Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : Part 2 deals with a number of issues in terms of making an attempt to reduce traffic offending by strengthening the powers of the courts in respect of the seizure of motor vehicles. I will concentrate for a moment on new section 100L, which is to be inserted into the Summary Proceedings Act by clause 28. This provision authorises the sale by the court of a motor vehicle if any fine remains unpaid. We pose no argument in respect of that provision, but, without rehearsing the debate on Part 1, I would point out that there was a lot of debate.

An argument was put forward last night by Mr Woodhouse in respect of the 10 cars that would be crushed per year—the 10 badges of honour that the Minister will wear. He said that there would be a large amount of recycling if this was not done. But that argument seems to be suspended in animation when we look at this provision. The argument is dissolved because, under new section 100L, a court can authorise the sale of a motor vehicle if any fines are unpaid. I have no problem with this. I think that is fine, but I just point out to Mr Woodhouse and others that it will be interesting to see whether the recycling argument that they rehearsed last night will be rehearsed again today. The so-called issue of recycling has not dissolved; the problem, though, is that no evidence has actually been produced—and I do not think this would have been a problem—by the police, the Ministry of Justice, or anybody else in respect of the recycling of vehicles. Boy racers are unlikely to be whipping round to the back end of Turners Auctions as their $30,000 Nissan Skyline or Jaguar goes under the hammer to attempt to buy it back.

Mr Brownlee is an expert when it comes to those large-cylinder vehicles. I recall that he had a powder blue Jaguar at St Bede’s College. I say to the Minister, who is looking quizzical, that that is a type of car. But I know that he was not a boy racer. In fact, I—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh, well, maybe he was; I will leave that for him to decide. It is very hard to believe that a boy racer will nip round the back of Turners Auctions as his $30,000 Nissan Skyline is going under the hammer in order to buy it back. I think the arguments put forward by Mr Woodhouse are fictitious, unless some evidence—that would be nice—could be put forward. We support these provisions, but with the rhetoric that we are hearing, I would also point out that one would think that this is not being done now.

I am sorry to harp on about Christchurch, which is a great part of New Zealand, but if one goes out with the police at any time there, one sees that they have developed very, very good and practical sting operations. They also have other operations when they just send out incident cars—plain-clothed cars. I was out one night with a couple of young police officers, and I saw that they have, today, the ability under the law to pull over anybody if they think that something does not feel right. They can pull over the young person, or the old person, or whomever. They can go through the registration and the warrant, they can check out the car, and they can also have the bailiffs and the court on standby—as they do—right through the night when they are doing these operations.

If it was Mr Brownlee in his Jaguar who owed a few fines, then they could say that they are sorry, but the tow truck is on its way unless he pays the bill. The car will be on the tow truck, and the tow truck is gone. I am sure that Mr Brownlee would never engage in that behaviour, good soul that he is, but the point I am making is that that happens today. It happens nearly every night of the week.

I know this because I have often been in the back of a police car over many years. The police can pull people over if things do not feel right, and not just where a driver is boy racing, or girl racing. They can pull over drivers—they have done this—and they can say: “Hang on, I don’t think this feels right.” They can check the vehicle through. They can look at the vehicle to see whether it complies. And, by the way, they can ring the bailiffs, ask them to put the details through the computer, and find out whether Mr Smith owes any fines and costs.

I recall being on Moorhouse Avenue one night when a young fellow was pulled up in this way. He gave the police what ho. The police professionals stood there and took it. I, as a lesser mortal, would probably have been less restrained. They told the driver that he owed $5,000 and, unless he paid up, the car would be on the tow truck. He rang mum. Mum—a rather affluent looking person— pulled up in a Mercedes. She put her arm around Johnny, lambasted the police for what they had done, which was the correct thing to do, and said that it was not Johnny’s fault. I ask what he learnt by that.

We support these measures, but we just say that some of the arguments put forward last night will be negated today.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : I am very pleased to take a call in respect of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill as we go through Part 2 of this important legislation. I reaffirm, as we enter a new day—although it is still the same day in terms of parliamentary sitting time—that Labour strongly supports this legislation and its progress through the House. However, we are trying to make sure that Parliament does not have to revisit this bill on an ongoing basis, because it is our very firm belief that although the bill includes very many good measures, it still has a gap in respect of how we best deal with the issue of the confiscation and seizure—the very name of the bill—of boy-racer cars. The Minister of Police has been stating that she wants to see behavioural change in respect of boy racers, and our very clear position is that it will not be achieved by the measures involved with car confiscation and crushing, if, indeed, we go through the process that this bill outlines. That process involves boy racers who have a deal with a mate or a family member for the car to be owned by somebody else. The driver does some illegal drag racing or burnouts, the police pull him up, and they then send a warning to the owner of the car. Under the procedures of this bill, a second warning is then sent, and then finally on the third offence the car may be seized—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: May be!

BRENDON BURNS: —may be seized—and, at the discretion of the judge, if there are not extraordinary circumstances that he or she wishes to take into account, the car might be crushed. The estimate from the Minister of 10 cars crushed a year nationally could mean that in my city of Christchurch, with 10 percent of the population of New Zealand, we may see just one car crushed a year. I hardly think that that will deliver the sort of behavioural change that is needed. Labour wants to see behavioural change because the boy-racer menace affects many parts of the country, and none more so than my electorate. I was thinking last night about the visit I made earlier this year to a woman living on Fitzgerald Avenue who has moved out of her home and gone to live with family because she has had a gutsful of the menace that is brought. It is not just the noise; it is the ongoing behaviour and the threats that have been brought against her—quite a strong older woman—over the years. It has worn her down to the point where she has left her home without, I believe, having sold it, because it is sometimes quite difficult to sell properties in that area of Christchurch because of the menace that these boy racers bring. She is a strong person who, after years of going out, watching the boy racers, taking down the number plates, and trying to do her best to give the police the support they need to deal with the problem, has finally called it quits and moved, at considerable cost to herself.

I think the police deserve the best possible support that we can give them, and I truly do not believe we are doing it with this bill. It has a kind of pyrrhic quality to it, in that a few cars may be—may be—crushed, but there is no signal to boy racers that they will lose their cars. That is really what is needed, and that is why I strongly support the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove.

Another visit in my electorate reinforced the need for some really tough legislation on this issue. It was a visit—again, earlier this year or late last year—to residents living off Edgeware Road. They were not actually on the circuit of the boy racers—they were well away from the four avenues—but had the unfortunate experience of living a few houses away from a property where boy racers were resident. Of course, on a Friday and Saturday night the boys like to begin their evening by doing a few burnouts up and down that street. These people want tough action against it, and I believe they want to see the strongest possible measures emerging from this Parliament to deal with the problem. I do not think they would look at a bill that sees perhaps one car a year taken off the streets of Christchurch as a truly effective behavioural signal to the boy-racer fraternity; I think they would be strongly looking at the Government to do the very, very toughest that it can.

I believe the Supplementary Order Paper from my colleague Clayton Cosgrove would, indeed, deliver a tougher message. It would give a signal on the first offence that if the boy racer does it again, his car will be gone, confiscated, sold, and out of his ownership, and he will not be able to get it back. One or two members opposite have suggested that this will simply allow boy racers to go and buy their cars back. I challenge any members opposite who want to state that again to give us some evidence. A number of inquiries have been made about that issue, and no evidence has been put up to suggest that that is, in fact, happening. If we think about it for a moment, how could it happen? If we are putting up for sale a car that is worth $10,000 or $20,000, and if we have people who have no credit history, who often have bought the car on a long stretch of credit, and who in many instances have a large number of fines against them, where will they find the cash? If they are buying the car at Turners Auctions, they will have to buy it via cash. They cannot put it on the never-never. They have to be able to actually buy the car, so I ask how they will be able to do that. If any member wants to raise that issue again, I ask him or her to bring some evidence to the Parliament that that happens.

Let us look at another aspect of crushing. Here we are, as a nation and as a planet, debating issues like climate change. We need to make the best possible use of our resources. Crushing might have a photo opportunity attached, but if the car has plenty of miles left in it still, I ask what on earth is the sense in putting a perfectly good vehicle, one that admittedly may have been used for some heinous purpose, and which perhaps may need modification to put some decent tyres and other things back on it, into the crusher. Perhaps one car a year will be crushed in Christchurch for a photo opportunity for the Minister and, no doubt, one or two other National members from Christchurch, all so that they can stand there and have their photos taken with a car that is being crushed. That is what it is about. It is not about delivering the best possible outcome in terms of dealing with the menace that boy racers present, both in my city and many other parts of the country.

There is a very viable method here, and I think my colleague Clayton Cosgrove has even indicated a preparedness—and the Government has this opportunity—to amend the Supplementary Order Paper to maybe look at crushing after the confiscation on the second offence. That is something that the Government could dwell on. It would then be making the bill tougher than it is currently. But at the moment there is no signal to the boy-racer community that this Government truly wants to be tough on the issue. This measure would, in fact, send the real signal to them. It would say that if they misbehave, they have one chance. Everybody deserves one chance, but people certainly do not deserve three chances, with the possible outcome of a judge maybe sending a car to be crushed. I commend the Supplementary Order Paper to the Committee.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) : I remind the member who has just resumed his seat and who is a new member, Brendon Burns, that the Supplementary Order Paper to which he refers was voted out last night. We are not debating it this morning. We are debating Part 2 of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill.

I will refer to a couple of main points in Part 2. There has been some discussion this morning about why warnings are to be given to people who have an interest in a car, and why these cars are not simply seized and sold. That provision deals with the fact that some of the interests in the cars are those of finance companies, banks, and parents. When we are putting in place legislation like this, which can be considered quite Draconian from some people’s points of view, we need to have a balance of interests. There is no point having legislation that people do not believe is fair. We have one of the best police forces in the world. The New Zealand Police is, in my opinion, almost the best in the world, if not the best. One of the reasons why the police have one of the most fantastic success records in terms of public confidence—and I saw just yesterday a release about yet another new high of public confidence in the police—is that the public expects the New Zealand Police to act fairly and within the law. It is very important when we are taking away nana’s car, mum’s car, or a finance company - owned car that we act fairly.

I actually believe it is very important that a finance company knows exactly what is going on with its security, so that when it gets its first written warning about what is being done with the car over which it has security and which it has lent a lot of money to secure, it can take action. The company understands that when a car is lost—it is gone, it is sold, or it is crushed—it has lost its security. I believe that finance companies will start taking action. Certainly when I was growing up, and when a lot of people in this Chamber were growing up, young people could not get new cars. They could not borrow from finance companies to buy cars, because, basically, those companies were much tougher about the ways in which they lent. Over the last 10 years or so there has been a great loosening up in that lending, and one of the results has been that a lot of very high-powered cars have been sold to people who cannot control them or their own behaviour, unfortunately.

There has been a lot of talk about how much crushing there will be. Actually, the point of the bill is stopping the behaviour. For a party that says it is opposed to the crushing part of the bill, yet says it is opposed to the bill because it is not tough enough, I think Labour really needs to get its rhetoric right. This bill is actually not about me. It is not about photo opportunities. It is actually about trying to take some action that means something, because the previous Government, despite its very best efforts, frankly could not put a bill together on this issue that had any standing at all.

One of the reasons that the judges do not under the current legislation use confiscation and surrender of vehicles as much as was expected is that the legislation has every sort of loophole available. Frankly, judges have to be able to apply the law as presented by Parliament. We have made it perfectly plain in this legislation that we expect that the judges will apply the law because that is what they do. We are giving judges discretion in terms of what happens to the cars of the worst recidivist offenders. If judges feel that they cannot use that discretion, we would like to know why. I actually think that judges will use it. We have to get the law right. We have always said that this legislation will not be a silver bullet. But it is a vast improvement on the previous Government’s pathetic attempt, which, I have to say, anybody with a law degree could have seen had loopholes right through it. It was very, very difficult legislation. Of course, one has to give the previous Government credit for at least trying, but it did not try hard enough.

Part 2 of the bill, I believe, will deal with the issue of people who sell their cars before the court has been able to take action and confiscate them. That is one of the big loopholes. On the subject of what happens when people’s cars are put up for auction, I have some news for Mr Burns. When one buys a car at auction, one pays whatever is the highest price bid. That is how an auction works. People do not actually turn up to an auction and say that because a car is worth $20,000 they are going to pay $20,000. I tell Mr Burns that what happens at an auction is that a car might be worth $20,000, but if the highest bid is $300 that is what is paid for it. That is how it works in the real world. I know that is not something that members opposite have a lot of experience in, but that is what happens.

As for the question about where the evidence is that boy racers send their friends along to buy up a car at $250 or $300, I ask the member why he does not ask the police when he is strutting around police stations. That is what they say. The police in Canterbury tell me that that is exactly what happens. When Sergeant Nigel Armstrong was attacked by boy racers earlier this year, I went down to Christchurch and I asked them there why this behaviour was still going on. The police said that the boy racers’ mates turn up at the auction, they buy the cars for $250 or $300, and they are laughing. The police say that they are laughing at them. They are laughing at the previous legislation. This part of the bill is one of the steps that we are taking to close that loophole. If they want to keep laughing, they will end up with their cars crushed, frankly.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: 10 a year—10 people.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member calls out “10 a year”. Actually, I hope that they get the message that we mean business, and hopefully they will stop their behaviour.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: You said all the cars would be crushed. You said that all the cars would go to the crusher.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Unfortunately Mr Cosgrove consistently makes up these things in the Chamber. Frankly, we know that the cars will be closer to the crusher. Mr Cosgrove really needs to consider that he has been so mean-spirited all year about this legislation, asking earlier this year what will happen to poor grandad’s car. Now he is suddenly asking why we are giving grandad a chance to take some action about his grandchild. On one hand he said that we should not have the cars crushed, because it is Draconian. Now he is complaining that we are crushing only 10. Well, for goodness’ sake, Mr Cosgrove really needs to get with the programme and understand that the people of Waimakariri, who almost voted him out last time, will definitely do it next time.

It is very, very important that we focus on behaviour. This is about public safety. It is not about media opportunities; it is about public safety. When those people decided to take on the New Zealand Police this year, to threaten them, and to shoot at them, they took on more than they ever bargained for. This Government supports the New Zealand Police and it supports the law-abiding people of New Zealand. This Government will not stand by and say that it is all too hard and we cannot do it, which is what the previous Government did .

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I will take just a short call to follow up on Mr Cosgrove’s point—he graciously acknowledged that I had one—regarding recycling through sales. He told a story, which sadly is all too believable, of silly mummy in the Mercedes turning up and comforting little Johnny, who had several grand worth of fines. It is no surprise how little Johnny became like that. Sadly, there is probably no surprise about how he will turn out as he gets older. But one source of the money is right there: silly mummies from Remuera or Fendalton who think little Johnny can do no wrong, and who, if the car is confiscated, will turn up at Turners Auctions with the gold card and buy back the car. I personally get all of my old dungers from Turners, and I can recommend it as a place for an absolute bargain. I think I got my last car, which was valued at about $2,500, for $1,200. As the Minister in the chair, the Hon Judith Collins, rightly says, at the dunger end of the market where there are no reserves, the highest bid gets it. Of course, a seized car will not have any reserve, at all, so $2 might get it. That is one point.

The other reason that we support the legislation is that it enshrines that wonderful principle of “three strikes”. It gives a chance, gives another chance—and I would be a bit less generous than the Minister, I have to say, which is probably no surprise—and gives every opportunity.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How many chances would you give?

DAVID GARRETT: I think two is probably right, with crushing on the third. The point is that judges need to be given the tools, and this is the place where they are given the tools. But judges also have to use them. I know all the lofty arguments; I wrote essays in law school about who has the greatest influence in our constitutional arrangements. The answer is—and Professor Joseph would agree with me, although he would use more elegant language—that the sovereignty lies here, and if judges do not take the signal then we will be back next year. I put on record that if it is necessary to back Mr Cosgrove to make an amendment to this legislation in order to make crushing mandatory, or confiscation, or whatever will work, then we will support it.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I thank Mr Garrett for his bipartisan approach. I think it is the second time in almost a week when the ACT Party has pulled the rug out from under the National Party. First was the levies bill, which ACT was very sceptical about. Mr Garrett said exactly the same thing, in that he would be back here to back us if the legislation did not work, and likewise with this legislation today. I will address a couple of points that the Minister made in her speech. It was an astounding contribution.

Not many months ago, the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, said, like MacArthur’s “I shall return” statement, those infamous words “every car will head towards the crusher.” They will be burned and etched into our memories. This Minister has declared war on everyone. She has declared war on gangs, war on P, war on boy racers—war on everyone. She is the General Custer of the Parliament, except General Custer had a last stand. He had a last stand. Suddenly we had a speech today that is all about fairness, balance, and not wanting to be Draconian. The Ministry of Justice’s notes are riddled with the term “We need balance”, but this is not about photo opportunities. It is not about sending a signal.

Hon Judith Collins: Ha, ha!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I tell the Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, to hang on a minute. I invite the journalists who might be taking an interest in this issue to go back and read the transcript of the Minister’s statements and the media statements. Somehow, Labour is now being too tough. The Minister said that she thinks that grandads, parents, and finance companies should have due warning so that they can retrieve their vehicles or provide a remedy if someone has taken their vehicle and run amuck. In the case of a finance company, it can preserve its assets. No one on this side disagrees with the Minister on that.

This is what we disagree on fundamentally. It is not parents’ cars that kids take and run amuck with; they take mostly—one in five, according to evidence the police gave before the select committee—their mates’ cars, change the ownership, and run amuck. The Minister said that herself. She is trying to construct an argument that in the case of parents whose sons or daughters take their cars, somehow the Labour Party will give them only one warning and then the car is gone, and that is terrible. There are two problems with that. Firstly, kids are not taking their parents’ cars; they are—deliberately—taking their mates’ cars. I do not think we should give quarter to that. Secondly, all the parents I have spoken with have the view—including a couple I talked to in Belfast a week or so ago—that if they got a letter, a warning, saying that little Johnny had taken their wagon and run amuck and that the next time he does that their car is gone, well, they would sort it out and that would not happen again. Likewise, I believe that a finance company should get a warning to say that its client who owes it $20,000 on a car has run amuck in it. We say give the finance company one warning and then take the car. I suspect that finance companies will put clauses in contracts in the future to say if they get a letter, if they get the encumbrance, the finance company will come around and take the car off the boy racer the first time themselves in order to preserve that asset value.

But the problem is that the Minister has found her kinder, gentler, fairer, more balanced side, which translates to the fact that she is weak; she trumpeted around the country that she would get tough. We believe that the appropriate balance is to give one warning to the third party, and, if the offence happens again, the court must take the car. On a second offence, a court is required to take the vehicle in the same way as provided for in existing legislation that the Minister has preserved. If someone is the owner and offender, the court may take his or her car on a first offence but must take his or her car on a second offence within 4 years. But this Minister, given how tough she is, has written into law that third-party owners will get a letter if someone takes their car and commits a first offence. That is how tough that Minister is. They will get a letter saying that Judith Collins says that someone has been very naughty in their cars. On the second offence, they will get another warning letter that says that Judith Collins says someone has been very, very naughty in their cars. Then, on the third offence, it is up to a judge. There are no mandatory provisions on a third offence in respect of cars owned by a third party that says, as with an owner and offender, that a judge must take the vehicle. That is what we proposed last night and the Minister would not accept it, given how tough she is.

I say that Minister has hoodwinked people. I ask whether the people in Kaiapoi, in Blackett St, and in Hamilton will think that this Minister is tough on boy racers when, after a third offence of making people’s lives hell in the streets of New Zealand—after shaking in their boots when they got a letter saying “You’ve been naughty”, signed off by Judith Collins, Minister of Police, and then a second offence saying “You’ve been very naughty”, signed off by Judith Collins, Minister of Police—on that third offence, it is up to a judge. I wonder how tough the Minister of Police, Judith Collins, will be viewed by people in respect of that.

On recycling, I say that the Minister has provided no evidence apart from hearsay. She told me to go around some police stations. Well, I have, and I do; it would be good if she did. But the ones she turns up to are the ones she opens that the previous Government built and then claims the credit for. Well, I hold up the evidence that was before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the New Zealand Police provided. Here it is, in black and white. In this document there is no evidence, provided by a professional, excellent, hard-working effective police force, that talks about recycling in the numbers. It produces numbers in respect of changes in ownership—one in five people. It produces numbers of offences, fines, crashes, fatalities, tragedies, and industries, but there is not one figure in here in respect of recycling. Yet the Minister gets up and thinks that it is OK to say go and talk to the police. I do, and I have for many years. Maybe there was a slight oversight. Maybe a line dropped off the presentation at the select committee. But I would have thought this Minister—smug though she is, sort of the Cheshire cat of the Parliament—who is so humble, and who cannot get the smile off her face, would get up and say: “OK, fair go. I’ve made a claim that there’s mass recycling all over the show. Here is the evidence, Parliament.” But she said nothing.

I say to that Minister that we support the bill and we support it for a couple of reasons. We support it because I believe we should show this Government the courtesy it showed me when we had a crack at this issue. I agree that there are some loophole changes. [Interruption] I cannot even give these guys a compliment without Mr Quinn going troppo over there, but that is OK. We know which room he should be in in the Parliament. The second reason is that the bill does close some loopholes around hardship and around third-party ownership. But the other reason we will let this go through is it will give us a very, very important point, a litmus test, to judge and hold this Minister accountable. We believe this legislation is not tough enough, and we put up a very simple Supplementary Order Paper. We said that we do not support crushing for two simple reasons. One is we support permanent confiscation—it should be mandatory. After the Minister told New Zealand that all the cars will be heading to the crusher she admitted, and she even admitted it again today, that about 10 cars a year—10 cars a year—will be crushed. I am sure the boy racers are shaking in their shiny shoes. I am sure they are terrified of Judith Collins pushing the button 10 times a year on the crusher.

The other reason we do not support it is it makes no sense.

Paul Quinn: You just said you do support it. Where’s this guy at?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: We do not support the crushing provision but we support the bill. If the member is going to go nuts, I say to him that the reason we cannot vote against one clause in Part 1 is because we are voting on Part 1 in totality. He says he is a lawyer but he does not understand when we debate a bill part by part. So there are parts of Part 1 and Part 2 that we do support. But we only get one vote, I say to Mr Quinn, who is a silly, silly member. The other reason we do not support crushing and we support permanent confiscation—[Interruption] Oh, the members on the opposite side of the Chamber are awake now; the lattes have kicked in. The other reason we support permanent confiscation is because we can dispose of a vehicle in a certain way, for instance for parts, whereby we can realise the asset value of that vehicle and use that asset value to pay the fines of the offender, and not have the innocent pay the fines and the court costs through taxes. That will be the only result of what happens with crushing cars. It is 10 a year.

JO GOODHEW (Junior Whip—National) : I move, That the question be now put.

• Motion agreed to.
• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 69 in the name of the Hon Judith Collins to Part 2, and the following amendment in her name to clause 28 be agreed to:

to omit from new section 100TB(2) “100N(2)(d)” and substitute “100N(1)(d)”.

• Amendments agreed to.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate on this part includes the schedule.

BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) : It was interesting to hear the Minister’s comments in respect of Labour’s position on the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. She said we are being too tough. I find that a little ironic. I reflect back to the accompanying bill, the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill, which was passed last night, where we had another example of a party talking tough but going easy. Like this bill’s companion measure and the promises and pledges to deal with the issue of noise decibel ratings that failed to materialise in it, we have a similar issue here about how we are actually going to enforce the seizure and confiscation of boy racers’ cars.

The comments from the Minister about how the bill needs to be framed to make sure that grandad does not lose his car are interesting, because most of the cars are not owned by grandads; the boy racers do a swap procedure where one owns the other’s car and vice versa. The measures of this bill allowing three warnings before a car may—just may—be seized and crushed will hardly send the sort of message that the community is going to be frightened in its boots about.

When we talked earlier about the issue of cars under the alternative proposal of Supplementary Order Paper 73, tabled by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove and now defeated by the Committee, the Minister suggested that if cars were to go to auction, we could see a $20,000 car being sold for $300. It was interesting to hear David Garrett comment on that. He was talking about an old dunger—I presume he was referring to a car rather than himself—and how he had bought a $2,500 car for $1,200. I think that is more the order of things. We tend to be able to buy cars at auction at considerably less than their value, but certainly not at some sort of giveaway price in most cases.

David Garrett: Mine had a reserve. Theirs will have no reserve.

BRENDON BURNS: Well, if finance companies were likely to have a very, very major interest in most of those cars going to auction, under the proposal that Labour tabled, does the member think that finance companies are going to let their interest in a motor vehicle disappear?

Paul Quinn: That’s right. Now you’ve got it! You’ve finally worked it out, Brendon!

BRENDON BURNS: I ask Mr Quinn whether he can give me an example of where a finance company, on any piece of asset in this country, would allow its interest to be given away at some sort of fire-sale price. Not at all! There is no prospect of that, whatsoever.

The Minister then suggested that the police wanted the crushing mechanism because they said that it would deal with the concerns that they have. That is interesting, because my clear understanding is that when this issue first came up at the start of this year, the very clear call from the police in respect of how best to deal with the boy-racer issue was for the Government to introduce a cease and desist mechanism, whereby the issue of where boy racers assemble and congregate could be dealt with. The police’s proposal was that after a first gathering of boy racers on a street corner, at a set of traffic lights or wherever, if the police saw behaviour that was going to lead to disorder, they could issue a cease and desist order, and the next time such an assembly took place the boy racers would be walloped. So if the Minister is saying that she wants to be tough, and if the Minister is saying she is doing what the police asked, could she comment about what happened to the cease and desist order idea?

We have in its place a bill that says “three strikes and maybe—just maybe—you will be out”, but that was not what was indicated. I have a press report from earlier in the year reporting that when the legislation was introduced to Parliament in May, Judith Collins claimed: “every offence”—for street racing—“will bring them closer to the crusher.” Will they be closer to the crusher with every new offence? Well, we have discovered that that is not the case. What we will see is a “three strikes” policy, and maybe—just maybe—a person will be affected if the judge decides to be tough. That is why it was a shame that last night the Committee did not support the Supplementary Order Paper tabled by my colleague Clayton Cosgrove, because, as David Garrett has indicated, I think we will be back in the Chamber quite soon looking at these issues again.

It was interesting to note that Mr Garrett, as a member of a party that supports the “three strikes” policy, suggested that he would like it to be a “two strikes” policy. I say to the member that he had the opportunity last night to propose an amendment to amend Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper. He could have supported it, but he did not. So, effectively, he is voting for something that he does not have that much belief in. How can he and his party do that?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) : Part 3 is actually about the Privacy Act, but as the previous speaker, Mr Burns, has ranged wide and free, I think we should correct a few of the statements he has made. What he is doing, and his party has consistently done today and last evening, is to repeat the errors that they made in Labour’s minority report to the House. I hate to disabuse them of this, but, frankly, a substitute’s car—in other words, a car that is owned by someone else—can actually be confiscated on the second offence, after one warning. That is provided for in new section 128(2)(b), which is inserted by clause 6. Their comments show that, yet again, they have not read the provision. So whatever the Labour members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee were doing, they certainly were not listening when the officials from the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Transport were trying to tell them what the bill said.

Mr Burns has made some comments about finance companies. He seems to think that they will miraculously turn up at auctions and buy back cars or stop them being sold. It is a good point, except that under the legislation that the Government has inherited from the previous Government, the finance companies had no idea what was happening to the car, because nobody ever told them. What this legislation does by its written warning procedure is advise the finance company about what is happening.

In picking up on Mr Burns’ comment about finance companies, I believe that one of those written warnings, delivered by a member of the New Zealand Police, will make a very strong statement about the security of the asset. I believe that they will have it stated in their finance agreements, if they do not already, that if their asset is being used illegally, then they will take action.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Make it one warning. Why make it three warnings?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member calls out and asks why we should give them three warnings. Well—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Two warnings.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS:—two warnings, now he says. It is three warnings, rather than two warnings. I think it is very important that the member understands that it will take only one letter to make the message very plain to these finance companies, because, as Mr Burns rightly says, they do not want to lose their security. But at the moment they do not even know what is going on. They do not understand that the car is being confiscated or sold off. They do not understand what is going on, because, frankly, nobody tells them. How are they supposed to suddenly know that that is happening, unless we tell them? That is one of the very important provisions that we have in the bill. This is not about taking cars off people; it is not about any of that. It is about the behaviours, and the people most likely to influence behaviour are the people who have the right to take the car. In most cases we will find that finance companies can do that, if they know that their car is being used illegally.

I commend this part to the Committee. This part has amendments to the Privacy Act, but I think it is important that I correct some of the misstatements made both today and yesterday, and actually for the last 6 or 7 months, by the Labour Party.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I call Carol Beaumont but before I do, I just want to bring members back to Part 3. This part is very narrow, and I ask members to concentrate on that part.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I think there is quite a bit of precedent, and it happened in Part 2 when the Minister was the first to initiate comments that ranged far wider than the part. The Minister brought other material into the debate, and we must be able to address that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. I have allowed a pretty wide-ranging debate on Parts 1 and 2, and there has been a good exchange. But Part 3 has only two clauses. It is very narrow.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: She didn’t have to say that.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The Minister was responding to the previous speaker, who had canvassed other areas, and she did say that, but she also identified that Part 3 was about privacy provisions. I am asking future speakers please to concentrate on the two clauses in Part 3.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : I rise to speak on Part 3 of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill, “Amendment to Privacy Act 1993”. Clause 29 states that Part 3 amends the Privacy Act. Clause 30 and the schedule amend schedule 5 of the Privacy Act, which authorises Government agencies to access law enforcement information held by other specified Government agencies. The amendment serves the purpose of giving the Ministry of Justice access to police records relating to vehicles impounded for 28 days and access to personal information on the drivers and registered owners of these vehicles. Labour members support these provisions. As a number of us have been saying throughout this process, we support a significant number of the provisions in this bill as part of a further strengthening of legal options around the issue of illegal street racing and boy racers. The reason we support it is that we understand the seriousness of the problem. Again, to set the record straight, I say that the previous Labour Government put in place very strong legislation, which still sits on the statute book and is stronger than what applies in Australia, for example. I acknowledge that work. The Minister has previously acknowledged that work, and I recognise that fact.

This is an attempt to close some loopholes and, in that regard, we fully support that work. That is not what this part of the bill is referring to, however, and I have taken on board the Chair’s comments. We are talking about amendments to the Privacy Act. We have no difficulty with these provisions at all, but in relation to the comments made previously by the Minister, I say that some elements of the select committee process worked a lot better than others. Certainly, the submission process worked very well. I think that everybody got a great deal of benefit from the process, both from the submissions of individuals affected by the issue of illegal street racing, which was particularly profound in Christchurch, and from the submissions made by various organisations, such as the Automobile Association, the New Zealand Police, and the Police Association.

In speaking to Part 3, I have to note that no submissions were made on this part. But I noticed that the select committee worked less well in some other areas, particularly around the deliberation and consideration stage, where quite complicated matters were being rushed through, with the officials being put under unreasonable time constraints to produce documentation and deal with the questions being raised. I note that point.

In concluding, I say that Labour’s view is that we support much of this bill. Our sole purpose has been to ensure that where it needs to be tightened, it should be. We say—and, in fact, members across the Chamber say—that we are serious about this issue. If we are serious about this issue and if we can toughen up on some of the provisions, then we should. Thank you.

• Part 3 agreed to.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : The title of this bill is the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill. Without labouring the point that has been made by others—and that is despite a lack of generosity from the Minister, but that is what we have come to expect—I say that Labour members support the bill. As my colleague has said previously, we support many of the clauses and the ideas contained in this bill. Why would we not? We have raised a number of issues, especially in relation to the level of warnings and the level of powers that courts are given, or are not given. The title of this bill could be perceived to be a bit of a misnomer, because it could be the “Vehicle Confiscation (Maybe if a Court Thinks So) Bill”, the “Discretionary Vehicle Confiscation the Minister has Given to the Court if One is a Third Party Bill”, or the “After Two Warnings and Two Letters a Court Might Choose to Seize and Confiscate the Vehicle Permanently Bill”. I do not think that is what New Zealanders signed up for when they supported this legislation, and they do support it. They signed up so that some balanced but tough legislation would be put in place.

The issue has been canvassed in respect of finance companies, in respect of parents, and in respect of the vast majority of boy racers, who are the ones who change the ownership to a third party—they flick the ownership into each other’s names. The Minister has chosen to give two written warnings and then to leave it up to a court. Maybe I would have bought the idea of the legislation having two written warnings and then saying to the court that it must act. I do not particularly agree with that but I would probably have had a bit more goodwill towards it. But in relation to the third party issue and the confiscation of vehicles, when we are looking at the title of this bill we might call it the “One Letter, Two Letters, and Maybe a Court Might Do Something Bill”. We are saying to a third party: “We are going to extend so much goodwill to you that we will write to you once and say somebody has run amok, then write to you again and say somebody has run amok.” I would have thought we would conclude that if it takes three occasions for the third party owner to sort out his or her own arrangements to stop a car going out of his or her control into the hands of somebody else, then that person does not deserve to have that vehicle, at all. The Minister said that we should give owners a warning, and I agree with that; that is fair.

If we are worried about dad and mum, who might be in Sydney when Johnnie takes the car and goes nuts, then, fair enough, a warning should be given. There are provisions in the legislation to protect people’s rights, of course. We should give them a warning, then let those parents sort it out. Then, if on a second occasion they refuse to take responsibility for the control of their own vehicle and they let their same son or daughter run amok again, I say that the courts should act and they should act deliberately, as they do if a person is both the owner and the offender: the courts can act deliberately on a first offence and take the vehicle, and it is mandatory that they act deliberately on a second offence and take the vehicle. I do not think that most people would buy the argument: “I didn’t quite know Johnnie had taken the car for a second time. I didn’t take any measures to sort him out and take the keys off him, or whatever.” I think people would say: “Well, you got a warning, you didn’t control your son or daughter, so it’s out.”

But even putting that matter aside in respect of the title, this bill is not about kids taking their parents’ car and going nuts in it. This, as the police have told us before, is about boy and girl racers who change the ownership of their respective cars, as time and time again over months the Minister has quite rightly pointed out. They change the ownership arrangements of their own vehicles amongst themselves. In that case, I do not think we should be giving them one “naughty” letter, two “naughty” letters, then saying to a judge: “It’s over to you, judge. It’s up to you. We wash our hands of it.” I would have thought, if the Minister’s intentions were pure, that she would say: “All right, things can go wrong. It is possible that the young person may not have known that their mate took the car and went crazy, so let’s send them a short, sharp shock.”, as she terms it. But she is guaranteeing to Parliament that the behaviour will change absolutely once a person gets a letter, hand-delivered, apparently, by a New Zealand police officer.

Well, that is great; it is another job that the New Zealand Police have to do. They will now be courier drivers. They will have to take the letters around personally, rather than freeing up those same police staff to deal with serious crime. A squadron of them in a blue uniform will now probably be employed to hand-deliver letters to people. That is interesting, is it not? What happened to back office, front office, and front line, and to getting rid of bureaucracy? It is an interesting point.

I would have thought there should be one letter that states that if it happens again there will be a consequence. As I say, for a young person it may have been unintended; somebody else may have taken the young person’s car for a joyride. When the young person gets the letter, that young person should say: “Hang on—I’m not letting this happen again.”, and he or she should take control of the keys. The keys should stay in the pocket and should not be left around the kitchen table, perhaps. But if it happens again, the judge must take the car. I think that is a reasonable proposition. To be honest, I have gone around and talked to a lot of parents and folks, listened to what they have said, and I have not had anybody who disagrees with me.

People are shocked, though, when we explain to them the content of this legislation, say that the Minister has differentiated between third party and owner-offender, and tell them how she has actually weakened the bill. The Minister talks about a couple of warnings—“Let’s be fair.”, she says. “Let’s not be Draconian. Let’s find some balance.”, she says. Maybe this bill should be called the “Judith Collins (Fairness, Balance, and Non-Draconian Measures) Bill”. Of course, that was not what Judith Collins was saying months ago when she was firing from the lip before officials got to her and said: “Hang on, Minister; there are a couple of other things you should know about this. Before you go out and raise expectations, we need to look at how this will work practically on the ground.”

I hope these measures work, because people have had a gutsful of this problem. What we have tried to do in this debate, and what we are trying to do in respect of clause 1, the title debate, is to point out to the Minister—and she has this permanent smile on her face, has she not; this permanently humble smile—

Paul Quinn: Because she’s happy!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, I wonder. I challenge the Minister to go around the country, and I wonder whether she will have the same smile on her face if this legislation does not work. We have offered some suggestions, some amendments, and some assistance. Our good will is pure, because we are backing this bill. As I have said before, this will be the “Judith Collins (Accountability Measures) Bill”. The Minister in the chair, Judith Collins, is laughing and gesticulating in her humble way, but this legislation will give us the opportunity to hold the Minister to account when this legislation does not work, and when the boy racers thumb their noses not only at the Minister, and not only at Parliament, but at the police.

It is interesting that we had the revelation by chance this morning that we will have uniformed front-line officers going around delivering letters because the Minister said—

Carol Beaumont: There are fewer cars.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: With fewer cars, the letters will be delivered on foot or via taxi. The Minister has said that behaviour will change when a letter arrives that is delivered by a member of the New Zealand Police force. Well, that is interesting, is it not? When the choice is to act on that delivery or a burglary, the signal from the Minister will be to get around and deliver those letters because her reputation will be on the line.

Again, in the dying stages of this bill I go on record as saying that we will show the courtesy of supporting the bill, because it will be a litmus test for this Minister. There is a huge gap in the rhetoric and in terms of what the Minister could have done. Maybe she did not think of accepting our amendment, or maybe the officials did not recommend that action to her, but if she had accepted our amendment I would have congratulated her on it, because that would have shown a bipartisan approach. Who cares where the idea has come from? Let us see whether we can make the show work. I recall that in respect of my bill we had quite a few good ideas from a number of MPs around Parliament and in the select committee. I thought we should adopt them, and we did adopt them. That is what I have said in relation to this bill, but the Minister has chosen, in her own inimitable and humble way, to plough on ahead.

I just note that this bill could well be the “Judith Collins Accountability Bill”, because we will see in the next 12 months to 2 years exactly what the measures will do. Then I suspect, as Mr Garrett has pointed out—and I welcome his support—that we may well be back here amending the legislation. The problem with that, of course, will be that that is another 2 years in which people from Mr Garrett’s patch and around the country will have had to put up with this legislation. It will be ironic if we return to this place and put through the amendment that this Minister has turned down. It will be ironic, but it will also be very sad and tragic for those people who will have had to put up with it, yet again, for another year or two.

• Clause 1 agreed to.

• Clause 2 agreed to.

• The Committee divided the bill into the Sentencing (Vehicle Confiscation) Amendment Bill, the Summary Proceedings (Vehicle Seizure) Amendment Bill, and the Privacy Amendment Bill, pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 70.

• Bill reported with amendment.

• Report adopted.

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: I move, That the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The National Government is committed to ensuring that older New Zealanders have more freedom in their retirement, and I understand that this bill is supported right across the House. The purpose of the bill is to make amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to make it easier for superannuitants and veterans pensioners to live or travel overseas.

At the moment there are a variety of ways in which New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension can be paid overseas, depending on where a superannuitant or a veterans pensioner intends to go, for how long, and for what purpose. Superannuitants and veterans pensioners leaving New Zealand temporarily can receive full payment for up to 26 weeks and are not affected by the amendments in the bill.

There are currently three methods for paying superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to leave New Zealand to reside in another country. First, there is a provision for payment under the reciprocal social security agreements with other countries. These allow superannuitants and veterans pensioners to receive up to the full rate of payment, depending on how long they have resided in New Zealand. We have agreements with Australia, Canada, Greece, the Netherlands, Jersey, Guernsey, Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom. Second, there are special provisions for people heading off to live in most Pacific countries that also allow them to receive up to the full rate of payment, depending on how long they too have lived in New Zealand.

Finally, there are provisions for people moving to all other countries. These are known as the general portability provisions. Superannuitants and veterans pensioners who leave New Zealand to live in one of these countries are currently paid a flat rate of 50 percent of the gross rate of the pension that would be payable in New Zealand, except that there is no additional payment for a non-qualified spouse or partner, or a living alone payment. The amendments in the bill relate solely to the general portability provisions and will not affect New Zealand’s social security agreements or the special provisions for Pacific countries.

This bill is necessary because the general portability provisions are preventing many of our superannuitants and veterans pensioners from moving to a country of their choice or travelling overseas. Two main issues will be addressed by this bill. The flat rate of 50 percent provides insufficient income to allow a reasonable standard of living in many countries. Therefore, it is unrealistic for many pensioners to consider retiring to another country. The general portability provisions restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to reside in one country and then move to another country to live, because payment overseas is linked to residence in one particular country. This also means that superannuitants and veterans pensioners who want to head off on the OE of their golden years cannot continue to receive payment.

Consequently, the bill will make two changes—

Grant Robertson: When’s the member going to go?

Chris Hipkins: His retirement OE.

Hon JOHN CARTER: Of course, it affects the likes of myself, and I might say that it will not be long before it will affect the members opposite who interject. The key change is a new payment rate. Instead of the current flat 50 percent of the domestic rate, the superannuitant or veterans pensioner will be able to receive up to the full rate of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension, depending on how long he or she lived in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65. There continues to be no entitlement to any additional payment for a non-qualified spouse or partner, or to a living alone payment.

The second change is that the bill will free up the rules restricting the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around once they get overseas. The bill will allow payment of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions to superannuitants and veterans pensioners who want to live in more than one country with which New Zealand has no social security agreement, whether they remain in the country they first move to reside in, or move to reside in another country. In addition, the bill also allows for the payment of superannuation and veterans pensions to those who leave New Zealand to travel in or between any countries for more than 26 weeks, but to not live outside New Zealand.

The new provisions represent a modernisation of the payment overseas policy that has been in place since 1990. The rate was originally set at 50 percent, partly because the superannuation surcharge was not applied to payment overseas. Now the surcharge has gone and, therefore, it has no relevance to the amount of pension we pay overseas. Forcing older people to remain in one country or preventing their ability to travel serves no particular purpose, and it is not in tune with what today’s retirees want to do. It is not the philosophy of this National Government to do so, either. Actually, I doubt whether it is the philosophy of this Parliament.

The bill had its first reading on 31 May 2009. It was then referred to the Social Services Committee, which reported back to the House on 18 September 2009. The select committee received 99 written submissions on the bill, with the majority in support of it. The committee received many submissions that did not primarily address the subject matter of the bill, but focused on the direct deduction policy set out in section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964. That policy is not within the scope of the bill.

Chris Hipkins: The audience is giving up.

Hon JOHN CARTER: Well, it will affect them in due course; it will be a little time before they take a direct interest in it, nevertheless.

The select committee has made some technical changes and one substantive change. This amendment will ensure that if someone is out of the country for a while but is still counted as being present for the purposes of fulfilling the residential qualifications for superannuation, then he or she will be counted as residing in New Zealand for the purpose of the proportional payment formula. Examples of this would include those who are outside New Zealand for special medical treatment or medical training, those who are serving on a New Zealand - registered ship or serving in the armed forces, those who are undertaking Volunteer Service Abroad work or missionary work, and those who are employed in New Zealand embassies overseas.

Some submitters asked that people be allowed to apply for New Zealand superannuation while residing overseas. The select committee noted that allowing applications from overseas would change the parameters and costs of the bill’s proposal significantly. Therefore, it recommended no change in this regard.

The select committee noted—and this is quite an important point—that the Income Tax Act 2007 does not differentiate between the tax treatment of people living overseas and people who are travelling. As a result, payments made to overseas residents and those who are travelling would be exempt from New Zealand tax under the general portability provisions in the bill. However, although overseas residents are subject to taxation in their country of residence, Kiwis travelling overseas would not be subject to any tax liability. For this reason the committee considered that the Income Tax Act 2007 should be amended in order to remove the tax exemption for people who are travelling. Such an amendment would require a substantive amendment to the Income Tax Act 2007, which has not been amended substantially by this bill as originally introduced. The committee was, therefore, prevented by Standing Order 299 from recommending such an amendment without the leave of the House. It instead suggested that the Government give consideration to this issue in depth if a review of the relevant legislation is undertaken.

I agree with the committee’s view that the New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension paid to travellers should not be exempt from income tax. The Government will, therefore, be seeking to make amendments to the Income Tax Act 2007 to ensure that New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions paid to travellers is subject to income tax in the same way that those payments are taxed while they reside in New Zealand.

Another theme raised by submitters was the concern that current recipients of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions paid overseas under the general portability provisions would be disadvantaged by the proposed savings provisions. I can assure the House that no superannuitants or veterans pensioners will receive less under the proposals in the bill than they are receiving currently. In fact, many will receive more.

The introduction of the bill to this House is very timely. Our society is becoming increasingly diverse, and Kiwis are travelling and living in other countries more often. It should also be noted that the attitude towards older people in this country is changing and needs to continue to change, because the contribution of us baby boomers will be far greater than has previously been anticipated.

In conclusion, I reiterate that this bill is part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that older New Zealanders are free to decide how they spend their retirement. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) : I commend the Minister for Senior Citizens, John Carter, for reading that speech so beautifully. It came straight from the Social Services Committee’s report back to this House, but I think it is important that we get that on the record of the House, so I thank the Minister for that.

There does not need to be an extended debate on this bill. The reason is that the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill was a Labour bill, introduced to this House in September 2008 by the Hon Ruth Dyson. The only thing that has changed in respect of this bill, with the change of Government, is the name of the Minister on the cover of the bill. It is one of those moments when we can say that there is general agreement across this Parliament on the changes that have been made to this bill. I commend the Minister for not trying to put a lot of flannel around his speech and take credit for a bill that started under one Government and will be finished under another. Unfortunately, the speech from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, when she last spoke on the bill, was all about the wonderful achievements of National in this respect. I found that to be just a little dishonest, in that this bill was started under Labour, as I said, and will be finished by National.

Is it not good that in this Parliament we have agreement on a bill that will benefit those who are retiring? You know, I look at Mr Carter, and he is obviously looking into the horizon—many years ahead—and thinking that maybe one day he would like to take his pension and head off to the Caribbean or wherever he wishes to go. For many people this is an important bill and an important change that is being made. We agree on this bill, and, hopefully, we will stick to the key issues. I think the key issues have been set out pretty clearly by the Minister.

Those issues go to the fact that under the legislation that has been in place since 1990 there was the provision of a flat rate of 50 percent of the domestic rate of the pension, where a person left New Zealand with the intention to reside in a country with which New Zealand had no agreement relating to the reciprocity of social security monetary benefits. That was the formula that was used. That flat rate led older New Zealanders to defer retiring overseas, because obviously that would be insufficient income to allow them a reasonable standard of living in retirement in another country. The payment is also currently linked to residents in one particular overseas country, which means that superannuitants or veterans pensioners cannot travel to or between multiple countries and continue to receive their pension.

From the passage of this bill, which I assume will be around November this year, qualifying superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel between any overseas country and retain their entitlements will be allowed to do so. As the Minister set out, this bill allows people to make decisions about where they wish to reside. We can look at the formula and see that it is very fair. The formula that is being put in place is not the 50 percent flat rate any more; people will receive New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension overseas, based on a formula of 1/540th of the full rate of each month of residence in New Zealand, between the ages of 20 and 65. It might sound rather complicated, but it is able to be worked out relatively easily. People will know what they are then able to take if they retire in another country.

Submissions were made to the select committee that we did not consider, because they really were outside the scope of the bill. Some submitted that when they arrived in New Zealand and became a citizen of New Zealand, they should be able to receive the full pension as soon as they retired. That was, as I said, outside the scope of the bill. There are issues around fairness when it comes to people who have paid for superannuation through their taxes over many, many years, and would receive a particular formula if they went overseas, and then a person who arrived in New Zealand and had been here only a short time would retire and get the full pension, having the same rights. That was not something that the select committee dwelled on.

The bill was sent to the Social Services Committee on 31 March this year. It received 99 submissions, and we heard 13 of them. We did not hear more, because many of the submissions did not relate to the bill itself, at all. They raised an issue in respect of section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964, and that relates to the direct deduction of an overseas pension from New Zealand superannuation. This has been a longstanding issue, and I see the Minister John Carter nodding: he has no doubt had representation, particularly from people of Dutch descent who have come to New Zealand with a Dutch pension and wanted to retain that pension alongside their New Zealand superannuation. We as a Government saw that as unfinished business, and in fact the previous Minister for Social Development and Employment, Ruth Dyson, had done a considerable amount of work on that. I think the challenge now for the new Government is to look at that issue and to proceed with it. It will not go away, because many New Zealanders feel that this is unfairness and a disincentive. When they have saved in another country in a private pension scheme, for example, or in a pension scheme that they could have in New Zealand, it is a disincentive and they are not able to have it, or that they can have it but it affects their New Zealand superannuation. I say to the Minister and his colleagues that the challenge is to look at that issue.

We made very few changes to the bill itself, and I think the Minister has set out pretty clearly what they are. In fact, one of the changes we made was, as he said, for people who are outside New Zealand for special purposes—those who have gone to get medical treatment, are serving on a New Zealand - registered ship, are in the armed forces, are working for Volunteer Service Abroad or doing missionary work, or, perhaps, are employed in embassies overseas—their time outside New Zealand would be counted as residence for the purpose of the formula that I have just set out.

Some people are engaged in charity work overseas but are not part of Volunteer Service Abroad; there may be some other organisations that are not covered here. We did not put them in the legislation, but we said that, should the opportunity arise, it would be valuable for the Government to consider this issue further in the future. That was one of the changes that we made.

One submission that I think was pretty important was from the New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association around the veterans pension. I know that there is a lot of concern by veterans that they have been counted with New Zealand superannuation in terms of this formula and in terms of the portability of their pension overseas. The case they put to the select committee is that they receive a veterans pension based not on their age but on the disability they received in their service for New Zealand. They may receive their veterans pension at 45, not 65, and, in their view, if they wish to travel and live overseas in another country, they ought to be able to take their veterans pension with them, and it should not be linked to New Zealand superannuation, but based on the fact that they are entitled to it because of their disability.

We could not address that issue at select committee, but I believe it needs to be addressed, and I know that the previous Minister of Veterans’ Affairs, Rick Barker, has been responsible for the rewrite of the Veterans’ Affairs Act. He first of all started the work with the Law Commission, which hopefully will lead to a rewrite of the Act itself, and I hope that this issue is addressed in relation to that. The Returned and Services’ Association, obviously a very significant group, made a very compelling case, but we could not address it at the select committee itself. A number of other issues were raised, and I think that they were really unable to be addressed by the committee, either because it was an income tax issue, or it was an issue that would have made the bill unfair for other New Zealanders. We looked very carefully at the non-qualifying spouse—how he or she could be included—but we did not want to make this bill unfair for other New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I am pleased to rise in support of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. As the previous speaker, Annette King, said, this bill will have support across the House. Although she started by saying she did not want to get political, she had a crack at the Minister for Social Development and Employment for taking more credit for the bill than she should. But putting that aside, I think we need to acknowledge the previous Minister—

Grant Robertson: You agree, then. Do you agree that she did?

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I will get to that. We should acknowledge the previous Minister, Ruth Dyson, for her work, but the bill, having been introduced, languished for several months. I think the fact that this bill has been brought before the House for its second reading, in amongst the plethora of legislation that this hard-working Government is putting through, is a testament to the very hard-working Minister for Senior Citizens and the high priority that this Government places on that very important section of our community.

I was not a member of the Social Services Committee, but I thank those members for their work, and I also thank the officials for their work on what is such sensible legislation. It also, I think, reflects the fact that our society is changing. We are much more mobile, we are fluid, and thanks to the baby boomers we are increasingly getting older on average, but we are fitter and more mobile.

As some members know, my mother passed away about 3 weeks ago, and I take this opportunity to thank members of the House for their messages of condolence through that time. In the last few years of her life she was very active, and she travelled. Had my father still been alive, I am quite sure they would have taken advantage of the opportunity to spend quite some time away in the countries they discovered in their later years. Their friends are still doing that. I expect that this legislation will come as a real boost to them in being able to travel more fluidly through other countries, whereas previously they were not able to, and also to earn a more generous rate of superannuation, up from the current flat rate of 50 percent. So I congratulate both the previous and present Ministers and the select committee, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) : Although I could support the principles that lie behind the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill, one can describe the bill as having a number of faulty details. In fact, I would go so far as to say I have grave doubts about the fairness and equity of this bill and the way it treats different New Zealanders.

It treats different New Zealanders in a number of ways. The bill creates a number of secondary effects that have not been taken into account, and, in large part, aspects of the bill have been driven by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a de facto form of foreign aid. That, I think, is to be regretted.

Maybe I can illustrate the point that I want to make with a graph. Members may not be able to see it, but there are three different areas—

Chris Hipkins: Well, we can’t see it if you don’t hold it up.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: I will hold it up in a moment when I get to the point I am illustrating.

Firstly, there are New Zealanders who wish to retire to places with which we already have an international agreement. Up to today, this group of people theoretically have actually been advantaged. This bill does nothing for that group. They remain where they are. In fact, many New Zealanders who go to Australia, for example—because that is where their children have gone to live and work—having worked here for 47 years, might find themselves in the position of actually getting zero, because they have to comply with the Australian rules, and the Australian rules mean that they are means-tested.

This graph plots the number of years worked against the percentage of New Zealand superannuation one would receive. If I look at the graph, I see that if I go to Australia or any of the countries that we currently have an agreement with, I could get zero, or I could be anywhere between zero and this red line, which represents superannuation in non-Pacific countries. If I go to any other country, apart from the 22 Pacific Island countries, I will be on the red line. On the other hand, if I go to live in one of the 22 Pacific Island countries—it does not matter whether I am a Pacific Islander; I could be an American who has been here for 10 or 20 years—I will be on the blue line, which beyond the 10-year mark is higher than the red line. The gap between the red line and the blue line is the advantage—the extra I would get. So if I am an American who has come here to live for 10 or 20 years, as long as I say that I will retire in one of the Pacific Islands, I can go on to that top line of the graph.

I will tell members about one of the unintended consequences of the bill. Pacific Island people who can come to New Zealand for 10 or 20 years would be absolutely mad not to do just that. The return for the 10 or 20 years is huge. One of the unintended consequences of this bill is that we are saying to Pacific Island people that in their best working years they should come to New Zealand. It will get Pacific Island people and others to come here for 10 or 20 years in order to get the benefits of this pension. In their best working years they will not be contributing in the Islands; they will be contributing elsewhere. To me that is preferential treatment.

The fact is that it was driven, as I understand it, by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as a de facto form of foreign aid. It seems odd to use a policy instrument as blunt as superannuation as a mechanism to deliver aid to the Pacific Islands. Cash handouts to particular demographic groups of society could hardly be considered to be an effective aid programme. It may be that that is what we intend to do. It may be that we are happy for someone to come from a foreign country, let us say America, spend 10 or 20 years here and then be able to retire on, in some cases, a 100 percent pension, provided the place of residence is in one of the 22 Pacific Islands. It seems to me to be odd that New Zealanders who have lived here for 65 years, worked for 47 of those years, and gone to live in Australia get nothing because they have an income beyond $39,000, but others who come here and spend as little as 10 years here can get 50 percent of the pension.

I do not think this bill has been carefully thought out. It will create anomalies. More particularly, I believe it will have some secondary effects that will not be helpful to the Pacific Islands. I know the intention was that it would be helpful, so that Pacific Islanders in particular could return, so that the Islands would benefit. But the fact is that this bill will say to people that if they come here for 10 years, they will get a substantial pension, and that if they stay for 20 years, they will get an even bigger pension. We are saying to Pacific Islanders that if they come here, they will get a pension of 5 percent per year, provided they do the minimum 10 years. As for New Zealanders, they can work for 47 or 45 years and get 2.25 percent per year, but if they go to Australia or one of those countries that we have an arrangement with, it may well be that they get nothing. Personally, I do not think there is much fairness in that.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) : That was an extraordinary speech from the Hon Sir Roger Douglas, who criticised both the Government and the Labour Party, and described the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill as being preferential and as some sort of back-door deal to allow people from Pacific countries to come to New Zealand in order to get a pension. That speech came from a member of Parliament who not only earns $100,000-plus in his job—and I am sure he earns that money—but also is one of the few members of this House who are still entitled to receive the gold-plated parliamentary superannuation scheme as well as his national superannuation entitlement. He comes to this House to criticise what is quite a small amendment, but one that will allow people who have earned their entitlement to New Zealand superannuation to then retire in countries of their choice, without being disadvantaged. I think the country will be gobsmacked by the cheek of that speech.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not really want to interrupt the member, but she should not make the sorts of accusations that she is making. In fact, since I came back into Parliament I have no longer drawn parliamentary superannuation. I think the member knows that, but for her to say that is incorrect.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That is not strictly a point of order.

Hon RUTH DYSON: The Minister John Carter, who spoke earlier in the debate, talked about his support and National’s support for this legislation, and about how he was looking forward to his retirement time and to being able, perhaps, to take advantage of this amendment to the superannuation legislation, as we all will be able to do when we retire. The Hon John Carter, who will be entitled to receive New Zealand superannuation in just under 6 years’ time, may well have spoken with confidence about that, but I personally do not share that confidence. The reason why I do not share that confidence is that even though in this particular instance the Government is supporting legislation that will benefit hard-working New Zealanders who have earned superannuation, it has also, in this very same year, gutted the fund that gives New Zealanders confidence in their future entitlement to New Zealand superannuation at all.

This Government has committed New Zealand to a decade of deferred payment to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. That fund gave all of us who were in our 30s, 40s, or 50s confidence that we could look forward to a retirement age of 65 and know that we would be able to receive superannuation at its current level. The gutting of that fund means that New Zealanders like the Hon John Carter, when he retires at the age of 65 on 8 May 2015, will no longer be able to have the confidence that he will receive that superannuation.

Not only was that a very bad move for superannuitants but also it was very bad in terms of basic financial management. I am not sure how the Hon Bill English managed to convince the entire National caucus to support the gutting of the scheme. When Treasury did its analysis, it said that by 2031, when the withdrawals from the Superannuation Fund will be completed, the fund will be short by $35 billion. That is how much money Bill English has taken out of the fund, and that is how much money we will be short of when we try to ensure that superannuitants in the future will be able to receive superannuation at the current level. Treasury also said—again, I say this is Treasury information—that Bill English’s plan gutted the Superannuation Fund by 50 percent, and that we will never be able to catch up that money. If we have the decade of deferrals of payments into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, we will never catch up.

I am not even sure whether National wants to catch up on those payments. John Key has said publicly to the media that as soon as New Zealand is in surplus again the Government will start to contribute to the Superannuation Fund, but, at the very same time his deputy, Bill English, said on the public record that there would have to be trade-offs in the future, if we were to return to investing in our future superannuation, which is what the Superannuation Fund is about. He said there would have to be trade-offs between a resumption of contributions to the Superannuation Fund, tax cuts, and spending. We all know where Bill English’s choice lies. He has always gone for tax cuts now, particularly for those who are very high-income earners, at the expense of investing in future superannuation payments. People who are now in their 40s and 50s, and even in their early 60s, hard-working New Zealanders who are paying their taxes and paying their way in our society, have not received a tax cut from Bill English or the National Government, because the tax cuts programme went as soon as the Government could get away with it. All the tax cuts went to the highest-income earners. Now people know that they will not have the confidence to look forward, at 65 years of age, to receiving superannuation in the future.

Although the National members come to this House and say they support this bill, which was introduced under the previous Labour Government, those words have very little meaning to people who know that New Zealanders might be able to retire overseas and be better off under this legislation, but that we will not actually receive superannuation at the level that it is currently paid at. So this Government gives with one hand and takes away much more with the other.

That is not the only area where National has taken something away from older people. Day after day we have heard concerns being raised by my colleague Maryan Street, and a total denial from the Minister for Tertiary Education, Anne Tolley, about the damage that is being done in our communities by the 80 percent gutting of the Adult and Community Education fund. A lot of older New Zealanders will be very badly affected by that. People who are at home on their own, who have worked hard all their lives, and who get to 65, now have some time. They might be able to learn something they have always wanted to learn. They might be very lonely, so they might want to go to a night class or a class during the day to develop some friendships. Or they might just want to get out of their house. Anne Tolley said they can just pay for adult and community education themselves. Unfortunately, our schools throughout the country and our community centres, which have been running these night classes and other classes during the day, have said they cannot afford to run them any more, because Anne Tolley has gutted the fund that has made those services available to thousands and thousands of, particularly, older New Zealanders for many years. Again, I say the Government is supporting this legislation but taking away the opportunity for older New Zealanders to go to night classes.

The Minister for ACC, who, I hope, will be in the House later on this afternoon to try to explain yet again his position on accident compensation, has made one of the most savage cuts to older people that any of us can imagine. It is to take away the funding for a programme that is not only good but also highly regarded internationally, a programme that has been well researched and proven to be successful. That is the falls prevention programme. Up and down the country older people have been learning how to strengthen their muscles and how to have better balance, so that they can reduce the risk of falling, injuring themselves, breaking hips, and putting huge costs on to not just our health system but also themselves and their families personally. That programme is designed specifically to help older people to reduce the risk of falling and being injured. It has been gutted; it is gone. There is no more money. Once again, I say that although the National Government says it supports this legislation, introduced by a Labour-led Government, it is taking away yet another thing from older people.

Of course we have also heard, particularly from my Canterbury colleagues Jim Anderton, Lianne Dalziel, Clayton Cosgrove, and Brendon Burns, about the savage cuts in home support for older people. For many people a couple of hours of home support, at very low rates of pay and at very low cost to the taxpayer, is the difference between that person being able to stay safely and well in his or her own home, and having to move into a rest home. It provides people with a genuine choice about where they want to live, and it provides them with the opportunity to stay in their home, often right up until the time that they die. Now we are seeing further cuts in the health system and front-line services being cut for some of the most vulnerable people in our community: older New Zealanders, who have worked hard and contributed by raising their families or by being in a paid job. They are people who deserve to be respected and valued, rather than to be at the cutting edge of health cuts.

I support this bill and urge its progress.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : The Green Party will continue to support the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill through all stages in the House today. We agree with the previous Labour Government, which introduced this legislation in the first place, and with National, which followed through with it, that people on superannuation and the veterans pension should be able to continue to receive their entitlements while travelling or living overseas, even in countries with which we have no reciprocal social security arrangements. Up until now, people could not receive their full pension in that situation, and that has had an ongoing negative impact on many older New Zealanders.

During the consideration of the bill by the Social Services Committee, members heard a number of submissions supporting the bill from the perspective of the yachting fraternity. Clearly a considerable number of our older citizens use retirement as an opportunity to take to the ocean wave. For those people the current law and regulations make such cruising highly problematic, as they have to return home every 6 months to retain any eligibility at all for the pension. Those citizens are delighted with the freedom to travel that this new law will provide. Of course, it is not just those roaming the high seas who will benefit from this bill, but all our older people who want the freedom to choose the country they live in, while still receiving full entitlement to superannuation. In an age when so many people here are still migrants themselves and would like the chance to spend time in their country of origin, and also at a time when many of us have children living overseas, the ability to spend considerable periods with family elsewhere is particularly precious.

One improvement we made at the select committee that was endorsed by the Green Party was to make it clear that people who are outside of New Zealand for special medical treatment or training, who serve in the armed forces or our embassy service abroad, who work on a New Zealand - owned ship, or who are undertaking VSA work or missionary work should have that time counted as New Zealand residence when it comes to working out the formula to calculate the proportion of superannuation they are paid while overseas once they turn 65. However, I continue to have a concern that Kiwis who have worked overseas in either a paid or a volunteer capacity for non-governmental organisations other than Volunteer Service Abroad or religious bodies will not be covered by the same provision. I think it is a glaring inequity, as working for Oxfam or Save the Children should not be seen in a different light from working for a religious mission or VSA. We were told that to extend the provision to other not-for-profit organisations would create inconsistencies that would be beyond the scope of the bill to deal with, but I hope the Government will look at how to address the anomaly as soon as is practicable.

On a rather more significant issue, a number of submitters raised the same matter that I talked about in my first reading speech on this bill: the vexed question of the impact of the dollar-for-dollar deduction against New Zealand superannuation payments imposed in regard to private contributions made to Government-administered overseas pension schemes. The matter has come before the Social Services Committee over and over again in the 10 years that I have been a member of Parliament. People are deeply upset by the fundamental inequity of missing out on the benefits of private pension funds in other countries—such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and others—that they contributed to, often for a major part of their working lives. Although it is true that this issue is outside the scope of this bill, heartfelt opposition to the direct deduction policy of section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964 will not go away in a hurry.

I am aware that, when in Opposition, some National members spoke encouragingly to superannuitants in that situation about changes that they might make should they be part of a Government. I urge National to have the strength and foresight to grasp this admittedly thorny issue and make a determined effort to deal with it in a fair and equitable way, rather than leaving it to one side as being too difficult or problematic, as has happened up until now. It is good to see one group of superannuitants and people on the veterans pension being treated with more fairness by the bill before us today, but I am very sure that a section 70 problem will linger until and unless a Government of whatever hue is willing to address this underpinning injustice that impacts on so many of our citizens.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I am very pleased to take a short call on the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the work the former Government did in preparing this bill so that it could be in the House today. The bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to make it easier for older New Zealanders to travel or live overseas. It updates the payment overseas policy that has been in place since 1990.

We live in a mobile world. New Zealanders are living longer and in generally better health. With over half a million predominantly younger New Zealanders living overseas, and with air travel being so affordable, it is only understandable and expected that older New Zealanders will want to travel to visit family and relatives, or to participate in tourist activities. This Government is committed to ensuring that older New Zealanders, whatever country they live in, are able to live in dignity and have the freedom to move around. Older New Zealanders have contributed to our country and they have invested in this country. We need to make it easier for older New Zealanders to travel and move between countries. This bill does exactly that. Instead of the current flat rate of payment, older New Zealanders will be able to receive up to 100 percent, depending on the number of years they have resided in New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : It is a pleasure to stand and speak in support of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. In doing so, I acknowledge the previous Labour Government, which put this bill on the Order Paper, and I acknowledge that the Government is moving forward with this bill. That is a very good thing. I note that I would have been delighted to see this bill progress in the first 100 days of action, rather than some other bills—for example, the bill pertaining to the cutting of KiwiSaver and those sorts of things. Nevertheless it is before the House now, and that is really good.

We know that this bill will work in the interest of superannuitants—and veterans, whom I will talk about later—who have contributed all their working life to New Zealand, and then in their retirement years want to take advantage of those years and travel. Under the old scheme, they were disadvantaged and, in fact, penalised for taking up that opportunity. This bill is very good for supporting superannuitants and enabling them—certainly not in their twilight years; in what some would call a very exciting time of their life—to be in the position, having worked, to travel, to take advantage of the savings they may have been able to make, and to have other opportunities. I think that security in receiving and being able to receive superannuation at that time will make a tremendous difference to the quality of their life, and, indeed, provide for them exactly what they are entitled to, and that is New Zealand superannuation.

The bill is also important—and the Hon Annette King and the Hon Ruth Dyson spoke on this matter—in terms of our veterans, who have given so much in service to this country. It has been acknowledged that they may not be 65 years old; they may be at a stage of their lives where a whole lot of opportunities open up overseas. It is great that they are able to receive their pension—indeed, it is vital that they do—when they are in a position to take advantage of the opportunities to travel or to work overseas.

I am very pleased to stand in support of this bill. I think it will have wide-ranging support, and so it should. I cannot go past mentioning that, along with this bill, we see advantages for superannuitants in terms of the travel policy that was introduced under Labour. I hope that that policy is available to all New Zealanders. It perhaps does not enhance the ability to travel overseas, but it enhances the ability to travel within communities and within cities, which is absolutely vital to the quality of life of superannuitants in New Zealand.

I have tremendous pride in commending this bill to the House. I also cannot go past talking about superannuation and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. Part of making superannuation available to superannuitants when they travel is ensuring that we have a superannuation fund. The deferral of payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in the last Budget is of great concern to me. On one hand, we are saying it is absolutely essential—and we all agree with this—that superannuation is available, is extended, and is another investment in our hard-working superannuitants and veterans who have contributed so much. We are saying that we are enhancing their payments, yet we are deferring the payments into the Superannuation Fund, which will jeopardise the ability to provide that superannuation.

Darien Fenton: Ridiculous!

LYNNE PILLAY: It is, indeed, ridiculous. The whole fund is not at risk, but certainly the ability to continue providing superannuation at those levels for superannuitants and veterans travelling will be much harder. We know that that was a very silly move of the Government.

We see that New Zealanders are worried and concerned about the security of their pensions, and we see that this legislation will put more pressure on that security. It gives even more reason why the Government should accept that it made a mistake. There is nothing wrong with admitting that it made a mistake. Indeed, there are so many instances—whether it is about the adult and community education funding cuts, whether it is about the cuts to young people with disabilities; there is a myriad of things—where we see that if the Government fronted up and said that it got something wrong and asked how it could fix it, then we would be more than willing to work with the Government on it. I urge the Government in supporting and putting forward this bill—it was not in the 100 days of action, but it is, none the less, happening now—to look at the funding for superannuation. I urge the Government to look at those payments to the Superannuation Fund and say that it did not get it right, so it should look at it. It should not defer those payments; it should keep the Superannuation Fund healthy so that it can provide for all of its commitments for our superannuitants and our veterans, not just now, but for decades and for generations to come.

I could not take a call on this bill without mentioning this matter and urging the Government in this respect. A number of members opposite look quite interested in what I am saying and look quite positive. I ask my colleague the Hon Annette King whether she thinks that. I acknowledge that they are, and I think I see some heads nodding. There have been some very valid and very constructive arguments from this side of the House; there always are. I think the member is right that very careful consideration is being given.

In summary, I say again that Labour is right behind the bill—in fact, we were at the forefront of it—and we support it. We would love the Government to put an amendment up—

Hon Member: You had 9 years to do this—9 years!

Hon Annette King: It doesn’t matter how long we had; we did it. You had 9 years to do it when you were in Government last time, but you didn’t do it!

LYNNE PILLAY: Exactly. To ensure that this happens and this security is provided for superannuitants and veterans, now and for decades and generations to come, I urge the Government to take another look at the Superannuation Fund and to reinstate those payments, because then we have security for people in retirement for the future. I think that is very important. Thank you very much.

SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) : I rise in support of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. There are a number of reasons why I do so. One that has been stated is that we have become a nation in an international world, not a parochial island nation at the bottom of the South Pacific. New Zealand now has people with family members right across the world. In fact, the Deputy Speaker, I know, and I both currently have family overseas. Although both he and I are a long way—many, many years—away from being eligible for superannuation, the time may come where we may want to be part of Government superannuation payments and visit our family overseas, and we should be able to do that.

As I understand it, the bill fixes up a number of issues in regard to that. Three main issues are probably worth mentioning here. The current flat rate of a 50 percent payment provides insufficient income for people to function sensibly or have a reasonable standard of living if they are visiting family overseas for a prolonged period of time. Other people travel from country to country because they have more than one family member and those family members are in different places. The current rules restrict them to being able to receive that 50 percent payment only if they have a place of residence in one nation. Obviously, that is very restrictive to some people, and they have to keep returning to a certain destination to be eligible for that. This bill fixes up that problem.

I know a constituent of mine who has family overseas. She herself comes from a very humble background, but her family have travelled overseas and prospered. They are happy for mum to come and live with them for prolonged periods. One family member is in the United States and the other is in the UK. Members can clearly see how this legislation would have an impact on her, and how the proposed amendments will help her in that regard. Payments overseas are presently linked to residence overseas, but this bill fixes that. Those are two things that I personally know of that this bill will help.

I thank the officials and those who were involved in the process of getting the bill to this point. It is good when we have a Parliament that is as united as this one appears to be on this particular legislation, and I know that a lot of senior citizens out there at the moment are very pleased to see this path that the House is going down today.

The third issue of concern is that the rules currently restrict the ability of an older person to be on the go all the time. Some people go overseas, and they get into a permanent state of travel, as it were; they travel from country to country. A member mentioned the late taking-up of travel by yacht—childhood dreams being realised in people’s 60s and 70s. Of course, such people do not have any permanent place of residence. They are of no fixed abode, as it were. They are restricted by the current rules, but this legislation will allow them to have access to superannuation payments, as well.

National supports the bill; we think it is a good idea. I look forward to its passage through the House.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) : I will take a short call; there are some points I want to make. This Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill was tabled by a Labour Government, and it was good to hear the Hon Ruth Dyson speaking earlier. This bill will give some certainty, and it is interesting that we are using urgency to pass it through all its stages. That is a really good use of urgency, because it will give some certainty to a lot of elderly New Zealanders. I congratulate Paula Bennett, the sole member of the executive here in the Chamber. I think it would have been good if she had led the debate, but John Carter did a very good job as the Minister for Senior Citizens. He got up quite enthusiastically.

This bill will give a lot of certainty to some people, mainly to those who draw superannuation but also to veterans. Of course, many other New Zealanders may not have the same certainty. What will happen to New Zealand superannuation? I heard a rumour this morning that in the long term the Government—if it ever gets re-elected; I do not suppose it will be, so we should not worry about it—will raise the age of superannuation to 67, or even 68. If I were a young person in my 50s, I would be really worried because that could happen. I think that people need to be aware that today we are giving certainty to one group, but we are not giving complete certainty. What will happen to New Zealand superannuation in the future? That is the real question that will be bothering people who have their ears close to their transistor radio, or, as John Banks used to say, to their crystal set. They will be wondering what is happening, long term, to their superannuation. We have seen National not support the Cullen fund, and that must be a warning sign.

Hon Damien O’Connor: No vision.

Hon GEORGE HAWKINS: Absolutely no vision! If National does not support the Cullen fund and money is not going into it, what will happen to those people relative to others? Of course, relative to others, for those on superannuation, whether they get it in one of the 22 Pacific Island countries or in New Zealand, things will not be too rosy in the future. When Ruth Dyson tabled this bill, there was not the uncertainty there is now. What will happen for those people? Yes, it will be great for those who want to live in a Pacific Island country in their retirement. In my electorate, Manurewa, we have a large Pacific Island community, and they will welcome this bill being passed because it will give them choices. It will give them the opportunity to go back home to one of the Islands, if they want, and enjoy their retirement there. I imagine that that is probably true of people who live in colder parts of New Zealand rather than in the warmer parts that I represent.

But in the end, people ought to be very, very suspicious of what will happen with the superannuation scheme in total. I think people will get worried about that when they start to get mixed messages from the Government. John Key said that if anything happened to the scheme, he would resign. Bill English might like that. He might think that is quite a good idea. Maybe that is why they have differing opinions on it; I do not know. In the end, I think this bill will put current superannuation entitlements into an area that people will not be sure about.

I am very pleased that Parliament is joining together to pass this bill. It is a small step, but it is a very good use of urgency to get the bill through all stages today. I think that is something people will welcome.

• Bill read a second time.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I move, That the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and the War Pensions Amendment Bill be now read a third time. It is with pleasure that I see the third reading of these bills going through. The bills fulfil the National Government’s commitment to ensure that older New Zealanders have more freedom to decide where they live or travel in their retirement. The bills will achieve that aim by making amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions can be paid overseas, depending on where a superannuitant or veterans pensioner intends to go, for how long, and for what purpose. New Zealand has reciprocal social security agreements with other countries, including Australia, Canada, Greece, the Netherlands, Jersey, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. Special provisions also allow payments to people heading off to live in most Pacific countries. Outside of those countries, there are payment provisions called “general portability”. The amendments in the legislation relate solely to the general portability provisions and will not affect New Zealand social security agreements or the provisions for Pacific countries.

Today’s retirees are different: they have worked longer and they are more active than ever before. After a lifetime of working and dutifully paying taxes they want more out of their golden years than just sitting in a rocking chair waiting for Coronation Street to start. If they travel, they do not necessarily want to be stuck on a package tour through Europe—21 countries in 30 days—in a bus, just to have to get back in time to pick up their pension. Today’s retirees are not content to be regaled with the adventure tales of their grandchildren. They want their own stories; they want their own OE.

The general portability provisions have prevented many superannuitants and veterans pensioners from moving to the country of their choice or travelling for a long time overseas. The bills will change that situation. The key change is a new payment rate. Instead of receiving the current flat 50 percent of the domestic rate, a superannuitant or veterans pensioner will be able to receive up to the full rate of a New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension, depending on how long the person has resided in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65 years. I must agree with the Hon Annette King, who said how much discussion went into what the formula should be. Much work has been done on that and it has been carefully thought out in the name of fairness. There continues to be no entitlement to any additional payment for a non-qualified spouse or partner, or for a living alone payment.

The second change is that the legislation will free up the rules restricting the ability for those on superannuation and the veterans pension to move around once they go overseas. The legislation will allow for the payment of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension to those who wish to reside in more than one country with which New Zealand has no social security agreement, whether they remain in the country they first move to or whether they move to other countries once they are overseas. It also allows for the payment of superannuation and the veterans pension to those on superannuation and the veterans pension who leave New Zealand to travel to or in another country, or between any two countries, for more than 26 weeks but who do not reside, as such, outside New Zealand.

In conclusion, I reiterate that this legislation is part of this Government’s commitment to ensuring that older New Zealanders are free to decide where they wish to reside or to travel in their retirement. This legislation also acknowledges that New Zealand is part of a global community and that our older people are most certainly a part of that global community. It also ensures that our retirees come from many countries and regions of the world and have the freedom to travel around. I commend this legislation to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) : This legislation fulfils Parliament’s commitment to older New Zealanders. It was supported by all parties, with the exception of the ACT Party, during the Committee stage. However, I note that ACT did not vote against the legislation at the Committee stage, nor did it propose any amendments. Although I respect the arguments that Sir Roger Douglas put forward and appreciate the charts that he showed members—which, unfortunately, other people probably could not see—I think that he has the wrong end of the stick in relation to this legislation.

I do not believe that it was the previous Labour Government’s intention when we tabled the original bill, the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill, in the House in September 2008, nor the intention of the current National Government, to set up a system that would advantage Pacific Island people in coming into New Zealand to get a job so that they could get a better pension. I think that argument does not take account of a number of issues, the main one being that in order for Pacific Island people to come into New Zealand to get a job, they have to go through the immigration hoops to begin with. The idea that the door is open for people from the Pacific to walk in and work here in order to get a pension to take back to the Islands misses out quite a few important steps, mainly that anybody who comes into this country must meet the immigration criteria that are in place.

This legislation was put into the House and it is supported by all parties except for ACT, because we wanted to make things easier and better for our older New Zealanders. They will be able to take their pension with them if they go to live in another country of their choice. People have been able, since April 1999, to take 50 percent of their pension with them. Unfortunately, that amount is not enough for people to live on in most other countries. It was a real restriction on people who felt that they had paid their taxes all their lives and had made their contribution. They had worked hard, and they had money that they thought was their entitlement. Superannuation is not a benefit; it is a pension in their eyes. They felt that they could not take a sufficient proportion of it with them to perhaps enable them to reside in another country where their family is now living.

This legislation uses a formula, which I think is a fair one, to take account of the years that people have worked and resided in this country. I think that it is a fair formula, which now enables people to do some of the things that Minister Paula Bennett outlined in her speech. She was correct when she said that for New Zealanders today, the age of 65 is really like what age 55 was like previously. People are much more active today. They want to travel, and many of them have children who now live overseas. That is part of the global economy in which we live. Our children get jobs in other countries, they marry people from other countries, and they take up residence in other countries. One of the things that people want to do when they get older is to share time with their families and to live near them. This legislation will enable that to happen for many New Zealanders, and I think that change is to be welcomed.

At the Social Services Committee people generally supported the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. They did raise a number of issues that were outside the scope of the bill, but also they raised some issues that were within the scope of the bill but on which we could not make the changes that they wanted without making the system unfair for other New Zealanders. One such issue that comes to mind is that of the non-qualifying spouse. The argument that was put to us related to the situation that occurs when a couple heads off overseas and the man is already receiving New Zealand superannuation, and even if the woman is only a few months off turning 65 years, she cannot apply for superannuation while she is overseas. We were asked why the non-qualifying spouse should not be able to apply for superannuation from the country he or she is now residing in, and in which country the couple say they will now permanently reside. I know that Chester Borrows would agree that on the surface that sounded like a very fair thing to provide for, until the officials started to unpick the whole scenario. If an advantage was given to one non-qualifying spouse, a whole lot of disadvantage would then open up for a whole lot of other people. We would have got ourselves into a right old pickle if we had agreed with one group that had made a submission about that issue and had supported such a change.

The Minister did not answer some questions that were asked during the Committee stage. They were serious questions on the issue of section 70 of the Social Security Act 1964. People submitted on that section. We did not hear their submissions. Submitters did not care about the fact that they were not meant to submit on that section of the Act. They wanted their submissions to be heard, and John Carter said during his speech that the issue they raised was something that he had heard about for many, many years. People want to be able to have their overseas pension that they earned in another country as part of their income here in New Zealand. As I said in the Committee stage, we believed that was unfinished business in terms of the changes that need to be made. I asked the Minister whether the Government was considering making such a change or doing work on such a change, but the Minister did not address that matter.

I also asked the Minister during the Committee stage whether the Government was considering making the changes proposed by the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association. The association made a very compelling submission to the select committee around the veterans’ entitlement and the portability issue. The association did not believe that portability should be linked to age; it said that it ought to be linked to the fact that people were receiving the veterans pension because of their disability. I gather that the association has felt strongly about this issue for a long time. I did ask the Minister whether the Government was considering making such a change, and, in terms of the review, was looking at such a change being made. We could not make it; it was not possible for us to do that. We were given good reasons as to why we could not include that change in this legislation, but I did ask the Minister whether the Government was considering making it. I think the association would really like to know whether this matter is on the Government’s work agenda, because I have no doubt that the issue will not go away.

There was little debate on this legislation. There did not need to be a lot of debate on it, because there was agreement across the House. There was little dispute and little rancour. There was some grandstanding about whose legislation it was, but let us put the issues on the table. The Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill was tabled by Ruth Dyson in September 2008. One speaker from the Government side said the previous Labour Government waited too long before doing anything about it. I have a very clear memory that from around 22 September onwards we were rather busy. An election was held in, I think, early November. There were not many people in this House who were busy debating anything, but former Ministers had done work in the area of updating and improving portability over a long period of time. We had been doing that going right back to 1990 and, as the Minister said, going back to the changes made in 1999 around the entitlements for people who are living in the Pacific. It was ongoing work and, as I have pointed out, there is still more to be done.

• Debate interrupted.

• Sitting suspended from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill provides for a $50 levy to be imposed on all convicted offenders when they are sentenced in the District Court and the High Court for one or more criminal convictions. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that offenders, in a general sense, contribute towards addressing the harm that criminal behaviour causes to victims. In 2008 only 15 percent of the estimated 120,000 sentences that were imposed included a component of reparation. Revenue generated from the offender levy, an estimated $13.6 million over the first 4 years, will be used to fund additional entitlements and services for victims of serious crime. I wish to thank Ministry of Justice officials for the considerable amount of work that has gone into this legislation by the ministry.

Last Friday I was very pleased to announce to the Victim Support conference that eight new entitlements and services for the victims of crime will be funded from the offender levy. Five of those eight will be administered and run by Victim Support. The implementation of the new entitlements and services will be phased in over the next 9 months, and some services will begin before the legislation comes into force, because of the availability of Sentencing Council funding to support the revenue to be generated by the offender levy.

Four of the new entitlements and services will provide further assistance to the families of homicide victims. First, the families of homicide victims will be able to claim up to $10,000, an extra $4,500 on top of the current entitlement, to pay for costs associated with their family member’s funeral. As I said, it is an additional $4,500 over and above what is currently available to them through the accident compensation scheme. Second, the existing Government-funded discretionary grant for the families of homicide victims who are suffering financial hardship, which is administered by Victim Support, will be increased from $1,500 to up to $5,000. The eligibility for it has also been expanded.

Third, a new homicide support service will be established. These new paid staff will be managed by Victim Support, and will build on its existing volunteer network to provide nationwide assistance to the families of homicide victims. The service will provide practical and emotional support to families from the discovery of the homicide, throughout the court process, and beyond that time. This will ensure that the families of homicide victims have a central point of contact during their interaction with the justice sector and have a reliable, ongoing source of support and advice. The fourth entitlement for the families of homicide victims is a new grant to support families attending High Court proceedings for those accused of killing their family member. Up to five family members will be able to claim $124 each for every day that they attend court. That is double the rate paid to jurors. This grant will help to mitigate the financial impact of families having to take time off work to attend a trial.

Two of the new entitlements and services to be funded from the offender levy will assist the victims of sexual violence, in particular. A new sexual violence court support service will be established to support the victims of sexual violence during court proceedings. Victims of sexual violence report being traumatised and re-victimised by the justice process. It is our goal to ensure that the court system is responsive to the specific needs of those victims. The second initiative for the victims of sexual violence is a new discretionary grant that will assist victims with the modest one-off expenses associated with the justice process, such as the loss of clothing due to forensic testing. This Government recognises that the emotional and physical impacts of sexual violence are often compounded by the financial costs associated with the crime. This new grant will provide a starting point of $250 to contribute to victims’ immediate costs.

The last two entitlements and services will support all victims of serious crime. The Government-funded travel assistance scheme, which is administered by Victim Support, will be increased to better cover the costs of victims of serious crime when travelling to court proceedings and their associated expenses. For travel to court, victims will be able to claim up to $3,000. For travel to Parole Board hearings, victims will be able to claim up to $1,500. That is three times the current amount of the scheme.

Finally, new information resources will be produced for the victims of serious crime. This will assist crime victims to navigate their way through the court process and will, hopefully, inform them about the services and support that are available to them. I am confident that these new entitlements and services will make a real difference in the lives of the victims of crime.

I am not ashamed to say the Government is proud of what we have been able to deliver in this case in a very short period of time. I do not pretend, and nor does the Government, that it will take away the pain of the loss or injury that the victims of crime suffer, but we hope it will help in some way to smooth the path towards resolution. My hope is that this is just the beginning of reform in this area. It is these types of new services and assistance for victims that members should bear utmost in their minds when they deliberate for the final time on this bill. It is, after all, a means to a worthy end. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : We will not stand in the way of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. I acknowledge two points: the Government’s best intentions with regard to this measure, and the appropriateness of commending the Minister for some of the programmes that he has outlined in respect of the money and resources that will be provided to victims. I join with him in having a sense of revulsion about the offences against victims, especially those involving sexual violation, and about the trauma and tragedy that victims have to go through, along with their family and extended family, as they relive every moment of every day in a court proceeding, which is required to ensure that the offender is dealt with. I sympathise with, as I think all members do on this side of the House, and agree with the motivations behind this bill.

I know some media have accused us of dragging the chain on these things, but I say it is appropriate for Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition to raise matters of concern, and indeed it has a right to do so, because we would like this legislation to work. But without being unkind, I say that throughout this debate we have raised some matters—and I do note some of the Minister’s comments—regarding the provision of services to victims of sexual violation. The Minister announced a provision to compensate victims for the loss of clothing, for instance—a very practical measure. When the victims of sexual violation have to submit clothing for forensic testing, they will get a quantum of money—a couple of hundred dollars. That is appropriate. They will receive some assistance to get through the trauma of a court case, and again that is appropriate. They will also receive some assistance in respect of travel, as will victims not just of sexual violation but of other offences.

But if we are dealing with the victims of sexual violation, here is the gap. At the same time as the Minister is announcing small quantities of money for the victims of sexual violation, the Minister for ACC, Nick Smith, is tearing away, cutting back on, and putting new hurdles in front of, the victims of sexual assault and sexual violation in respect of accident compensation. So the victims of sexual violation will get some money for clothing, some money for travel, and some money, rightly, to assist them through the trauma of a court proceeding, and then they are dumped. Their pain and trauma does not simply become cauterised after the verdict and the sentence are delivered by a judge. It continues for the rest of their life, and up until recently, of course, they were eligible for the provision of services from the accident compensation scheme.

I go back to that horrific case in Taranaki. The grandmother of two young boys who were raped, sodomised, and beaten was forced to go to the media and to her local member of Parliament to beg for counselling services for her young ones. The counsellor appointed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) said the children needed counselling, and the police said they needed counselling, but ACC turned them down. It seems the new step in the procedures could now be, sadly, trial by media, or trial through the advocacy of an MP. We know there are 1,100 cases now pending of victims who require sexual abuse counselling, which are now in limbo because the Government is sitting on its hands.

So although I commend the Minister for what he is proposing to do with some of the money, I say it is a drop in the ocean to victims. Their trauma and their tragedy, and their need for resources and support, do not end when the jury says “Guilty”, and the judge delivers the sentence. It continues, perhaps, for the rest of their lives. This Government takes the view that it will put this issue up in a political pamphlet sort of way, but there is a complete disconnection between what it is trying to do here—

Hon Member: It’s a shambles.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: It is a shambles, as my colleague says, because as Minister Power provides some resources for victims, Nick Smith pulls other resources away. We raised issues around the resources.

Paul Quinn: This is a friendly day.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: The member says it is completely different. Well, that shows Mr Quinn up for what he is. If he sees the issue as being completely different for the victim of sexual abuse or of a sexual assault to require assistance during the court proceeding and beyond that time, I ask him what the difference is. There is no difference to their trauma. I ask him to go and ask a victim of sexual abuse.

Then we come—

Paul Quinn: What are you talking about?

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, if the member woke up, he might know.

Then we come to the amounts that are projected to be raised through this levy. I pay tribute to the ACT Party and Mr Garrett, because Mr Garrett made a very important speech. He said that he and his party are as sceptical as the Labour Party about whether this legislation will work. I believe that with a levy of $50 per offender under this legislation, it will cost more than that to collect it. It will cost more to collect the levy than the revenue that is gained to dish out to victims. I predict that the Government will end up topping up, perhaps at the next Budget, the amount of money that it gets in. I predict that the cost of collection will outstrip the money that is brought in. Mr Garrett said, I believe—and he will correct me if I misquote him—he would stand by us, and may even propose amendments himself to try to deliver support for victims in an appropriate way, if this legislation does not work.

I say to the Government that if it were really serious about giving the victims of crime direct assistance, it would not worry about a levy and the bureaucracy of collecting it. If the Government were serious it would take half the money, or maybe a quarter of the money, that it has given to independent private schools—$5 million, $6 million, or any part of the $35 million—and it would give that money to Victim Support directly, and to other non-governmental organisations and agencies that deal with victims every day. It would give them that resource and tell them to go away and do the work that it wants them to do. The Government would tell those organisations to put an arm around victims, look after them, make sure they are OK, and not to worry about the bureaucracy around the collection of the funds for that work.

There would not be any bureaucracy if there were a direct cash injection to those people. But oh, no—

John Hayes: Put it on the bill, Phil!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: “Put it on the bill”, someone said. Who was that genius? No we do not have to put it on the bill, Mr Hayes. The Government should take a quantum of the money it is going to give to private schools and give it to those in need, if it is really serious about helping victims. That was another silly interjection from that loose member.

Paul Quinn: Oh, we are touchy!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Yep, we are touchy. I believe that we should make provision in this legislation to resource victims appropriately. We should not write a pamphlet, because what this is really about is saying we have a thing called a victim’s levy. The issue of whether the money gets to the victims of crime is another thing—that is the difference. So it is not putting it on the bill. I say to Mr Hayes that it is called reallocating the priorities, and deciding whether the priority is giving $35 million to private schools or giving $5 million, $10 million, or $15 million to victims.

The other problem with this levy is that it is $50 per offender. A triple murderer will pay $50, even though he or she has committed three offences. A shoplifter will pay $50. A rapist will pay $50. A person convicted of manslaughter will pay $50. A person convicted of common assault will pay $50. A burglar will pay $50, even if he or she commits five burglaries in a night, affecting five families and creating five sets of victims. We think that is not appropriate. We think that is inequitable and does not recognise the gravity of the crime or the need involved. There again, if we were to provide money directly to, say, Victim Support in the form of an appropriation, then it would be up to the specialist agencies, like Victim Support and other agencies, who in my view deal better than any bureaucrat can with victims every day, to make those assessments and to provide the resource that is needed.

Then there is the issue of collection. As we have said, the bureaucracy around collection will cost more than the money that we get in. Then, of course, we note that if an offender owes only the levy and nothing else, then it will not really be collected. Offenders will not be chased for payment of the levy. We did ask the Government, time after time, how it would ensure that the levy will be paid. In law, the levy cannot be taken into account in terms of hardship to the offender by a judge. I thought Mr Borrows made a very good point when he reminded us that fines can be commuted to community service. So a judge can make an assessment on the basis of hardship and if the bill is $300 plus the $50 levy, which cannot be touched, the judge may commute the other $300 to community service or, quite legitimately in law, reduce the $300 to $200. The overall impact of that in totality negates any sort of impact that the offender levy might have had, because by doing that the judge has taken into account the hardship of the offender. There is no way to collect the levy, and at least Minister Power was upfront enough to say he could not guarantee its collection.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I am pleased to note that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition is supporting the Government in respect of the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. It will address the cost of being a victim in this country, because for too long victims have been ignored. Given that there have been gains under the previous Government, as there were under the Government previous to that, it is time that we started working with the scales of justice to show a little more equity in respect of the costs of being a victim.

In respect of this bill, it is important to strike a balance between the money that is required to be able to make some real gains, and what is recoverable. We heard from the previous speaker, Clayton Cosgrove, about the inconsistencies or inequities that he saw in respect of the fact that the $50 levy will be imposed on each appearance as opposed to each individual conviction. He said that some people will make on the deal because their crimes may be more serious or more prolific than those of a person who appears now and then for individual offences. The point is that in doing the research towards this bill, we found that if we aimed the levy at $50—at that level of offending and at that level of recovery—then we would be able to recover the maximum amount of money and do the most good with it.

The previous speaker also made comments about the ability to help victims by taking money out of one part of the Government’s Budget and putting it into another. He mentioned, for instance, the budget for independent schools, but he did not hold his hand up at all and acknowledge that the previous Government allowed a whole fleet of new independent schools but kept the cap on funding at exactly the same level, thereby dropping the budget per student for students attending those independent schools. He also failed to note that the money granted to independent schools is actually only about a quarter of what the Government gives to students attending State schools. So as far as a bang for a buck goes, the Government does very, very well out of it.

Given the parlous state of the Government’s coffers when National took over government, and given the world recession that we found ourselves having to cope with, the Government needed to find new money from somewhere. So, for instance, if we look at the education budget, we see $521 million worth of promises and pledges made by the previous Government but no money left to fund them. To take accident compensation as an example—because that was what the previous speaker mentioned in respect of services able to be offered by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), especially in respect of victims of sexual assaults—we know there was well over $2 billion of debt there. At the same time we know that when that debt was discovered, 18 more entitlements were made available to the public, which cut down the money that was available through ACC. If that level of debt had not been there, and if those extra entitlements had not been pledged to the public of New Zealand, who knows how much we would have been able to do? It does not really matter, because this is the pickle that we find ourselves in.

The other two or three points I will make about the previous speaker’s comments are these: I find it difficult to accept time and again that he does not trust the judiciary. Time and again the previous speaker said that the judiciary will always reduce a penalty on the grounds of hardship, even though it is not allowed to, and even though it is written into legislation that it is not allowed to make allowances for the fact that reparation will be ordered or for the fact a community-based or custodial sentence may be awarded. The previous speaker, the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, does not trust the judiciary to fulfil its function according to the statutes it is charged to operate under. I believe that in the separation of powers that we have, trust is a very, very important element. He should not be so duplicitous as to speak out of both sides of his mouth in respect of the way that Parliament operates and the way the judiciary operates. I do not think that it is fair to say that in this particular forum, where the judiciary does not have the opportunity to respond; if it does, it gets caned. He should not be so hard on the judiciary, or so duplicitous in respect of the way it is operating.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I regret interrupting the member, but on two occasions now he has accused a member using an unparliamentary term. It does not add to the debate, at all. I think it should be suggested to him that he withdraw and apologise for the unparliamentary remark he has made against my honourable colleague on two occasions.

David Garrett: As I understand the Standing Orders—and I am a new member—the member referred to thus must object himself or herself, and that has not occurred.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I have just consulted with the Clerk at the Table. The Clerk advises me that if a member is to withdraw and apologise on the basis of offence, it is for the member concerned to have taken offence. In this particular case, the member to whom the comments were directed was not present in the House. So then the issue is about whether it is an unparliamentary term. The term “duplicitous” is a graphic term and it is a strong term, but I do not think it is necessarily offensive in itself. I will not require the member to withdraw and apologise, but I want the member to take into account that he is getting into the sensitivities of the House, and he might wish to redirect his comments from this point forward.

CHESTER BORROWS: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker; I accept your counsel.

In conclusion, I am grateful that the members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition have seen fit to support this bill. I accept that they agree that it is proffered in good faith, in spite of their stated misgivings about the ability to recover the money and the cost of that recovery. We recognise the work that the officials from the Ministry of Justice have put into the research on this legislation. They have advised the House—and it has been used many times in debate on this bill—that over the next 4 years we can expect to gain $13 million net that is not currently available to victims. We trust those officials from the Ministry of Justice in the same way that the current members of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition trusted them when they happened to be Her Majesty’s Government. I commend this bill to the House and I look forward to its implementation and all that it will do for victims in the future.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : I am very pleased to stand to take a call on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. As Chester Borrows said, Labour will support this bill, and we do that because it does deliver something to victims of crime. But we are concerned because of the flat $50 levy that—

Paul Quinn: See if you can get through without mentioning the Sentencing Council.

LYNNE PILLAY: Thank you very much! I am a little tired of the members on the other side of the House, and in the select committee, because recently I have found that I have been intimidated every time I mention the Sentencing Council. It is bordering on bullying, and it is actually getting quite serious. But now that the member has mentioned it, I will plunge straight into talking about the cost of the Sentencing Council. This bill is actually at the cost of the Sentencing Council. I congratulate the Law Commission on all the work it did in terms of its proposals for a Sentencing Council. We know that in terms of supporting, giving clarity to, and giving some sense to, victims of crime, particularly serious crime, the Sentencing Council would have been a very, very sensible, commonsense—

Hon Annette King: They’ve got it in the UK and it works.

LYNNE PILLAY: Exactly; it is proven in the UK. We did it: it was all set to go, but it was vehemently opposed at the time by Chris Finlayson. One of the first acts of the National Government was to get rid of the Sentencing Council, and that is really sad. The Government dealt to a very progressive action that would have delivered to victims in this country. I thank the member for the prompt, and I stand by what I have said and what I will continue to do, because I believe that it is the right of victims to expect that there will be a mechanism that provides consistency in sentencing.

As I said, Labour is not opposing the bill, but we say that it does very little to actually assist victims of crime. It is just window dressing, and it is a shame that quite unrealistic expectations have been raised. Chester Borrows made the point that the levy would not be at the cost of reparation, but I ask members of the House to consider that point, and we have already had it acknowledged that many offenders will not be in a position to pay this levy. The worst offenders will not be paying it. The levy will be collected, once any fines or reparation have been paid. I ask members to consider that the $50 levy will obviously have to be taken into account, and it would have an effect on the money available for reparation. That is a natural consequence; when a judge is setting those sorts of costs, the offender levy is a cost. It is taking from one hand and giving to the other.

Labour has serious concerns about the bill, and we will monitor it very, very carefully. When the scheme was first mooted, Simon Power claimed that it would collect around $5 million a year for victims. Then he was forced to scale back that prediction to $13.6 million over the first 4 years. Then we must subtract the estimated $1.3 million—if everything is collected—that it would cost to set up the levy, and the estimated $1.5 million each year that it would cost to run. Suddenly we have halved the amount available for victims, again. Where is the common sense in that?

Hon Darren Hughes: It’s a shambles.

LYNNE PILLAY: It is an absolute shambles. The Government’s approach to the levy is the same as its philosophy with accident compensation: charge more—

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Being a new member, I am not quite sure how to address this point but the member has misrepresented departmental figures, because $13.6 million is actually—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): That is not a point of order, and the member underestimates his breadth of knowledge from his time in the House. He has been through quite a number of debates and knows very well that that is a debating point and does not offend the Standing Orders. I say to him: good try, but don’t do it again.

LYNNE PILLAY: Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker. I would have to say that the member often overestimates his talents. The philosophy of the Government in terms of the collection of the levy is very much like its philosophy on accident compensation: pay more, get less. It is exactly the same approach: pay more money but put less into the hands of victims. I say to Simon Power that we will acknowledge that there will be some benefit to victims and that is why Labour is supporting this bill. Simon Power is on record as saying that the National Government is absolutely committed to looking after victims, so I would really appreciate it if he would sit down and talk to Nick Smith. The irony is that this bill that we are debating in the House today delivers something—not a huge amount—to victims, yet, on the other hand, we see Nick Smith absolutely shafting victims’ rights. If this Government really cared about victims, we would not see sexual abuse victims having to go to the media or to their MP to ask for a reversal of the decision to limit accident compensation counselling for those victims. The issue we are facing with the cuts to accident compensation—

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member’s speech appears to be an attack on a Minister and on a subject that has absolutely nothing to do with the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): I say to the member that this is a third reading debate. I generally allow a pretty wide-ranging debate. The member has been, by and large, on the topic, and I am fairly liberal on this. But if the member raising the point of order wants to insist on a very strict reading of the rules and a very strict application of them, then he should expect them to be universal and apply to him as well. I would just suggest to him that before he takes another point of order along similar lines, he should check his Hansard and the Standing Orders and see how narrowly he ran down the rails on other speeches. I am not going to pull the member up, but I leave the member to be aware that the debate is on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill.

LYNNE PILLAY: Thank you very much, Mr Assistant Speaker. I think that was very sensible advice. With the House’s indulgence I would like to recap the previous Labour Government’s commitment to victims. It introduced and passed the Sentencing Act 2002, which introduced a presumption in favour of reparation and resulted in that sentence being used more frequently. It introduced and passed the Victims’ Rights Act 2002, which set the scene for support for victims.

As a result of the Victims’ Rights Act, the proposal for a Victims Charter was announced in February 2002. The Victims Charter, which was released only in 2008, gives the ability for victims to be aware of the standard of service and support they should receive. The charter will go a long way to supporting victims of crime. I feel really proud that the charter was introduced by the previous Labour Government.

I turn again to the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, as Mr Garrett would like me to do, and repeat that Labour supports the bill. We will not oppose any measure that gives support to victims but we would rather have seen that money spent more sensibly. Thank you.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : It will be no surprise to members that I rise to support the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, despite the reservations that I have made known. But before I continue my speech, I would like to pay tribute to both the previous speaker, Lynne Pillay, and the previous Labour Government she represented, because it is indeed the case that Labour’s actions in 2002—specifically the Victims’ Rights Act—were a major departure from the common law and very, very welcome ones. It actually shocks people who are not lawyers to have explained to them that until quite recently the victim was, in fact, utterly irrelevant. According to the lofty towers in law schools, the crime had been committed against the State, and the victim just happened to be the person who was there. It is quite correct that that Labour Government made some very welcome changes in that regard, so I think that credit is well due there.

As I have said in earlier speeches on this bill, I think it can be summed up as a great idea but with some major flaws. One of the major flaws is of course the costs and the practicalities of collecting the levy. Mr Cosgrove said, for about the fourth time, that what could be achieved here is a diversion of money from taxation, or, more specifically—as he was playing to his audience—a diversion of funds that go to private schools to go to victims instead. Well, that misses the point that this is an attempt, in a sense, at user-pays, is it not? It is “offender-pays”. It is a levy on offenders for the wrong they have done. It is a cost to the offender and not, if you like, a cost to the rest of the taxpayers, but that point has been missed.

I believe that $50 is an entirely appropriate amount for the levy. It is the equivalent of three packets of cigarettes or a couple of slabs of beer, to use analogies that will be quite clear to the criminal fraternity. Every villain or his mate has 50 bucks in his pocket, or his mum or girlfriend can be prevailed upon to bring 50 bucks down to the court.

It is also entirely missing the point to say that the levy is the same, regardless of the crime. Another of the Labour members referred to a triple axe-murderer. Well, fortunately, and to my knowledge of crime in New Zealand, which is not inconsiderable, I do not think we have had one of those. But a member speaking in the recent series of speeches referred to the levy being the same for murder as for assaults, and the member said that that was wrong. Again, that is missing the point. Recognising the difference in the nature and gravity of crimes is a function of the sentence. The levy is not a sentence. It is, if you like, simply a price that a person pays for being a criminal.

The major problem, as members opposite have quite rightly pointed out, concerns collection. As a new member, in something of a flash in the head during the Committee stage, I came up with an idea that I believe would have solved the problem beautifully. The idea was that offenders would be held in custody after conviction—say, after being sentenced to do 100 hours’ community service—until someone came up with the 50 bucks. It is much like the way in which persons who are granted bail are now held in custody while their bail bond is written up, and that may take half an hour or half a day depending on how busy the police are and what sort of a prat the offenders have made of themselves. But if we were to introduce an amendment whereby a convicted person was sentenced to a community service, let us say, and was remanded down below until someone came up with 50 bucks, I believe that compliance would be damn-near 100 percent. We could install a separate Eftpos machine down there, a cash tin, and a receipt book, and compliance costs would be virtually nil. It would take just a bit of extra police time. But in my inexperience, I did not realise that such an idea—brilliant though I immodestly claim it to be—had to go the rounds of all the parties and needed much more time. I approached all the parties in the House, except the Greens.

Hon Member: Well, why not?

DAVID GARRETT: I did not bother to approach the Greens, because in my view, I am sad to say, they are criminal sympathisers. They have opposed every single law and order bill that has been introduced in this Parliament. Mr Locke, when speaking on the previous two bills we have debated—the car-crushing bill, to use the vernacular, and the boy-racer bill, to again use the vernacular—opposed them. He said in justification that it was wrong to increase the numbers in prison. Well, imprisonment is not a penalty for either of those bills. The fact is that the Greens oppose anything that calls criminals to account. On a personal level, I see that Ms Bradford is in the House. I think that I have a very cordial relationship with her, and I am sad to be saying this about her party while she is here representing it, but I believe that that is the case. Every other party I spoke to thought that it was a good idea but that it was too late in the piece.

Despite our misgivings about the collection aspect, we support the bill. I endorse what Ms Pillay said, and I hope that she is not offended by that. Anything that helps victims has to be good. Anything that helps victims has to be an advantage, even if the collection method is not so efficient. I will confirm again what I said earlier: if the dire predictions of inefficiency made by members opposite prove to be correct, then this party will support an amendment to remedy that problem and to have the levy collected more efficiently. As I have suggested, I would be interested to hear other members’ views if this comes to pass. But I cannot see how it would be less than a no-brainer to do as I have suggested, which is to install an Eftpos machine down in the cells, and to have a cash tin and a receipt book there. I believe that compliance would be close to 100 percent and collection costs would be virtually nil. With that small caveat, the ACT Party is happy to support this bill.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora anō tātou. As members of the House will probably be aware—especially after they viewed that awesome programme that screened on Māori Television last Wednesday at about 8.30, The Māori Party: The People’s Party—the Māori Party is a party of the people. The programme was broadcast by that awesome television station, Māori Television.

Hon Annette King: Set up by Labour.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: It was set up by Labour—

Hon Darren Hughes: Opposed by National.

TE URUROA FLAVELL: —and supported by the Māori Party and, sort of, by National. It is good to say that that issue is dead, done, and dusted, because we will be broadcasting the Rugby World Cup.

Be that as it may, I say to Mr Hughes that the real kōrero is that we kind of like to think that we are the people’s party.

Hon Darren Hughes: Oh!

TE URUROA FLAVELL: I am sure that he would agree with that. A part of that is that we place a lot of emphasis on sending out everything that we talk about in the House, that we write, and that we think about, and we definitely ask for feedback from all of the people on our awesome email tree. Within half an hour of sending out the speech that my colleague Rahui Katene delivered during the first reading debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill in February, I received an animated email from a person called Rāwiri. I want to share his ideas—

Hon Darren Hughes: Rāwiri Garrett?

TE URUROA FLAVELL: —not quite—as they seemed to make quite a lot of sense, as have some of the other ideas that members have spoken about thus far in this debate. Rāwiri asked a few basic questions: “In regards to the Act I agree with the basic concept of it but trying to police it seems like a nightmare. 1. How are they going to pay the money if they have none? 2. Is there going to be an easy system for victims to get this money (normally, there is so much bureaucracy involved) 3. Which Government department is going to handle it.” That is a starting point. He went on: “At the present time I have no confidence in the justice system. Really the only way to bring down crime is to start at family level and make sure that there are decent and proper kaumatua on the Marae who can help educate the families. We all must take responsibility for the way things are not just put back onto individual families.”

For me, Rāwiri has summed it all up in a couple of sentences. Of course we agree with the basic premise that crime does not pay. So, as a principle, we have supported the notion that all offenders who have been convicted of a criminal offence must pay a levy of $50. It is not just the Māori Party that thinks like this. The United Nations Declaration of the Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power states that offenders should, where appropriate, “make fair restitution to victims, their families or dependants. Such restitution should include … payment for the harm or loss suffered,”.

We support the concept of the levy, particularly as a way to achieve the restoration of well-being. We are particularly conscious, though, of the disproportionate likelihood that Māori and Pasifika people will be victims of crime. Among both Māori and Pacific people aged 15 years and over, 47 percent had experienced some form of criminal victimisation in 2005. This compares with 43 percent of Asians and 37 percent of Europeans. We have to ask why Māori and Pasifika people are being overrepresented in the status of victimhood. According to the 2008 social report from which these statistics emerge, it is due to an association with many factors, such as Māori and Pasifika people being more likely to be young, to be unemployed, to be sole parents, and to live in more socioeconomically deprived areas. Probably the most disturbing fact of all was that for Māori women, the risk of being assaulted or threatened by a partner was three times the average—that is, 18 percent compared with 6 percent for all other respondents. So there are some pretty serious reasons why we want to look seriously at supporting this levy, and therefore, in effect, supporting victims.

We are a party that has often talked about restorative justice and the expectation that offenders will be required to take responsibility for addressing the harm their offending has caused. We want offenders to be held to account. As in a lot of this, the Māori Party has been involved in the establishment of the Youth Court sitting at Manurewa Marae in Auckland. It is an initiative that itself has gone on to be extended out to a judicially-led initiative from Gisborne. Marae-based Youth Court sittings involve the wider community in an attempt to enhance the usual Youth Court processes. They are designed to increase accountability and, in the end, to reduce reoffending. I have to say that I am in full support of the statement made by Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft earlier this year that court-ordered mentoring, compulsory education, and attendance at parenting programmes may succeed if the programmes are culturally appropriate and meet the ongoing needs of the offenders and their family and whānau. The important thing to the Māori Party has always been to ensure that the victims and, indeed, the offenders, are connected to whānau and have the support of their community around them to heal, to restore their sense of confidence, and to forgo the temptation to reoffend. We know that Māori are overrepresented as the victims of crime and, as such, need to be able to have a role in determining the approved agency and its service priorities and delivery.

So although we agree in principle with the concept that victims must be supported, there are still some questions such as those Rāwiri posed a little bit earlier. In short, these concerns are, first, that the cost of administering the scheme may make it unworkable; second, the impact the levy will have on the current reparation system; third, that the system deals only with victims’ access to services and not real financial support and compensation for victims of serious crime, especially if they cannot access accident compensation; and fourth, of course, the long-term implications for accident compensation and whether this initiative in effect opens the door for privatisation. We wonder too whether the crime tax being imposed by this legislation might end up with minor offenders paying for those at the high end of the criminal spectrum. In other words, low-level offenders may end up subsidising the fund for serious offenders sentenced to jail, who would be unlikely to pay the levy. To us, that seems rather unfair. The proof, of course, will be all in the implementation. Will this bill end up just adding to the number of so many uncollected court fines? How will the agencies address the practicalities of collecting and distributing the levy, and can we be assured that the administration costs justify this?

Finally, I referred to Judge Becroft earlier in my speech. One other idea that I thought was rather sensible was his analysis that because all but one of the orders available to the Youth Court are not considered convictions, young people who are dealt with wholly in the Youth Court are excluded from the requirement to pay the levy. This exclusion is consistent with the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, which limits the ability of the Youth Court to impose financial penalties on young people or their families. These provisions recognise that although payments to victims can be a powerful restorative tool, many young people appearing before the court, or their parents, are unlikely to have the means to pay a fine or reparation, and any subsequent default could extend their involvement with the court in a way that is at odds with other attempts at rehabilitation.

I absolutely support these measures. Of course we do not want our children and families to suffer financial penalties, and of course we do not want to extend their time in front of the court. But I guess that yet again it raises the issue for me of how we encourage our young people to consider their roles and responsibilities. It is about facing up to the consequences of their actions and restoring to ourselves a sense of collective responsibility. This is a very complex area of legislation, but we fully support this bill at its third reading.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : It is very good to follow Te Ururoa Flavell in this debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill. He made some very perceptive comments about victims and the sociology of victims. As he made clear, and as the statistics and the research show, victims more than often are not, if we can put this in graphic terms, the little old lady who is worried about crime. I suppose that the cruel irony is that crime more often happens to the young, seemingly invincible Māori male who thinks that crime will not happen to him, but that is where crime is at. The young, the poor, and the dispossessed are the victims of crime much more often.

It is good to talk on this bill, which is very much about victims and putting victims back at the centre of our justice system. Previously, in other parts of the debate on this bill, I have talked about the very real benefits that what we are doing here will have for victims of crime. It will mean travel to and from court, and that is not insubstantial. It will potentially mean replacing clothing that had to be sent off for DNA testing. It will mean counselling. These things will make a real difference to the victims of crime. This bill is part of a bigger picture. It is a piece of the puzzle in what we and the Minister, Simon Power, are doing in the justice arena. We are toughening up law and order. We have put through a raft of bills as part of our initial 100-day programme. We have toughened up the bail law, sentencing laws, and aspects of parole. But what we are also doing, and what should not go unnoticed, is that we are putting the victims back at the centre of the justice system. We are not just all about offenders. We are also doing something for those on the other side of the coin—the victims.

I can think of a number of people who came before the Justice and Electoral Committee, and also the Law and Order Committee, who have been victims of crime who very much feel that they have not been part of the justice system and that they have not been listened to. In our society, the system we have is the“Queen v Smith”, not “Smith v Smith”. It is the Crown that brings a case. What that means is that often victims do not have control of the case, and rightly so because there may be cases where witnesses are reluctant but it is still right and proper for the Crown to bring the case. This bill illustrates that we are hearing what is being said at select committees. We are bringing victims back in. We are trying to do things to make it better for them to ameliorate the conditions in which they find themselves when crime occurs.

Some of the points made by members opposite are, at first blush, fair, but when analysed they do not hold much weight. One of the things that Clayton Cosgrove said is that judges will be dishonest about this and that they will say: “Well, we have got this $50 levy, so because of that we will reduce all the other fines and reparation.” I do not believe that is true at all. I think that judges will be much more true to their oath than that. They will read this bill and see quite clearly the intent of Parliament, and this $50 levy will not be taken into consideration when they look at other financial penalties.

Another thing that has quite frequently come out from members on the other side of the House is that it is not right that this levy is per offender rather than per offence. I say two things in relation to that. Firstly, if it were per offence, we would have a ridiculous situation where, for example, an offender coming before the court with 100 burglaries would attract exceptionally large penalties. That would be unworkable. Secondly, and this is a significant point, this levy is not a sentence. It is not about punishing the offender; it is about doing something for the victim.

I come back to the points I have already made. This bill is a plank in our justice armoury and in our agenda on justice. It is very much about putting victims back at the centre of the justice system, where they belong.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : Before I start I want to go back to something that Mr Borrows said earlier about how the National Government has come up with this Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill based on research. I say to Mr Borrows that I find that really interesting. I would love to see that research, because I do not believe that we have seen it yet. The fact that the National Government is basing something on research is in complete contrast to what it has done with everything else. I say to Mr Borrows that I would like to see that research if he has it.

Labour members are not opposed to this bill, but we believe that it will do very little to assist victims of crime. That is our major issue with it. Just like much of the National Government’s other legislation, this is window dressing. It is another example of the National Government’s ploy to give ordinary New Zealanders the impression that it is taking extreme steps to tackle law and order, extreme steps to protect victims, and extreme steps to enforce punitive measures to punish criminals, but it is all a farce. The word for this Government is farcical. It has bought into the idea that perception is everything, and in the process of creating this perception of being tough on crime it has brought to the House a series of bills that, although not harmful, will do little to help reduce crime, to protect New Zealanders, and to compensate and care for victims.

The National Government has raised unrealistic expectations in the public about what it will deliver through this bill. Victims of crime are destined to be disappointed. The legislation sets out a $50 levy that will apply automatically when an offender has been sentenced in criminal jurisdictions. No matter which way we look at this, we see that it is quite a shambles. There are questions that have to be asked: what is the likelihood of these sentenced offenders paying the levy; will the cost of the bureaucracy required to enforce and collect this levy outweigh the benefits to the actual victim; and will the money collected to provide any level of assistance to the victim, let alone any adequate level of assistance, be enough?

Paul Quinn: It’s hard to put passion into the standard rhetoric you’ve been given, isn’t it?

CARMEL SEPULONI: The bill provides nothing more than lip service—just like that member over there, Mr Quinn—to the victims, and represents gross Government hypocrisy given the cutbacks to accident compensation entitlements.

Paul Quinn: That’s the problem when you don’t write your own speeches.

CARMEL SEPULONI: The member over there is going on and on. I know that he finds it difficult to stand up without yelling, but I can speak calmly.

If the Government really cared about victims, it would not be attempting to make sexual abuse victims have to go to the media or an MP to reverse Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) decisions to limit their counselling. An earlier speaker commented that this was not related. Well, it is related. When we look at the legislation that this Government is proposing, we have to look at the entirety of it. We have to look at what it is trying to do on one hand while here it is trying to do something else on the other hand. At the end of the day, we are seeing a contradiction. So it is relevant and it is something that the public needs to be aware of.

With regards to accident compensation, we have recently seen a Taranaki grandmother of two young boys who had been raped, sodomised, and beaten being forced to go to the media and to her local MP, Jonathan Young, to beg for counselling. The ACC-approved counsellors said that the boys needed counselling and the police said that they needed counselling, but ACC turned them down. It seems the new step in the procedures could be trial by media or MPs, and that is something that this National Government has imposed on the public. Because this Government has been sitting on its hands, there are 1,100 cases pending of people needing sexual abuse counselling. If this Government really cared about victims, it would not be cutting the entitlements that families of suicide victims currently receive. Does this sound like a Government that cares about victims: “If my doctor told me that I was terminally ill and had 30 days to live, with the ACC rules the way they are, I’d be finding myself a train to throw myself under on the 29th day because my family would be treated so much more generously.”?

Hon Anne Tolley: Who wrote this?

CARMEL SEPULONI: Well, I say to Ms Tolley that I did not write that; it was her colleague Nick Smith, and I ask her to remember that.

The reality for victims is that this approach is getting worse, not better. It is astounding that Simon Power can keep a straight face when he says that the negative impact of crime on victims is a priority for this Government. National made a big deal in the election year of being on the side of victims. This bill, which levies all offenders regardless of their offence, has a paltry $50 as the upshot. The worst offenders who get jail sentences will be unable to pay the levy anyway.

Hon Anne Tolley: Oh, we’ve got back to the bill!

CARMEL SEPULONI: The Minister Anne Tolley is going on again about what I am saying, but if someone wrote her speeches she would be much better off than standing up and making them up for herself.

This offender levy scheme will require a bureaucracy to administer it, and the collection costs are likely to outweigh the returns. Simon Power claimed that the scheme would collect about $5 million a year for victims, and then he was forced to scale back to predictions of $13.6 over the next 4 years—very different from the $5 million a year for victims he initially claimed. When we subtract the estimated $1.3 million that it will cost to set up the levy, and the estimated $1.5 million it will cost to run, suddenly we have half the amount available for victims.

It is already difficult enough to collect reparations from criminals, so we on this side of the House struggle to comprehend why the National Government thinks that it will be any easier to collect this levy. It is unfair to victims of crime to raise expectations of greater compensation when National members know the reality is that this will make absolutely no difference. It was revealed in the Ministry of Justice document Structure of Operations in the Ministry: Proposals for Consultation that people who owe the offender levy will be grouped based on their willingness and ability to pay and their attitude towards compliance. The Government is prepared to tolerate targeting only those most likely to pay, while hardcore fine-defaulters are let off the hook. Even National’s Minister of Corrections and Minister of Police herself, Judith Collins, has admitted that fines for crime do not work. She stated: “There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take.” Again, that was one of National’s own Ministers.

Increasing victims’ rights is about restoring some fairness to an unfair situation, but this scheme will lack the consistency to deliver that. It would be unfair if the amount of compensation varied from year to year depending on the ability of the Ministry of Justice to collect revenue from offenders. Labour had already asked the Law Commission to look into the best options for setting up a proper victims’ compensation scheme to ensure that the inequalities and inefficiencies in National’s scheme could be avoided. By disregarding the Law Commission’s advice, National has delivered New Zealanders a substandard scheme. We on this side think that it would be more effective to give the money it would take to set up this bureaucracy to an organisation like Victim Support.

I want to briefly discuss the Labour view on the issue at hand. Labour members of the Justice and Electoral Committee support increased funding for victims of serious crime. On that basis they support the bill, but with reservations. They noted that funding for the scheme is at the cost of the disestablishment of the Sentencing Council, which would have improved the justice system by delivering consistency with sentencing. Further, they expressed concerns about the high administration costs of the scheme and the possibility that the levy could detrimentally affect reparation payments. The Labour members of the committee stated very clearly that they intend to closely monitor the effectiveness of this scheme, and that is what members on this side of the House will be doing. We support this bill for the reason that although it does not help, it also does not harm. We have been pushed into a corner, and, therefore, we support the bill. Thank you very much.

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) : The previous speaker, Carmel Sepuloni, questioned what this Government is doing for law and order. This Government promised that it would implement an increase of 600 police officers in New Zealand, of which 300 would be deployed in South Auckland, and that has been implemented.

The Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill applies a $50 levy on offenders. The bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002, and provides that all offenders who have been convicted of an offence must pay an offender levy of $50. The $50 levy will be imposed on all offenders at the point of sentencing. It is intended to help pay victims’ expenses not covered by ordinary State assistance, such as travel to and from court. The levy will be in addition to any other penalty imposed by the courts. There have been many submissions from the public, and I would like to mention one in particular—the submission of Judy Ashton from Nelson. Her 20-year-old daughter was killed by a drug addict and disqualified driver who was on parole and was on a police witness protection programme. She commented that there is absolutely nothing that could compensate her for her daughter’s death, but nevertheless she supports this bill. In her words: “I have a vision that one day the victims of the crime will be truly recognised, and regardless of their assets or income they will not be left financially disadvantaged by the crime that was forced upon them.”

The Government wants to eliminate the all too frequent horror stories that victims are forced to relive, which are traumatic simply because the system has been deficient and has let them down and it seems that offenders are getting better deals than the victims. Like all of our law and order policies, the victims’ compensation scheme’s overreaching objectives are to ensure there are fewer victims of crime in New Zealand. This levy is set at a rate that most would agree is too low to compensate victims. There is no argument about that, particularly for the victims of the most serious crimes. But it is an important first step towards reinforcing the focus of our justice system on to the needs of the victims. It should be noted that the Government will also be introducing other measures to improve the services that the victims receive and to enhance victims’ rights. In other words, it is part of a bigger package. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) : Classic Tory tokenism—that is what I say about this bill. Although Labour will support this bill, because indeed it does no harm, the question must be put to the House, and I guess to the people of New Zealand, that after spending all this money, going through the whole process, and considering all these issues, has it been worth it? I guess we will find out in a year or two’s time.

Hon Annette King: In 4 years’ time.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: That is right. In 2 years’ time I think we will make a judgment, and so too will the people of New Zealand. We will see what happens then.

The terrible reality is that crime creates unfairness. There is no way of avoiding that reality. Whatever crime it is, an injustice occurs. Someone is the perpetrator of that injustice, and the other person or persons are usually the victims. It is Parliament’s role and responsibility to reduce the unfairness of those crimes and the unfairness across this nation. What will happen when a crime is committed? Usually our good police catch people at an increasing rate—well, under a Labour Government they used to do that. Thanks to Minister King and effort, focus, and encouragement, the police caught criminals at an increasing rate. They were then taken through the courts, and were convicted if they had committed the crime. The same process will continue, but when all criminals are convicted, a $50 levy will be imposed on them.

The question must be about whether we are reducing the unfairness of the process. As I have travelled around this country, and as I have been an MP, the biggest issue of unfairness relating to crime has been the issue of inconsistency in sentencing. People cannot understand how in one part of the country there will be a sentence for a certain crime, and in another part of the country there will be a different sentence for the same crime. So the Labour Government brought in the Sentencing Council, and that was the single biggest initiative to reduce unfairness from crime. Victims felt that if a convicted criminal received a lesser sentence, then that was a huge unfairness, and it reflected poorly on them. But this present Government has said that it will do away with the Sentencing Council because it is not important, and that it will set up a bureaucracy to charge every convicted criminal $50, which will address the issue of unfairness. Well, that is tokenism, and I am sure that Mr Deputy Speaker could understand that if he had the opportunity to say so. But the fact that the Tory Government has disbanded the Sentencing Council, the single most important—

Hon Simon Power: It never started.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Mr Power knows that. He knows that the Sentencing Council was the best initiative in terms of addressing unfairness in crime in this country, but he was forced to disband it because of ideology. I know that Simon Power agreed with having the Sentencing Council.

The $50 levy will now be a significant step forward in addressing unfairness in crime. Let us look at some of the costs. It will cost $1.3 million to set up this bureaucracy—this from a Government that says it is reducing bureaucracy. It will then spend $1.5 million a year to run the bureaucracy. Again, this is from a Government that claims to be reducing bureaucracy. How much will the Government get? The claim is about $5 million a year or, closer to estimates, just over $13 million over 4 years. I will let the House or the National members do the arithmetic on that. That is not delivering good value for money for victims, in terms of either this Parliament or the Government’s efforts in bureaucracy.

Let us then look at those this levy will be collected from. The reality is that there has been an obligation in the justice system for some time to pay reparation. It is one of the things that the Labour Government brought in, in a genuine attempt—not tokenism, like the Tories—to take from those criminals some money to pay back to their victims. But we realise that, as with unpaid fines, it is sometimes very hard to extract money from criminals, for a whole lot of reasons. Many criminals do not have money, for a start—that is why they have committed the crimes—and some are just very pigheaded, have good lawyers, or whatever. But there are tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars—in fact, I am not sure what the last count is—in unpaid fines throughout this country, so we are therefore going to impose a $50 levy on every convicted criminal. This is big progress for the National Government and for Mr Power! No doubt it is his greatest claim to fame.

Let us have a look at those we will collect that levy from, and whether it will be possible to collect it. The Ministry of Justice itself says that it will be taking money from people who owe the offender levy. I quote from a document: “People who owe the offender levy will be grouped, based on their willingness and ability to pay, and their attitude towards compliance.” So those criminals who are convicted and charged a $50 levy, and who say they would like to pay the levy, will no doubt, pay it. But the Ministry of Justice will group together those who do not want to pay, and say that some criminals are in the too-hard basket and that it will not take the levy from them. Yet some are in the easy basket and it will take it from them. That will create more unfairness in the justice system, not less.

There is some honesty coming from the Minister of Corrections; this happens only infrequently. But she said—and she should have spoken to Mr Power before he set up this legislation—“There’s no point fining people who don’t pay fines when you’ve got other action to take.” We know that the Ministry of Justice will not follow up on those token fines and levies, so that again creates an unfairness in the system when, in fact, the Government claims that it is trying to help victims. This is typical Tory tokenism, and that is true of most of the legislation and many of the people on the Government side of the House.

I will now go to an organisation comprising a learned set of gentlemen and ladies, the Law Commission. Let us just see what the commission said about this levy. Mr Power obviously did not listen to the Law Commission when he should have—that is, when he was drafting this legislation. The Law Commission report states: “There would be particular difficulties with imposing levies on persons who have been sentenced to long-term imprisonment.” There is no surprise there. The report continues: “Moreover, the non-payment rate of small levies imposed on all offenders would probably be so high that the administration cost of enforcement would exceed the amount collected.” Well, if we are starting off with best projections that $5 million will be collected, and that it will cost $1.3 million to set up the scheme and $1.5 million to run it, there is not much margin for leeway there. I say that within a year—certainly within 2 years, when the Opposition will be checking the Government on all of these facts and figures before the next election—the Government will be in a negative situation regarding this levy.

I will talk about the other issue of unfairness in relation to those who will end up paying the levy, and I quote again from the Law Commission report: “If levies of the same amount were imposed on all offenders, that would raise proportionality issues …”. As my good learned colleague Clayton Cosgrove asked, how can anyone justify charging the same levy on a multiple murderer as on someone who might have been involved in some low-level property crime? I continue by quoting the Law Commission: “why should an offender convicted of a very minor offence without any direct victim at all pay the same amount as an offender convicted of rape or wounding with intent to commit grievous bodily harm?”.

The Labour Opposition will support this legislation, but I have to say that we do so reluctantly, because in my summation this legislation, which was paid for by the removal of the Sentencing Council, will create more unfairness in the justice system than we have seen before. This Government ignored the wisdom of the Sentencing Council, and closed it down.

PAUL QUINN (National) : Thank goodness the debate on the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill, which has gone through three readings and a Committee stage, has not finished on such a poor note, and that I have the pleasure of winding up the debate on this fantastic legislation. This bill continues to lock into place the law and order policies of this Government.

I do not intend to speak for too long; I just want to cover three areas. I will briefly touch on the mechanism of submissions and, to put the record straight, I will also cover the economics of the scheme. Firstly, for the information of members opposite, I will deal with the submissions because, clearly, they were asleep, doing other things, or distracted during the select committee process. There were 13 submissions on this bill. There were six in support, two were opposed, and four were neutral but offered enhancements. I will provide members opposite—particularly the last speaker—with the range of organisations that supported this bill. There was, of course, the Sensible Sentencing Trust, the National Council of Women of New Zealand fully supported it, and the Human Rights Commission strongly supported it. Then, of course, we had the submissions referred to by my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, who shared with the House the heartfelt submission of Judy Ashton.

Contrary to the impression given by the Opposition, there is absolutely no doubt that the public are overwhelmingly in support of this legislation. What does the bill do? It imposes a $50 levy on all convicted offenders at sentencing, either in the District Court or the High Court. The Opposition has scoffed at what it terms an incidental figure. The fact of the matter is that the purpose of this levy is to pay some money to assist the victims of crime. It is just a start in a process, which will add to other reparations made by the court and other mechanisms that the outstanding Minister of Justice canvassed in his opening speech on the third reading. He talked about the types of support that this Government is giving to the victims of crime. The revenue generated from this $50 levy will be used to support that fund. So that there is no doubt, I want it recorded that the projected net positive revenue from this scheme is $13.6 million after 4 years.

Jacinda Ardern: Minus.

PAUL QUINN: No, no. I have the figures here in my hand, in a document dated 10 June. Net revenue equals gross revenue minus the expenditure. I know that is difficult for Opposition members to understand. They cannot read cash-flow statements, they cannot read profit and loss accounts, and, in fact, they probably do not know what a profit and loss account means. The profit and loss accounts from this process say that there will be $13.6 million in net revenue after 4 years. Where the members opposite have been getting their figures from I just do not know. They have probably made them up, as they always do. I say to members, let the record show that this is cash-flow positive.

I will also say that the officials, who did an outstanding job, advised us that current reparation collection rates are at 15 percent. This is based on what the courts order and what comes in. The officials anticipate the courts being able to collect this levy at a 60 percent collection rate, in a worst-case scenario, which means that the victims of crime will receive much more assistance.

The last thing I will mention, which I was not going to cover but Damien raised it again and it was Lynne Pillay’s favourite, is the Sentencing Council. All I can say to the previous speaker is that the council never started. This Government is much more interested in creating a fair and just system that assists victims of crime, rather than setting up gravy trains for the Labour Party’s old boy network. They will not have a retirement process. Members opposite probably would have elevated Sir Geoffrey Palmer and Warren Young, retired them to the Sentencing Council, and they would have sat on the gravy train for the rest of their lives. With those few concluding remarks, it gives me great pleasure to have the final word on this outstanding bill.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The debate on this part includes the schedule.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I will get the negative stuff over first and say from the outset that we in Labour were a little disappointed that this bill went only part of the way to picking up Labour’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill. Our preference would have been to see National take over that bill and progress it through the House. That has not been the case, but I stand and speak in support of this bill. I know that it goes a long way to addressing many of the concerns around domestic violence.

Part 1, which amends the Domestic Violence Act, will ensure that there is more protection for women—although not in every instance, it is predominantly women and families in the case of domestic violence—at the crucial time when there is considerable heat in the situation and it is essential that the offending party is off the premises and away from the family. I note that in terms of new section 49, “Offence to contravene protection order”, and new section 49A, “Offence to fail to comply with direction”, in clause 5, the changes are sensible. They are common-sense changes. Certainly, as I said before, they go a considerable way towards enhancing protection for women and families in domestic violence situations.

We all know that domestic violence is an absolute blot on this country’s landscape. The previous Labour Government put considerable resource, time, and energy into this issue. It worked with non-governmental organisations to tackle the causes of domestic violence, to provide education around domestic violence, and to raise awareness to ensure that people in this situation get the support and the protection that they so much deserve.

I am taking only a short call on this bill currently, but I am very pleased to be speaking on it. This bill will get the support of all members of the Committee, I assume, and I think that is commendable. At the very heart of the matter is protection for families who are subjected to violence and actions that no human being—and, in particular, no child—should be subject to. I am very pleased to speak in support of the bill. Thank you.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I thank the member Lynne Pillay for her comments on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. She is aware that since this bill was introduced to the House, a second bill that deals with some of the other issues that she refers to—plus another matter, which will enable us to ratify an international instrument in respect of one particular matter—has been tabled. Some issues remain with regard to the current legislation, to which the member refers, and that is why the second bill, the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, remains on the Order Paper. I assure her that I am doing my best to work my way through the remaining issues.

Broadly speaking, this bill is a piece of work that I started on about 2½ years ago with some staff with whom I was working at the time while in Opposition. I am pleased that the bill has made the progress that it has to date, and I hope that towards the end of the evening, before we adjourn the House, we may make some more progress on it.

Part 1 amends the Domestic Violence Act 1995 by inserting new Part 6A, which provides for the police safety order initiative. In brief, the provisions provide the police with the power to issue a police safety order when called to a domestic dispute if they are unable to arrest the alleged violent person. Part 1 also amends the offence provisions. Firstly, it removes the tiered penalty structure for the offence of contravening a protection order, while retaining the current maximum penalty of a term of imprisonment of up to 2 years. That was actually quite an important signal to send in the Part 1 provisions. Secondly, it separates out the offence of failing to attend a programme as directed, and retains the current penalty of up to 6 months’ imprisonment or of a fine not exceeding $5,000. That continues to give emphasis to the importance of participating in the programmes emphasised in this legislation. Section 50(2) of the Domestic Violence Act, which requires an arresting officer to consider certain criteria before arresting a person who he or she suspects has breached a protection order, is also repealed. Repealing those criteria aligns the principal Act with section 315 of the Crimes Act 1961, which permits arrest without a warrant where there is good cause to suspect that an offence has been committed.

The Justice and Electoral Committee made a number of changes to Part 1 to provide more explicit provisions around the law enforcement and court processes associated with the police safety orders. I thank the committee for that work; I think it added to the bill and has made it a more whole piece of legislation. Supplementary Order Paper 72 in my name consists of several technical amendments to Part 1, and I hope the Committee of the whole House will see its way to supporting them.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : I am pleased to take a call on Part 1 of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I thought I might take this opportunity to go over briefly some of the more substantive changes that the Justice and Electoral Committee made, which the Minister of Justice referred to. But before I do, I highlight again what a considerable advance this legislation is. That is, of course, originally thanks to the drafting by the then Labour Government, but I also congratulate the Minister on taking on this legislation. I am sure at some point in the third reading we might go into it in a little more detail. Some of those additional pieces could perhaps be expanded on, although, as the Minister has mentioned, they have been put into the new legislation. There are still parts of Labour’s legislation we would like to see acted upon.

This legislation is a very new type of tool for police to add to their tool kit in preventing domestic violence. I want to highlight that this tool is intended to be a preventive measure, but with that come some difficulties. Of course, we are asking the police to intervene, in many cases, before a crime has occurred. The Police Association came forward and suggested in the select committee discussion that, for instance, some of the penalties for breaching a police order should be heftier than what had been proposed. We had to put back to them that we needed to weigh up the consideration of the fact that, in the first instance, a crime had not yet occurred, and that some of the association’s suggestions may be considered disproportionate. That was a balance that I think the select committee has struck in what it has produced.

The first change that I want to touch on briefly is in respect of some words that were either changed or removed. I think that that was in order to aid the police in making a decision as to whether a police order is required. The select committee tried to have a very practical discussion with officials about the kinds of practical situations police officers may find themselves in, so that we could ensure that we were not adding any words unnecessarily that may prevent police officers issuing orders where it might be extremely useful. One word was “immediate”. We recommended the removal of the condition that an order be issued only if necessary to safeguard the immediate safety of the person. That was on the basis that at any one point in time when a police officer arrives at a house, there may be a period where the dispute may seem slightly more settled, but that may not be the case a few hours after the fact. We wanted to give maximum flexibility to the police in that regard. The other word was “serious”. Proposed new section 124B(2) of the Domestic Violence Act sets out the matters to which the constable must have regard when considering whether to issue an order. One matter was whether there was a serious likelihood that domestic violence might be used. We felt that the word “serious” was quite imprecise, so we recommended removing it.

I will touch on two other issues. The committee rightly picked up on the fact that, when a police officer is called out originally, the criterion was that a constable could award an order if there was a view that that person had not committed crime significant enough for an arrest. We considered that there might be another offence that may have occurred in that environment or in that home to cause the person’s arrest, which might be completely unrelated to domestic violence, but that there might be reason enough to suspect that a safety order might be useful. We wanted to ensure that, even if an arrest had occurred, a safety order could be used as well.

Another issue I will touch on briefly relates to who could award an order. We determined that it would be worthwhile to clarify that a constable who is not a qualified constable must receive authorisation from a qualified constable. That was specifically to take into account the fact that in a rural environment someone may not have reached the required bar in order to issue an order, but may be the only person available on the scene at that time to do so. We wanted to give not only maximum flexibility but also oversight to those situations. We considered that it would be appropriate that that may occur via telephone.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : It is a privilege to speak in this debate in support of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. As the bill went through the select committee process, it enjoyed the goodwill of members on all sides of the Justice and Electoral Committee table. We had a number of very positive submissions from the public in respect of this bill, and only one or two were against it. Those submissions seemed to be from a partisan view of the proceedings of the Family Court, rather than against the bill itself. We made a number of changes around process to take account of, for instance—as the previous speaker, Jacinda Ardern, mentioned—the difficulties for those in rural areas of accessing legal counsel. The days available to obtain a formal protection order whilst the police safety order endured was lengthened slightly. There were some concerns around just how that would fit at certain times of the year—for instance, over the Easter period or over the Christmas period—and I think that those are valid concerns. We will have to see how that runs. There were also concerns in respect of an enhancement made to the bill to allow police who preferred prosecution out of certain circumstances to be able to bring a safety order there as well.

One other aspect of the debate within the select committee process that was very interesting was the submissions made by groups in support of women as victims of family violence. One group suggested that the protection orders should not be able to be put in place by a court on sentencing, because it took away the power of the victim to have some self-determination in respect of her—it is usually “her”—own circumstances. It was interesting to note that the exact opposite suggestion was submitted for exactly the same reasons. Other groups in support of women came before the committee and suggested that courts should be able to make these orders without any consultation with the victim, or despite their not wanting them, because women who are oppressed in these relationships are frequently unable to make those decisions and choices of their own volition. In the end, we allowed the courts to impose a protection order at sentencing, because we felt it was in the best interests of the people involved in the centre of these disputes.

I finish by thanking those who were involved in the select committee process. I am thankful for the spirit in which we engaged together, for the good result we ended up with, and for the enhancement of confidence in the parliamentary process, given the result we had in preparing this bill for the House. I commend it to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) : I will begin by acknowledging the member who has just resumed his seat. Not only was that a considered contribution to this very important debate but also I understand that he was very well regarded as chair of the committee, not just in the way he dealt with other members of the committee but also in the way he dealt with submitters, and I acknowledge him for that. I am not likely to do that often, given his current political affiliation, but when it is warranted I certainly will.

Hon Darren Hughes: Just wait!

Hon RUTH DYSON: That is right. When he moves on from that position, we never know what might happen.

I acknowledge the Hon Annette King, who put a huge amount of work into preparing the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, and also all the officials who worked so hard, not just with Annette King when she was Minister, but also with community organisations up and down the country, to make sure that that bill had really strong input from people who knew the outcome they wanted. There is no debate about the outcome that is required, but these issues are not always as straightforward as they seem. The bill that Annette King introduced to the House was the result of widespread community consultation, and that is the point that I want the Minister to reflect on before he takes the next call.

I will add that it was one of the few pieces of legislation that went to the cross-party family violence prevention group, which had every single party in Parliament, tragically with the exception of National, represented on it. That cross-party group looked at various options in terms of enhancing safety in the home, and supported the progress of the bill. It certainly is not often that we have people like Heather Roy, Tariana Turia, Sue Bradford, and Judy Turner in the room together, all working on one cause with a great deal of passion and commitment. I regret that National left the group and did not come back, because it was an opportunity that was lost.

The original bill came forward with a lot of support from both outside and within this Parliament. Part of the bill that I am referring to, the Domestic Violence Reform Bill, has been picked up by the Minister Simon Power and I acknowledge his commitment. I have no doubt about his personal commitment to enhancing safety in the home, and I acknowledge that, as well. But I find it quite puzzling that despite him introducing a second bill, there are still quite important issues from the original Domestic Violence Reform Bill that have been omitted. Frankly, if we have an opportunity as a Parliament to make our homes safer for everyone, and particularly for women and children, why would we throw away that chance? That is the question I want the Minister to answer. There was a bill already before Parliament that had majority support in this House, without doubt. There may have been some small parts of it that could have been debated, but I doubt even that.

The Minister went to all the trouble of introducing his own bill, which took part of that original bill, and sent it to select committee, and then went to another lot of bother to introduce a second bill. Still he missed out four quite important parts of the original domestic violence reform legislation. Why would anyone want to reduce safety by taking away some of the key elements? That is what I would like the Minister to answer, because it seriously is a puzzle to me.

My colleague Jacinda Ardern outlined some of the concerns that were raised both by members of the select committee and by submitters to it. I want to proceed with asking the Minister directly for his views on the four points that have been omitted in both pieces of legislation, and that were in the original Domestic Violence Reform Bill. The first omission is changing the definition of a child, from under 17 years of age to under 18 years of age, in the Domestic Violence Act. Obviously, that would give us compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that is a good thing. It does not improve anyone’s safety, but it is always good to sign up to United Nations conventions when we can and when it makes sense for our nation. It also would align the domestic violence legislation with the Care of Children Act. It is very puzzling that a Minister who is generally regarded as having quite a lot of rigour, showing attention to detail, and common sense would waive the opportunity to make a very straightforward move aligning the domestic violence legislation with the Care of Children Act; it puzzles me.

The second omission was the decision that has specifically been made to not require reasons to be given in writing when a without notice application for a protection order is declined by a judge. To the best of my knowledge, there has been no explanation from the Government as to why it specifically made the decision not to proceed with including that provision in the legislation. Again, this is something that was worked through by experts in the field, by people who are survivors of domestic violence, and by people who support them to move from being a victim to being a survivor. It was worked through with the police and the Ministry of Justice—the people who know what they are talking about. This was the advice that was given to us; we took it from the best sources. But the Minister said: “No, I’m not going to do that.” Once again, it is a big puzzle and I would like the Minister to take what will be one of the last chances to explain that second puzzle to me.

The third omission from the original legislation was the decision not to introduce information sessions. That is contrary to all the evidence around the fact that protection is best given in a situation where an individual knows how he or she can access support, and that person also understands the nature of the threat that he or she may be faced with in the future. That message does not seem to be understood by the Government, even though people in our country die at the hands of partners who often have quite recently professed to love them. They have been frightened and they did not understand what may happen to them. Information sessions are a critical part of enhancing an individual’s safety. We literally have people in our nation killed, and we may have an opportunity to enhance the safety of someone who could be in that situation tonight. I know the Minister is committed to that aim. I cannot understand why he took that information session provision out of the original legislation, because once again it was on best advice that that was included. I hope that this is not a political party issue. I am sure that every single member in this House wants to enhance the safety of individuals, particularly within their own homes. Once again, I ask the Minister whether he could please explain to the Committee why he did not take the advice that Labour was given when in Government to include those information sessions as part of the legislation.

The fourth point is the Government’s specific decision not to introduce funded addiction treatment services and, again, that is despite overwhelming evidence about the association between domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse. I cannot fathom why that specific recommendation has been taken out. It is a huge contributor to enhancing safety, not only in the home but also in our broader community. In my view, it is not too late for the Minister to say that he has changed his mind and introduce some amendments. Labour would support those particular provisions being put back in the legislation. The Minister is able to provide Supplementary Order Papers at a moment’s notice. He has the advantage of having some extraordinarily competent officials on hand. They may well have those amendments drafted, just in case the Minister decides that the best evidence is worth taking and that doing every single thing we can to enhance safety in the home is worth pursuing.

Despite those omissions, the parts of the Hon Annette King’s legislation that the Minister has taken on board are very good. I hope they achieve the aims that we all share, to ensure that fewer children, fewer women, and fewer men are harmed by those who should give them the security and the love that they deserve within their own homes.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : I start by acknowledging what the previous speaker, Ruth Dyson, said, particularly in relation to Chester Borrows. He has done an exceptionally fine job of chairing the Justice and Electoral Committee through its consideration of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I agree with what Chester Borrows said: all the members of the select committee—whether they were from Labour, the Greens, or National—entered into a spirit of cooperation that was very good to see. It was this Parliament and the select committee process working at its finest.

I also agreed when Ruth Dyson said that every member of this Committee wants to do his or her bit to enhance the safety of victims and potential victims of domestic violence. In fact, we want to do what we can to ensure people do not become victims. The Minister of Justice acknowledged that there is more work to do, which he and his ministry are working on. This bill is a response to a serious issue, and, in respect of the Minister, I think we are seeing a fine response.

Before talking very briefly about the response, I say that I am sure no one doubts the severity of the problem. I agreed with Lynne Pillay when she said that domestic violence is a blot on our society. We think of the very high-profile cases, the children like Nia Glassie and the wives and spouses who are badly beaten. But, of course, it is also clear that domestic violence can be rather more banal than those headline cases. With 80,000 domestic violence call-outs for police every year, no one can be in any doubt that this issue needs a response from this Parliament. As I said, it has been a privilege to be part of the team under Minister Simon Power that worked on this.

What does the bill do? Well, it does many things. It deals with the penalty provisions for failure to attend a programme, and so on. There are a number of specific provisions, but perhaps the key part is that it allows for on-the-spot protection orders for up to 5 days in situations where police may not have sufficient evidence to charge then and there—although they may get it eventually—but it is quite clear that the situation is bad, is serious, and needs to be dealt with. In other words, this bill allows for immediate safety to come first. It empowers the police and gives them the tools to ensure that immediate safety comes first. I do not think anyone in this Chamber could disagree with that. I look forward to taking a call in the third reading debate of this bill.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 72 in the name of the Hon Simon Power to Part 1 be agreed to.

• Amendments agreed to.

• Part 1 as amended agreed to.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : It is a pleasure to stand again and speak on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. I was a bit remiss in my first speech, so I will now also add my compliments to Chester Borrows for his excellent chairing of the Justice and Electoral Committee.

I will also take this opportunity to acknowledge the submitters. They include the people who work at the coalface in the many organisations who came and gave submissions. They did so because they are very, very committed to providing protection for victims of domestic violence. I not only acknowledge the submissions that they gave but also the work that they do on a day-to-day basis. I know that it makes a real difference to the lives of, predominantly, women and children in New Zealand, and I am very proud to acknowledge that in this House.

I also acknowledge the victims of domestic violence who made submissions. I believe, and I am sure that all members will agree with me, that that is a very brave action to take for people who have already been through very, very difficult situations, situations more painful than anyone in this Chamber can contemplate. For them to be able to come to the select committee and share their stories in a very meaningful way assisted us in our deliberations, and that was a very, very brave thing for them to do.

Again, I acknowledge the Hon Ruth Dyson and the points that she made in terms of the bill’s shortcomings, or in terms of what is missing from this bill. I acknowledge that another bill is following this one, but if we look at the domestic violence statistics, every hour is an hour too long. Every day is, by far, too long. That is why I am pleased that we are debating this bill under urgency. Let us get this bill through; let us get this bill into effect as soon as possible.

I will also talk about a couple of issues in Part 2, particularly those relating to the amendment to the Sentencing Act. We spent quite some time considering the effects of the protection order, and I am really pleased with one of the amendments that we made to new section 123D, to be inserted in the Sentencing Act by clause 9. The section states: “On making a protection order, the Judge or Registrar must explain to the offender—”. The initial draft of the bill talked about the effect and the consequences in a couple of lines, but select committee members discussed quite extensively how important it is in this situation that offenders understand what is required of them with regard to the protection order. It is not just the order that is important but also the direction to attend a programme that will assist offenders—well, we certainly hope so—to address their violence and the consequences if they fail to do so.

Where there is an order that offenders are required to attend a programme and they fail to do so, there will be consequences arising from that. I believe that that is a very sensible amendment. That direction is about protection and safety in the immediate instance, and also about looking forward and ensuring that offenders take responsibility for their actions.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I thank the member Lynne Pillay for her contribution to the debate on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. A few johnny-come-latelys, though, are contributing to this discussion in the Committee stage. I myself have been an affiliate member of the Chester Borrows fan club for some time. Now everybody else seems to be rushing to the party during the Committee of the whole House to pledge their allegiance to Mr Borrows. I tell members of the Committee that I have been a fan of Mr Borrows for longer than most members, and I would appreciate it if there was more historic depth to their analysis of his contribution on this particular issue.

Part 2 of the bill amends the Sentencing Act 2002. It provides that when an offender is convicted of a domestic violence - related offence, the court may make a final protection order against the offender if it is satisfied that the making of the order is necessary for the protection of the victim and the victim does not object. When making the protection order, the court must explain to the offender the effect of the order and of any direction to attend a programme. Any protection order issued by the criminal courts is referred to the Family Court.

The Justice and Electoral Committee made two amendments to Part 2. Ms Pillay made reference, I believe, to one of those. The first is to delete new section 123B(1)(c), inserted by clause 9. That amendment clarifies that the criminal courts may make a protection order regardless of whether the victim has applied for one in the Family Court. That is a critical step and one that the committee should be applauded for taking. The second amendment is to new section 123D, also inserted by clause 9, and it requires the court to explain to an offender the effect of a protection order and the consequences of failure to comply with it. The court must also explain to the offender the effect of the court’s direction to attend a stopping violence programme and the consequences of failure to attend any such programme.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : I am pleased to speak on Part 2 of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. Part 2 focuses on the amendments made to the Sentencing Act, and the Minister in the chair, Simon Power, has already rightly pointed out the most significant changes that were made by the Justice and Electoral Committee. When considering this part I want to expand a little bit on the process that the select committee went through in determining those changes.

I think at the heart of this bill is the overall objective to streamline the process that a victim, in particular, may go through when using our justice system to obtain a protection order. There was one thing that I think came through quite clearly during the submission process.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m.

JACINDA ARDERN: Before the break I was talking about one of the primary objectives of this bill, which is to improve access by victims to such things as protection orders. When the Justice and Electoral Committee was considering one of the clauses in Part 2, it occurred to us that we could improve that objective if we allowed a court to order a protection order when it was considering a case, even if it was not the court to which a particular application had been made. In the end, we considered that a sentencing court should not be precluded from making a protection order if it considered that the protection order was necessary for the protection of the victim of the offence. We made that change after careful consideration and after hearing submissions made by, for instance, Family Court judges. It was a well considered and appropriate change to make.

There are only two other aspects of Part 2 that I wish to draw attention to. One is new section 123D, which requires that after the issuing of a protection order, a judge or registrar must explain to the offender the effect of that order. That change was based on submissions made by the Family Court, which pointed out the rate of non-compliance with some of these orders. It was the view of the select committee that we should do everything we can to ensure that orders for individuals to attend programmes to stop violence, for instance, should be enhanced in any way available to us. I think there is still more we can do in that particular area. It struck me during our consideration of the bill that, although we were using all the tools available through legislation, the surrounding areas—the support programmes and community networks aimed both at victims and at turning round the behaviour of offenders—perhaps needed the greater attention of the House.

The final point I will briefly talk to relates to consent for protection orders. The select committee had some discussion about the issue of consent in issuing a protection order. We had considered that very same issue in relation to the awarding of police safety orders. The committee decided, rightly so, that these were quite different tools. A police safety order is a short-term order that is intended to diffuse very heated situations and prevent violence from occurring. Women’s Refuge, after seeing how those orders work in Australia, agreed that applying them without consent appeared to be of value to victims, who would acknowledge that after the fact. Of course, the reason then that we thought police safety orders should be able to be applied without consent was that it gave victims time and space to consider whether they wished to apply for a full protection order. A protection order has many larger, longer-term ramifications than a police safety order. In order for protection orders to work in the long term, I believe they require the buy-in of victims, which is why we have, in the end, rightly differentiated between those two forms of protection for victims or potential victims of domestic violence.

Those are the main aspects of the amendments to the Sentencing Act that I wish to draw the Committee’s attention to. I look forward to discussing further in the Committee stage the amendments to the Bail Act, and to the third reading.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) : I am looking forward to hearing the Minister of Justice, the Hon Simon Power, take a brief call. I encourage him to do so because he still has not addressed the questions I raised earlier in the debate on the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill, and those same questions apply to Part 2, which we are now debating. I heard the earlier contribution from the Minister and I thought that it was considered in the main. Some parts of it were quite amusing, especially the Chester Borrows fan club section of his contribution, but I have serious questions. The Minister is well regarded for taking issues from whatever political party as seriously as they are presented to him. So I say to him, quite directly, that I am still puzzled about the Government’s reasons for omitting four quite important sections from the Hon Annette King’s Domestic Violence Reform Bill.

I will refresh the Minister’s memory from the earlier debate. The application of this bill to the Sentencing Act will be very well known to him; he will be familiar with the Sentencing Act, I am sure, and he will understand how the four points I raise apply to Part 2. These are provisions that the Hon Annette King included in the Domestic Violence Reform Bill. That legislation was well consulted around the country and had overwhelming support from the experts and key players in this area.

Four provisions of that bill have been omitted from this bill. The first omission is that this bill does not change the definition of a child from a person who is under 17 years of age to a person who is under 18 years of age. The definition in the Domestic Violence Act, as noted in new section 123A of the Sentencing Act, inserted by clause 9, still applies. The opportunity to align this legislation with the Care of Children Act should have been irresistible. The proposed provision made sense and had wide-ranging support, but the Minister decided to leave it out. That makes no sense, at all. The second omission —again, a specific decision made by the Minister—is that this bill does not require a judge to give reasons in writing when he or she declines a without-notice application for a protection order. That was not an oversight; it was a deliberate, specific decision that was signed off by the Minister. From my perspective, it is extremely puzzling. The Minister has made no attempt to explain why the decision was made to omit that.

The third omission is that this bill does not introduce information sessions. In my earlier contribution, I explained the importance of that aspect in the protection of women, in particular, who do not necessarily understand the relationship they are in and the different tack it can take. It is very hard for people who have not been in a violent relationship to understand how a person can still live with somebody who is violent with him or her. An information session is critical for people in their understanding of their relationships and in being able to determine key risk factors for the future. The fourth omission is that this bill does not introduce funded addiction treatment services, despite overwhelming evidence about the association between domestic violence and drug and alcohol abuse.

I know that we are in urgency and that the Government is under a huge amount of pressure from the extensive legislative timetable it has ahead of it, but I consider that the Committee would benefit hugely if the Minister were to spend 5 minutes of his time explaining what he has against those four provisions of the Domestic Violence Reform Bill—and it is still on the Order Paper—that have been omitted not just from this bill but also from the related bill that the Minister introduced.

Those provisions should be in this bill; those amendments should be consistent with the provisions of the reform bill. The Minister did not need to pass over the Hon Annette King’s bill. He could have short-cut all the systems and just put his name on it. He must have a good reason not to give those protections to women and children who, right now, right at this very minute as we debate this bill, are living in dangerous situations. Why has the Minister not taken that chance?

• Part 2 agreed to.

• Part 3 agreed to.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : The commencement clauses contained in clauses 1 and 2 of the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill relating to revised offence provisions, the new provision on arrest without a warrant, and the amendments to the Bail Act will come into force immediately following this bill’s assent. Proposed new Part 6A of the Domestic Violence Act, which concerns the police safety orders and is to be inserted by clause 7 of the bill, and the amendments to the Sentencing Act 2002 that are made by Part 2 of the bill and enable the criminal courts to make protection orders, will come into force on 1 July 2010. The additional time allowed before those proposals come into force will allow for the development of processes and for system changes and training to be completed.

In respect of the matters that have been raised by the Hon Ruth Dyson, I will take a moment to address those, because they are fair questions. The first reassurance that I want to give the member and the Committee of the whole House is that, in respect of the domestic protection orders, we were keen to move that part of the legislation that was previously on the Order Paper swiftly, which is why it was introduced and extracted from the remaining legislation. The second bill that was introduced to the House, which we are debating now, was introduced, in a way, to cover some of the issues that have been raised by the member in her first contribution to the debate on Part 1, but particularly because I was keen to see a particular international instrument taken care of as part of this bill. I reassure the member that the reason the original bill is still on the Order Paper today, and will remain on the Order Paper, is that those matters she has raised are still under active consideration.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : I will talk briefly to the title and commencement clauses, because there was some discussion at the Justice and Electoral Committee when the bill was referred to it as the Domestic Violence (Enhancing Safety) Bill. The Minister originally set out that the legislation would come into force only on the date to be appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council. That was not satisfactory to the committee. The view was that the legislation should be time-bound, which eventually was the case, with provisions coming into force on 1 July 2010.

Of course, those provisions will still affect only a particular group of people, as set out in Part 3, which talks about the amendments to the Bail Act. We have already considered that children, for instance, are defined as being those aged up to the age of 17, as described by the Domestic Violence Act. Regardless of when this bill comes into force, because of its drafting there is a significant group of young people who some of us on this side of the Chamber consider will be neglected by this bill. I look forward to expanding on that issue in my speech during the third reading debate.

• Clause 1 agreed to.

• Clause 2 agreed to.

• The Committee divided the bill into the Domestic Violence Amendment Bill, the Sentencing Amendment Bill (No 2), and the Bail Amendment Bill (No 2), pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper71.

• Bill reported with amendment.

• Report adopted.