the displacement effects not only of colonisation but also of the eruption and the complexities that it has led to. So it is really important that we now do some learning about these issues. I see these bills as opportunities for Pākehā to do some learning and to do some listening so that we understand a little about what people have been through in this country, and what they are trying to achieve through these negotiations and engagements in terms of their whenua.

I tautoko the Labour MP Mita Rirnui in regard to the issue of Tūhoe and the Urewera forest, of which I also have a little knowledge, and the importance of ongoing work to find positive ways to address issues of ownership and relationship. As we know, justice delayed is justice denied. So we tautoko this bill through its second reading, and we look forward to supporting it through its third reading. We honour all of the people on the Māori Affairs Committee, both the current and the past, and all the MPs who have been engaged with the bill, but mostly the people themselves, who continue to work through their issues. It is through a negotiation outside this place that the issues of mana whenua land and how it should be managed will be settled between the parties. It is not the role of us as Pākehā to decide on these matters, but merely to offer our support to positive process. We support this bill through its second reading. Kia ora tātou.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Koutou o te kāinga, tēnā koutou katoa i hara mai i te rā nei. I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. As we know, this bill gives effect to an agreement negotiated by the Crown with Ngāti Whakaue and the collective of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao on the basis of a proposal that was presented by them to the Crown on 1 April 2008. I would like to acknowledge the initiative shown by the representatives of these groups—namely, the Pukeroa-Ōruawhatu Trust, Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Whakaue, and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao representatives on the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust—in developing the proposal and approaching the Crown.

This bill provides that the people of Ngāti Whakaue and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao will be the owners of the Whakarewarewa Valley lands on the enactment of the bill. The fee simple estate in the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve, the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve, and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve will vest in the Whakarewarewa Joint Trust, which holds the titles on behalf of the beneficial owners. The reserve lands will be held by the joint trust until they are vested in iwi or hapū in accordance with the beneficial entitlement determination procedure, which is set out in the trust deed establishing the joint trust. The joint trust will manage the leases of land to the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute—Te Puia—as the administering body of the three recreational reserves, as provided for under the Reserves Act 1977.

The Waitangi Tribunal referred to the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve as a taonga of great importance to the Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao and Ngāti Whakauē people. It will be a great day to witness the return of this taonga to the rightful owners.

This bill comes out of agreements reached by the previous Government in the passage of the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa settlement through this House. When the iwi mentioned earlier brought their proposal to the Crown, they asked that the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve land on-vest from the Te Pūmautanga settlement legislation and, together with the adjacent Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve, be vested in a joint trust of the iwi partners. This was partly because of the Waitangi Tribunal’s finding that Ngāti Whakauē, who were not included in the Te Pūmautanga settlement, should be recognised as owners in common with Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao of the valley. This bill achieves that purpose.

The matter of coupling of iwi was one that the Māori Affairs Committee heard a lot about in the Pūmautanga settlement over a year ago. Some of Ngāti Wāhiao, for example, made their concerns heard about being coupled with Tūhourangi not just in terms of the Te Pūmautanga settlement at the time but also knowing its relevance to this particular bill, which followed closely behind it—on 23 September 2008 to be precise.

This bill was referred to the Māori Affairs Committee. Sixteen submissions were received, and 14 of them were heard. I believe that the people definitely want settlement, but the key issues again related to the coupling of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and therefore mandate issues and the process to be used to determine mana whenua over the Whakarewarewa Valley. No such issues were raised for Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Whakauē or the Pukeroa-Ōruawhata Trust, and I hope representatives of these groupings will forgive me if I do not spend too much time on their part of the discussions. Dr Sharples himself, having heard the issues during the Te Pūmautanga settlement, and with those same issues again being raised in the select committee process, as Minister of Māori Affairs wanted to be assured the resource itself would end up in the hands of the appropriate koromatua, the appropriate hapū. The Minister, as other speakers have said, despatched Mr John Clarke and myself to facilitate discussions between all parties involved. As the select committee noted, this was “to seek assurance that Ngāti Wāhiao may participate in the structure set up to receive the … lands …, and … are appropriately represented in the Beneficial Entitlement Determination Procedure …”.

Can I firstly acknowledge those of the Pukeroa-Ōruawhata Trust, Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Whakauē, Te Pūmautanga, and their representatives from the collective of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, as well as those of Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao, for contributing to the process. It was very much appreciated. After initial discussions with all parties, the main negotiations were between Te Pūmautanga, represented by Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao representatives, and Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao. The following matters were considered and general agreement reached, and I might also advise that the following discussions were presented to the Māori Affairs Committee. The committee’s report back to the House was based on the facilitation process.

There were two ways of providing the assurance the Minister was after. Firstly, there was a commitment to complete the process to fill the vacancy on the Whakarewarewa Joint Trust. Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao are represented on the Whakarewarewa Joint Trust by three trustees, and Ngāti Whakauē are represented by four trustees. There is one remaining vacancy for Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, which could be filled. I am pleased to report that it was agreed that a hui will be held at the Wāhiao meeting house, where nominations for the vacant position will be taken from the floor. A vote will also be taken at the hui to elect the fourth representative on the joint trust. Eligibility to vote will be according to those registered with either the Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust or the Tūhourangi Tribal Authority, or by signing a statutory declaration at the hui. I believe that there was a determination to complete this as soon as is practicable.

The other way was to predetermine the process to decide on negotiators who would determine mana whenua issues as required under the beneficial entitlement determination procedure, which is set out in the trust deed establishing the joint trust. I am pleased to report that in terms of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao there was clear agreement from the parties that the mana whenua matters should be negotiated by representatives of each of the separate koromatua hapū in the bill—namely, Tūhourangi, Ngāti Hinganoa, Ngāti Tūkiterangi, and Ngāti Huarere—when in discussions with Ngāti Whakauē and the Pukeroa-Ōruawhata Trust. This is an important principle that will ensure that the negotiations will be done by elected representatives of the original owners.

The expectation, as set out in the deed of trust, is for “kanohi ki te kanohi discussions with each other, with a view to reaching agreement as to the ownership of the Lands”, to be guided by agreement on the tikanga to apply to the process, with an expectation of kōrero rangatira—namely, “open principled trustworthy dialogue by rangatira with authority to commit their hapu;”—to attain consensus, and for mediators to be appointed at any time, if required, to assist.

The great thing about this was that there was prior general agreement to the process, and this has given the Minister of Māori Affairs confidence that the beneficiary owners will determine their negotiations. Even minor details were set out, such as Te Puni Kōkiri managing the agreed process and acting as independent returning officers, and independent scrutineers being available during the registration, nomination, and voting stages of the agreed process.

In brief, the process would possibly look something like this. A newspaper notice would invite registrations by Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao people for the purpose of electing mana whenua representatives. This registration was to be for that purpose only. Beneficiaries would nominate their main whakapapa line and also note their own whakapapa connection. The whakapapa would need to be endorsed by any two of four agreed whakapapa experts. Once the registration closed, the publicly notified hui-ā-iwi would be held at the Wāhiao meeting house to decide the process for electing the mana whenua representatives. The question in the end was whether beneficiaries could nominate their main koromatua line and vote only once under that line, or vote under every koromatua line to which they affiliate. That vote would determine how the people voted, and the whole election process could then kick in.

The fact that the Tūhourangi group and the Te Maru o Ngāti Wāhiao group stayed with the discussions for some 3 months might indicate a commitment to find a way forward, and I acknowledge them for that. Was it all plain sailing? No, but the parties stayed with the task almost to the end. I can say that we as facilitators and, indeed, the Te Puni Kōkiri officials were so convinced that we had reached agreement that the bill was reported back to the House on the assumption of agreement resulting from the process. An agreement as such has not been agreed to date, but the Minister is clearly happy to advance the bill on good faith and the integrity of the parties that an agreed process will be followed, and to that end the bill should advance. At a recent meeting with the Minister of Māori Affairs, I understand, the Tūhourangi trustees have agreed to have a hui-ā-iwi that will confirm an electoral process.

In closing, I am sure that the Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao and Ngāti Whakauē people will administer the reserves in a way that ensures they can be enjoyed by generations of New Zealanders and overseas visitors for years to come. I thank Mr John Clarke for his quiet wisdom, his thoughtful consideration, and his guidance of the facilitation process. We were ably assisted by Jonathan Easthope of Te Puni Kōkiri. Ka nui te mihi ki a koutou. We had advice from Dr John Tamahōri and Tom White when needed. I thank them all so much. I commend the bill to the House. No reira, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

PAUL QUINN (National) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. Tēnā koe e te Whare. Tēnā koutou ngā rangatira o Te Pūmautanga. Nau mai, haere mai. Haere mai ki te Whare. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou katoa.

I will take just a short call on the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. Much of what I was going to say has been covered by the previous speaker, Te Ururoa Flavell, so I look forward to covering the more technical aspects during the Committee stage.

I acknowledge the previous speakers. The Minister of Māori Affairs and, to a lesser extent, my cousin Mita have covered some of the history, so I will not do that. I was disappointed by the contribution of Nanaia Mahuta, who chose to play politics on this issue. She was way off line with her facts and for someone who seemed to fly in from nowhere in the select committee deliberations, which I cannot recall her sitting in, I thought that her contribution—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the member is so concerned about tikanga he might care to reflect on the Standing Orders stating that members cannot refer to the absence or presence of members in the House or in select committee proceedings.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): The member is quite right. I did not pick up that the member who was speaking had done that. I was still engaging with the points he was making in relation to the debate. The member must not refer to the absence of any member.

Hon John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there may have been a misrepresentation by the member who made the point of order. The fact was that the member on his feet was not referring to the absence of someone currently on the select committee, but to a historical select committee process. That is quite a different issue and the point of order needs to be taken in that context, as I understand it.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): It is out of order to refer to the absence of a member from a select committee. I have made the caution, and I ask the member to continue.

PAUL QUINN: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. The honourable member from the other side of the Chamber has drawn attention, even more so, to the fact that the contribution of Nanaia Mahuta was very poor indeed, leading him to support it in some way. It demonstrated a clear misunderstanding of the issues discussed and the excellent work done by my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell. She called him a negotiator when, in fact, he facilitated a very tight process following the very untidy issues left by the previous administration. That deserves credit.

One of the things I want to highlight here is that this is the second of three bills put together by the previous administration in the rush of its dying days to pass some Treaty settlement legislation. It left a lot of loose ends that of themselves may well have appeared small, but the reality is that they were very contentious. We saw that in the last settlement bill that went through this House, the Port Nicholson settlement in respect of Ngāti Poneke, and we have seen it again in this one. My learned colleague Te Ururoa Flavell has outlined in a lot more detail the technical aspects around that settlement. The reality is that there had to be some work done. A considerable number of people were concerned about one particular aspect of the bill, and his support in working through those issues to get agreement with all the parties concerned deserves mention. I think, also, the genuineness with which Ngāti Whakauē, Tūhourangi, and Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa entered into the spirit of cooperation to resolve this particular issue also deserves recording.

I also take the opportunity in this second reading to thank the chairman of the Māori Affairs Committee, who guided us through this thorny issue, keeping in contact with the Minister and trying to find a pathway through. I think the work he was able to achieve in pacing the committee to ensure a solution was reached reflects well on him. With those few words I do not have much more to add other than to commend this settlement to the House. I look forward to debating the technical aspects during the course of the Committee stage. Thank you.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : Te mea tuatahi māku, e mihi kau atu ki a koutou e ngā whanaunga i takahia mai te huarahi mai i Te Arawa. Ka nui ngā mihi atu ki a koutou i tae mai ki konei ki raro i te maru o tēnei tuanui hei whakarongo ki te pānuitanga tuarua o tēnei pire. Nā reira, tēnā rā koutou.

[The first thing for me is to extend fond greetings to you, the relatives who travelled here from Te Arawa. I appreciate your presence greatly beneath the haven of this roof as you listen to the second reading of this bill. Therefore, greetings to you, indeed.]

Being a new member, I found it an immensely humbling experience to be part of the Māori Affairs Committee, which heard the submissions on the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. We flew up to Rotorua, there was a packed house, and we heard a number of emotional submissions regarding this bill. It is indeed an honour and, as I say, humbling. There was also a bit of sadness in realising the extent to which our iwi have been deprived of their lands over the last 200 or so years. Our whanaunga from Te Arawa, Ngāti Whakauē, and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao in the day would have owned all the land—[Interruption]—much of the land that we could see as we were flying into Rotorua airport. But we saw that we were talking about a very small parcel of land. It is a story that has been repeated across Aotearoa in all iwi. It is very sad to see that this has happened over and over again, but it is also a joy to be part of a select committee that is looking to return land to our iwi.

When I go to Rotorua in my role as tourism spokesperson for Labour I see everything that is on offer around Whakarewarewa Village and its surrounds. It brings to mind the reason why tourists come to New Zealand. They come to experience our landscapes—and Rotorua has beautiful and unique landscapes—and they come to experience our culture. What binds our landscapes and our culture together is our people. The people of this area are not just telling their story; they are living the story. They are living their story and they are sharing it with the world. For that I thank them.

A number of people have spoken about the technical side of this bill and I, too, will go over it. The Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill gives effect to the deed to introduce vesting legislation in relation to the Whakarewarewa land and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve signed on 5 August 2008 by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen, the Hon Parekura Horomia, and the Hon Damien O’Connor on behalf of the Crown, and representatives of Ngāti Whakauē, Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, and Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa. In simple language this bill enables the transfer of the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Arikikapakapa Reserve currently vested in the Crown to Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa Trust. This means the iwi partners of Ngāti Whakauē and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao collectively will become the landowners of this area. For clarity, the area comprises the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve, the Southern Arikikapakapa Reserve, and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve. These lands surround Whakarewarewa Village.

The village itself has always been in Māori ownership and is not affected by the bill. The lands include the Pōhutu Geyser and other iconic tourist attractions. As agreed by the iwi parties, the Whakarewarewa Thermal Springs Reserve and the Roto-a-Tamaheke Reserve will transfer from Te Pūmautanga o Te Arawa trustees to the Whakarewarewa joint trust the day after the affiliate Te Arawa iwi and hapū legislation passes. The bill recognises the cultural, traditional, historical, and spiritual importance of this area to the iwi. The Whakarewarewa joint trust has been established for the purpose of administering these lands, as well as providing for the more generalised interests of all New Zealanders. It is really important to note that all New Zealanders can enjoy the wonders of this small piece of land.

The bill continues the positive progress made by iwi across the Bay of Plenty region in strengthening the Crown-Māori relationship through both Treaty settlements and contemporary initiatives like this one, and I applaud everybody who has been part of making this happen. My genuine hope is that we can settle these land issues as quickly as possible, so that iwi can have the land returned to them and we can set about being successful as Māori with our taonga intact—or as intact as they can be considering the amount of land that we have lost over the years. The lands will retain their recreation and reserved status under the Reserves Act 1977, the leases to the New Zealand Māori Arts and Crafts Institute will continue, and the protections of conservation values contained within the Reserves Act will remain.

A large number of hapū and iwi entities were involved in this initiative, representing a diverse range of interests. This meant that the negotiations for the transfer of these lands were always going to require the determination, goodwill, and generosity of those iwi and hapū representatives. The bill represents more than a simple land transfer from the Crown to Māori, subject to the provisions of the Reserves Act 1977. The wider motivations for the Crown and iwi negotiators included an agreement to vest the fee simple estate in those reserve lands outside the Treaty settlement process. By doing so, the mana of the land of the people of Ngāti Whakauē and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao will be recognised, and a stronger relationship can continue to be built.

As we have heard, some submitters requested that Tūhourangi and Ngāti Wāhiao not be coupled together, but that they instead be represented separately. They felt that their mana whenua and rangatiratanga status over the Whakarewarewa Valley land were quite separate. The reference to the Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao affiliate of Te Pūmautanga is well established and has been accepted by the Crown throughout the various mandating processes managed since 2003 by the Kaihoutū Executive Council and Te Pūmautanga. Although the bill could be amended to reflect a decoupling of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao, this would not properly address the concerns of submitters and it would affect the underlying relationships between the Crown and Te Pūmautanga, and between Te Pūmautanga and its affiliates. An amendment to the trust deed to allow decoupling would require a unanimous resolution of the trustees, a general meeting of the beneficiaries to approve the trustees’ resolution, and an approval resolution passed by a majority each of Ngāti Whakauē and Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao present at that meeting. The Māori Affairs Committee did not consider it appropriate to use legislation to provide for separate representation in relation to the bill, because the decision of Tūhourangi Ngāti Wāhiao to form a single affiliate of the joint trust Te Pūmautanga was made by iwi members through a mandating process.

I acknowledge again the people from Te Arawa who have come to listen to this debate on the second reading of this bill. I thank them for their patience over the time taken for this settlement to draw to its conclusion. I sincerely hope that the return of this land enables Te Arawa whānui, Ngāti Wāhiao - Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Whakauē to forge ahead for the benefit of all members of the iwi, so that they may continue to move ahead as an iwi for the benefit of ngā whakatupuranga kei te haere mai. Nā reira, huri noa i te Whare, tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā tātou katoa.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill today and to take part in this debate as the member of Parliament for Rotorua. I want to recognise for a moment the people of Te Arawa who have travelled from Rotorua to be here today. It is a significant day. I say kia ora to them. They are very welcome here; this is their House.

I recognise that a lot of progress has been made in a very short period of time, and that the agreement locally and in this House has been possible only because of the commitment of a number of people. In saying so, I recognise the leaders, those who are mandated to negotiate, and those who offered the mandate to iwi in Rotorua to recognise Ngāti Whakauē, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao. I recognise Te Ururoa Flavell, the member of Parliament who represents this area, and John Clarke for their work, and I also acknowledge the previous Government, which started this work. It is important for us in Rotorua to recognise the work of those who have played an important part in getting us to where we are at today.

The land that we are talking about as part of this process is an important part of Rotorua’s history. It is the basis for Rotorua’s culture, and it is an important part of Rotorua’s future. I also recognise and remember that people lived on this land long before the city of Rotorua was founded. The Whakarewarewa Valley and its surrounding land is beautiful, and in light of my visits there, I say that the valley is as rich as the people of this land are generous. I recognise the great welcome that my colleagues and I have always received when going to that part of Rotorua. I was there earlier this year with our Prime Minister, John Key, and we visited Te Puia. Quite exceptional things have always happened in this valley, and the situation today is no different from that. I also had a wonderful opportunity earlier this year to visit the Whakarewarewa Village on Waitangi Day, when the gates were open for thousands of people to come and celebrate that great day for New Zealand, and also to learn about culture and history. It was a privilege for me to be there. I believe that all the people of Rotorua will share in the benefit of this land transfer. I acknowledge the importance of this debate today and what it will mean when this legislation passes into law.

Often we focus too much on the past and look too much behind us, but I will address for a moment the opportunity that this bill will provide. I recognise the importance of tourism, and of Māori tourism in particular, and the role that this valley will play in empowering the local people. Many, many years ago on this land in Rotorua lived a guide who was really famous, if we read our history books—Makerete Papakura, or Guide Maggie as she was known at the time—for the work that she did at the time. Her descendants still live in this area and in this place. Guide Maggie, or Makerete, said a people is a great and living people only as it is mindful of its heritage, and this bill today is about recognising that heritage. I support this bill, and I look forward to the day when the gates between the Whakarewarewa Village and Te Puia are again open, so that people can walk freely through the valley and enjoy its great beauty as they were able to many years ago. It is a privilege to be able, as the member of Parliament for Rotorua, to support this bill. Thank you.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i tō tātou Whare, tēnā koutou katoa. Huri hoki aku mihi ki a koutou, e tautoko ana i ngā mihi kua mihia ki a koutou Te Arawa waka i hara mai nei mai i Te Puku o Te Whenua ki Te Upoko, ki te whakarongo i ngā kōrero e pā ana ki te whānuitanga o te pire i tēnei wā. Ā, e tautoko ana i runga i tōku whare tamariki, aku tamāhine me ō rāua honotanga ki ngā kāwai whakapapa o Te Arawa. Tēnā koutou, tēnā koutou, tēnā rawa atu koutou.

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker, and to you all throughout our House, greetings. My acknowledgments turn to you, as well, who supported the greetings bestowed upon you, those of the canoe of Te Arawa, who travelled from the Abdomen of the Land to the Head, to listen to speeches relating to the bill broadly at this stage. And I endorse that because of my children, my daughters, and their genealogical ties to Te Arawa. Greetings, greetings, and fond greetings to you collectively.]

I stand to speak in support of the second reading of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. I acknowledge both the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, and our current Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Dr Pita Sharples, as well as the Māori Affairs Committee members who have worked together on this bill to bring it to this stage of its consideration. Many speakers before me have already rehearsed the details that are contained within the bill, so I shall not do that again. But I will talk about the core purpose of this bill, which is to restore mana whenua. Its purpose is to provide a base back to the people to whom this whenua belongs and to whom it has always belonged. That is so, whether or not there was legal title or recognition, because it is through the actual lineage that there is relationship with that land. The purpose is so that we might start to see again the practice of rangatiratanga.

We can talk all we like about rangatiratanga, whether of the tino variety or the ordinary variety, but unless we have whenua, and we have whānau, hapū, and iwi connected with that whenua, we really are talking only. So I am delighted that this bill, the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill, takes another step towards that, because it is important that iwi—and the ones we are talking about today are Ngāti Whakaue, Tūhourangi, and Ngāti Wāhiao—are able to govern and manage their own affairs, to work in the development of their own whenua and own businesses, and to create wealth for themselves and for their future. That is what is important, in part, about the restoration of this mana whenua.

We have seen not only in the bill itself but in the processes around it that the objective of the Crown and the iwi in this legislation is to engage in a healthy relationship, and that is a very important thing for this House and for Te Arawa. It is equally important that the iwi themselves are able to engage in relationships with each other, with their hapū, and with their whānau, and I think the bill provides certain procedures to ensure that that occurs. But the real work will be done by Te Arawa people themselves, because members of Te Arawa must go on and live with, continue to invest whakapapa relationships in—intermarry and have children—and go on to create the stories of the future around that whenua. Even though it is important that there is a Crown-iwi relationship, it is almost more important that there are iwi to iwi and hapū to hapū relationships. I hope the procedures set out in the bill are simply that, and that the real work is done amongst and between the people.

I will respectfully disagree with our colleague from the other side of the House who talked about the concerns around the involvement of the member for Waiariki, Te Ururoa Flavell, in this process. It is entirely appropriate that the Minister of Māori Affairs should place so much importance on getting these matters right that he asks a member of this Parliament, and therefore a representative of the Crown, to be involved in Crown-iwi relationships. I acknowledge the facilitation work carried out by my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell, and I acknowledge the Minister of Māori Affairs for considering that it was of such importance that he should ask a member of this House to be involved.

As I have already said—and I will not talk for very much longer on this bill—I think it is important that we have the opportunity to practise rangatiratanga with mana over our whenua for all of our people so that we might build our own businesses, create our own wealth, and practise the self-determination that I understand to be at the core of rangatiratanga. I am delighted to stand in support of the Whakarewarewa and Roto-a-Tamaheke Vesting Bill. Nō reira, tēnā koutou, tēna koutou, kia ora tātou katoa.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill be now read a second time. This bill was one of the first to be introduced by the National-led Government. It amends the Domestic Violence Act 1995, the Sentencing Act 2002, and the Bail Act 2000, in order to strengthen the responsiveness of the criminal justice agencies to victims of domestic violence. The Justice and Electoral Committee received 63 written submissions and heard 19 oral submissions on the bill. I take this opportunity to thank the committee members, and in particular the chairperson, Chester Borrows, for the work that they have done on this bill.

The most significant proposal in the bill is the introduction of police safety orders, for which there was broad support from submitters. However, submitters also suggested improvements that could enhance the implementation of these orders, which were then picked up in the recommendations of the committee. The committee recommended requiring the person whom the order is issued against to surrender any firearms licence held by him or her. The bill originally proposed removing the person’s firearms only for the duration of the order, but this would not prevent the person from using his or her firearms licence to legally buy another firearm. The amendment that removes and suspends the person’s firearms licence will reduce the alleged perpetrator’s access to firearms and enhance the victim’s safety.

Another recommendation was made to amend the title of the order from “police order” to “police safety order”, to reflect the purpose of these orders and to distinguish them from the protection orders issued by the courts.

I was particularly pleased that the committee endorsed the Government’s policy that an order could be issued for up to 5 days. That will be critical if such an order is issued over a long weekend or in other situations where access to the courts may be limited.

With regard to enforcing a police safety order, the committee noted that there were no consequences for the alleged perpetrator if he or she failed to stay at the scene while the order was being issued and served. The committee recommended including an offence provision for those who flee the scene while the police are preparing to issue an order for arrest without warrant.

The committee recommended a number of other amendments to clarify how the authorities will deal with a person who fails to comply with a police safety order. As introduced, the bill provided that if a person who was subject to an order did not comply with the order, then the police could take the person into custody and bring him or her before the District Court. If that could not be done within 24 hours, then the police could release the person and summons him or her to appear before the court at a specified date and time. The committee recommended providing powers that will enable the District Court to issue a warrant to arrest a person who is subject to an order when he or she does not comply with the order, or does not attend the court at the time and place to which proceedings have been adjourned. It is important to note—this is similar to the provisions of the Bail Act—that the warrant will permit the police to enter any premises by force if necessary in order to give effect to it.

Other recommendations define the judicial officers who can hear cases involving the breach of a police safety order, and provide further detail regarding the court processes associated with the issue of a temporary protection order as a penalty for the breach of a police safety order.

Another important feature of the bill is the proposal to amend the Sentencing Act 2002 to enable the criminal courts to issue a protection order on behalf of the victim in cases where an offender is sentenced for a domestic violence offence. I understand submissions were very supportive of this proposal. The committee recommended enabling the criminal courts to issue a protection order even if the victim has also applied for a protection order in the Family Court or the District Court. This is to ensure that the victim may be covered by a protection order from the time that the offender is sentenced for the offending.

The bill also amends the offence provisions in the Domestic Violence Act by removing the two-tier penalty structure for breaches of protection orders and leaving only the maximum penalty of a term of imprisonment not exceeding 2 years. The bill also provides a specific penalty of up 6 months’ imprisonment for failing to attend a court-ordered programme. Submissions suggested that if the offender is also directed to attend a stopping violence programme, the judge or registrar should explain that programme attendance is compulsory, and that consequences will follow if the offender does not attend it. The committee agreed with that, and considered that such an amendment would help offenders to understand the importance of attending stopping violence programmes.

The committee also recommended changes to the provisions that apply to the Bail Act 2000 to allow the police to impose any conditions considered reasonably necessary to protect any particular person who resides with the victim, such as a new partner or elderly parents. The bill originally proposed that conditions could apply to any child who lives with the victim. Submitters raised the valid point that a victim may also have other family members living with him or her who require protection from the person against whom the order was made.

I have read the minority report on the bill from the Labour Party, and I acknowledge its concern that other recommendations from the review of the Domestic Violence Act were not included in this particular bill. As I said at the time, this bill is focused on the criminal justice sector’s response to incidents of family violence. Since the select committee reported back to the House on this bill, I have introduced the Child and Family Protection Bill, which picks up on some proposals that are centred on child welfare and reconciling the Domestic Violence Act and the Care of Children Act. The introduction of the Child and Family Protection Bill was delayed, because I saw an opportunity to include a new offence of improperly inducing consent for the adoption of a child. That bill will enable New Zealand to finally ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography, which New Zealand signed in 2000. However, I am unapologetic for prioritising the changes proposed in the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, which will provide for the immediate safety of those who are under imminent threat from domestic violence.

I recall that when I introduced this bill it was one of the occasions when I asked the select committee to take into consideration one or two factors and to offer up amendments where it saw that it would be appropriate to do so, following receipt of submissions. In this case it seems to me that the select committee process has worked particularly well, in terms of the number of recommendations and practical amendments offered up by the committee. This legislation was a core part of the Government’s 100-day programme following the general election. I am pleased that progress has been made on it. The bill is an initiative that is particularly important to me, and I intend to see it make its way through all stages as soon as possible. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : Although the Labour Party will support the passage of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, we do remain disappointed in the Government’s decision to introduce two bills, as opposed to the omnibus bill introduced by the previous Labour Government as the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. That bill is still on the Order Paper, admittedly at the bottom of the Order Paper, in the name of the Hon Annette King. The use of the two bills actually disguises the decision the Government has taken not to proceed with certain elements of the previous Labour Government’s bill, and now that this second bill has been tabled we can see exactly what they are. The most significant differences that still remain absent from the two bills appear to be, first, the changing of the definition of “child” from under 17 years of age to under 18 years of age in the Domestic Violence Act. This would not only have allowed further compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child but would have aligned the Domestic Violence Act with the Care of Children Act. It makes no sense that the Government still leaves this out.

The second difference is that the decision was made, obviously by the Government, not to require reasons to be given in writing when a “without notice” application for a protection order is declined by a judge. Again we have had absolutely no explanation from the Government as to why it has made the decision not to proceed with that recommendation.

The third difference is the decision not to introduce information sessions, despite all of the evidence around the fact that protection is best given in circumstances where an individual knows what he or she can access by way of support, and if the person understands the nature of the threat that he or she faces. That is the one message that I do not believe that this House has actually picked up on yet—that most women who die at the hands of an intimate partner do so not knowing the nature of the threat they face. Sure, they were frightened but did not really believe that their husband, their partner, their former husband, or former partner would actually take that final step and kill them. And even if the women had been saying “I think he’s going to kill me.”, deep down in their hearts they find it hard to believe that somebody who loved them, once—and said that they loved them and continued often to say they loved them—would take their life. The Government’s decision not to introduce information sessions for the victims of domestic violence is a very dangerous decision to make, and I hope that it is able to reflect on that when we get to the Child and Family Protection Bill—the second bill.

The Government’s decision not to introduce funded addiction treatment services, again, despite all of the evidence around the association between domestic violence, and drug and alcohol abuse— again, I cannot understand why the Government would not proceed with that provision, but that could be dealt with in the context of the second bill.

Obviously, Labour fully supports the provisions relating to police orders, although I did think it was interesting that the Government decided to change the name of them to something based on the person who grants them, as opposed to their purpose. They were called “safety orders” under the previous Labour Government’s bill, and I think there is an important distinction, and it explains some of the reason why there was concern about the orders being introduced in the first place.

I do not think there is much difference in the time frame of them. Our bill said the duration period may not exceed 3 days; the Government’s bill says 5 days. We are happy to support that proposal. It is important for the House again to understand that this provision was not universally greeted with enthusiasm when it was first proposed by Labour in Government. I was the Minister of Women’s Affairs at the time, and the women’s refuges and other groups were very concerned about the risks that these orders might pose. If I could just summarise their views—and I hope I do them justice, because I do this by way of recall rather than having a particular document in front of me—one was about the victim’s consent to the order not being required. There was a real concern about the question of disempowerment: whether this was going to disempower people in terms of their ability to take control of what was often, when they were victims of domestic violence, a lack of control.

There was a concern that police would not be sufficiently well-trained in the dynamics of domestic violence, to assess the circumstances in which orders should be made. I know that the Government has said that it will put a lot of emphasis on training police to deal with these situations, and we certainly look forward to seeing that happen. The third reason they were concerned that men would claim that women had been the instigators of the violence and would seek instant protection orders from the police, and then coupled with the lack of training around the dynamics of domestic violence there was a concern that that would be a genuine fear to have.

As a result of these concerns, when I was Minister of Women’s Affairs I personally visited the police in Tasmania when I was over there for a meeting, and I was very impressed with the approach that they had adopted. Interestingly, in Tasmania it was an Attorney-General who spearheaded the law change, which actually enables a police protection order to stand for an entire year, and it does so for very good reasons. She had been determined to get this change in place because she had seen the horrific consequences of the failure to act, even when the police had been involved. I know that representatives of Women’s Refuge visited another Australian state around the same time and gained a similar level of reassurance from the advice that it received. That is why, when we started to talk about introducing these provisions, the issue was a lot better received than it had been originally. The issue certainly has been thought through, but these police safety orders will not protect people who do not come into contact with police. They just simply will not. I think everyone understands this, and they also will not be effective if they are not backed up by realistic levels of support.

My electorate has been shocked by the events of the past few weeks, culminating in the death of Rebecca Somerville caused by her husband, and the discovery of the body of Tisha Lowry, a neighbour who had been missing for just over a year. I went with the community to the tapu-lifting ceremony, before the police cordon was lifted the Monday before last. Can I say that the Christchurch police have been absolutely amazing. They have worked really closely with the community. They have been very respectful of their needs, despite a detailed double-murder investigation, and members can imagine how much effort has had to go into that. I went into the house with the floorboards gone in the kitchen where the bodies were found, and the soil that had hidden those bodies—one for over a year, as I say—lay very neatly arranged below us. It was deeply upsetting, and I really cannot tell members how upsetting it was. I felt actually no comfort in being there, but it was important to be there with the community, with the mayor, with the local councillor Chrissie Williams, and the leaders in the community who were there to lift the tapu and to make the community whole. Can I say to the neighbours that it is right that they do not return to the house where a wall separates the house but not what was a grave, but please respect the grief of the families of those who have died. Let people assist you, but quietly and behind the scene, because yours is not the most pressing need.

I have already spoken to individuals about identifying the wider victims of crime in a situation like this. Neighbours are the victims of a crime such as this, and it is important that we find ways to ensure that the news media are not the first people to notify neighbours of such tragedies. But the most important focus of our consideration, and in the context of the bill, is the question that must be how we stop these deaths from occurring. I am strongly of the view that we have to learn the lessons of the lives that have been lost. A police order would not have saved Rebecca Somerville’s life unless she had called them to her house to ensure her immediate safety. For the kinds of intervention we have to put in place we have to learn from the experience of the police, who have been going to these kinds of cases over and over again. I have seen the checklist that the police have put together. It shows that there are signs that can be looked for that show increasing levels of violence and the much higher likelihood of them leading to death. We have to learn these lessons or we will be condemned as a community to continue to see them being repeated.

It is absolutely critical that the bill strengthens the sentencing provisions for breaches of protection orders, but I come back to the fact that courses for the offender for stopping violence are not the most effective intervention; it is empowering the victims of violence so that they are able to have the strength to get away from a situation that will clearly be more dangerous to them than anything else they could have imagined. It is very important that we take a holistic approach to domestic violence. I am hoping that as a Parliament we can make these changes, but it is not just the law that will do that.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : As the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee, which considered the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, I commend the bill to the House. I thank the members of the committee who took part in the discussion process and the deliberation. It was a very interesting and moving experience, at times, to go through the hearing process. Each member of the committee brought his or her own view and own experience to the table in discussing how the bill would work out in a practical way.

A number of changes were made, as have been outlined by the Minister of Justice and others, in respect of how the mechanics of what is written down in black and white will work operationally when implemented by the police. A number of points made by the previous speaker, Lianne Dalziel, were a fairly true reflection of those submissions. One of the most interesting points was the conflict between those groups representing women that were making the argument that the views of victims—and frequently the victims are women—should be considered as to whether they consent to the imposition of a protection order, and those who argued that those women should not make that decision, on the basis that a number of them are disempowered, and therefore they will not or cannot make such decisions. At the same time, it is disempowering for women to have these decisions made without their discussion or consent. Initially, the second point was made by Women’s Refuge, but, as I understand it, at the end of the process it was happy with the law as it has now been written, and accepted that the courts are the best place to make the decision.

Some other changes were made, and one that I was particularly pleased with was the ability for the police to issue a police safety order even when they make an arrest. In the bill as introduced, a police safety order could not be issued if the offender was arrested for an offence disclosed on the property. That change is a good move, and it reinforces the fact that a piece of paper will never protect anybody when there is a mixture of alcohol, emotions, inflammatory comments, or whatever occurs around domestic violence. A piece of paper will not stop anything, but it flags in advance where these things may happen. It brings them to the immediate attention of the authorities that will have to intervene—and thank goodness they do.

A number of points have been made, too, about the previous Labour Government’s bill in respect of domestic violence. A number of its provisions that are uncontentious were not brought forward within this bill. I can understand the reasons why those comments have been made. I am pleased the committee drew this situation to the attention of the Minister, who quite quickly has brought before the House a second bill. The undertaking has also been given that that bill will come before the same committee, so, in many ways, we will not have to hear the same evidence twice, or, at least, the members of the committee who go through the hearing process will have at the front of their minds the concerns already raised. A number of the submitters on this bill had appeared before the select committee considering the previous bill, so there was a common ground and understanding of the issues involved.

The extension to 5 days from 3 days for the duration of the police safety orders was a bit contentious. My personal view is that it could have been longer. It could have been 5 working days or it could have gone to 7 days. We have isolated areas around our country where legal counsel is not easily available, and where it is not easy for people to avail themselves of these services, especially if they have been through a violent domestic situation. A number of particularly tragic examples of these events occur in quite remote circumstances. If we think about where we have had explosions in family violence that have resulted, for instance, in multiple deaths or particularly tragic deaths, we can see that a lot of them are in communities that are a long way from anywhere as far as accessing legal counsel is concerned, and the demographics of those involved are that they frequently are those who do not have access to finances to be able to contact and deal with lawyers quickly or to access them by way of transport.

I bring those points to the House. I thank the committee again for the process. I thank the officials for the advice they gave us. Most of all, I thank those people who took the time to make such valid submissions before the committee. I commend the bill to the House.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : I am very pleased to stand to take a call in the second reading of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I am very pleased that at last it is being debated. I will go through the positive parts of the bill, of which there are many, but I also join my colleague Lianne Dalziel in voicing my disappointment that the bill is not as comprehensive as Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which is currently on the Order Paper, albeit towards the bottom.

I note that the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill does not comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child—an issue that was raised during its first reading. With Labour’s bill, we had the ability to change the definition of a child from someone under 17 years to someone under 18 years, thereby increasing the age limit at which minors can apply for protection orders in their own right. That would have given a lot of younger people so much more protection. Along with Lianne Dalziel and my Labour colleagues I am very disappointed that it has not been incorporated into the bill that the Minister has signalled will have a reading in the House, hopefully, very soon.

It may seem a little negative to talk about this, but domestic violence is a cruel, vicious situation. Every day that we cannot provide enhanced protection and safety is a day too long. I note that the Justice and Electoral Committee reported back the bill on 29 June 2009. I, along with my colleagues, certainly would have been very happy if the bill had gone to the top of the Order Paper so that it could have been enacted by this stage. It saddened me to see urgency taken last week on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, which, with no ill effect, could have had enhanced debate and closer scrutiny. It was a bill on which there was not a meeting of minds, and there should have been more debate on it and the public should have had a chance to have more input. I think putting the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill through under urgency would have served a far greater purpose, but that did not happen. Certainly, as I said before, I am very pleased that this bill is now before the House and is being progressed, and I look forward to further protection for victims in the future.

This bill is about safety. It ensures that a violent situation is calmed as soon as humanly possible. It is absolutely untenable that in situations of domestic violence it frequently is the victim and young family members who have to leave the family home for their security and safety. I pay tribute, as Chester Borrows did before me—and he did an excellent job chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee—to the people who came and spoke to the committee. An impression of “like minds, like message” came through from the vast majority of submitters. I think there were over 20—from memory, 22 or 24—oral submissions, the majority of which were very, very clear and very, very consistent in their support for the bill. Many submitters raised adding the provisions relating to, particularly, the protection of children that are in Labour’s bill. We took advice on that matter, but unfortunately those provisions were outside the scope of this bill. But the vast majority of submitters were very, very clear that this bill did give enhanced protection, and the sooner the better.

A minority of submitters, and I stress that it was a very small number of submitters, felt that it was unreasonable for the partner to be removed, on the chance that issuing the police safety protection order may in the future be deemed to be an unjustified action on the part of the police—I should have said police safety order; we had numerous discussions about what the order would be called. But the members of the committee had all agreed by the end that that view was not reasonable, and from the outset I certainly did not hold it. It seemed to me to be completely unreasonable, if one balanced the very rare potential instance where an order is given and it is then deemed inappropriate—and I do not believe that would happen—with the paramount issue of the safety of, predominantly, women and children, and removing the risk of extreme violence against them. That far outweighs any argument about an unjustified protection order. I am really pleased that all the members of the committee agreed with that position.

There was also considerable discussion about the 5-day duration of the order versus a shorter period. A few submitters wanted to see the period extended in case it was not long enough to allow for public holidays. Again, a very small number of submitters believed that 5 days was too long, and that 3 days would have been preferable. There was complete agreement from all committee members—and I thank the officials, who gave us very sensible advice—that the period should be up to 5 days. That is the most sensible way to go, if we are concerned to ensure safety and security.

We also had considerable discussion on the need to explain the protection order. After a protection order has been issued, it must be made very, very clear to the person—and generally it is a man—what the order means and what the consequences are of failing to comply with it. We improved the bill by including a requirement to attend a stopping violence programme, and by specifying the consequences of failing to attend that programme.

I believe that the committee worked very constructively, and that the changes that have been made have considerably improved the bill. I am very pleased about that. I take this opportunity to again acknowledge all of the submitters who came and told us, in many instances, incredibly painful stories about their own personal situations of stress, anxiety, and fear. To do that was a very brave act. I think this debate is a great opportunity in this House to acknowledge women and families who have gone through that situation, and to acknowledge the support that is given to them by the refuges and other organisations that work in this field giving support to victims of violent crime. Those organisations ensure that those victims are supported and have a safe haven.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : I rise to support the second reading of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. As the Green Party indicated in the first reading debate, we are prepared to support the bill. We have no serious difficulties with it. The general thrust of the bill is entirely laudable. It reflects two of the Green Party’s four main principles—namely, social responsibility and non-violence.

Let us acknowledge that we are a violent nation. We chalk up an average of 222 violent family events each day, which is one every 7 minutes. The purpose of the bill is therefore to ensure that a vulnerable partner in a domestic relationship—whether it is a woman or, as we heard from our ACT colleague earlier, a man, as it is in many cases—can receive greater protection through enhanced police procedures.

Specifically, we support the proposed power for the police to issue a police order on the spot. That should avoid the delays involved hitherto in extending protection to a vulnerable partner at a time of crisis. We agree that the Justice and Electoral Committee’s recommendation to use the term police safety order in order to distinguish it from a similar order from the Family Court is well placed. We think, as the committee recommends, that 5 days is the appropriate period for such an order to be in force.

We support the altered powers for a constable to issue a safety order for the proper protection of a vulnerable partner, even if there is insufficient evidence to justify an arrest. We support the extension of an order to encompass previous partners, as well as current partners. We support the change that will remove the need for a constable to obtain the explicit consent of a vulnerable partner before issuing a safety order. Too often, the understandable reluctance, or even hesitancy, to give such consent has hampered not only the interests of justice but also the imperative of immediate protection for a potential victim. We also support the option for the criminal courts to consider a protection order for a victim at the time of sentencing the offender.

For all of those reasons the Green Party will support the bill going through to the third reading. The bill is a step forward in strengthening the domestic protection regime. Whether the bill goes far enough is another matter. I note the lament of the Labour members, in its minority report, that at least six elements in Labour’s original bill—the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, which is also on the Order Paper but so far has been allowed to languish—have not been included in the Government’s legislation. The Government says that it will address such issues separately, but it has not met its intended deadline yet.

We certainly believe that it is incumbent on the Government to proceed on the other issues, which reflect considerable work done by the previous Labour Government in consultation with concerned groups. We look forward to seeing the fruits of that endeavour in the form of further draft legislation by the Government, hopefully before the year is out. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : Domestic violence is one of those bizarre features of the system of gross domestic product, in which the more GDP rises, the better the overall health and well-being of the nation is assumed. If we were to examine the trends in domestic violence one would think our well-being assured, in terms of the consistent rising impact of the violence statistics, yet it is killing us. On average, every year 14 women, 10 children, and six men die as a result of family violence.

The 2006 figure for family violence - related offences represents a 54 percent increase on 2001. In real terms the figure rose from 21,205 offences in 2001 to 32,675 offences in 2006. In the notifications to Child, Youth and Family, for those same years, there was a massive increase of 161 percent, rising from 2,636 notifications to 68,819 notifications in 2006. In the courts, prosecutions for males assaulting females increased 30 percent, from 3,307 in 2000 to 4,285 in 2006, while in women’s refuges the number of services and programmes delivered to women and children experienced a 55 percent increase between 2002 and 2006, from 18,628 services and programmes to 28,845 services and programmes in 2006.

Those statistics make up the cold, hard face of violence that diminishes the potential of our families and damages the optimism for generations to come. It is the ugly reality of life for far too many New Zealanders, and it is the call for help that we cannot ignore. There is no question that the Māori Party will stand in the way of any interventions that might help to protect the safety of women and children and the decency of life that every family deserves. Let us face it—there is a lot that can be done.

One of the most disturbing of the 66 submissions received by the Justice and Electoral Committee was from Heather Henare of the National Collective of Independent Woman’s Refuges. Its information, in direct contrast to the rising volumes of domestic violence incidents, revealed the declining number of applications for protection orders. The collective advised the committee that women who have experienced violence are losing faith in the system due to the cost; due to the difficulty in obtaining protection orders; due to the notice order and because of the failure to follow up, arrest, and prosecute breaches of protection including non-attendance at respondent programmes, which means the orders do not work to protect women. The collective also noted that psychological abuse is not taken seriously when granting a protection order, following up breaches, determining the care of children, and discharging orders. These are all serious issues, and ones that require further consideration than this bill is capable of.

The Human Rights Commission also endorsed this view, noting the research and the recent review of the Domestic Violence Act report that improvements are needed to ensure that the Act is implemented to its full effect. This view is endorsed by a recent report entitled Living at the Cutting Edge: Women’s Experiences of Protection Orders. The issues identified in the report suggest that the Domestic Violence Act 1995 has failed to realise its promise. Interestingly, very few of the key informants in that report have problems with the Act as it is written. Overwhelmingly, the analysis of the case studies and decisions reflects not inadequate legislation but inadequate implementation. The key problem has been getting protection orders upheld by the police and the courts. Quite simply, putting more laws in place will not address the problems with implementing the law. If we were to think that this bill is the one-stop shop to solve all issues relating to domestic violence, we would be wrong. But it is a step along the way.

The key initiatives that will be advanced with this legislation are in relation to protection orders, and, in particular, the introduction of on-the-spot police orders, which can be made where there is insufficient evidence of an offence to make an arrest but where police believe domestic violence is occurring. This is an intervention that has been widely supported across the land. We all know that with incidents of violence, delay can be deadly. The problem with protection orders to date is that victims must apply to the court for orders, and often do not because of fear of repercussions, because of cost, because of a lack of trust in the system, and because in the cold light of day the process seems to be another hurdle acting against the desire for peace, no matter what the price. So we applaud the move to issue immediate temporary protection orders, which will have the effect of removing the alleged offender from the home for a period of up to 5 days. Our caucus was absolutely unanimous in our support for this initiative, which in effect removes the problem from the home.

I remember the advice of Moana Jackson at the whānau support workshop held at Hopuhopu last year. His view was “Stop the hurt, explore the reason, deny the presumption, and address the causes”. Outsiders often look at situations of family violence and express frustration, even contempt, at the way in which family members will continue to return to the family home and be accepted within the folds of family—the family in which gross violence has occurred. In my work with Te Ratonga Ture and with Women’s Refuge I know it was common for women to return seven or eight times to a violent situation before enough was enough. The point is that these women love their partners. It is the violence they hate. The same thing can be said for families who welcome home an offender. Men who have come home straight from prison, after serving a sentence for violent assault, are embraced as fathers and husbands, despite the fear and devastation created from their lack of control. We support the move to implement police-issued protection orders, which have the effect of removing the problem from the home in order to allow the hurt to stop, and to allow time and space to explore the reason. We also support the intention to make it an offence to contravene a protection order, and believe that a breach can lead to an immediate arrest. This must be explicit in the legislation.

This bill achieves progress in amending the Domestic Violence Act 1995, the Sentencing Act 2002, and the Bail Act 2000. It strengthens the response of the police and the courts to acts of domestic violence, in order to enhance safety of whānau and victims, and this is a good thing. But we must not stop just at this legislation, in isolation of the wide-ranging approach we can take, and all should take, to stop family violence in our midst. I was greatly moved by the wise advice of one of my aunties from Christchurch, Aunty Kiwa Hutchens, who told the select committee: “Kaua e utua ki te kino, me haere anō i te rangimāria.” Do not punish wrongdoing with unkindness; seek peaceful solutions.

We are obviously concerned about the potential damage to our tamariki and our whānau if our children are to be separated for any great time from their caregivers, their mothers, and their fathers. I am mindful too of the guidance from the Nelson Rape and Sexual Abuse Network, which reminded us that violence is not likely to be an isolated incident but rather a part of a long and insidious build-up, generally over months, if not years, where the alleged offenders slowly but surely, through threat, fear, and other tactics, including actual physical or sexual violence, isolate the women and the hidden victims, the children. We must take a proactive and comprehensive approach that supports and nurtures family and whānau to take collective responsibility for each other. We call that approach whānau ora. It is singularly the most significant step this Government can take to create futures free of harm. Finally then, the Māori Party will support this bill as a move towards whānau ora.

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is my pleasure to stand here this afternoon and take a call on the second reading of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. First, I acknowledge all the hard work that the Justice and Electoral Committee did in bringing this bill back to the House and the adjustments it made through that process. The select committee was chaired by Chester Borrows, MP for Whanganui, who is unique in the experience he brought to that committee. He was a policeman—a detective—for 20 years, and then he was a lawyer. The experience and first-hand knowledge he brought to this bill was pretty significant, as was his understanding of how domestic violence impacts on individuals and the victims themselves. He has seen so many of those victims himself, having gone into houses as the first policeman on the job. I cannot imagine what it would be like to be a victim of domestic violence—I really cannot. It must be a horrific experience. The fear must be incredible, and to live like that, day after day and year after year, as some of these women and their children do, is pretty incredible. It is hard to believe that in New Zealand there are 80,000 domestic violence cases a year. That is just incredible in a population of 4 million. Over 200 women and children have been killed as a result of domestic violence over the last 12 years, and, in fact, in the last month two women have been killed by domestic violence. That is absolutely appalling and there is no excuse for that in New Zealand.

This legislation is not a silver bullet, because there is no silver bullet for domestic violence. There has to be a holistic approach, one that looks at all parts of our society. It is not just the responsibility of the Government to have an answer to this; people need to take responsibility for what is happening in their homes, their families’ homes, their neighbours’ homes, and the communities they live in. If we all tackle this issue together, then we will start making some difference. It is not just that; the Government has a responsibility to those women and children and it has to ensure that when they are in trouble or when there is violence and the police are called, the police can do something. That is what this legislation is about. It is about giving the police some more tools in their tool box to make more of a difference.

I believe that the big part of this legislation is the on-the-spot protection orders. They allow the police to go in and give a protection order to women and their children on the spot for a period of up to 5 days against the person who is doing the domestic violence. Also, the police themselves can make the decision that the protection order needs to be put in place, because many women and their families are totally dominated by the males in those houses and would not do that out of fear. I understand that in 2005 this issue was discussed in some workshops, and there was a strong view from Women’s Refuge that the police should not be giving protection orders and we should not be increasing those powers because police do not enforce them—they are so busy doing other police duties and actually need to enforce the protection orders that are out there. But I think it is good we are increasing protection orders, and it is also good that we are increasing police numbers to ensure that those orders are enforced.

I wanted to take a short call on this today. I believe that this is strong legislation that will help women and their children out there, and the other legislation that will come through later in the year will go hand in hand with this. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.

SUE MORONEY (Labour) : On Saturday New Zealand celebrated 116 years since women won the right to vote in this country, and it was a hard fight to win. I have been sitting here listening to the debate on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and wondering whether Kate Sheppard and the other suffragettes would have anticipated that some 116 years later these issues would be before our Parliament. I imagine that they thought that having women involved in the political process, able to vote and able to influence political decision making, leading to women gaining roles in Parliament and becoming Ministers of the Crown, would enhance the status of women and perhaps level the power balance, and influence ideas about how women would be treated in New Zealand. I imagine that they would be somewhat devastated to listen to the debate we must have in this House today.

I think it shows just how far we still have to go in terms of levelling the power imbalance. Although I do not want to diminish any sort of domestic violence whatsoever, no matter who is involved, the amount of domestic violence targeted towards women is much greater than that targeted towards men. It is a fact that not only the numbers but also the nature of the violence targeted towards women has more extreme outcomes than it does for men. Therefore, I am pleased to rise to speak in support of the second reading of this bill, because this is an issue that, sadly, primarily affects women in this country.

When we hear, as we did from the Green Party, that there is one domestic violence event every 7 minutes in this country, it is very sobering. It is shocking, but I venture that perhaps there is a silver lining, in that the police are called to a domestic violence event once 7 minutes in this country. I do not imagine for a minute that domestic violence was not a feature of New Zealand in Kate Sheppard’s day. I imagine that almost certainly it was a feature, but that it was OK for that to happen in those days.

The very successful campaign that has been running here in New Zealand with a range of community leaders saying that domestic or family violence in any form is not OK has, I believe, made a real difference. It has meant that women and others in family violence situations have been able to blow the whistle. It has given them the confidence to stand up and say that what is happening behind closed doors should not be happening, and they are calling the correct authorities to have those issues dealt with.

This bill is important in dealing with that situation in that it gives some more tools to those people, primarily women, who are in that situation. I particularly want to commend this bill for bringing forward the concept of police safety orders being able to be issued basically on the spot by police for issues of domestic violence. It has long seemed quite ironic to me that in a situation where domestic violence has occurred or where a woman, more often than not, has been beaten up, it is the perpetrator—the violent offender—who gets to stay in the family home. The victim, the woman who was being beaten, is the one who has had to leave the family home, sometimes with her children in tow. She is the one who has had all the inconvenience caused to her and who has moved out of that situation and into a women’s refuge.

I do not suggest for a minute that that will not continue to happen, because, of course, the primary concern is about the safety of the victim. In many circumstances, the choice of the woman will be to seek refuge in a place apart from the family home, but this gives another option for women—to choose to have the violent offender removed from the family home. It seems ironic that in a domestic violence situation, the perpetrator of the violence gets to stay in the family home, get up in the morning, shower, and go to work as if nothing has happened. It is the victim who has been completely removed from her natural environment and who has to make that readjustment through no fault of her own. I think this gives another option to that situation.

It has also been really sad to hear, through the course of this debate, about the number of submitters who were concerned to increase the amount of days that the police safety order would continue in force. I was not on the select committee, but having listened to the debate this afternoon it seems to me that many of the submitters were concerned about extending those days because of public holidays. That is a very sad commentary on what is happening in some of those homes. I think those submitters quite rightly pointed out that there was a spike in domestic violence around times that ought to be happy times for our families: public holidays, Christmas, New Year’s Eve, and those sorts of celebrations. In fact, what ends up happening, as anyone who works in this field knows, is that incidents of domestic violence go up at a time when our families should be happy in their own company. Although I applaud those submitters for bringing forward that issue and arguing for the extension, I think the reasons why they brought that forward are a very sad reflection on our society.

I think that this bill could have been stronger and it could have gone further. If this Government had picked up the work that the previous Government had done—in fact, the work that is still sitting on the Order Paper, and which the Government could choose to pick up right now—then we could have had an even better bill before Parliament, and I would have felt even better about getting up and supporting this bill at its second reading. The big gap in this bill concerns the information sessions on gaining protection orders. Of course, protection orders still remain, and they should be pursued by people who are in a situation where the police safety order has already been put in place. But they still need information in order to learn how they can pursue a protection order, which is not such a temporary measure, and which can give them even more protection in that situation.

This bill has also removed an issue that Labour wanted to pursue, which was that victims would also receive advice on social assistance that they could seek in that situation. This is all about education, and education is about empowerment. Because domestic violence is about power and control, empowerment of the victim, I believe, is fundamental in helping to resolve this issue.

I hope the Government will also reflect on what it has done in the education sector, which I think will take us backwards in this area. Some of the cuts to adult and community education funding actually take us backwards in this area. For example, in Hamilton the Alternatives to Violence Project is a very, very good programme that has worked with violent offenders to get them to change their views and behave in a different way. It is one of the programmes that will be cut as a result of the adult and community education funding cuts. Yesterday I visited the Christchurch Women’s Centre, and the staff there told me that every single one of the programmes that they held in order to empower women and raise women’s self-esteem were being cut through the adult and community education cuts. I think the Government should really reflect on not only this legislative measure but also the empowerment of women, and what that means for reducing and stopping domestic violence, because it seems to be going backwards on that front at the moment.

As domestic violence increases in this country—or at least as the notifications increase—additional pressure is put on social services. So, again, I take this opportunity to ask the Government to reflect on its decision to stop the Pathways to Partnership funding, which goes to those organisations that are at the front line in dealing with domestic violence. Those organisations are dealing with these increased numbers, but the rug has been pulled out from underneath them with the cutting of funding for Pathways to Partnership, which ensured that they had sustainable services going forward.

In conclusion, I support the words of my leader, Phil Goff, who said at our conference: “I will make it a priority to improve the quality of life that kids will have. Labour will support good parents and we will expect parents to do their bit too. I want more children to grow up in stable loving families, with good parents, with a steady income, a good home, and health care when they need it.” That is the sort of vision that we need going forward. We need to not just say it in words but also support it with the programmes that we are prepared to fund. We need to support it by supporting the social agencies that are working in this area. Certainly this legislation is one of the pathways, but the speakers—

Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry to interrupt the member, but her time has expired.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I rise to speak on the second reading of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I am happy to say that ACT members fully support this bill, and that we will be voting for it right through. This bill is another tool in the Police’s kit for dealing with serious offenders. Let us be clear that when we are dealing with domestic violence, every offender is a serious one.

In my short time here I have tried hard, and until my naivety and greenness go I will continue to try, to find something to agree on with speakers on the other side of the House. I came into the House to hear Ms Moroney’s speech, and it is not hard to agree with something that she said: the ability to issue on-the-spot protection orders will be a godsend to victims of abuse. Sadly, though, I do have to disagree with Ms Moroney to an extent, in that she focused very much on violence against women, and suggested, I think, that it was always a male on female thing.

In my first speech on this bill, I touched on my own family situation, and I thought long and hard about whether to do that again, and I decided that I would. My own family situation was one in which there was very little violence, but the violence that there was was from my mother. I recently saw a poster at my daughter’s school. I cannot remember the exact wording, but the gist of it was that psychological abuse is abuse, too. If something like this bill had been in place in 1973 it would have been my mother who would be removed from the home and who would be subject to on-the-spot protection orders.

I can recall, as a child, the police being called to the house quite frequently, normally by my mother. The police would get there and listen to the sorry story while the children were, sadly, also listening. The police never arrested my father; it would have been an injustice if they had done so. I say that now as a man of 51, but it was obvious to me then, as a young child of 8 or 9. My mother was an evil, toxic woman. She subjected my siblings to a toxic environment that continues to affect all of us to this day to some degree or other. Sadly, I have very personal knowledge of the reality that abuse, as a broad term, is not always a male on female thing.

This bill gives the police more flexibility to deal with those crimes or those situations through the issuing of on-the-spot protection orders. As I said in my first reading speech, a police officer on the scene—as I saw as a child—will often be a better judge of a situation than a judge hearing an affidavit written by lawyers who have been coaching the deponent. Anyone in this House who is a lawyer who has practised in a firm that has a family law department will know very well the truth of what I am saying. Frequently affidavits, not only by women, contain words that the deponent cannot pronounce, let alone spell. Allowing a qualified constable to assess a situation to determine whether there is a threat to someone’s safety and to act to mitigate that threat cannot be other than a good thing.

I agree that today my own situation would still be a minority and that, sadly, it is probably mostly men who are guilty of this behaviour. They say there are two sides to every story, and perhaps in some situations an order that requires either party, but usually the male, to be absent from the house for a while would be a better way of handling it than an arrest. I think in the last 20 years the police have moved very strongly and firmly to a situation where if there is any real damage done, particularly physical damage, arrests are made, and I do not think anyone would or should disagree with that.

I note that electronic messages are also included in protection orders, and that has to be a good thing also. It removes the ability of offenders to exploit a loophole and harass their victims through mediums that are becoming more and more mainstream. Just in the very short time I have been in this House I have heard of Twitter, which thankfully I have no knowledge of how to use, and I do not intend to try, but it is an illustration of how things are moving in that regard.

Another important change that ACT firmly supports is the widening of the scope of the bill to include partners from previous relationships. Sometimes breaking up with someone does not put an end to the violence and abuse, and I am glad that the bill now provides protection from those who simply will not let go. In a similar vein, being able to issue on-the-spot protection orders without the consent of the victim is another necessary and positive amendment, and there I think the speakers from the other side of the House, epitomised by Ms Moroney, have it 100 percent right. Sadly, the victims who are intimidated, whether emotionally or physically, into forgiving the abuser are probably mostly, if not always, women. From the outside looking in, it may make no logical sense, but clearly often it is too easy for the victim to be intimidated or emotionally blackmailed into allowing violence and abuse to continue.

I am disappointed, though, that the police are still not allowed to issue protection orders against children. I was reading my first reading speech this morning, and noted a line in it that may have been thought to be facetious. I said that many of my 16-year-old Tongan relatives are larger than me and that is just the female ones. But that is in fact correct. “Children” these days can be pretty darned big. In my youth the word “child” conjured up images of meekness and innocence. Of course that is not true in all cases—perhaps then, and certainly not now. It is a sad reality that teachers now report children of 15 or 16 coming up to them, “in their face” as the youth say, and saying: “You can’t hit me, but I can hit you.”, and normally adding an epithet at the end. This kind of bullying happens in the home also, and I find it strange that both Labour and National have been eager to ban light smacking, but will not do anything to protect parents from being hit themselves.

Overall, though, both I personally and the ACT Party are pleased to vote for this bill and its provisions. As I have said, it gives the police greater ability and power to deal with serious issues of domestic violence—and they are serious. In turn, I hope this will give greater ability and power to victims to get away, and to offenders to break their offending cycle. Thank you.

HEKIA PARATA (National) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Anō nei ngā mihi ki te Whare. Tēnā koutou katoa. I rise to support the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill 2008. The bill will enable the police to issue on-the-spot protection orders for a period of up to 5 days. It will ensure that the safety of children in a domestic relationship with the alleged victim and/or offender is more explicitly considered when setting the conditions of police bail. It will provide that when the criminal courts are sentencing a defendant who has been convicted of a domestic violence offence, they must consider whether a protection order should also be made on behalf of the victim. The bill will repeal the criteria for arrest without warrant for breach of a protection order, and it will amend the structure and penalties for the offence of breach of a protection order.

As my colleague Katrina Shanks said earlier, this is not a silver bullet. But it is starting to take us along a path of giving real, practical attention to an everyday scourge on the population of New Zealand. Women and children are being beaten and killed in homes—homes that are supposed to be the sanctuary of families—up and down this country every day, and we must take urgent steps to stop this occurring. We must create an environment not only where the police must step in, but also where we, as citizens of this country, consider it unacceptable for this to go on in our society.

This bill is part of a series of measures that we as a Government are committed to taking—not just talking about dealing with this issue, but actually getting on and doing something practical. The police are called to 80,000 domestic violence cases a year, and over 200 women and children have been killed in domestic incidents in the last 12 years in New Zealand. This is an utter shame on the record of our country. We call ourselves civilised while we continue to allow domestic violence to occur in our country. We must take urgent and real steps to stop it.

I take the point that my colleague David Garrett made today. Domestic violence is not always men against women, but in most cases it is. Whether it is men against women or women against men, domestic violence is unacceptable. The act is unacceptable in itself, and it is certainly unacceptable for the heritage and the legacy that it imposes upon children that they carry into their adulthood. The cost is not just the bruises, the broken bones, and the blood shed by the victims at the scene. Domestic violence, as my colleague said, goes on to haunt the lives of people who have experienced it, and that, too, is a cost on our society and a shame that we should put to rest. We must take action against it.

Although the number of reported assaults has gone up by 21 percent since 1998, Family Court statistics show that the number of protection orders has decreased by 30 percent. Not surprisingly, many victims simply do not apply to the court for a protection order, either because of the associated delays and costs or because of a fear of repercussions. The on-the-spot protection orders give victims the opportunity of 5 days to be rescued from the situation they are in, so that they are able to take time to think about the course of action that might be available to them. As our colleague Sue Moroney on the other side of the House mentioned, it is an utter and bitter irony that usually it is the offender who gets to stay in the home, and it is the women and children who have to seek refuge elsewhere. It is important that we lay the responsibility of the assault at the foot of the perpetrator, and that we make it safe for women and children to stay in the only place they know. They should not have to struggle with being in strange surroundings while also dealing with the bruising and the battering that accompanies domestic violence.

While I am on my feet I would like to pay tribute to Women’s Refuge, which by the way is opening its new office here in Wellington in a couple of days’ time, for all the work it does every day, 24/7, up and down the country. This organisation and other such organisations are to be applauded for the work they do in such a sensitive area. I believe that when it is passed this legislation will give greater support to the work those organisations do for women and children.

We think that empowering the police to take immediate action will ensure potential victims are protected until the courts are able to fully deal with the matter. In turn, it is incumbent upon the police to treat breaches of protection orders with the severity they deserve. This Government is working hard to bring down violence in our society, but it cannot do so alone. The Government needs the help of all New Zealanders to lead by example, to take personal responsibility for their actions, and to report any incidents of violence to the police.

I take up another point made by my colleague David Garrett. Violence is not just the actual act of physical assault upon another person, which itself is unacceptable. Psychological and emotional violence is also equally unacceptable, and is another area where, when we see that occurring, we need to stand up and take action. We need to create a culture of unacceptability of any kind of violence in our society so that legislation such as this and the police executing it become only one part of the equation. The actual taboo of allowing it to occur is something that all of us can be soldiers in the cause of. I commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : I too am pleased to take a call on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill and, particularly as a member of the Justice and Electoral Committee, to comment on some of the recommendations and changes that have been made by the committee.

I think all the speakers who have spoken before me have highlighted the importance of this bill. The statistics that we have heard reported are an indictment on this country, and also an indictment upon all of us if we do not act in our roles as politicians and community leaders in doing what we can, from a legislative perspective, to address the issue of domestic violence. It is true that there have been 80,000 recorded incidents of family violence per year, and 39 percent of our homicides are related to family violence. This bill is intended to go some way towards acting as a preventive tool in addressing that issue.

Before I continue, I thank the officials who were involved with the work of the select committee, particularly because the select committee chose to take a very pragmatic approach in the way it discussed the bill. Committee members wanted to know how it would work in practice, and to test whether the various layers we were adding in would complicate the way this process would be used in a practical context. It was very important, for instance, that we had the input of the police and front-line workers to establish that we were going down the right path. Equally, I acknowledge all of those who submitted to the select committee. Their submissions added the detail, the knowledge, the understanding, and the perspective that we needed as members of the select committee to make sure that we were addressing all variations that manifest in domestic violence situations. I also thank very briefly the chair, Chester Borrows. He managed the select committee well; we had robust discussion and, most important, he chaired it in a very constructive way.

I want to highlight, though, those areas in which we in Labour continue to feel some disappointment and some disagreement with the Government on the way it has chosen to progress this particular part of what is a much wider package of policies to address the issue of domestic violence. I think we have lost an opportunity, despite the assurances given by Minister Power—for instance, in the application of the rules on age as they relate to children. We continue to advocate that the definition of a “child” be 18 and under as opposed to 17 and under. We have always pointed out that this is not only a consistency issue but an issue of international obligation. I find it ironic that Minister Power explained that the reason for the delay of the second bill, the Child and Family Protection Bill, was so that the Government could ensure that it used that opportunity to make sure the legislation was compliant with the optional protocol to the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child. Why then are we ignoring the fact that we are not compliant with that convention? It is entirely inconsistent that this is a reason to delay one bill but not, on the other hand, a reason to address an ongoing issue. We continue to call for that consistency. My second disappointment is, as my colleague Lianne Dalziel pointed out, the lost opportunity around the compulsion of addiction programmes. She has already highlighted the linkage between domestic violence and substance abuse. Again, this was a prime opportunity to add an extra layer into this Government and this country’s policies on domestic violence.

Having said all of that, I think it might be helpful if I spend a little time going over some of the more significant changes, and the issues that the select committee addressed, in order to give some context, particularly to those who later on will be implementing these new provisions in the field. The select committee chose to change the name of the safety orders that we were looking at, which are brand new powers given to the police. We chose to call them police safety orders. We wanted the distinction to be very clear. We wanted to be clear that these are not long-term protection orders. We wanted to ensure that was clear also through highlighting the need for these orders to be explained at the time they are issued. I highlight again the importance of distinguishing between these orders and the longer-term orders.

The length of the orders also consumed the select committee for quite some time. Previously Labour, when in Government, had looked at a period of 3 days. We resolved at the end of hearing all of the submissions from different organisations that up to 5 days was a better length of time. The primary reasons for that resolution were twofold. One was to ensure that women had the opportunity and the time to seek additional support, advice, and access to the courts, if required, if they wanted to put in place a more enduring order to ensure their protection. But, also, it was an acknowledgment of the fact that New Zealand is a rural and provincial country. Access to some of these services is limited, particularly over weekends and public holidays, as my colleague Sue Moroney has pointed out. The issues that we discussed around timing highlighted again for the committee that although the purpose of these new orders is to provide an intervention, to provide a tool for prevention, to allow a cool-off, and to allow women to consider their options and seek further assistance, there are still significant barriers for rural women in that regard. We discussed this with Women’s Refuge and it too acknowledged that there is a need for its service provision to be much broader and much wider, and it is looking at ways to do that. I think this highlights that we do not just have legislative tools available to tackle this issue; we have community-based ones and they need our ongoing support if they are to plug the gaps that legislation can never fill.

I want to cover off three other quick issues. They are addressed in the commentary on the bill by the select committee. One is the fact that the committee grappled with the issue of who these temporary protection orders could be issued against. We decided that for the sake of consistency we needed to amend new section 124B(1) to include partners from previous relationships. That brings this bill into alignment with the Domestic Violence Act and I think that is important. We also removed one of the conditions when issuing one of these temporary orders, which was the word “immediate”. We felt that two words in this legislation—the words “immediate” and “serious”— were very imprecise and potentially very, very subjective, and may mean that there would be confusion for those constables issuing the orders, which may mean they miss opportunities where, in fact, an order might be necessary. Let us be clear. When it comes to the police, they will be the ultimate arbiters of who may receive these orders. They hold one of the most critical roles in the implementation of this legislation. We discussed as a committee the importance of the police having adequate training to identify aggressors, and to identify whom it is most appropriate that these orders are issued against and in what situations.

We have to remember that we are implementing here as a Parliament a preventive order. A crime in itself will not have been committed when one of these orders is issued; it is a very different tool. That fact provided the select committee with quite a lot of discussion around not only how we empower the police to make sure they get this right but also how we deal with the spin-off. How do we make sure this legislation is implemented properly when we are requiring the creation of offences—new offences—if the provisions of these orders are broken? Even if the police safety order is not issued for a criminal offence, a criminal offence would be committed if there was non-compliance with that order. That was quite a tricky issue for us to deal with, but I think we got it right.

I finish by again highlighting that we cannot stop at legislative tools alone when we address issues of domestic violence. We have a long way to go, and it will include further policy, but also it must include further empowerment of those community groups working in our communities who are ultimately the ones ensuring that women, in particular, and children have the support they need to rid this country of domestic violence.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) : With my arm in a sling, I imagine I may look a little bit like a victim of domestic violence at this moment, but I do not wish for one moment to make light of a very serious topic that touches on a disturbing feature of our society and perhaps even of our national identity. I sometimes worry that Alan Duff’s Once Were Warriors is celebrated as a literary and cinematographic achievement in New Zealand without it being seen as the alarming reflection of the all-too-prevalent attitude that it was and is. Violence is not acceptable and too many New Zealanders live in fear of it. Yet a worrying aspect of our cultural identity often tolerates it and sometimes even encourages it in others.

As others speakers have done, I commend the officials and the Justice and Electoral Committee members who have worked hard on the bill. I also commend those who had the courage and the concern for others to make submissions on the bill. I did not have the privilege of hearing them, but I always admire those who make the effort to submit to select committees, especially when they do so on a topic so distasteful that for some, I imagine, it evoked awful memories and personal distress.

As has been a feature of most of the new Government’s justice initiatives—and I am proud that there have been so many of them in our first 10 months in office—this bill again places the interests of victims at the forefront of our justice system, with the ultimate aim of trying to reduce the number of victims in our society. I welcome the broad support for the bill that has been indicated by the speakers from various parties who have preceded me.

It is sobering and dreadful to note that our police, as we have heard from previous speakers, are called to about 80,000 domestic violence incidents each year. That figure in a country of just 4.5 million people defies belief and is truly horrific. It is a shocking and disgraceful statistic. I have no doubt that alcohol and drug abuse are closely linked to much of the problem, so I am very pleased that this House will soon be turning its attention again to those matters, too. I am holding public meetings on proposed liquor reforms in the Hamilton West electorate this month, and I know that the police representatives who are speaking at those meetings will be tracing the link between alcohol abuse and domestic violence.

For too many New Zealanders, the most dangerous place they can be in is their own homes. In the last year for which statistics are available, violence accounted for approximately 39 percent of homicides, 42 percent of kidnappings and abductions, 44 percent of grievous assaults, and 64 percent of serious assaults. I pay a sincere tribute to those who work at the front line of this issue on a daily basis, whether running women’s refuges, or working for the Salvation Army, the police, the Child, Youth and Family agency, or one of the many other wonderful support groups and agencies in our society that are there to help in the most challenging and distressing of circumstances. I say “Kia kaha!” and offer my warm thanks to each and every one of them.

I endorse the concerns and convictions of those who have spoken before me in this debate. As my colleagues Katrina Shanks and Hekia Parata noted earlier, there are no easy solutions, and a holistic approach is vital to make a real difference. But we can and must all play a part in saying no to domestic violence, and in modelling the type of behaviour that impressionable young people need to see if they are not to go down the awful path of intimidation, bashing, and an absence of self-control that this issue throws so sharply into the national spotlight. Let us stand united in this House against this scourge. In passing this bill, we will certainly be taking a significant step in that direction.

• Bill read a second time.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I am very pleased to take part in the debate on Part 5. I was not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in the last parliamentary term. I think this part might be a little bit contentious. But first of all I will give some background to Part 5 and talk about the types of refugees that New Zealand does accept.

The most common route is through the United Nations quota system. New Zealand accepts 750 refugees each year. These refugees are vetted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and on their arrival they spend several weeks at Māngere, where they are orientated and have further checks. As refugees accepted through the quota system, those people are automatically given permanent residence.

As a signatory to the 1951 United Nations convention and the 1967 protocol on the status of refugees, New Zealand is obliged to consider all claims for refugee status or political asylum. The second group of refugees are asylum, or convention, refugees, who claim refugee status after they arrive in New Zealand, at the border or when their temporary permit expires. There are an estimated 300 asylum seekers per year, and of those who go through the review or appeal process, approximately 50 percent would be accepted. Many of these people arrive at our borders having destroyed all documentation, so proving who they are and the situation in the place where they have come from can be very difficult and time consuming. However, while they are making a claim for refugee status and are waiting to be verified, they are able to use the public health service, their children go to school, and they are entitled to benefits.

In New Zealand all claims are considered by the refugee status branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service. If a claim is unsuccessful, there is an appeal process. People can lodge an appeal against the New Zealand Immigration Service decision to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, or RSAA, which is an independent body. In fact, there are four review bodies: the Refugee Status Appeals Authority, the Removal Review Authority, the Residence Review Board, and the Deportation Review Tribunal. It is important to note that all four appeal processes will be put into one body called the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, thus making it a much simpler process for all.

While refugees wait to be verified, they can generally get a work permit while their claim is being determined. Asylum, or convention, refugees might be in New Zealand for 2 or 3 years before their status can be determined, so it is quite a long process for many of them. Of course, they have to prove that if they go back to their country of origin, they could be persecuted, tortured, or under imminent threat of death.

The third route is the family unification category, which I will not go into.

It is important to note that Part 5 does not affect our refugee quota programme at all—it is not about changing that—and that the bill upholds our international refugee and protection obligations. But a new framework is being created for refugee and protection decisions. It incorporates all the conventions and protocols that we subscribe to. In relation to the changes in this part that could be contentious, it is important to note that often over the last few years we have had examples where asylum seekers have come to New Zealand, are going through very much a good-faith process with the Immigration Service to prove their claims, but start using the media to put out information, whether or not it is correct. In that way it becomes a bad-faith process. They are able to say that because they are in the media now, they cannot go back to their country of origin as the authorities there know that they are here and they will be persecuted if they go back. That approach is not acting in good faith. To give the Immigration Service some balance, the bill now provides for an implied waiver of confidentiality in refugee and protection decisions where a refugee, protected person, or a claimant puts information about his or her case in the public realm. It provides the Crown’s perspective on an individual’s case. If individuals choose to go to the media, the Crown should have the right of reply in that instance. None of this will be done lightly. It is important to stress that the process is a good-faith process, and if individuals choose not to follow that good-faith process, they will suffer the consequences.

Another change, on Supplementary Order Paper 32, provides that refugee and protection decisions can be released where it is in the public interest and it is safe to do so. Again, this has not been done lightly at all. It would be a last resort.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : Time is almost up, so I do not think I will begin a speech. I might just tell a story. We are talking about refugees, so I will tell a story about a couple of guys from West Africa. They got into trouble with their President, because the President, in their view, had overturned a mayoral election in a major city, so they started a general strike. The local cops and the special cops came after them. They fled to a neighbouring country. They got on board a ship to go to Europe, or so they hoped, and one of them was imprisoned and tortured in the meantime and escaped through a roof. But the ship never went to Europe. It went via the Philippines and Australia to Port Chalmers in Dunedin, where they passed a note out through their little prison within the ship to a watersider, who gave it to the Otago Daily Times. It was reported in the newspaper, and then my phone started ringing. After a couple of days I got them off the ship, which is just as well because it was due to go on to Korea, Alaska, and who knows where after that. They had been on this thing for about 3 or 4 months.

They stayed at home with us for 4 years, so we got a bit of an insight into what being a refugee looks like. They waited 22 months for their first interview under the New Zealand system. That is just a matter of fact. They were accorded refugee status and, if you like, I will tell members the rest of the story after dinner.

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

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The Hon Pete Hodgson has roughly 3½ minutes left to speak, and we look forward to hearing some more of the narrative.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for your request that I complete the story, and I will be happy to do so. So these two refugees from a West African nation, having spent some years at our place, then went on to make their way in the world. One of them went to Australia. He became a bank manager, and in fact he was appointed as a bank manager about 3 months ago. He was married about 4 months ago in Melbourne, and I was his best man. The other one stayed in Dunedin. He ended up as a caregiver of intellectually handicapped folk, and in that role he is particularly able. He is just very good at his job. He married a woman from the same West African nation, but that is another story. They have a child aged 17 months, and that is another story as well, but she was out at our home on Sunday. She is a delightful child, but she wrecked the place and then went home again. I suppose the point of the story is that I, and I am sure many other members, have firsthand knowledge of refugees.

I do not wish to finish the story on a bad note, but it is a matter of fact that when I was trying to get them off the ship one weekend in early January 1997, I was trying to get hold of the necessary folk from the Immigration Service, and I put to officials some questions to which I already had answers, and I caught out an official misleading me. I said: “I’ve now caught you out. Now you have to help me.” I give no names and no pack drill; it is just what happened. As it happened we were lucky enough to find a French-speaking police officer, who interviewed these guys, put the right questions to them in terms of our international obligations, and, on that basis, their lives were able to be restarted in New Zealand.

So that will do for the story. It is a story that finishes with great success, if, indeed, it has finished at all. It is a story about how New Zealand finally did gather round these guys and make them welcome, and it is a story about how they have made their way in life and are now contributing back to society. Refugees, and issues around refugees, are like that. Those issues are not straightforward. It is hard stuff, and it is hard stuff for all manner of reasons. I think every member of the House will have come across a refugee and will have gained some idea of the torment or difficulties they have moved through and the strength of purpose they have had to show.

Of course, the other side of the story is that from time to time people who claim refugee status do so spuriously, and from time to time they try to rort our system and take advantage of us. Somehow we need law that has the wisdom to tell the difference between one type of refugee and another, and that is not straightforward. I know that too from personal experience. So there is the end of my story. My story is a happy one, and it is a story that I am sure this Committee will enjoy.

But now I will resume my seat and we will come to the difficult issues around Part 5, and some of those will be opposed by members on this side of the Chamber, for reasons that my colleagues, I hope, will explain. Thank you.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : There have been some improvements made to Part 5, through the good work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Some of the concerns raised by groups like Amnesty International were addressed. One of the things that was rather disconcerting was the wording of clause 122B, which will now be omitted, and which said that persons could claim protective status only if they could show they faced the risk of harm “in every part of his or her country” and that the harm “is not faced generally by other persons in or from that country.” Of course, one of the things about persecution is that it is often quite targeted. If people live in Iran, they are subject to some general persecution, but if they are a Baha’i or a Christian convert from Islam they face specific persecution. The idea that some parts of the country are safe and some parts are not is a difficult one to apply. It is good that that provision was taken out of the bill by the select committee.

The provision that is related to that clause is now in new clause 120, which states that the application of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to such claimants requires “the existence in the country concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass violation of human rights.” That just makes clear what is at issue here, in terms of determining refugee status, and the persecution that results from that status.

Another improvement is made in clause 125, which states that if we send the person to another country where the refugee convention, the convention against torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights apply, there must be “appropriate processes”. The words “appropriate processes” were added so that countries cannot just sign up to these agreements; they have to actually put them into effect. There must be appropriate processes. So that is an improvement.

In clause 127 there is an improvement in that a decision would be invalid if we sent a claimant to another country where they might be safe, for example to Fiji, Malaysia, or wherever, which was thought about for some asylum-seekers, but that particular country then sent the person back to the country of persecution, and we in New Zealand had some knowledge that that might take place. Clause 127 requires the refugee tribunal to really have a look at that.

There is also an improvement in clause 133, which relates to the cancellation of a person’s recognition as a refugee or protected person. It is true that a lot of refugees embellish their stories, and that there is a bit of falsehood in them, and sometimes other members of the community slander them in one way or another, so it is often a very murky business trying to establish exactly to what degree refugee claimants have lied. They may have gained refugee status, and it is a big step to cancel their refugee status. This provision means that it is not just up to someone in the refugee status branch of Immigration New Zealand; the tribunal actually has a role in the cancellation of someone’s refugee status. That is a step forward. Those are some improvements, and I appreciate that the committee has done good work along those lines. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : When I became the Minister of Immigration under the previous Labour Government there were 3,000 people waiting for their first-level determination for refugee status. That was because the refugee status provisions of the legislation of the time were being abused. They were being abused by people who came here from, significantly, Thailand, probably more than anywhere else, and who used the fact that there would be a lengthy delay for the consideration of their first-level claim—essentially for up to 3 years—to get a work permit to live and work in New Zealand for 3 years before they would be sent home for having no claim for refugee status.

The issue is that that abuse did not mean every single person from Thailand who lodged a claim did not have a claim for refugee status. But 99.99 percent of those people did, and the question is how we change a system to ensure that the one person in a million is able to have his or her case determined appropriately. That is what Part 5 does, and that is why I am very supportive of the provisions in this part. It ensures that we have an opportunity to hear cases that are genuine claims for refugee status, and, at the same time, to move on those people who are seeking to abuse provisions that are designed to offer protection for people who come to New Zealand.

I should say, before I move on from talking about what I inherited, that when I stopped being the Minister of Immigration there were about 300 people waiting to have their claims heard. So we managed to make quite a significant difference in that period of time.

I know that my colleague who has just resumed his seat has made the comment before that we should not be happy with the very low number of people who claim asylum when they come to New Zealand now, but I am actually very happy about that because the rate of approval of refugee status on a percentage basis has gone up. That is because the vast majority of people who now claim are genuine claimants, rather than those who sought to abuse the provisions of the law in the past.

There has been a really good change in what we do when determining refugee status for those who do not come here under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees quota programme. But I am concerned about the changes that the Supplementary Order Paper makes, and we have discussed this with officials. I understood that the Minister was going to provide us with some background on how the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had responded to these particular provisions. My understanding of our conversation was that there would be feedback to members of the Opposition about what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had said about these particular provisions. We had quite a lengthy discussion about it. I am looking around for my colleague the immigration spokesperson, but that is my very clear recollection of the discussion that we had—or maybe it was with the officials rather than with the Minister.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Oh, OK!

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: It is very important that we get some feedback on what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said about these particular provisions.

The concern is when we make changes around the implied waiver of confidentiality, and I know that it already exists. But having been a Minister in the position where there is no way that one can talk publicly about a particular case, I am very worried that this is being put in the context of refugee decisions whereby the matter may be put in the public arena in a way where the waiver would operate, perhaps, in a different way from what the person has disclosed. So what we are told in this Supplementary Order Paper is that “the chief executive may publish the decision of a refugee and protection officer relating to the claim if the chief executive determines that, in the circumstances of the particular case, it is in the public interest to do so:” and “the Attorney-General may, subject to any orders of the Tribunal, publish the decision of the Tribunal relating to the claim if the Attorney-General determines that, in the circumstances of the particular case, it is in the public interest to do so.”

The Refugee Status Appeals Authority already publishes decisions but it does so without any names or features of the case that might be attributed to a particular individual. This clause does not do that, and I am deeply worried about the impact that that would have. Certainly in some of the cases that I can think back to at the time I was Minister, we would not want to publish any aspects of the decision, even if somebody had put his or her case in the public arena in a self-serving way, and, quite frankly, how else would one want to have it put in the public arena. It may well be that by putting something in response to it, that, in fact, it may jeopardise others, and may put at risk other people as a result of the whole case being put in the public arena.

I have had some concern that the way this bill has been drafted it does talk about publishing “the decision”, and it may be in the interests of everyone that certain parts of a decision are put in the public arena, rather than the whole of a decision. I am a little bit concerned about this. I think what people will not look at is the fact that these clauses are gone through in fine detail by lawyers representing individuals in particular cases, and the dotting of the i’s and crossing of the t’s are very important in this regard.

The other point is that, at the moment, this bill allows the publishing of a decision of a refugee and protection officer. I have real doubts about whether that is in the interests of anyone. The initial decision that is made is often not particularly detailed, and it is often quite different information that is put before the Refugee Status Appeals Authority. I know that we have changed the question of appeals in this legislation to have a unified tribunal, but I am a little bit worried about having this information in the public arena. The reason for it is that a lot of the protections that might exist at the tribunal level just simply will not exist at the level of a refugee and protection officer, who is just sitting there in the room hearing the case with a particular individual.

I am aware of a number of cases where the particular decision has gone in favour of the individual, and that is fine, but I would not really want anyone to have access to that information afterwards. I do not know what the public interest might be to have a particular case referred to. Perhaps the issue would have been raised by a politician who would want to take a populist position and oppose somebody having refugee status, or the right to remain in New Zealand, so the politician would go public with it. Does that then give the chief executive the right to put in the public arena a response to show that it was a responsible decision? If it was not the person who raised it in the first place, do we think that that is a responsible position to take?

I have real doubts about this area. I think that the law may say this but I do not think it will ever offer any particular comfort, because there are so many risks associated with expressly, or impliedly, waiving the right to confidentiality. I have personally experienced that, and I think it would be a high risk for this Government to go down the track of writing this into the law.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : I rise to take a call on Part 5, “Refugee and protection status determinations”. In doing so, I want to make two statements of the obvious, to start with. The first is that there has been a strong tradition of bipartisan support for refugee policy in New Zealand, and largely for protection policy. Refugees are amongst the most vulnerable in our society. Many of them come here having endured things that most of us could not imagine, and their challenge of adapting to a new society is made all the more difficult because of the scars that they bear from their former experience.

Refugee policy is too easy, as my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel has said, to play politics with, because the level of resources that is invested in the settlement of refugees is sometimes considerable. For that reason I am pleased that, across the major parties, we have maintained a steady quota of refugees and a good bipartisan approach to this policy; long may it continue.

The second statement of the obvious is that much of Part 5 is very, very positive. It represents the bipartisan contributions, as I said in the Part 2 debate, of several Ministers and Governments—that the history of this Act reflects the need to strengthen border protection and then to balance those protections with improved human rights protections. I will give a couple of examples, but I do want to state at the outset that the Opposition is opposing the Supplementary Order Paper provisions for Part 5, and I will outline why.

Several of the things that we think are very positive in terms of this part reflect the travel of this bill through, first, the executive, and then the select committee. The bill extends protections to include the Convention Against Torture—the so-called CAT—and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is something that both Governments have strongly supported, and I welcome that. The select committee has further amended the wording of the bill so that as reported back the wording of the claims under the Convention Against Torture are more accurately representative of the convention, and that is to be welcomed. The requirement has been removed that a protection claimant must show that torture, arbitrary deprivation of life, or cruel treatment is not faced generally by other persons in the claimant’s home country, in order to be granted protection status. The burden of proof was always very high in that regard, and, on balance, it is a good thing that that has been removed.

Also in Part 5 there are changes to the roles of determination officers. A determination officer may not, in the bill as introduced, consider a subsequent refugee or protection claim unless satisfied that there has been a significant change in circumstances or that the change was not brought about by the claimant for the purpose of creating grounds for recognition. That has been amended by the select committee. A refugee and protection officer may not consider a subsequent refugee claim unless satisfied that those conditions apply, but it now does not apply to a protection claim. That amendment liberalises the legislation somewhat and is to be welcomed.

Now we get to the slightly difficult bits. First, the bill as reported back from the select committee recommends that refugee and protection officers make first instance decisions on refugee and protection claims, using classified information. That seems to me to be at odds with the structure of the more general provisions of the bill for the use of classified information, which hold that where they are used without corroborating open source evidence a special process must be set up and special protections applied, including an advocate, and so forth. In the bill as introduced the protection existed that the use of classified information under this part had to be done by a tribunal. I fail to see the rationale why that has now been generalised to allow any front-line refugee and protection officer to gain access to and use classified information, apparently without open source corroboration, in the absence of those special procedures. I welcome the Minister’s clarification on that point.

Now we come to Supplementary Order Paper 32 on Part 5. Taken as a group, four important amendments are proposed in the Supplementary Order Paper, which Labour believes have been generated mainly as a response to certain individual cases. Cases like the Ali Panah case and perhaps the Thomas Yadegary case—both cases are of Iranian Christians—spring to mind. We are firmly of the view that hard cases make bad law. It is just too clumsy to write into the principal Act a specific set of prohibitions that would get around the particulars of one or two difficult cases. This has all the hallmarks of ensuring that no one gets it over the department again like those two did. That is not a first-principles argument, and I do not think it is worthy of the level of thought that has gone into other aspects of the bill.

Here are the substantive problems with it. Firstly, the Supplementary Order Paper states that an implied rather than a stated waiver of confidentiality in refugee and protection decisions exists where a refugee, protected person, or claimant puts information about his or her case in the public realm. There is not an express but an implied waiver. The difficulty with that is that there are many ways—Lord knows, politicians should be aware of this—in which things can reach the public realm, not always with a great deal of forethought, sometimes without knowledge, and certainly without malice. The problem with an implied waiver is that it is subjective. It is the officer of the department who is making a decision that something is implied, and it lacks the due protections that should exist.

If that clause did not raise enough risk on its own, when it is put together with the clauses that follow in the Supplementary Order Paper, refugee and protection decisions can be released. It is not OK for the claimant to put his or her information in any way in the public domain, by accident or design, without a waiver of his or her rights, but it is perfectly OK for the department to do it. What is fair about that? The bill lacks protections and it impinges on human rights.

The third clause states that where a foreign national creates the grounds for a refugee status claim in bad faith, his or her claim can be declined for consideration. Who decides whether something is in bad faith? And how is bad faith defined precisely in the Act? I know who is making the judgment; the refugee and protection officer is making the judgment. I know—and I think I acknowledged in the earlier part of the debate—that departments of State are not perfect. Most of our individuals get up every day and they go to work to do the best job they can, but they make mistakes. This is a subjective test. It is one thing to decline after consideration, but this provision declines for consideration. If the refugee and protection officer gets out of the wrong side of the bed in the morning and thinks someone has acted in bad faith because the officer does not like the cut of his or her jib, his or her case will not be heard. The case will be declined for consideration. Of course, he or she could appeal but that is a difficult process and there is only one shot at it. That makes the protections so much weaker.

The fourth clause states that it does not matter whether any number of people deemed to be the claimant’s friends or supporters stand up and say that the person is a wonderful person. Take the Yadegary case, which I was involved with as a member of Parliament before having to recuse from it as a Minister. There was no end of people—if I recall correctly—in the Catholic Church who said that the young man was a genuine convert, had been for years, and was active in the church long before his case was held. This amendment states that that material could not be considered. Well, how on earth is that fair when the original officer is making a subjective decision, when the claimant has no rights because anything he or she says implies a waiver of confidentiality, and when any supporter he or she may have cannot be taken in account because he or she is a priori excluded?

I understand why these provisions are here, but I think they go too far. They expose the department to risk, and they expose the Minister of Immigration to unnecessary risk. I ask that the Minister in the chair, Dr Jonathan Coleman, reconsider the amendments. Labour will not be supporting the amendments to this part. Thank you.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I will carry on from the argument my colleague David Cunliffe made, because he started off with the point that perhaps I had overlooked, which was that hard cases make bad law. We have a really high risk of doing that with the series of changes to the refugee and protection provisions of the Immigration Bill. I think the Minister wants to make the changes for appropriate reasons, so I am not having a go at the Minister for making these changes. But the changes will not act in the way he thinks they will, and they will not offer protection in the kinds of examples we have already had put before us. The reason for that is that there is a high risk that other people could be involved in putting things in the public arena. There is a high risk that others could suffer the consequences of information being disclosed in the public arena within New Zealand. Of course, any information that is publicised in New Zealand is automatically available internationally within seconds, as we know in a whole lot of different areas.

The Minister may have wanted to see changes in this area, and they may not look like they are much of a change. We need to put it on the record that the bill as it stands states: “Nothing in this section applies to prevent the disclosure of the fact that a person is a claimant, a refugee, or a protected person, or the disclosure of particulars in relation to a claimant, a refugee, or a protected person, to the extent that the person concerned has expressly waived his or her right to confidentiality under the section;”.

The Minister’s amendment to clause 140(5) in Supplementary Order Paper 32 has now been extended with “by his or her words or actions, impliedly waived his or her right to confidentiality under this section.” The amendment is not needed. If the implication is of sufficient weight, then it will fall within the express waiver of the right to confidentiality. Many court cases have upheld the right to do so. Adding “impliedly waived” gives incredible authority for the Minister of the day to just basically draw the line wherever he or she wants to draw the line. It is a very dangerous provision.

I do not think it would stand up in any international jurisdiction. That is why we have been waiting to hear what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees had to say about the provision. We find it hard to believe that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees would say that it is a good change for us to be making to our law. When we had our meeting with officials, we certainly made the point that we did not agree with the particular change to the law, but we did understand that we were going to get some feedback about what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees thought about this. We would really appreciate the Minister providing us with some explanation as to how the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has responded.

I think the implied waiver is an extremely risky track to go down. I am urging this Committee to think very carefully about supporting this amendment. This amendment has high risk for people whose very lives may be at risk. It is all very well to say that because somebody has dared to suggest to a journalist on the way to a hearing that he or she has a genuine case, that that suddenly gives the Minister the right to put everything in the public arena. One has to be extremely careful about that. There are so many instances that I can think of where it may be thought that there is an implied waiver, but, in fact, there is no waiver intended. Indeed, the involvement of third parties, as my colleague David Cunliffe has said, may lead to people inadvertently creating the implied waiver situation, because it may be regarded that in advising someone else of their circumstances, they have impliedly waived their right to confidentiality under the section.

That provision is in section 129 of the Immigration Act 1987, and as a former Minister of Immigration I was very, very mindful of my obligations to keep confidentiality. I think the Government needs to rethink this provision.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : One of the saddest things about the Minister’s amendments is that they weigh against—and to some extent, they undo—so much of the good work that the select committee has done to ensure an appropriate balance is taken for human rights and civil liberties. Four amendments were mentioned by my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel, New Zealand’s finest Minister of Immigration—she has paid me again to say that; no she has not, that would be treating and would probably be against some law or other. There you go, that may be taken as an implied waiver of confidentiality!

If one were getting political about that issue, one, just for a moment, could observe that the current Government is getting a little bit of a name for waiving confidentiality. The Minister for Social Development—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Look at Paula Bennett—outrageous!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Exactly. We never hear from the MP for Waitakere, when it comes to protecting the trees in the Waitakeres, but as Minister she is busy releasing the personal details of beneficiaries to the media. That cannot be right. It just cannot be right or decent.

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: What has that got to do with this?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It is a waiver of confidentiality that was implied by that Minister in that case. The point is that it is a conflict of interest if we really want to come down to it. The decision maker, who has a political interest in the decision, is the person who judges whether confidentiality has been waived. As my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel has said, let us suppose a refugee claimant makes a statement to a journalist but in doing so does not appreciate what it will lead to. He or she makes the statement on the way to a hearing. The Government thinks it then has the right to waive all confidentiality about the case. Thereby, apart from anything else, it opens up the possibility that the person’s personal details are released and that actually makes the whole situation worse.

But for the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government would make this change. It is against the run of the current of the rest of the bill. The Government has every reason to be proud of the rest of the bill, proud of the select committee process, proud of the thoroughness of the drafting, and proud of the fact that it has incorporated the recommendations of the select committee, some of which it would have thought very carefully about. This is very, very good legislation. It is a shame that its international reputation will be sullied by these amendments, which run against the current of adequate protection of human rights. The Minister has probably weighed this up. He has probably thought through this.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: We don’t know; we haven’t heard from him.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: We look forward to hearing from him. He is a Minister of some substance; I am sure he could put a case to the Committee. We do not want the public to think the worst of it—well, actually, Labour would want the public to think the worst of the Government, in all truth, in a moment of reflective honesty there. Let us presume the Minister does not want the public to think the worst of him, and that he wants it to think the best of the Government’s rationale for these changes.

There must be a logical reason that transcends simply one or two cases of Iranian Christians, whose details were put out in the media, and who had a pretty strong track record of support from the churches into which they were integrated. In the Yadegary case, the Refugee Status Appeals Authority said the claim was valid on its merits, and that refugee status should be awarded. In the Panah case, refugee status was granted to him because the situation had become so complex in the media. It was a difficult case. He was on a hunger strike. It was right that he was released into the community in order to get him off the hunger strike; otherwise he would have died. The blood of that refugee would be on the conscience of the Crown; that is what this came down to.

But what would that case have been like under this bill? Would Ali Panah have released himself into the care of the church to face a further rigorous appeal process, if this clause were on the books? No, he probably would have starved himself to death, which is what he was very close to doing before a peace was brokered.

I ask the Minister to think in very good conscience about the unintended implications of this clause. It is bad for the Government’s reputation, and, as Lianne Dalziel said, it is bad for the country’s reputation. This is a jolly good bill. It balances necessary border protection with admirable human rights protection; these amendments do not.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I am surprised that the Minister will not take a call, because we are raising—

Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I will take one.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: I am yielding to you.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member has sat down, so that is the end of that call.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Oh, hang on!

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): No, I need to tell the honourable member that there are only four calls per part. That is her fourth call. She has sat down, and the yield has not been taken up. The Standing Orders stipulate that that is the member’s last call, but I will give the member the opportunity to resume her call.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Thank you for your assistance in that regard. I am disappointed that the Minister has not taken a call on this part, because it is a serious set of issues we have raised. My colleague the Hon David Cunliffe has reminded me of why I would not trust this Government with the particular provisions that it wants to put into our law. The Minister for Social Development and Employment went public with the personal details of two individuals who dared to challenge the Government about its particular approach on the training incentive allowance. The funny thing is that if the Minister had actually read the interview given by the individuals, she would have found that they said they were extremely grateful for the money they had received on the domestic purposes benefit, but they needed a little bit extra to assist them to get off that benefit.

The only reason the Minister went public with their names is that she thought I had given their names to the media, when, in fact, the media had worked out all by themselves who those beneficiaries were, and had approached them directly. The Government allows a vindictive approach to be adopted against particular individuals when it does not like what those individuals are doing, in particular, like challenging the Government.

This amendment would enable the Government to speak publicly about a particular immigration case whenever it feels like it, because it will always be able to satisfy itself, as the Minister for Social Development and Employment did so unfairly to those two particular individuals. The Government will always be able to satisfy itself that individuals in question had impliedly given their consent.

I do not think that people on the other side of the Chamber are taking this seriously enough. The previous Labour Government got rid of the vast bulk of the manifestly unfounded claims. They have gone from the system. As I said earlier, I inherited 3,000 claims when I became the Minister of Immigration, and that was down to 300 by the time I finished being Minister. We addressed the problem. The vast majority of the claims being dealt with now are genuine claims for refugee status.

The risk that is taken when one plays God, as it were, with this particular situation of identifying individuals is that if they were returned to their home and the Government was wrong to release that information, the consequences are lethal—they are fatal. I think that the Government is playing a very, very dangerous game by writing this into the law, stating that implied consent would be sufficient to allow that information to be released. I simply do not think that it does.

The other thing that we have not mentioned in this particular part is that Supplementary Order Paper 32 inserts new subclause (2A) of clause 125: “A refugee and protection officer must decline to accept for consideration a claim for recognition as a refugee if the officer is satisfied that 1 or more of the circumstances relating to the claim were brought about by the claimant—acting otherwise than in good faith; and for a purpose of creating grounds for recognition …”. How on earth will a refugee and protection officer know to decline a case on the basis that it was brought otherwise than in good faith?

The bottom line is that this is, again, a section that is being written into our law on the basis of one or two very hard cases. As we have said before, hard cases make bad law. We think there is a very high risk for the Government to go down this track. We will not be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper unless the Minister suddenly gets up and surprises us all with a very clear basis for doing so. We think there are high risks with the Supplementary Order Paper and we think that the amendments ought not to be supported.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) : People sitting at home listening to this debate will probably wonder what it is all about. In essence, Part 5 means that refugees who are seeking refugee status must tell the truth and act in good faith, and then they will be fine. I think we all agree that New Zealand has a world-class refugee system. António Guterres, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, was here a few months ago. He was certainly very fulsome in his praise of our system.

I think we agree on the parts of the bill that codify elements of procedure, and rights of refugees, under the Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But clearly, there are points of difference relating to these bad-faith provisions. We are essentially saying that if refugees lie about their background and why they are claiming refugee status, they probably will be exposed in the course of their dealings. Up till now, that provision has not been there.

Opposition speakers have said that hard cases make bad law. They say there have been only three of those cases. If we look back since 2002, there have been 20-something cases where elements of bad faith have been a factor in applications. When we are talking about confidentiality and the ability of the Attorney-General—not the Minister, I say to Mr Cunliffe—to put decisions into the public arena when he thinks it is in the public interest, there are very good reasons for that.

We had a case with a judgment in February of this year for an individual, who has been mentioned in this debate, who now has refugee status in New Zealand. He is living in New Zealand and probably will remain here for the rest of his life. When we read this judgment, which could not be released with the claimant’s full name, it tells us some very interesting facts about this individual. If we look at paragraph 100 of the judgment, the judge who wrote this said that this man deliberately misled all those who have taken up his cause in the belief that he has been sentenced to death. If we go over to paragraph 105 it says that he is a manipulative and opportunistic individual who is indifferent to his sworn obligation to tell the truth. Tell the truth! In paragraph 121 it says the untruths told by the appellant, the false documents he has produced, and his general lack of candour in dealing even with those who are his strongest supporters is evidence of the underlining utilitarian nature of his belief, in the absence of a true commitment to his new proclaimed faith. This is a gentleman who became a refugee in New Zealand because he claimed he had converted to Christianity, when, in actual fact, there was no way that he had and the judgment fully illustrates that fact.

So we are saying that people might be acting in bad faith, but if they convince people around them who are acting in good faith—maybe supporters from their church—to take up their case in public, the good-faith actions of those third parties will not be of any help to them. Mr Cunliffe was complaining that it was not appropriate that classified information should be available to refugee and protection officers in the first instance. I remind him that this was a change that Labour members proposed at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. So, perhaps he should have spoken to his own members in refuting that particular point.

The bottom line in Part 5 is that if refugees act in good faith and tell the truth throughout, they will be fine. If they manipulate their circumstances and lie to try to claim refugee status, that will not help them, and they will be exposed. Quite frankly, if one goes out there and talks to the public, this is the right side of the argument to be on.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: If one misrepresents the situation like you’ve just done now.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No. There is no misrepresentation there, I say to Ms Dalziel. That is absolutely the case. The member said that hard cases make bad law. There are plenty of hard cases out there, which mean that the amendments in my Supplementary Order Paper are absolutely needed. The National Government and our coalition partner—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: You’re vindictive, bullying, and nasty.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This debate has been very good-natured till this point. Now it is getting personal. We have had an attack on the very, very good Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, and now I am being attacked personally for an excellent Supplementary Order Paper. The Government stands by this. I think this will be a good thing for New Zealand, it will clean up the process, and, certainly, we fully support it.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I have to respond to that contribution from the Minister of Immigration. I have been listening to the debate, and I have to say that I am not convinced. The State will always have the upper hand in refugee decisions. In the end, the decision is one that the State takes. If the State does not think that it can deal with the occasional bit of criticism, then it needs to grow up a bit and grow broader shoulders.

In the end, the State’s will will prevail, and the State will win if it is acting legally. If, in the meantime, the State suffers a bit of criticism through interest groups advocating on behalf of someone whom they feel sorry for, then that is the price of an open democracy. I cannot see why that is a terrible thing. Those who cannot stand criticism should not be involved in democracy. We all have to put up with criticism. At times that criticism feels unfair, but, in the end, we rely upon the media to get a bit of balance. In respect of the immigration cases that have been discussed, I think that the media largely does provide balance in those situations.

The idea that the Crown should have some superior right or a sword of Damocles hanging over the neck of anyone who is brave enough to criticise poor decisions or poor process is wrong. I do not think we should support that particular amendment to the bill that is proposed in Supplementary Order Paper 32. What is wrong with people criticising the Crown or arms of Government? There is nothing wrong with that; that is what we are talking about.

I do not think that the previous Labour Government was particularly damaged by some of the accusations that were made by people who were claiming refugee status, even when those claims were wrong. Lots of claims are made in society that prove to be wrong, but, none the less, people have the right to make those claims.

Let us say that in the future we have a Government that approaches these refugee decisions wrongly, it starts to move away from the cross-party position that we have had over many years in New Zealand, and for reasons of political gain it decides to act unjustly. I am not saying that the National Government would do that, but there is always a risk that a future Government would. How do people protect themselves against the inappropriate use of governmental powers? Effectively, Governments can stack refugee appeal panels with people who will find against refugees in a way that I would find abhorrent. In that situation, I think I would want the media to be able to get close to those refugee claimants and to expose the situation for what it is. I hope it will never come to that, but I certainly think that the fourth estate, in league with people who are involved in refugee claims, should have the right to make those accusations in the future if that circumstance arises.

I do not think that the proposed amendment set out on the Supplementary Order Paper should be countenanced. From a matter of principle, it should not be countenanced. Is it necessary? No. The prior law has not had that level of protection, and Governments did not fall because of it. When I was a member of the previous Government, at times the rule annoyed us, but in the end it did not bring down the Government. In the end there were plenty of countervailing forces in society that were willing to argue against the rights of refugees and to put the other side of the debate. I do not think any injustice was caused to the Government as a consequence of the prior rule.

I am completely unconvinced by the justifications the Minister in the chair gave, and I encourage members of the House to vote against this proposed amendment on the Supplementary Order Paper. Thank you.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I rise in support of my Labour colleagues in terms of the Minister’s amendment. I think it is very bad to have a subjective term such as “good faith” scattered throughout the Supplementary Order Paper. There are a couple of factors that I think we need to bear in mind, and they follow on from what David Parker said.

One thing to bear in mind is that when refugees make their applications, they are often desperate. They see it as a matter of life or death for them and their families—sometimes wrongly, but that is often the attitude. As anyone who has been involved in this field knows, they sometimes embellish their applications. Refugees in that situation could be seen as operating in bad faith, and they could easily be swept aside if this Supplementary Order Paper goes through in its present form. I think that refugee authorities generally take into account the fact that one does not hang everything on whether a person says something that is not entirely true.

The other factor is that there is, unfortunately—partly through the wrongful efforts, in my opinion, of a previous member of this House, Winston Peters, and his party—a widespread prejudice against refugees. I was brought up in the tradition that Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, etc., are people who have suffered and need our support, comfort, and compassion. But there is, because of the efforts of certain politicians, a feeling that somehow refugees are spongers. There is not a full understanding of what refugees are and how we must support them.

The case the Minister just quoted is interesting. It is a case I know quite intimately. When that case was put on the Refugee Status Appeals Authority website in February, the lawyer for the person involved made it quite clear, and went to the media to clarify the situation. The lawyer made it clear that many people who knew that person—workmates, parishioners, priests, the lot, including myself; I did not make a submission but I can testify about this person—testified that the person was a genuine Christian convert. The people who convinced me the most were his workmates, because he had no reason to try to convert them to Christianity. He is one of the most religious people I have ever met, and he could quote the Bible backwards.

That report on the Refugee Status Appeals Authority website does not mention that every single person who knew him and testified for his conversion to Christianity said he was a dedicated Christian. Nobody made a statement to the contrary, but the Refugee Status Appeals Authority did not even mention that. In my opinion, an injustice was done in that respect, although he now has refugee status for other reasons.

If we add an amendment like this, which adds a subjective element like good faith, where are we going with that? It could create terrible problems. Thank you.

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) : Let me contribute to this debate by saying how easy it is for a refugee to be tricked into telling a mistruth. This is an honest, straight story from my own experience. It is those same two guys I mentioned in an earlier speech. When I got to the ship, the captain assured me they were Liberian. He had no written record and he had no reason to mislead me. He was a Chinese national who spoke perfect English, and he told me they were Liberian. They were not. The two guys in question had papers to say they were Rwandan. The papers came from a United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office in Libreville, the capital of Gabon. They were not Rwandan.

The reason they carried papers to say they were Rwandan was that when they fled their country, Cameroon, and crossed the border to get away from the secret police, they spent 6 months in Gabon. The secret police came after the six of them. One of them disappeared, the other five fled, and two of those five ended up in Port Chalmers, Dunedin. Before they fled, they went to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees office in Libreville and were advised to be Rwandan because Rwanda was hot. Do members remember? So they got Rwandan papers with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees certification that they were from Rwanda, their names, etc., and carried the papers with them to New Zealand and presented them to me. They then said through an interpreter “We are not Rwandan.” I was pretty confused. So back again through the interpreter, the cop I was telling members about, I came to a deal. I said I would back these guys if they did two things: never run away, and always tell the truth. That deal was struck on the night I got them off the ship, and they have never broken it.

The next morning the first question I asked them was their nationality. Through the interpreter again they said “Cameroonian”. I gave them the subscriber trunk dialling for Cameroon—0237. I told them if they had a phone number of anyone at home—these guys had been missing for 9 months altogether—they could ring someone and tell them they are still alive, and here are the digits they need to get into their country. They rang the number and I waited in the next room. Of course, all hell broke loose with the joy from one of those guy’s mothers.

That is how I learnt their nationality and that they had told the truth, even though they had papers telling me something else. That is how easy it is to make a mistake when someone is a refugee, and I say to the Minister that I think this is wrong law and we should abandon it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : Firstly, I acknowledge my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson. For one thing, his was an amazing story that not only was he able to get those two Cameroonian gentlemen off that boat but also he took them in to his home for 4 years. I would like to publicly say that that tells us something about the man, as well as the former Minister.

I will divert slightly and recognise the immense courage of the refugee community. Many of us have been to a refugee and migrant day, for example at one of the Auckland festivals. I remember going to one early in my time as Minister of Immigration and coming away thinking that it was we who are privileged to have that body of people in our country, because most of them are amazing individuals with incredible qualifications. The fact that they have survived what they have been through to get here tells us that they have amazing character, as well.

On that note I will come back to the points that my colleague David Parker made with great eloquence. The State has immense resources. Two gentlemen who were traumatised, who were cooped up in a cabin for 6 months, who could not speak the language, who had false documents, and who had no friends and no phone numbers had the whole power of the State, the ministry, and the Minister arrayed against them. The State of New Zealand does not need these illiberal clauses for truth to prevail in refugee decision-making.

The Minister said that if refugees act in good faith and tell the truth, then they will be fine. I am sure he believes that. We would all like to believe that that would always be the case, but here is the rub: usually, telling the truth is not good enough in the law. It was not good enough for the mums on the domestic purposes benefit when the Minister’s colleague the Minister for Social Development and Employment outed their personal files. That action was deplorable, it was unethical, and it should have been, and may be, illegal. It was not good enough for the prison officers who testified at a select committee recently and who were told by the prison service, which was backed up by the Minister’s colleague the Minister of Corrections, that they stood to lose their jobs if they dared speak out against a provision of the Government. We live in a democracy and we ought to treasure that. We ought to at least offer some rights to have the considerations of democracy extended to refugee claimants.

Going back in history a way, it should not have been the case that Robert David Muldoon outed Colin Moyle in the Chamber, not because he was allegedly gay but because Robert Muldoon was violating his sworn duty as the Minister responsible for the Security Intelligence Service and in the Chamber used as a political debating point information that came to him by law in a different capacity.

Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The member is a senior member of the House; he knows that we are debating a particular part of the bill on refugees, and he is using the debate to go way outside the scope of the bill. Can I ask him to come back—

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I will come back to the bill, Mr Chairperson. I take the member’s point.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): Righto.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The reason why I brought up those unsavoury examples is very, very closely related to the bill. In all cases, the judgments of the three Ministers concerned—Bennett, Collins, and Muldoon—were arguably outside the law, and they argued against the rights of the individual. What it boils down to with the Supplementary Order Paper—which runs against the swim of the rest of the bill, which has a good balance—is that refugee claimants cannot even inadvertently have their information going into the public domain without being liable to be deemed by a desk officer in the Immigration Service to have acted in bad faith. Therefore, they are prevented from having their case heard. It will not be the case of a decision being found against them or there being a bias against them; they cannot even have their case heard, because they are judged to have waived their rights and thereby all their defence. The State does not need that power.

In regard to the other clause in the Supplementary Order Paper about the supporters of a claimant, refugees deserve to have referees if they have them. There is alpha and beta risk here. Yes, it is true that it is possible in some cases for referees to be duped, but it is equally true, probably more often true, that there can be valid referees whose appropriate testimony is disallowed under this provision because somewhere along the process, in circumstances such as those that my colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson outlined, somebody is deemed to have told an untruth or supplied a document that may not be accurate in all respects. Anyone who is familiar with refugee claims knows that after the hell that claimants go through, somewhere along the line that situation is not uncommon.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 5 be agreed to.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : I appreciate the opportunity to speak in support of Part 6 of the Immigration Bill. Part 6 provides for a streamlined deportation process that balances efficiency with fairness, and that is really the thrust of the whole bill. The deportation process as outlined in Part 6 brings together numerous provisions from the Immigration Act 1987. Words like “removal”, “revocation”, and “deportation” itself are put into an ordered framework that sets out a person’s rights and, just as important, a person’s obligations. The deportation thresholds broadly reflect the status quo, with enhancements to ensure that they are up to date and that they enable New Zealand to remove people who are not New Zealand citizens who do the wrong thing. A sovereign State must always have the right to remove people who do the wrong thing—in this case, those who do not comply with the New Zealand immigration system, or who do not comply with New Zealand law.

A key change is that in most cases the bill allows a person, with the exception of a foreign national who is unlawfully in New Zealand, to remain lawfully in New Zealand while that person’s appeal against deportation liability is being heard. This means that if the conditions of that person’s visa allow it, he or she can continue to work or study until that time—that is fairness. The bill allows for liability for deportation to be cancelled or suspended at the discretion of the Minister of Immigration, and the Immigration and Protection Tribunal can suspend a deportation liability of residents. However, a suspension may be used where the Minister wants to put a foreign national who is liable for deportation on to a form of good behaviour bond. Again, there is fairness and balance.

The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, which held hearings into the bill—although I was not a member of the committee when those hearings were held—recommended an amendment to allow the cancellation of a deportation order of a foreign national unlawfully in New Zealand. This will facilitate the voluntary departure of foreign nationals. The ability to cancel a deportation order has some protections built around it so that it does not become another avenue of appeal for foreign nationals seeking to defer their departure from New Zealand. Again, this is balance and fairness.

One change the Government is making is the provision that the Minister can order the early release from prison of any foreign national offender who is liable for deportation, after having considered the safety of the community that the offender will be deported to. When an offender has been sentenced to 2 or more years in prison, he or she may not be released for deportation until he or she has served the lesser of a minimum of 2 years or one-third of the sentence. The requirement that an offender spend a minimum of 2 years or one-third of his or her sentence in prison in New Zealand is a clear signal about the desirability of offenders serving their sentences. But in exceptional circumstances, such as where the offender may have a serious medical condition and is being deported because of excessive cost to the health system or there are scarce flights available to deport an offender about be released, such as during a busy holiday period, the Minister has a discretion. I commend Part 6 to the Committee.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : It is a pleasure to rise in support of Part 6, covering deportation. It is probably appropriate to begin by relating to the Committee the process that the Minister will be all too aware of, concerning the difficult decisions that Ministers and officials face in relation to what was formerly known as removal and deportation, and is now known as deportation. When a migrant has been accorded residence, but that status is removed from the migrant, typically because he or she has committed serious criminal offences, the decisions concerned are always very, very difficult—well, not always, but they are often very difficult. Although the migrant may clearly have done wrong, very often he or she has a family that has not done wrong and who will be fundamentally affected by the decision to deport the family member.

I guess the first thing I want to do is to acknowledge that those decisions are not taken lightly; they are not taken lightly in any case. Ministers rely heavily upon the advice and good offices of the department, which prepares extensive and thorough briefings, and particularly in difficult cases thanks are due to the department’s legal service, which can offer helpful advice at the most crucial of times. I would also like to acknowledge ministerial office staff, who provide invaluable assistance in helping Ministers to make those difficult and life-changing decisions for the people who are potential deportees.

We come to the provisions in Part 6. The essence of this part is to streamline a system that was more complex and more difficult to understand, into one that is more easily understood and implemented. It takes what were known previously as removal decisions for people who were not residents, and deportations for the revocation of visas and permits of non-citizens, and streamlines them all into a process called deportation—one word—for people who have visas; one word. That irons out, in and of itself, undue complexity. It also introduces more flexibility because rather than being a win/lose, pass/fail, it is easier to have gradations of decision making that are appropriate to the nature of the particular case that comes before Ministers.

The next clauses of the part are around the deportation by Order in Council of non-citizens who are a threat or who pose a risk to national or international security. This part of the bill tightens the requirement that a Minister cannot make such serious decisions on his or her own; the Minister must go to Cabinet and on Cabinet’s recommendation go to the Governor-General for an Order in Council.

I am sure there are many reasons why I cannot go into the details, and probably the official secrets legislation is but one, but I can clearly recall one case, and probably some of the officials present will remember too, when there was a grave risk concerning an individual who had allegedly—we think almost certainly—been proximate to the 9/11 bombings. Without breaching any secrets or going into the details of the case, it was possible, fully in compliance with the law and the Order in Council process, while preserving all of the appropriate legal rights of the individual, to have that person removed from New Zealand inside 48 hours from discovery of the circumstances. It was a proper, thorough, and expeditious process that protected the citizens of New Zealand. An Order in Council process was used. It was appropriate, because it was a serious matter, and it was done quickly. There is no reason why that should not be the requirement for the exercise of this very strong power. It requires Cabinet scrutiny, it requires the Governor-General’s final check, and it requires an Order in Council process.

It is a new provision of this bill that residents are liable for deportation if, within 5 years of residence being granted, new information relating to character applicable at the time of residence being granted indicates that the person would not have been granted residence if the information had been available. That is to say, if new information comes to light that changes the original decision to grant a residence permit, that information can subsequently be brought to bear upon the case to allow deportation to be effected. The types of cases that that might apply are where somebody has clearly lied to a very serious extent to falsify the conditions under which he or she gained entry. When that lie is discovered, clearly that person would not have been granted the original decision and that decision can be reversed, and the person is subject at that point to deportation.

I also want to mention that flexibility has been introduced in terms of the post-deportation re-entry bans, which were previously set at a 5-year bar for deportees. The new system allows the re-entry ban period to be graduated according to the circumstances of the case. In my view, that is both humane and ethical, and it is also good because it provides an incentive for compliance by the deportee—firstly, that he or she should leave New Zealand before being deported; and, secondly, if the worst comes to the worst and the person has to be deported, that the full circumstances of the case can be applied in determining what the re-entry period should be.

Those are just a few of the issues that occur in Part 6. In general, the Labour Opposition believes that this part is well crafted, it is well-thought-through, and in contradistinction to the amendments to Part 5, that it does offer an appropriate balance between the protection of the citizens of New Zealand, the ability to hear complex cases thoroughly, and the ability to move expeditiously when national security is threatened. Thank you.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I have an amendment to Part 6. It seeks to omit clause 152, “Deportation liability of persons threatening security”. That is a very short clause, but the key point is in subclause (1): “Where the Minister certifies that a person constitutes a threat or risk to security, the Governor-General may, by Order in Council, order the deportation from New Zealand of that person.” That gives quite extreme powers to the Minister, under the vague definition of a threat or a risk to security. This provision, as expressed in the previous Immigration Act, was applied to one person, and it may be the person that the previous speaker was referring to, a person by the name of Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali.

I want to talk about his case because I think it shows the injustice of that clause in the old Act and the similar one in the new bill. This person was Yemeni, but he went to school with one of the September 11 bombers, and one of the September 11 bombers flatted with him in the United States. When the September 11 event took place, he went directly to the FBI and voluntarily told the FBI everything about the situation. The American Government—he was married to an American woman—said he could stay in America. If he had been a danger to security he would have been kicked out of America, but he was not. He was told he could stay in America.

After some time in America he got so sick of the witch-hunt against Islamic people that he left voluntarily and went back to work in his parents’ business in Saudi Arabia. Then he decided to continue his flying lessons and he came out here. There was no prima facie case, or any obvious case, that he was a danger to the security of New Zealand, but he was picked up under the provision existing in the previous Act and, by Order in Council, was kicked out of the country. He had no legal representation.

When he arrived back in Saudi Arabia, where he had been living peacefully with his family and working in his family business, he was thrown in jail. He was thrown in jail because he had been expelled from liberal New Zealand. It was considered that someone who was expelled from liberal New Zealand must be a danger. His family visited him in jail and now he is in the community and no danger to anyone in Saudi Arabia. That is his history and it can be checked; he is a real person, he does live, and the Government can check. The Government made completely the wrong decision in that case and that can be proven by facts. That is where this legislation is so bad.

Interestingly enough, this person’s name and picture were flashed on the news on Television New Zealand last night during a special item about biometric testing relating to this bill. It stated that, somehow, if we had had biometric testing, Rayed Mohammed Abdullah Ali would have been picked up and would never have got into the country in the first place. That would have been an injustice, too, because he was not associated with September 11, and that is easily proven. His name ended up in the 9/11 commission report, because all sorts of names were just chucked in that report, but he was cleared. That case shows that we have to have a due process. We cannot have a Minister just throwing people out of the country willy-nilly.

The other point I want to make is about an improvement brought in by the select committee under clause 168, which gives discretion to the Minister. Clause 168(1) states: “The Minister may in his or her absolute discretion reduce, or remove altogether, the period of prohibition on entry that would otherwise apply to a person under section 167(1).” It gives the Minister power of discretion. Often when a person is living illegally here and an MP is advocating on his or her behalf there is a certain justice in the person staying here. We want to remove the prohibition on entry. Thank you.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I want to make a couple of brief comments on this part, as we have an alumni of former and, obviously, current Ministers of Immigration.

Hon David Cunliffe: It’s a big club.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is a big club, as my colleague says. The issue of deportation is dealt with in Part 6, and as a former Minister of Immigration I participated in and, I believe, signed off a few deportations. I say to Keith Locke that every immigration decision—and I am sure the Minister will agree—is a unique decision. None that I dealt with was a mirror copy of another.

When it comes to deporting human beings in respect of national security, I have to tell that member that I support the clauses in this bill. And if it came to a decision—and I was party, I think, to one—I would err on the side of the defence of our country, even if I got it wrong. The worst that could happen, I have to say, in deporting a person where there was evidence—and the member cited a case that he believes was wrong—is that somebody, an individual, is deported. I recall the case the member was talking about, and I do not believe the decision was wrong. But let us just for a moment say hypothetically that it was wrong. Well, when it comes to the balance between minimal damage to an individual or his or her reputation, and protecting the people of this country, I know where I stand. I put New Zealand before that person.

The member says that it is possible, even with the safeguards of going to Cabinet, and to the Governor-General for an Order in Council—and I sat in on one of those particular cases—for a decision to be wrong. Politicians and departmental officials are only human, so it is possible that information may be wrong. Information provided by intelligence agencies to officials, to the Minister, or to Cabinet may be wrong. But somebody at some point, I say to that member, has to make a call.

I say again to the member, Keith Locke, that he ought to think very, very carefully about the comments he makes. Maybe one day in the future he will be placed in a position where he is required to make a decision and have a role in such a case. I have to say to that member that if it came down to it again, I would not change a thing. A Minister is reliant, as is a lay person, on the information provided. I do not think that many former Ministers of Immigration have ever been experts on immigration. In fact, I suspect that many of us have never been experts in either the portfolios we hold now or the ones we have held previously. We have to make decisions—and when it comes to the national security of this country I would not change a thing. I would not change a decision I have made.

The counterfactual is pretty simple. If a Minister does not believe the intelligence or the advice from officials, who generally are the specialists, and the Minister lets a person stay and the decision goes wrong, who pays for that? I suspect that it will not be Mr Locke, me, or the current Minister. Nobody in this Parliament would personally pay for that decision. It would be the innocent folks outside this Chamber, the innocent families outside this Chamber, who would be on the receiving end of, potentially, a terrorist act.

So, although I respect Mr Locke’s view, I have to say—as one who has sat in the Minister of Immigration’s seat, along with colleagues who are former Ministers of Immigration, and Minister Coleman, who sits in the seat now—that these decisions are not made lightly. These decisions generally take an exhaustive amount of research, and we have to rely on the intelligence we get. I again ask Mr Locke to think through the practicality of his stance on this issue.

I recall speeches made by Mr Locke after 9/11, and I recall saying to Mr Locke that I would have liked him to, just occasionally, make comments in remembrance of the 3,000 innocent individuals who died at the hands of terrorists. I challenged Mr Locke at the time—

Keith Locke: I did—several times.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The member said he did; I take him at his word. But I ask him to put himself in the shoes of the people who are on the receiving end.

I conclude by saying again to Mr Locke that if I was in the seat that Minister Coleman is in now, and if I received evidence and intelligence that I believed was credible, and if it was a decision about removing somebody on the basis of the information I was given and protecting the citizens of this country, I know where my duty lies. I know where it lay, and I know where it would lie in the future. The duty of every politician in this Chamber is to protect New Zealand’s citizens. If that means getting it wrong because we are human, so be it.

• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to clause 152 be agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate on Part 7 includes debate on clauses 169AA to 239A and schedule 2.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I propose several amendments to this part, and I will go through them quickly. I will make a general comment, which flows from the previous part. The question here is justice.

Hon Member: We’ve moved on.

KEITH LOCKE: The question in the bill as a whole is justice, and justice requires legal representation—a fair go. This should apply—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are on Part 7. I ask the member to concentrate on Part 7.

KEITH LOCKE: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The first clause I want to amend is clause 174B, which removes the right to appeal in relation to transit visas. It is quite an extreme clause, in a way. The clause states: “(1) No appeal lies against a decision of the Minister or an immigration officer on any matter in relation to a transit visa, whether to any court, the Tribunal, the Minister, or otherwise. (2) No review proceedings may be brought in any court in respect of any decision to refuse to grant or to cancel a transit visa.” It is just too extreme to cancel that appeal right, even to a court, because there can be injustices in every area of immigration. Sure, transit visas might be the lowest level of visa in the sense that a person might be just passing through briefly, but to rule out appeal rights entirely is not correct.

I have had complaints about the existing provisions on transit visas, where sometimes people from Australia or India have had to pass through New Zealand quickly on their way to a funeral or something like that. They were not granted the transit visa or else it was too difficult to get one, and it caused great problems. I think that there has to be a provision for appeal rights.

The next amendment is to clause 195(1)(b), which relates to the membership of the tribunal. The problem with this clause was illustrated by a number of people who made submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. They said that because the tribunal is merging a lot of authorities, the specialist experience of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority could get lost. The authority was a specialist tribunal established under the 1951 refugee convention. My amendment will try to reinstate some of that specialist experience in the new body. My amendment states that “at least one of the members of the tribunal has to have extensive experience in refugee law:”. I think that measure is fair enough, and it fits into a lot of what was said in the submissions to the select committee.

People also made submissions to the select committee about the Refugee Status Appeals Authority being viewed as a very respected body that contributes to international jurisprudence on refugee law. It is very hard for the tribunal to do that unless at least one of its members has refugee law experience. There is clause 195(1)(c), where a representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees can serve as an ex officio member on matters relating to refugees. But the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees may not take up that role and it does not have a permanent officer in New Zealand, anyway, so I think that we need more than that. We need somebody with expertise in refugee law on that tribunal.

The next clause I want to amend on behalf of the Green Party is clause 231(2). With the present wording of that clause the chief executive of one of the relevant agencies—14 different agencies can provide classified information in relation to the immigration processes, including to the tribunal—which might be the Ministry of Fisheries or whatever it might be, has the power of veto over the tribunal as to whether classified information that has been provided should be released. The chief executive has the power of veto over even the Supreme Court. If we follow the cases that have taken place in our courts, we see that often there is a contestation between those who have classified information and the complainants, and the court adjudicates on this matter.

In the Ahmed Zaoui case the Security Intelligence Service was gradually forced to give out more and more information as part of the risk certificate process. In the Aziz Choudry case, back in 1996, the court required the Security Intelligence Service to give out certain information into the public realm, because, in effect, it was part of the court case. I do not think that we can override the courts, and my amendment is intended to prevent that from happening.

My amendment to clause 231(2) states that the chief executive is to be consulted on the question of classified information, not that the chief executive has to consent to the release of the information—that is, the chief executive of the relevant agency would no longer have a power of veto, but has to be consulted before the tribunal releases information that the agency deems to be classified. The next amendment relates to review provisions and it amends clause 234. That clause limits reviews on the use of classified information. I think that if members read it, they will see that it is fairly clear there should be a proper ability to review the use of classified information.

My final amendment relates to special advocates. There is a whole section on the role of special advocates, and the use of special advocates has been very controversial around the world. So far we have had only one experience of special advocates in New Zealand, and that was Stuart Grieve, who was appointed by the Government in the Ahmed Zaoui case. He gave quite a detailed submission to the select committee that was considering this bill. He said that most of the so-called classified information he received was out in the public space anyway, on the Internet or wherever. A lot of it was wrong and a lot of it was presented out of context. I think he showed the importance of having some independence in the process.

The big problem with clause 238, as it is at the moment, is that special advocates may not communicate with the people for whom they are being the special advocates after they have received the classified information. Even though a special advocate is the legal person appointed, effectively, by the Government to represent, in Stuart Grieve’s case, Ahmed Zaoui, no real dialogue can take place between that advocate and the person after the advocate has received the classified information. My suggestion is to eliminate that restriction so that clause 238(1) will simply state: “The special advocate may communicate with person A or person A’s representative.”—that is, the client in the immigration case. My amendment would omit the rest of subclause (1). I think we have to trust that person to not convey unnecessarily detailed classified information.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : Part 7 of the Immigration Bill is very large. It covers appeals, reviews, and other proceedings, including, as my colleague Keith Locke has said, the use of special advocates and classified information as part of the appeal process. Why is this part here? Well, let us begin with a short homily. Imagine refugee claimant X loses a claim, then goes to appeal and loses the appeal. Then he or she goes to the Removal Review Authority and loses the second appeal. On the way to the airport he or she thinks of a new ground for a fresh appeal, and the whole process goes back virtually to the beginning. The process can take years and can cost the taxpayer millions of dollars. Usually, it does not change the outcome.

I have spoken on a number of occasions to say that collectively we have worked hard to make sure that there are sufficient human rights protections in the bill, and this part is no different. It has appropriate human rights protections, but, my goodness, we needed to streamline the process. It was getting rorted—I think that is the technical term.

There is no justification for repeat appeal processes that are or appear to be designed simply to elongate the time the claimant can live in the country no matter how often or how decisively the various appellate bodies say he or she has to go. The system has been open to abuse, and the taxpayer has been footing the bill. We have had enough, and the system is being changed. It is being changed in a thoughtful way, not a thoughtless way, because the provisions of Part 7 amalgamate the appellate bodies into one tribunal and give the claimant one shot to make a thorough and comprehensive appeal, both on points of law and on humanitarian grounds. The appellant loses none of his or her substantive rights under the law and, it can be argued, has a better chance of success by being able to deal with all the grounds in one process. Refugees’ rights are not being curtailed, but what is being curtailed is the abuse that has too often occurred, and of which I think the public has had a gutsful.

Administrative efficiencies are made by joining the various appellate bodies into one. It was almost unbelievable that as a Minister I would get quarterly or monthly reports from each of the appellate bodies that appeared to be identical. We could hardly tell one from the other, but they were all covering separate matters, and the whole process was done in quintuplicate to make each one comply with the reporting provisions. It is much better to have them confined—

Amy Adams: Quintuplicate. How many is quintuplicate?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Five, but I am taking the odd liberty with the English language, as the member from “The People’s Republic of Canterbury” has pointed out.

Amy Adams: You need a visa to get in there, David, and you wouldn’t get one.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I thank Ms Adams very much. I grew up there. Part 7 is a good part. It has been well-thought-through. Very few changes have been made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. That is the other thing the Committee needs to record, and I think it goes to the original drafting of the bill Several of the particular changes that the select committee has recommended are about an appeal to the tribunal against a declined refugee or protection status claim, combined with lodging a humanitarian appeal, being allowed against removal—that is, the humanitarian appeal and the refugee protection status claim can be combined against a declined claim. That extends slightly the opportunities that were in the earlier provisions of the bill as introduced. The changes reported back from the select committee have been relatively minor.

The final point I will touch upon very lightly concerns the aspects of this part of the legislation that are about classified information. I note for the record that an enormous amount of time and effort has been put in by various agencies of the Crown to find a formulation here that is duly respectful to human rights yet is effective when necessary. That has involved a lot of consideration and some negotiation, and there is some extension from the select committee around, for example, clauses 239 and 239A on the appointment of an amicus curiae by the tribunal or a court, in addition to the role of a special advocate. I believe, and it may be contained elsewhere in the bill, that the use of classified information is limited if a summary cannot be produced and the appropriate safeguards of the special advocate cannot be effected. In that case the ability to use the classified information is restricted or not used at all. That is an even tighter formulation than in the bill as originally introduced, and I have no problem with that tightening.

In summary, taken as a whole—and the Minister may wish to comment on this—Part 7 ends a well-known loophole in the system whereby refugee claimants could make successive fresh claims every time an appeal was found against them. That process could take years, and after 10 or so years they could make a claim on the grounds that they had been here for a decade—because they had lodged 15 different appeals—and were well settled and now their children were settled in school. The process cannot be so open to abuse. Now we have one combined process, involving an appeal on the law and the facts, as well as a humanitarian appeal, with full consideration of all of the relevant legal rights in one process. The case is heard and a decision is made, and the decision is final on appeal. That is as it should be. Thank you.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I want to finish explaining my amendment to clause 238 in Part 7 on the issue of special advocates. I think those members who have followed criminal trials, particularly the David Bain case, which was one of the most recent, will be able to understand how complicated it is to get to the bottom of what happened. Often context is everything. In that case David Bain and his lawyer conversed about the context of the case and the Crown evidence. It went to and fro, more witnesses and evidence came forward, etc., and it was very difficult to get to a resolution. We can see the problem with special advocates who are appointed by the Government and represent a complainant in an immigration case. The special advocate gets all this classified information and does not quite know the truth or falsity of it, or the context of it, and needs to ask some questions. Perhaps those questions will be put in an indirect form so as not to disclose the sources of the classified information, but the special advocate needs to get more of a context of that information to properly represent the complainant in an immigration case. That is all the amendment is about. We just have to trust the lawyer appointed by the Government, not by the complainant, in these particular cases.

Finally, I will explain a bit further my amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 31 to omit clause 234 “Restriction on appeal and review”, so that appeals may be taken in cases involving classified information. Clause 234(1) states: “No appeal or review proceedings may be brought in respect of classified information” under the Act. Clause 234(2) states: “no appeal lies and no review proceedings may be brought in respect of—(a) a determination of the Minister” using classified information. That is out of bounds. It may not be done in respect of “(b) the form or content of a summary prepared”—that is the summary of the classified information, or in respect of “(f) a decision to withdraw, update, or add to the classified information.” None of that is subject to review. My amendment would at least allow a review to take place. In any case, new subclause (2A) has been inserted and it is a good clause. It states that no appeal under section 219 may be brought before the tribunal unless the tribunal has issued its final determinations. That means one can get to the end of a process but there can be some appeal or review process beyond that point. I think that is important for justice.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I will touch on Part 7 in respect of a couple of comments that my colleague David Cunliffe made in terms of the amalgamation of the appeal processes, and I will reinforce the point that this does not mean the removal of people’s rights to have their case examined. With one appeal to one tribunal, with the same individuals sitting on it, there is actually an advantage in that the same individuals on that tribunal will hear the case and will be briefed on it. That is preferable to having several layers of appeal, over several years in many cases, where other individuals will come and listen to that case.

Hon Member: Tell a few war stories.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: My colleague says I should tell a few war stories, but I do not think I will.

I recall another issue that these amendments in Part 7 will deal with. It relates to the sorts of cases that have happened all too often where individuals have launched multiple appeals and publicised their cases to the point where, ultimately, the final appellant body rules that they cannot go home because they have raised the awareness of their cases to the point where they fear reprisals from the authorities in their own country. In one case I recall that somebody converted to my own religion of Catholicism, via the airport in Seoul. The person was from Iran, or it might have been Iraq; I think it was Iran. The person arrived in New Zealand having somehow had—and I can say this as an Irish Catholic—a road to Damascus experience, or an airplane from Seoul experience, and had seen the light and converted. The person publicised the case over many years to the point where it could be argued that a return home was not possible because all the authorities in the country of origin would have taken reprisals against that person, whereas had the person returned quietly that may, or may not, have been the case.

What an amalgamated tribunal will do, I hope, is deal with that issue, because my colleague David Cunliffe is right. I have experienced it myself, time and time again, and I know about the time wasted, the money wasted, and the energy of officials wasted. The politics—I do not mean in this Chamber, but outside it—are often erroneous, and community stakeholders are led down the garden path where people, bluntly, as my colleague said, attempt to rort, and often succeed in rorting, the immigration system.

This is a cold hard fact that Mr Locke may want to take note of: there are many occasions when people arrive illegally, having converted, as in the case I mentioned, in a miraculous way that goes beyond the good book, in biblical proportions, to a religion—I suppose it happened to the saints in that people do see the light and do the right thing—and they attempt to rort the system by throwing their passports away. Those cases need to be tested on fact and evidence. They need to be tested on fact and evidence, not on whether that person is a good bloke or a good woman, whether he or she is a good cook, or whether he or she might, from time to time, have cooked for the odd President, but on whether the case is genuine. If cases are dealt with on evidence and fact, often that will lead to a decision, sad though it may be, that people have rorted the system and that they should shuffle off and go home. When those decisions have been made, they protect the credibility and integrity of the decisions that rule the other way and say that because of people’s circumstances—for instance, genuine fear for their life or their family’s circumstances—there is a genuine case for those people to be retained within our borders in New Zealand. That protects the credibility and integrity of the genuine cases.

I remember saying, as the Minister of Immigration, that people will believe that our immigration decision-making processes have credibility and integrity, and that the right people are being allowed to stay or allowed to be let in, only if they also believe that our processes have credibility and integrity, and that the bad guys, or the rorters, are being, bluntly, booted out. If the last part does not happen, then the genuine cases are not protected, and the credibility and integrity of the process is lost.

We have seen in this Parliament instances where the notion of immigration, over many years, has been used by the odd MP as a good little fuse to light, generally 6 months or so before an election. That is a shame, because it calls into question all immigration decisions. But it must be the case, just like in any criminal case, for instance, that a wrongdoer faces the consequences, whatever they may be. It must be the case that if somebody comes to take advantage of our social systems, our quality of life, and our environment, and does that on false pretences, then, hard though it may be, that person should then return home and the process should be expedited. It should be done after a fair hearing of evidence and it should be done in an efficient way, as Part 7 as amended is promoting.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 32 in the name of the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman to Part 7 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.
• The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 31 in the name of Keith Locke to omit clause 174B be agreed to.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : It is a pleasure to take a call on Part 8 of the Immigration Bill. Part 8 is an interesting part, and it absorbed quite a lot of time of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because of the clauses around the powers of immigration officers. In fact, there were a large number of submissions on that issue and a great deal of concern and suspicion about it, although I think and I hope that the select committee’s recommendations have managed to allay those concerns.

Part 8 is a heavy-handed part of the bill—it is about compliance and information—although I have to say that many parts of the bill sound pretty heavy-handed when one reads them. When it comes to immigration there are some things we have to do that maybe do not always sit comfortably with us all, and much of the debate tonight has been around that.

The purpose of Part 8 is “(a) to confer on immigration officers the power to obtain information in order to allow the Department to—(i) detect immigration fraud or misrepresentation: (ii) identify persons failing to comply with immigration-related obligations, including by breaching the conditions of their visas: (b) to confer on immigration officers the powers to assist in locating persons who are or may be liable for deportation: (c) to authorise the Department to share information with other persons and agencies, to enable those persons or agencies to effectively administer and comply with legislation or to check eligibility for publicly funded services: (d) to confer on members of the police the powers described in paragraphs (a) and (b).”

As I said, the amendments sound fairly heavy-handed, but they are absolutely necessary and they build on previous legislation. In going through the select committee process for the bill we saw that many of the things people were feeling fearful about are actually not new but are powers that have been described in previous legislation.

One of the parts of Part 8 that I will talk about is clause 244(3), which states: “An immigration officer may—(a) enter any part of the employer’s premises in which the officer reasonably believes a wages and time record, or any other document referred to … is kept; and (b) require the employer or the person appearing to have the record or document under that person’s control to produce that record or document for inspection; and (c) copy or require a person to provide a copy of any part of any record or document that is required to be produced to the officer.”

There was a lot of discussion—and I think it comes further on in the bill—about the responsibilities of employers in employing people whom they may well in good faith have taken on to their payroll believing that they had the right to work in New Zealand. There was a lot of feeling from employers that the sorts of powers whereby immigration officers can come in and search their premises and demand wage and time records are a bit unreasonable. We had a lot of discussion about that issue in the select committee, and we looked at a whole range of things we could try to implement to make it easier for employers to find out whether people they are employing are legally in New Zealand. We looked at whether the Inland Revenue Department could offer some sort of complementarity, and so on. I support that idea. I do not want to see employers being punished unnecessarily, but this is a very important part of Part 8, because we do not want to see in New Zealand the rise of illegal immigrants, workers being exploited in workplaces, workers being taken on by employers and not being paid the minimum wage and other requirements of New Zealand law, and workers who are not being treated properly. We have seen a little bit of that—

Hon Darren Hughes: Like cleaners.

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, we will talk about cleaners tomorrow; it will be very interesting. It is a good day tomorrow to talk about cleaners.

We have had some instances of underground sweatshops in New Zealand. We have had some examples of that in the past. We do not want to see sweatshops growing in New Zealand. We do not want to see a situation where workers are taken on by employers and used because of their vulnerable situation. We are at risk of that at the moment because we have many migrant workers who are in a very vulnerable position whereby they have had work permits, they have been made redundant, they have been given a month or whatever it is to leave the country, and they are waiting to hear whether they are able to stay in the country. Many of them are saying: “I would rather work underground in New Zealand than go back to my country, because I left my country some time ago. I gave up my job. I gave up my family. I have set down roots in New Zealand, and my children are at school.” In those circumstances, workers are very vulnerable. I would hate to see a growing underground sweatshop economy develop in New Zealand.

I support Part 8 of the Immigration Bill. Even though it might be inconvenient for employers to have to go through the process of having to prove that workers are here legally and are able to work, I think that inconvenience in the end is for the good of the employers, the workers, and New Zealand as a whole. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : Part 8 is an important part of the Immigration Bill. It applies to the powers of immigration officers required to undertake enforcement duties, and also deals with certain aspects of the provision, collection, and sharing of biometric information. I wish to briefly discuss both aspects.

Firstly, I acknowledge the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the officials who serviced it. They did a very thorough job, and it is quite instructive to read the committee’s report, in particular pages 25 to 27, where the committee notes the need for adequate protections in avoiding the overextended powers of immigration officers. A series of recommendations follow, which extend those powers somewhat further. I compliment the officials who served the committee; that must have been some discussion! They are trying hard to keep a straight face.

These are important provisions. I think we are all aware of the fact that immigration officers have a difficult job to do. They need to be empowered to do it, but they also need to have appropriate safeguards in place to ensure that those powers are not abused. The Minister may wish to take a call, because one of the issues that confront every Minister of Immigration is how to appropriately draw the line between ministerial accountability and the operational independence of the enforcement arm of the department. I still have a lingering suspicion that on occasions where somebody did not particularly want to write a report to the Minister about a particular issue, the issue of operational independence was raised as something of a smokescreen for “I was playing golf”, or something. That might be a bit harsh, but I can think of one or two examples where the “head” of the department was pointed in the appropriate direction and the “tail” did not wag at the right time.

I say to the Minister that I think he should take a call to reassure the Committee that nothing like that has ever happened on his watch, and that he is entirely satisfied with the operation of the department’s enforcement arm. Sometimes the enforcement arm operates rather too much at arm’s length from the department head office, shall we say. That is why it is very important that the extension of powers given in this bill to immigration officers on the front line is not extended past the point of good sense.

The Minister has introduced, by way of a Supplementary Order Paper, certain further amendments to Part 8 around information matching and sharing. The Labour Opposition will support those amendments on the grounds of the assurances we have received from the Minister’s officials that these amendments have maintained a clean New Zealand Bill of Rights Act vet, and have the support of the Privacy Commissioner. We wish to record that we do so only on the basis of those assurances. And further, in respect of the sharing of biometric information, there is the explicit assurance of officials that some of the safeguards negotiated in the earlier version of the bill around on-passing that information to third parties have remained and will be effective in this bill.

If a non-citizen goes through an airport check and has biometric information taken, such as face patterns, fingerprints, and iris scans perhaps, it is recorded on a database, and matched against information on a partner country’s database, for example, Australia, the United States, or the United Kingdom. That information is shared and may be retained for some period, but only for the purposes for which it was collected. The understanding that has been reinforced by officials and that is part of the protection, which is a condition of our support, is that sufficient protections exist to avoid the on-passing of that stored information to third countries or to third parties in those countries, beyond the purpose of legitimate immigration or, perhaps, police activity. It is very important that this measure is not an open-ended opportunity for officials the world over to swap individuals’ private information beyond the reasons for which it was legitimately collected.

We are also interested in the amendment around information matching for health provisions. We think this is more sensible, because we have probably all heard stories about members of the community who may have fronted at a hospital—some of whom, by accident or design, may not have been entirely clear about their immigration status. Further, there may have been language problems, or it may have been such an emergency that it was not possible to ascertain whether they are legally entitled to receive free hospital treatment in this country. The information-sharing provisions here will help to iron out any inconsistencies and any lack of clarity—in the end, to the benefit of potential migrants and the hospital system. I say that for two reasons: firstly, there is a significant loss of funds to the health system when ineligible people claim health benefits in New Zealand. That is not appropriate, and we do defend it. Secondly, where individuals who are either unclear or possibly untruthful about their immigration status do get treatment and incur debt, it can be a terrible burden for them and their family to have to work their way out of it. It is better to know at the start, and information matching can assist both the hospital and the claimant to clarify the situation, if clarification is required.

We want to underline, too, that the provisions around biometric information are different between citizens and non-citizens. We emphasise that it is a condition of our support that the biometrical information of citizens cannot be stored or used for purposes other than for the departure they are undertaking, and that sufficient privacy protections apply. We are reassured by the officials that the Privacy Commissioner is happy with these provisions, and that is, and remains, a condition of our support.

So to sum up, these amendments provide what we think are necessary powers. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has warned against them being taken beyond the purpose for which they are intended, and has introduced some safeguards in that process. Some extensions have been included, which we are comfortable with, and the Minister has included further extensions through his Supplementary Order Paper that take us to the limit of what we can support. But we do so, firstly, on the basis of the assurances that we have received from his officials that the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has been respected and it has been approved under the Act, and, secondly, that the Privacy Commissioner is happy.

Finally, Irepeat my exhortation to the Minister to confirm to the Committee that he has never had cause for concern that any of the enforcement arms of the department may ever have been operating at, should we say it, somewhat further than at arm’s length than he might like. I look forward to his assurance in that regard.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I want to refer, for rather unusual reasons, to clause 251, “Power of entry and search of craft”. I do this for a couple of reasons. One is a sad reason. I recall, when I was Associate Minister of Immigration, going to Auckland Airport to meet—I ask members to forgive me; I forget the designation of this individual—Carl Manning, who, sadly, is no longer with us. He was a superb public servant, a person who was taken from us and his family earlier this year. He was a person whom I rated when I was Associate Minister as someone who could have gone all the way, in respect of his career.

Mr Chairman, before you ask me, I will relate this meeting back to the bill. I recall visiting Auckland Airport, as I was wont to do—although I think Ms Thompson, the then deputy secretary of the Department of Labour, did not like me going around and asking officials what they thought; it could have been hazardous to their health. I visited the airport and asked Carl Manning what he thought needed to be changed—and I suspect this change may have originated from Carl Manning. I did this with the Minister’s leave; he was generous enough to allow me to ask the officials a question, and I did. Carl Manning told me that apparently way back in times gone by, immigration officials could not search a ship. Everybody else could search a ship. The Customs Service could search a ship, the police could search a ship, and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all could search a ship. But even if it was docked at the harbour, the poor old immigration officials could not, without a series of permissions, search a ship if they felt there was nefarious or illegal activity going on in respect of immigration. I remember sitting and having a coffee with Carl Manning, scratching my head, and trying to work out why this had occurred. I think he did give me, from his history, a rationale for it. So to go on the record, Mr Chairman, with your indulgence I wanted to mention that.

More important, I wanted to pay tribute to Carl Manning and to extend belatedly my sympathies to his family. This guy was initially in charge of the border at Auckland Airport. He was also in charge of some pretty heavy-duty crisis situations, and I know he was respected by the department at the highest level. As a border control officer, he demonstrated integrity and legitimacy in terms of the operation and execution of his duties. We talk about the powers of the officials at the border, and Carl Manning exercised incredible integrity and professionalism in every case that he dealt with. Indeed, he was not afraid to make the tough decisions. But he was a person, in my view, whose opinion one could always count on, and have huge confidence in, when it was put before one. In this short call, I wanted to place on the record in this Chamber my sadness at Carl Manning’s passing. The department and the country have lost a superb public servant who exhibited all the good things that are reflected in the ability that we give our immigration people to exercise their powers at the border.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I am taking a call on Part 8 of the Immigration Bill because I want to ask a question about clause 245, “Powers of entry and inspection relating to records of education providers”. I want a bit of clarification about one of the paragraphs in subclause (4), which refers to the exercise of powers by immigration officers. It provides that an immigration officer may enter any part of an education provider’s premises in which the officer reasonably believes that information or a record is held that would enable the officer to identify somebody who should not be in New Zealand. Subclause (3) states: “The powers in subsection (4) may not be exercised in relation to a person undertaking compulsory education or any member of the family of such a person.”

Given the provision that enables the Minister of Education to intervene under the Education Act to allow access to education for the children of overstayers, I ask whether clause 245 in fact lets all secondary and primary schools off the hook as far as the power to inspect their records is concerned. It is expressed not in relation to the provider but in relation to the person who is undertaking compulsory education, and I ask whether the child of an overstayer is undertaking compulsory education. I ask whether the language used here is sufficient to provide the level of protection that is needed. A lot of schools are nervous about enrolling children who are not legally allowed to be enrolled, even though at the moment schools have Cabinet authority to do so and under this new legislation would have authority to do so as long as the Minister of Education addressed that issue. The question I am asking is this: is the wording of clause 245 strong enough to provide protection from a school being used as the place where someone who is looking for overstayers and their family members goes to access information on their children? That is one of the fears that people have.

I watched a television programme a few weeks ago that interviewed an overstaying family and, in particular, the children about how they felt about not being at school. The thing that came up for me was the sense of fear in the family that if they sent their children to school, that would somehow be a means by which they would be caught out, traced back to where they were staying, and sent home. I just wonder whether the language of clause 245 is sufficiently strong to send the message that the issue is not just about a person who is undertaking compulsory education. We are actually talking about our compulsory education facilities, and about anyone who is of an age that means that person would otherwise be in compulsory education if he or she were a New Zealand resident or citizen and entitled to use our education facilities. I think that the language of clause 245 may not be sufficiently strong to give people assurance on that issue.

The second point I want to talk about is the health issue. The health rules were introduced as a result, I think, of decisions that were made when I was the Minister of Immigration. They were very important in terms of sending a very clear message about what it was that was acceptable by way of an application for residence to New Zealand, in terms of the applicant’s health status and also his or her disability status, as well. Again, that issue links into education, because we had a large number of people coming from a particular country. Parents from that country would get residence, come to New Zealand, and, essentially, one parent—normally the father—would go back to the home country to continue to run a business there, while mum stayed here with their child and enrolled that child in a special school in Auckland. A significant number of such children were in that particular school. The school was designed specifically for the purpose of ensuring that there was not the issue of gaining access to taxpayer-funded institutions; it was designed essentially to get around the immigration rules by taking advantage of that situation.

The difficulty with regard to this issue, though, is that the quality of information that is gathered and the decision that is made will sometimes be two different things. Somebody may not be entitled to access the public health system when he or she arrives—

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.