Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : I move, That the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This bill addresses problems in accident compensation, which has become financially unsustainable. Reform is required to secure its long-term future for all New Zealanders.

The 2008-09 annual report of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) showed a loss of $4.8 billion—almost half the $10 billion Government deficit last year. This loss comes on top of a $2.4 billion loss for the previous year. Over the past 4 years the accident compensation scheme’s unfunded liabilities—that is, the difference between its liabilities and its assets—have grown from $4 billion to $13 billion. This is a significant and serious problem that cannot be ignored.

The underlying issue for the scheme is the steep increase in claim costs—up 57 percent in the last 4 years, or rising at five times the rate of inflation. The scheme cannot sustain the ongoing increases in claim costs arising from greater claim numbers, deteriorating rehabilitation rates, and unfunded scheme extensions. The underlying problem is that accident compensation has drifted away from being a State insurer to being an extension of the welfare State.

This bill is a key part of the Government’s reforms to accident compensation that are needed to make the scheme affordable, sustainable, and fair.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister, but I say to members that it is the height of rudeness to the House for them to stand with their backs to the Chair engaged in loud conversations with colleagues. It is totally unacceptable. Not only is it rude to the member speaking, it is rude to the House, and I will not tolerate it. It is unacceptable. I apologise to the Hon Dr Nick Smith. He has the floor.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I welcome the diligent and good report that has been produced by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee along with its recommendations, and I thank both the committee and the officials for the hard work that they did in progressing this bill. I particularly acknowledge that effort, given the tight timetable in which the Government has had to advance this bill in order to minimise levies for so many New Zealanders in the year ahead. I also acknowledge and thank those who took the time to make submissions on the bill.

The changes in this bill are part of a wider reform of accident compensation that began with changes to the ACC board in March last year, the stocktake that we announced in August, and other regulatory and operational changes that we are making to ensure we meet those objectives. The main purpose of the bill is to increase flexibility in the accident compensation scheme, to facilitate cost containment, to provide for closer working relationships between ACC and other Government agencies, and to improve the financial reporting and accountability of ACC so that in future we are not caught by surprise by very large multibillion dollar losses.

The main amendment contained in the bill will extend the date for fully funding residual claims out from 2014 to 2019, require that there be a final valuation on those residual liabilities, and fold those accounts into the main accounts. The intention in 1998 was that accident compensation would be fully funded by 2014. Good progress was made in the years through to 2004, but over the last 5 years the costs of accident compensation have grown so extraordinarily that it will involve huge increases in levies for earners, for businesses, and for motorists to meet that full funding date of 2014. That is why the Government, with the support of the select committee, wants to make that change.

Other amendments reverse changes to the test for gradual process conditions in order to remove the presumption that accident compensation should automatically provide cover, introduce a cover threshold for injury-related hearing loss, and rescind changes made to weekly compensation eligibility and entitlements that were made in 2008. I express a strong concern that even in June 2008, when the previous Minister for ACC reported to the House a $2.4 billion loss within the accident compensation scheme, it was nothing short of reckless and irresponsible to add a further 12 entitlements to the scheme in the months that followed prior to the general election, thus exacerbating the financial problems the scheme now faces.

The bill also allows experience rating and risk sharing to be applied to levy rates in the work account, and risk rating to levy rates in the motor vehicle account. It strengthens the disentitlement provisions for offenders and reintroduces disentitlement for wilfully self-inflicted injuries and suicides. I particularly draw to the attention of the House the provisions in this bill that will disentitle those who commit criminal acts and then expect accident compensation to provide full entitlements. I get repeated letters from New Zealanders all over the country frustrated by that process, and Parliament and this Government are rightly responding to that concern.

The bill also includes some operational improvements and technical changes to improve its flexibility. The select committee received 133 submissions and has recommended only minor changes to the bill to clarify the provisions relating to cover for hearing loss and the full funding regime for those residual liabilities, and to improve on the provisions around experience rating and risk sharing in the work account. They have also made some minor changes to the financial reporting requirements to ensure that they are effective, and some technical changes around the disentitlement for criminals.

I thank the committee for the work it did in making changes around risk adjustments, risk sharing, and experience rating to ensure that they cannot be applied to the portion of levies that is necessary to fund the residual amount. That is a sensible change, because although experience rating, which provides incentives for businesses to have a safer work record, should properly apply to current levies, the select committee has quite appropriately determined that it not apply to historical residual levies. The select committee has also made amendments to clarify that the 6 percent threshold on cover for hearing loss applies to hearing loss only from a covered or accident-related cause.

The committee has also recommended amendments that clarify the provisions for disentitlement of offenders. These amendments clarify that offenders’ families are not entitled to compensation for fatal injuries to the offender and that a sentence of home detention is also covered in the disentitlement provisions. Clarifications have also been recommended to the extent of treatment to be provided for those disentitled offenders, and that, in my view, is appropriate. Finally, the committee has recommended amending the provision relating to the requirement that ACC report on its financial condition, recognising that ACC cannot really be an impartial adviser on its own activities, although we still want to proceed—and I commend the select committee—with ensuring those transparent financial reporting requirements.

I give the House notice that, as I have already announced, it is my intention to bring a Supplementary Order Paper to the House to enable the specific motorcycle levy, which has been so successful in reducing motorcycle accidents in Victoria, to be introduced.

I conclude by restating this Government’s commitment to the core concepts of the accident compensation scheme as a 24/7, no-fault insurer for all New Zealanders. To secure the future of accident compensation the scheme has to be affordable and financially sustainable. That is the underlying purpose of this bill: to reduce the pressure on levy payers created by the huge increases in the scheme’s costs and liabilities, the increasing cost of residual claims liabilities, and the rapid growth that has occurred in both claims and entitlement costs.

This is a balanced bill that fairly reflects the rights of both levy payers and claimants, and it will help restore the future of New Zealand’s unique accident compensation system.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : It grieves me to have to get up and speak to the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill. Here we have it: the systematic dismantling of a piece of New Zealand’s social fabric, which is second to none in the world.

The Minister for ACC’s speech is typical of the way he has presented accident compensation since he had the privilege of taking up that portfolio. He talks in half-truths. He gives half of the information, never the complete information. He continues to represent the accident compensation scheme as an insurance scheme and not a social contract. He continues to pretend that it has its equal in the private sector, when it does not. He continues to pretend, and to try to persuade New Zealanders, that this second-to-none, world-class system, which began as a worker compensation scheme and developed into something so much more than that for the protection of injured New Zealanders, is insurance like every other kind of insurance. It is not. It is nothing of the sort. It is not charged out at private sector rates. It is, in fact, not even charged out or levied, particularly on employers, in any way that is remotely comparable to our nearest neighbour. The levies that employers pay in New Zealand for work-related injuries are substantially lower, across the board, than any comparable scheme in Australia. My colleagues and I will talk about that further.

This bill represents the attack on accident compensation that that Minister has been threatening for the last 15 or 16 months. When he took up the portfolio, he responded hysterically to some issues related to the increasing costs of treatment and rehabilitation in New Zealand. In the course of the Minister’s misrepresentation of the scheme’s position people began to become concerned, until they realised that, in fact, the Minister’s definition of insolvency, which was the main point that he was trying to persuade the New Zealand public of, was based on a tissue of half-truths. That is the most complimentary way I can describe it.

The definition of “insolvent” that was used was that the scheme’s total liabilities exceeded its assets. What the Minister failed to tell the public was that the calculation of the liabilities was spread over many, many years over the life of an injury. That meant that some 30 or 40 years out there would be residual liabilities. That is because, until such time as this law is passed, we have a scheme that covers the life of injuries. It is not just the cost of going to the doctor after one has been injured; it is whatever it takes to support a person after he or she has been injured. Then the Minister repeatedly set that lifetime liability against the current assets, not recognising for a moment the ongoing income from the well-invested funds that the scheme gathers from levies from different quarters.

The public has been fed a tissue of half-truths about the state of the scheme. Certainly, there were increases in costs, because we have become better at saving people. Medical science has progressed, and there is case upon case where we now save people who would have died otherwise from motor vehicle accidents, injuries in the home, and sports injuries. Those people can now be saved, whereas some years ago they were not. The Minister never says that in his description of the scheme. He continues to say, untruthfully, that it is broke and it is insolvent.

In order to reinforce his point, he appointed a new chair to the board of the Accident Compensation Corporation, who agreed with his definition. We heard that definition in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee shortly after the appointment of the new chair, John Judge. Certainly, it helps to pick people who will repeat one’s own words—obviously for that Minister’s benefit. Now we have the peeling back and the dismantling of compassionate, human provisions in the legislation, which were put there for good reason, and which benefited numbers of people.

Labour will oppose every part of this bill, with the exception of one part. That is the part where the date for the payment of residual levies—that is, the payment of treatment that has not been fully funded up until now—is extended. That, I have to say, derives from the last time National tried to dismantle and privatise accident compensation. That is why those injuries from pre-1999 are not fully funded—are not fully funded—and we are still having to fund them; the provision was not set out for them. They were meant to be fully funded by 2014, and the National Government at the time picked the period of 15 years out of the hat. The number was arbitrary. It could have been 10 years, it could have been 20 years, but National said that it would split the difference and make it 15 years.

Labour is in favour of the pushing-out of that date. In fact, we announced it. I, as the previous Minister for ACC, announced it prior to the election. It became apparent to me, even in the only 12 months I had in that position, that something needed to be done about residual levy payments, and the pressure was building. Pressure was applied to employers that was not reasonable.

The thing that this Minister should have done was introduce this bit a year ago. We have lost the ability, and employers and car owners have lost the ability, to have reduced levies by the tune of 1 year’s worth of levies because of the tardiness of this Minister, and because of his inability to get past his own hysteria and apply something with which we would have agreed. It could have happened immediately. It was only in 2008 that the pressure on that residual levies payment component became clear, and that was the only time when the pushing-out of the date started to be explored.

In this bill we have a reflection of a Government that has absolutely no respect for the history and purpose of this social contract. One of the things that becomes really apparent, as an example of the callous approach this Government is taking, is in the Morrison Low report to the Accident Compensation Corporation board, which talks about the need to “significantly cut back to essential and core services, effectively draining the swamp.”—“effectively draining the swamp.” The Minister and his Government are now saying that those who benefit from or apply to the corporation are no better than swamp dwellers. We have the case that was offered earlier in the House of an elderly woman who fell and hurt her shoulder, but who cannot get any relief from ACC; she is a swamp dweller.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : I want to follow on from that speaker by going through a few points raised in relation to the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill that are simply not true. The first issue is the talk of the dismantling of the accident compensation scheme by the current Government. That is not the case. Members opposite are using political rhetoric to try to scare the public of New Zealand. They tried to do that during the election campaign; it did not work. They are trying to do it now, when we are making genuine changes to the accident compensation system in order to enable it to survive and provide the 24-hour cover that people expect from it. That is what the general principles of accident compensation were built on—the provision of that cover—and this National Government will make sure that the system can be maintained and deliver compensation to New Zealanders in the future.

Labour is also at a crossroads when it comes to the full funding issue. Its members say the system is not broken and is not in trouble. Well, the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) had a major loss in the year that the previous Labour Government left office, and even the previous speaker, Maryan Street, said that in 2008 that Government was looking at extending the full funding date. That shows that that had to be done, and that is what this bill does. It is amazing that Labour looked at extending that date then, but will not support doing that now. Those members will not support something that they were going to look at anyway. Although they say the assets are sufficient to cover claims, I say that is simply not the case. There is a lack of understanding about what residual claims actually relate to, and there is also a lack of understanding about what the assets of that organisation are at this moment in time. John Judge had been appointed by the previous Labour Government to many boards before National came into power, and I think that his financial expertise should not be questioned in this House. He has been shown to have been used by both major political parties, when they were in Government, to deal with issues such as the governance of big organisations like ACC.

I will concentrate now on what this bill does, though. It does extend the full funding date to 2019, which gives us another 5 years in which we can endeavour to make the accident compensation system sufficiently viable to be able fully fund itself in the future. Most political parties are in agreement with that concept. Only one party saw things differently from that in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. That party, the Green Party, said accident compensation should be funded on a year-by-year basis. Other parties are very much in support of our policy, but it is disappointing that Labour cannot vote for it in this House, even though its members know they support it. We also see that a number of entitlements have come in, in recent years. Those recent entitlements were not part of the original scheme in the first place, so it is a bit rich to say what we are doing is contrary to the Woodhouse principles. When the scheme was set up, it was set up for a reason, and that reason is what we are endeavouring to maintain and achieve by enabling the system to be one that can survive and deliver those results.

I thank the members of the select committee for their work on this bill, which was done under time pressure. I thank all the submitters who came along and made their views known to us. We dealt with a number of issues, ranging from hearing loss to entitlements, and also to the accident compensation system in general. Many submitters took much time to provide a good history of the system, and they also gave their perspective on what they wanted to see come out of it. We thank those submitters. I also thank the officials who provided advice to the select committee and were there to assist all members in achieving the changes that the committee made to the bill. They were minor changes, but they were necessary to tidy up a few things in the bill so that we can have legislation that is as robust as possible.

In essence, this bill is here in order to provide a long-term, sustainable accident compensation system. The Government has made the changes that will provide that system. We commend the bill to the House and look forward to its passage.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : Given the absolute embarrassment for this Government over recent events with the accident compensation scheme, and the controversy, the heartache, and the absolutely shameful behaviour by the Government, I am amazed the Government is choosing this time to pursue the progress of this shocking bill through this House. It is just unbelievable. This bill is very clearly part of this Government’s deliberate campaign to strip the entitlements to accident compensation, to raise the levies, and to set up accident compensation to flog off to the highest bidder in the future. All the rhetoric is there—all the rhetoric about how difficult it is financially. We listened to the Minister drone on and on about how difficult things are financially, but, as my colleague Maryan Street said, it was a tissue of half-truths. In some ways the Government wants to validate this harsh attack on the rights of entitlements of New Zealanders. This bill should not have ever passed its first reading. It did so with the Government getting support from the ACT Party, no surprise; from Peter Dunne, no surprise; but also support from the Māori Party. That support enabled this bill to progress to the select committee.

What a proud moment it would have been if people in this House had said: “This is just not fair.” I am not talking about National members but I am talking about other parties in this House who could have said: “We uphold a principle of fairness.” This is an attack on the very fabric of our society and everything that we as New Zealanders hold dear. Our accident compensation scheme has put us up there on the world stage, and has been admired by every country in the world, yet we have a Government that is hell-bent on dismantling the scheme.

I pay tribute to the Labour members and the Green member on the select committee. They were the ones who had the guts, who actually looked at the issues, and opposed the bill. They opposed the bill for the right reasons. They opposed the bill because it was not just, and it was not fair. But it is a numbers game, and because of the numbers this bill came back to the House unimproved, and it was for all the wrong reasons. There are no improvements whatsoever to this bill. I heard the previous speaker, David Bennett, stand in this House and thank the submitters for coming to the select committee. He said “Thank you, we appreciate the submitters.” I think the best way to thank submitters when they come to the select committee and front up, is to actually listen to what they are saying, listen to what New Zealanders are saying, and listen to what the people said in the rally outside Parliament. Then they should say, quite honestly, as John Key says, “Sometimes we don’t always get it right.” This is one of those times. But that is not what happened. For Mr Bennett to stand up and thank the submitters really smacks of cynicism.

Su’a William Sio: It’s a slap in the face and it sucks.

LYNNE PILLAY: It is a slap in the face and it sucks, as my eloquent colleague says. But we have already seen cuts to entitlements to accident compensation, right across New Zealand, for those with physical injuries and for victims and survivors of sexual assault. I pay tribute to some of the submitters who went to the select committee and talked about what had happened to victims of violence and sexual assaults. They talked about the outright denial of claims, languishing on waiting lists, non-treatment, being told that counselling would not help, despite every professional in the business saying that it would. The committee heard about all of those things, and those people had the courage to go before that committee. Sadly, the issue was outside the scope of the bill, but I still acknowledge those people and I still say to this Government that that is the most appalling action in the whole of accident compensation legislation that it has taken, and the Government must fix it. Labour members went outside to the rally on Tuesday and we heard so many people speaking. National members say they want to know about the accident compensation scheme. If they had fronted up at the rally the other day they would have heard really clearly—

Carmel Sepuloni: 2,000 people.

LYNNE PILLAY: There were 2,000 people, there were tons and tons of people. If National members had fronted up, they would have heard that people were being pushed from pillar from post, they are kept waiting for decisions on whether they will have the ability to be treated, to return to work, to lead an active life, or to receive counselling when they deserve it, which is so necessary for people who have experienced such horrific abuse. But did National members turn up and listen? No, they did not. Did Nick Smith say: “I can’t make it; can somebody go?” No, he did not. National members did not listen to the people. Nick Smith in his address in the House today continued with the argument that the accident compensation scheme is struggling financially and will not be viable unless this bill is passed. We are already seeing the underhand cuts that I talked about before, and the stress they are causing, right through our communities in New Zealand. The Minister hides behind the issue of accident compensation, when it is very clear from the numbers that are coming through that it is all part of the National Government’s “pay more, get less” agenda.

On the Minister’s own admission, this is actually about cost cutting, and the reality is that the Accident Compensation Corporation’s assets exceed its liabilities. PricewaterhouseCoopers’ review found that New Zealanders’ accident compensation scheme costs were lower than any other scheme. That review was an independent review, which the Minister says is so good. Treasury itself said it was unsure whether accident compensation was excessive. We have all of this evidence but this Minister is hell-bent on putting the message out, with his half-truths, that the accident compensation scheme is in trouble.

I also want to talk about some more victims—and they are victims—of the changes to the scheme: those who are ready for work at 30 rather than 35 hours. We all know that 30 hours of work a week is not a living wage. We know that the statistics show that when people are deemed ready to go back to work, that is not the case. There are 32 percent who are deemed to be back in work and are back in work, 21 percent are part time, and 22. 5 percent were on a Work and Income benefit. That shows that it is not working for these “swamp dwellers”—if we can use that term that the corporation talks about—under the 35 hours return to work. So 30 hours is absolutely terrible.

I shall talk about two final points. Firstly, we all know that in this situation it is disabled people and women, whom we have heard about in the House today, who in terms of pay and entitlements are languishing behind. They will be the people who by far will be affected the most by these cuts. I also want to talk about hearing loss. Make no mistake: under the accident compensation scheme the only reason people have assistance with a hearing aid is when they require it for hearing loss. The changes that the Government is imposing under the pretext that it is consistent with Australia is simply not true; in Australia, if people need hearing aids, they get them. It is saying the level must be 6 percent. I agree with the Human Rights Commission, I agree with health professionals, that that is going to really disadvantage hearing-impaired people in New Zealand. It is completely in line with what this Government is doing to deaf and hearing-impaired people with the loss of sign language classes through the adult and community education cuts, and the cuts in support for deaf tertiary students, and also the support through teachers for children and their parents. This compensation scheme cut to people who have a hearing impairment is absolutely consistent with that agenda. I find that after ratifying a United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities it is one of the most offensive things in this bill.

KEVIN HAGUE (Green) : Sir Owen Woodhouse is a truly great New Zealander. He is one of New Zealand’s foremost jurists of all time and the architect of a visionary accident compensation scheme that has been the envy of the rest of the world. Yet at the age of 91, when he should be enjoying a well-earned retirement, Sir Owen has found himself sufficiently concerned by the flawed reasoning behind the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill that he felt it necessary to put himself back into the public spotlight to condemn it. Sir Owen’s vision for an accident compensation scheme was that of a no-fault scheme based on the principles of community responsibility, comprehensive entitlement, complete rehabilitation, real compensation, and administrative efficiency. He recognised that the various activities we undertake in society are all interrelated and that the benefits and harms of each flow on to others rather than resting solely with those people undertaking the activities. Sadly, Sir Owen’s vision came under attack from vested interests almost from day one. Politicians responded to their lobbying and began to compromise the principles that Sir Owen had set out, and the accident compensation scheme we have today is littered with inequities.

This bill will significantly heighten those inequities. It is entitled the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill. The truth is that it will amend injury prevention, rehabilitation, and compensation by slashing each of them. It proposes a range of cuts to the scheme’s cover and entitlements and imposes funding requirements for the scheme that necessitate massive levy increases. In other words, people pay more and get less. The seeds of this inequity were sown back in 1998 when the National-led Government of the day decided to open up the scheme’s work account to private competition from the insurance industry. To ensure the private insurers could compete, that Government changed the scheme’s funding model for claims from a “pay as you go” model to the full pre-funding of claims that is required of insurance companies. The privatisation experiment of the late 1999-2000 period was a disaster for claimants, as the easiest way for private insurers to maximise profit was to deny legitimate claims in the knowledge that many claimants would have neither the resources nor the energy to contest their decisions. Of course some employers did not mind that either, as it helped to keep their premiums down. The incoming Labour-led Government, with the support of the Green Party, promptly reversed National’s ill-fated privatisation experiment. Unfortunately, we were unable to persuade Labour to return to a “pay as you go” funding model. That has now given the National Government an excuse for this pernicious bill.

Despite the huffing and puffing from Minister Smith, there is no funding crisis in the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). The corporation took in $1.5 billion more in levies last year than it paid out in claims. The so-called funding crisis is purely a creature of accounting, arising from the fully pre-funded model. Return to “pay as you go”, which was how Sir Owen Woodhouse always envisioned the scheme should be funded, and the crisis disappears. Return to “pay as you go” and levies would decrease rather than increase in the short term. Return to “pay as you go” and there would be no need for the mean-spirited cuts to entitlements and cover that are contained in this bill. They are cuts that will see the cost of injuries transferred from ACC to the public health system and to injured people and their families. We do not need our education system to be funded on the basis that when a child starts preschool, all the money has to be in the bank for his or her education through to tertiary level. We do not fund our public health system on the basis that when people are diagnosed with a chronic illness, all the money has to be in the bank for their future treatment right through until they die.

I see no reason that ACC should be any different; unlike an insurance company, the Government has the power to tax. I acknowledge that it is beneficial for ACC to have some reserves to mitigate wild increases in levies that would be necessary in the event of a natural disaster—for example, a major earthquake affecting an urban centre. But there is already over $10 billion in ACC reserves, and that is ample for that purpose. As the select committee report states, most submitters, indeed almost all, who expressed a view on funding mechanisms opposed full funding of accident compensation, preferring a return to “pay as you go” funding. These 33 organisations and individuals included the ACC Futures Coalition, the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions, the National Council of Women, the Service and Food Workers Union, the Maritime Union, the Rail and Maritime Transport Union, the New Zealand Christian Council of Social Services, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, FinSec, the Public Service Association, the Bikers Rights Organisation of New Zealand, and, most tellingly, the retirement policy and research centre.

Despite ACC having deviated somewhat from the Woodhouse principles, there is still widespread satisfaction with the services it provides. That is likely to change under this bill. People become disgruntled if they have to pay more, but also if, when injured, they get less. I fear, however, that that is precisely what this Government wants. I fear this bill is part of a plan to undermine public confidence in our accident compensation scheme, and thereby soften up public opinion for privatisation of at least parts of the scheme, or as Minister Smith euphemistically calls it, “introducing private competition into the scheme”. Privatisation of accident compensation was supported by business lobbyists back in the 1990s. However, having experienced it in the 1999-2000 period their enthusiasm has waned too. In October last year Paul Jarvie, occupational health and safety manager for the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) Inc., said: “The single year when we had a private market for ACC turned into a bun fight between insurers trying to capture business and employers trying to get accident insurance within prescribed time frames. Insurers at the time cut premiums to capture market share early on. Most commentators agreed at the time that the ensuing years would have seen large premium increases to offset the low entry price points. Having a full private insurance market won’t provide stability in the premium setting market, and it would make more forecasting and budgeting work for employers.”

With employers less than enthusiastic about the privatising of accident compensation, who wants it? The unions do not want it, and claimant advocacy groups, having experienced the rigours of 1999-2000, do not want it. I guess that leaves the ACT Party, whose members nod their heads in Pavlovian automatism every time the word “privatisation” is mentioned, and of course the insurance industry. Back in 2005 a memorandum from the Insurance Council to its industry members was leaked to the media. It stated: “Attached is a statement made today by the National Party on its Accident Insurance policy. It indicates competition will be introduced into all accounts except the non-earners account. This obviously means the motor account will be opened, along with the earners and self-employed. The details of the policy have been deliberately kept out of the announcement after consultation with the Insurance Council.” That suggests government of the very worst sort. It suggests decisions may have been made not in the interests of this country, but as a result of secret deals with corporate interests who very likely, but we will never know, were significant contributors to the National Party’s election coffers.

Whatever the motivation behind the National Party’s smoke and mirrors exercise to manufacture a crisis in accident compensation, the Green Party will continue to oppose this mean-spirited bill and work towards the restoration of the Woodhouse principles and the fundamental right to a fair go, upon which our accident compensation scheme was founded. Thank you.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) : I have some questions for Labour and for the next Labour speaker to answer. These are questions that, so far in this debate, neither Labour nor the Green Party have addressed. Why does Labour not want to save the accident compensation scheme? Is it because accident compensation was a National Government creation? Is that the reason? Or is the only explanation that Labour’s mismanagement of accident compensation for the last 9 years is an example of its lack of commitment to a sustainable accident compensation scheme? What are the answers to those questions? I shall listen to the next Labour speaker with interest.

Why does Labour not want accident compensation to be financially sustainable? Why does Labour not want to make accident compensation more affordable for current and future generations of New Zealanders? The Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill, which the House is currently debating, makes a number of sensible changes that are necessary if accident compensation is to be saved. I will repeat my first question. Why does Labour not want to save accident compensation? Why is the Green Party part of that conspiracy? Do Labour members opposite and their Green counterpart not understand that the Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC’s) annual report showed a $4.8 billion loss in the 2008-09 year? That was on top of a $2.4 billion loss in the previous year.

What is it about the word “sustainable” that Labour and Green members do not understand? Does the Labour Party not care that the accident compensation scheme’s liabilities have grown from $9.4 billion to $24 billion in just 4 years? Liabilities have grown from $9.4 billion to $24 billion in just 4 years. Do Labour members not care that the scheme’s liabilities now stand at $13 billion more than its assets? Do Labour members not care that the scheme’s debt is the equivalent of $3,000 for every New Zealander? The reality is that the Labour Party and its Green friends are in denial about the changes contained within this bill, which are required to secure a financially sustainable, 24/7, no-fault accident compensation scheme for New Zealand. I await the answers to those questions.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : The Māori Party has a consistent track record of voting on legislation at its first reading in this House. Where there is any room for question, we always apply the benefit of doubt principle and vote the bill through to the select committee. This was precisely the position we found ourselves in with the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill.

Accident compensation is one of the issues in which every New Zealander has an interest, directly or potentially. On this important basis, we thought people should be given the opportunity to have a say on the proposed legislation. We had many questions that we wanted to put to New Zealanders, and, indeed, to those involved in the accident compensation scheme and the wider industry. We wanted to know, purely and simply, whether there was any ground for the changes required to a scheme that has been described as a “ground-breaking, world-leading no-fault compensation scheme”. In fact, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report of 2008 described the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) as having the best rehabilitation rates of any comparable scheme in the world, which is high praise indeed.

We wondered about the broader question of accident rates. Why is it that New Zealand is 23rd in the workplace fatal accident rate league table of developed countries? What is it about our wonderful country that sees our accident rates jump to more than five times those of the best countries? Do we take the No. 8 wire mentality too far, and cajole workers into a point of view that suggests that injuries are to be endured and that rehabilitation is for sissies? Of course, a key issue for the House must be that Māori are overrepresented in injury statistics across all age groups, in employment and sports. As most of these injuries are preventable, why is it that Māori, particularly men, are more likely to be injured at work than non-Māori?

When we are focusing on a scheme that has performed so highly on international standards and that has been demonstrably relevant to New Zealanders, it surely makes sense to go back to the reason why the accident compensation scheme was established in the first place. Before the 1967 royal commission into workers compensation, a person wanting compensation after an accident had to establish fault; that is, that something had been done to him or her. The process was often drawn out, expensive, unfair, and rewarded lawyers more than it did claimants. The principal architect of the scheme, Sir Owen Woodhouse, negotiated a virtual trade-off between the right to sue and comprehensive, no-fault cover in the event of an accident. The scheme was developed out of what has come to be known as the Woodhouse principles. They emphasise community responsibility, comprehensive entitlement, complete rehabilitation, real compensation, and administrative efficiency. This history provides us with a very strong context within which to view the changes tabled in this bill.

The rationale provided by the Minister for ACC is certainly compelling. The Minister has claimed that costs over the last 4 years have risen 57 percent, which is approximately five times the rate of inflation, unfunded liabilities have grown from $4 billion to $13 billion, and across all amendments there is the overriding principle of the need to be fair to claimants and levy payers. This aspect of fairness is one that I want to explore in more depth. In our policy statement, He Aha Te Mea Nui? He Tangata, He Tangata, He Tangata, the Māori Party supports the right for workers to be treated fairly and with dignity, to work in a safe and healthy workplace, and to hold employers accountable for preventable workplace-related deaths and injuries. We are also committed to reviewing business compliance costs so that there is no increase in such costs.

These principles have influenced the way in which we have viewed the bill and the advice in the 133 submissions received. Although the context for the bill is to make accident compensation affordable and fair, the changes will disproportionatly impact on vulnerable workers and low-income families as the bill decreases access to cover and decreases the level of compensation to these claiments. The impact on vulnerable New Zealanders is varied. For young people, the loss of potential earning compensation is reduced from 100 percent to 80 percent of adult minimum weekly earnings. The most significant health effect of the bill is in the reduced accident compensation cover for those already on low incomes who cannot afford health insurance or income insurance to cover them when injured. This can force people into untenable positions, including returning to work before they are ready or resorting to criminal activity to cover household costs.

Reduced access to accident compensation will also impact negatively on child poverty rates. The National Council of Women suggested that women are more vulnerable to negative outcomes through a lack of social services, and the bill will reduce those services further. The council also noted that many of the service providers, counsellors, physiotherapists, and home-care workers are women depending on ACC funding to deliver those services. Of course, some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders, those who have made sensitive claims, will suffer from both levy increases and a restriction of services. Again, this was an issue that the National Council of Women brought to our attention. It was the council’s assessment that the ACC sensitive claims clinical pathway was being followed in such a way as to be discriminatory on the dual grounds of gender and race. The council described Māori women seeking to access ACC’s subsidised counselling but leaving in tears, unable to know whether or what kaupapa Māori treatment plans will be utilised.

The issue of vulnerable New Zealanders is particularly relevant to this debate when looking at the experiences of Māori workers. Access for Māori has been consistently lower than for other groups. Māori receive treatment at a lower level than non-Māori. When Māori do access services, they access them later, and they also exit programmes earlier. Against this backdrop it certainly seems unfair that under this bill, Māori in high-risk occupations will pay higher levies.

There is a clear hierarchy of accident rate by industry, with energy and water, forestry, construction, transport and storage, and agriculture in the top five. Māori are overrepresented in all of these industries. High-risk occupations have significant numbers of Māori workers. The bill provides for a matching of risk environments and levy rates, so the costs of cover can be expected to increase. This would have the most atrocious outcome on low-paid workers who have the least power to negotiate, and, of course, many Māori are in that situation.

Because Māori are a small population group and constitute a small group of claimants, under a privatisation model they would not be considered a high-value market segment to provide a financial incentive for private insurers. The drive toward privatisation, therefore, is implied around the full funding of the residual claim liability fund and it not only increases the cost contributed by claimants but could be expected to impact negatively on Māori claimants through reducing access and lowering compensation.

Finally, I return to the submission from the National Council of Women, which threw doubt upon the impact of the ACC investment fund, suggesting that it is now fully recovered and the crisis is all but over. I quote directly from its submission: “It seems unfair and indeed ‘repugnant to justice’ to raise levies for some sectors to exorbitant levels, and to reduce entitlements and rehabilitation avenues for a population still suffering the effects of the recession, in order to achieve cost containment that is seemingly no longer necessary”. The Human Rights Commission adds further to this view, noting that “tinkering with entitlements at the margins undermines the concept of a truly inclusive scheme.” On the basis of the submissions made during the select committee process and the independent advice sought and attained by the Māori Party, we are unable to support this bill at its second reading. Kia ora.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I am pleased to speak in the second reading of the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill. The Government needed to bring this bill to the House because of a serious concern about the financial sustainability of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). National would like to thank the ACT Party for agreeing to support the bill through all its stages and the Māori Party for getting the bill to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

There has been a growing gap between ACC’s assets and liabilities. ACC’s 2008-09 annual report stated a loss of $4.8 billion on top of a $2.4 billion loss for the year before, and it shows that the accident compensation scheme is currently financially unstable. ACC’s liabilities have grown from $9.4 billion to $24 billion in just 4 years. Its liabilities now stand at $13 billion more than its assets—the equivalent of more than $3,000 for every New Zealander. The Government could not stand back and do nothing. We could not stand back, in denial, and think that everything was fine. That was unacceptable. Indeed, ACC chairman John Judge stated that if this trend was allowed to continue, the scheme’s very existence could be under threat. Under the current law, one option would have been to hike up all levies. However, it was the view of the Government that would be too hard for New Zealanders. It was clear that accident compensation could not continue in this way and that there had to be changes and strategies to tackle the huge increases in claims costs from greater claim numbers, deteriorating rehabilitation rates, and unfunded scheme extensions.

This bill is about securing a financially sustainable, 24/7, no-fault accident insurance scheme for New Zealand. There are a number of amendments that have been made to help accident compensation get back on a more sustainable path. These amendments will also make the scheme affordable, sustainable, and fair. Importantly, none of these changes will apply to current claimants or their entitlements. We are looking to the future. However, disentitlements for criminals will be retrospective. On the recommendation of the committee, entitlements for dependents of offenders are more clearly defined. Other changes to the bill include pushing out the full funding date from 2014 to 2019; reversing 2008 income compensation extensions covering casuals, part-timers, and non-earners; abatements for holiday pay; reversing vocational rehabilitation changes; a 6 percent hearing-loss threshold; reversing entitlements for wilfully self-inflicted injury and suicide; strengthening disentitlements for criminals; allowing safety incentives for employers and vehicles; and financial reporting. This Government is acting in a responsible manner to ensure that New Zealanders have a sustainable, 24/7, no-fault accident insurance scheme. I commend this bill to the House.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I was privileged to be on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and listen to the submitters. The submitters came forward during the summer holidays because the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill was pushed through at such a pace. I start by thanking the submitters. The majority of submitters opposed this bill. They came to represent the people who work in the industries that they are covered by, or they were the professionals who end up having to deal with a claimant after an injury. I thank them.

This bill got off to a very bad start. I remember the Minister for ACC, Nick Smith, running around at the last minute because he did not have the numbers, and I think the whole thing has continued that way. The Māori Party agreed to support it through to select committee, which gave National the numbers. Then, of course, ACT came to the party, agreeing to support the bill through all stages, but it has a deal to open up the work account to competition—or, in other words, to privatisation. Māori Party members said that they wanted to hear what submitters said, and I am pleased that they have examined the submissions. I was a bit unhappy and a bit sad that they could not make it to hear the submitters. I know they are a small party, so I am not being critical, but I think that listening to what the people said was very, very powerful. I congratulate those members on listening, unlike the Government.

Coming back to this bill, it was introduced not only in a very haphazard way but also in a climate of fear about the future of the accident compensation scheme. We have heard from members opposite who continue to perpetuate the myth that the scheme is broke, it is in trouble, and they are somehow saving it. That situation is being deliberately manufactured by the Minister for ACC and the Government, and they are doing that to lay the basis for slashing entitlements and privatising the profitable parts of the scheme. It worries me that this is coming at a time when the number of workplace accidents and deaths are increasing, when injury prevention is not even mentioned in this bill and seems to be off the agenda, when we have cuts to health and safety training for workplace representatives, and when we have a general close-down on any independent advice or involvement from anyone outside the Government’s club. The preparation of the bill was rushed, as was the select committee process. The submitters gave up their time during summer to come along and have their say.

The consultation has been very clearly exposed as being inadequate. Te Puni Kōkiri warned that the impact of the proposed changes would have a disproportionate effect on Māori. The gender implications and disability perspective in the Cabinet paper is just laughable—absolutely laughable. There is one sentence for each one. Even Treasury warned that the regulatory impact statement was inadequate and incomplete in a number of areas such as cost shifting to other Government departments. That has not been quantified. We repeatedly raised questions about cost shifting. There is a lack of information on the nature and extent of the changes to enable experience rating and risk sharing in the work account, and Department of Labour officials admitted to the select committee that the work had not begun on this. Treasury also said that although risks are identified, there is little explanation of the likelihood or severity of the risks and no risk mitigation strategies. Of course, they also criticised the consultation requirements. They said that they had not been met, and where there had been consultation the concerns raised had not been addressed.

Other organisations such as businesses and unions were not consulted, and there was no consultation with professional organisations, such as audiologists, on key questions like removing cover for hearing loss of less than 6 percent. The concerns of the Ministry of Health about cost shifting from the Accident Compensation Corporation to the Ministry of Health were ignored, as well. There was no assessment, and no answers were forthcoming about those matters, even though the Ministry of Health said that decisions on the bill should be deferred until some answers could be given. As I said, there was inadequate consultation, an inadequate regulatory impact statement, and a lot of criticism in the Cabinet papers from key ministries and Treasury. However, having sat through the submissions—and I thought that they were excellent submissions—I am disappointed that the bill has only minor changes. The Government has not listened to what the submitters said when submitter after submitter came along and expressed concerns.

I will speak to a couple of issues, in particular. The first is the proposal to reduce the weekly compensation for seasonal and part-time workers. The Minister claims that this is to stop abuse of the current rules. He thinks that somehow these poor seasonal workers are on a bonanza, and that they are deliberately getting injured so that they can receive this wonderful—

Carol Beaumont: Break a leg!

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, that is right. We were provided with no evidence that that was occurring. It would have been good to see research done on which categories of workers this change affected, and on where they work, what they jobs they do, and the injury risk profile of those jobs. As the Māori Party has said, many seasonal workers are in primary industries and Māori workers are overrepresented among seasonal workers. We know there are about 400,000 workers in this category. That is a lot. They have low-paid jobs and they have a pattern of work that is different from other people. I think one thing that has not been understood by the Minister is that just because these people are seasonal workers, it does not mean they work for 3 months and then do not work for the rest of the year. Many of these workers go and look for another job. They seek another job in between the seasons of their seasonal job. The provision in the bill assumes that seasonal workers will not be working once their seasonal employment ends, and it unjustifiably reduces their compensation. John Key likes to say that he is concerned about low-paid workers, yet most of those workers are paid at close to the minimum wage. Just last week, at the Big Gay Out, John Key admitted that he would not be able to live on the minimum wage. Yet in many cases, this miserable provision will reduce compensation for seasonal workers to something well below the minimum wage. The other whack that seasonal and casual workers will face under this bill is a requirement to use their pre-injury holiday pay earnings before they are entitled to earnings-related compensation.

Under this bill, seasonal workers lose in three ways. They are injured at work—and that is bad enough—then they lose their job, and then they are expected to survive on almost nothing. The Minister and the Government are continuing to imply that somehow seasonal and casual workers have deliberately set out to get injured so that they will receive the largesse of the changes made in the 2008 legislation. One submitter said, and I thought this was very poignant: “I have never known a worker who deliberately comes to work to get injured.” That is so right. I have never known a worker who deliberately comes to work to get injured.

The other provision in the bill that I will speak to today is the provision amending the abatement of holiday pay. This is another miserly provision where injured workers who lose their jobs have to use their holiday pay before they get earnings-related compensation.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why should they double-dip?

DARIEN FENTON: The Minister says that that it is double-dipping. They have earned this money before they were injured. It is their holiday pay. In addition to losing their job, usually because of injury or redundancy, they lose the holiday pay that they earned before they were injured. That is so unfair. That is so mean.

Even the Cabinet paper that recommends these and other changes stated that the estimated savings are $1 million. That is almost nothing in the context of the size of the scheme, and most of it is in the earners account. They are savings, but they are paid for by workers’ hard-earned money, which they earned before they were injured. The stunningly dumb risk assessment says that: “Claimants may think it is unfair to have weekly compensation abated because of annual leave accrued while they were earning or accrued in a previous financial year but that was not paid until termination of employment.” Even Treasury warned that the relatively small savings did not seem to justify the unfairness of the provision. If workers take their holidays, they get accident compensation. If they do not because they are too busy or hard-working to take the time off, or they are saving the holiday time to be with their family, then they can forget it. The truth is that this is just one example of the Government’s accident compensation changes that will shift the cost of the injury to the worker—and the health and welfare system. Thank you.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) : One of the great advantages of joining the debate later in the piece is the chance to hear the contributions of all the members who spoke earlier. I intend to use most of my speaking time to address the issues raised initially by the Hon Maryan Street. The speakers who succeeded her all raised various issues that I feel I need to comment on to varying degrees. Jackie Blue made the comment that the ACT Party had agreed to support this Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill all the way to the third reading. That comment was picked up by Darien Fenton. That is not the case. The ACT Party agreed to support this bill stage by stage, and we will be voting for it at the second stage, but we are approaching it on a stage-by-stage basis.

Rahui Katene said that the Māori Party approached bills on a bill-by-bill basis, on the basis of supporting them if there was any good coming out of them. I congratulate the Māori Party. I think it is a very good approach to take an open view on issues. Rahui Katene went on to say that the Māori Party was concerned about the impact of this bill on vulnerable people. I believe that the long-term consequences of passing this bill and addressing the issues that affect vulnerable people will be in the best interests of those vulnerable people, and of low-income people, and she identified Māori in particular.

Kevin Hague said that the ACT Party salivates like Pavlovian dogs at the thought of privatisation. That is not correct, but there is one thing that the ACT Party holds higher than anything, and that is competition—competition and choice. It is interesting to note that this morning at the Commerce Committee we heard from Kordia. Kordia is the State-owned enterprise that took over the ownership of Television New Zealand’s masts and antennas. Kordia is looking at the feasibility of building a trans-Tasman telephone cable that would compete with the Southern Cross cable owned by Telecom. Just the very mention of Kordia considering the opening of a second cable was enough for Telecom to offer significantly cheaper prices to some of its wholesale customers. Kordia is a Government-owned organisation, and I say to Mr Hague that the most important thing is competition and choice.

I mention that because we have had competition and choice in accident compensation before. We had it in 1998 and 1999. In the 12 months prior to the 1999 election campaign, the work account was open to competition. Some six companies offered accident compensation cover to employers, including the only Government-owned accident compensation company, At Work Insurance, and the effect of that competition and choice was to drive down premiums by 30 percent. That was the effect.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Loss leading.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: People who have tried to discredit that say that it was a loss-leader—exactly. The member is just perpetuating the dishonesty and mistruths. The insurance companies that offered competition and policies in 1998 and 1999 were able to do that at a 30 percent reduction on premiums, and they competed very, very successfully. It is one of the many tragedies of the previous Labour Government that it came into power promising to abolish that competition and choice and to reinstitute a State monopoly.

Let me go on to the contribution from Lynne Pillay. She made the point that there was a protest on the forecourt of Parliament on Tuesday—

David Garrett: Twenty-five of them.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: I say to Mr Garrett that it was not 25 people; I think it was 200. I am not so sure that Lynne Pillay was there, because unless I did not hear her properly, I think she said there were 2,000. I was there, and there were 200 people at best. I cannot speak for National. Lynne Pillay criticised National for not having representatives at the protest. I cannot speak for National, but I was there, and I was very, very interested to hear what those protestors had to say.

It is interesting also to note that Lynne Pillay talked about it being a numbers game. She said that the Government had the numbers and that it did not matter what the submitters said; the Government had the numbers and it was able to push the bill through the select committee. I think that is a bit rich coming from Lynne Pillay, because she knows a lot about numbers games. I first met Lynne Pillay when she was the chairwoman of the Justice and Electoral Committee. I appeared as a submitter to that select committee when I submitted against the Electoral Finance Bill. I went on to organise seven protest marches around New Zealand, the largest of which was in Auckland on 1 December 2008, when 5,000 people marched down Queen Street. Lynne Pillay talked about numbers; that bill was pushed through with the benefit of numbers.

I come now to the Labour member Maryan Street. I have a great deal of respect for Maryan Street. I think that she is a very courteous lady and I have enjoyed the few interactions I have had with her over the last 15 months. Maryan Street talked about half-truths. She talked about the Minister never telling the full truth. I will comment on that, but before I do I also acknowledge that I thought that she made a very, very valid point.

Before I go on to talk about that, just in relation to talking about half-truths, I point out that last week we had a debate on the Prime Minister’s statement. Labour members stood up and, speaker after speaker, talked about price increases in milk, bread, and power. A 2.5 percent increase in GST will increase the price of electricity by 2.5 percent. If we had had Labour’s emissions trading scheme, we would have had a 10 percent increase. So if anyone wants to give an example of half-truths, then it has to be a speaker from Labour.

Let me come now to the main point of what I want to say. Maryan Street made the point that injured people are now able to be saved, whereas some years ago, they would have died. I believe that that really comes to the crux of the accident compensation issue. She went on to say that the Accident Compensation Corporation does whatever it takes to support people after they have been injured. She said that there have been significant advances in the medical profession over the last 30-odd years since the accident compensation scheme first came into effect. She acknowledged that if the same number of people who died after an accident that occurred 20, 25, or 30 years ago were to have that accident now, more of those people would be likely to live. That could come about through advances in the medical field, or it could come about through advances in transport—the strengthening of cars.

It is a fact that whereas someone seriously injured in a car accident or in a workplace accident now may be paralysed or become a tetraplegic, if that accident had happened 20 or 25 years ago, that person may have died. That person now lives because of advances in technology, and that person lives at quite a significant cost to the community. The cost of rehabilitating and maintaining that person and providing support for a tetraplegic around the clock—24-hour nursing care in shifts—can be up to $1 million a year. The cost of an injury to a person who is young and who then goes on to live for the next 30 or 40 years of his or her natural life runs into some tens of millions of dollars. That is what we have to face. When the corporation does an analysis of its future liabilities, it looks at the number of people in that situation. As every year goes by, more and more people, sadly, fall into that category. In the 1970s and 1980s, people who were involved in serious accidents invariably did not live.

What the corporation has to face up to, what taxpayers have to face up to, and what the Government has to face up to is that we have massive tail liabilities. The liability of the corporation has been calculated at some $24 billion, and the assets of the corporation are only about $14 billion. It is because of the advances in medical technology that Maryan Street talked about that we need to address this issue. Thank you.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : I rise with a heavy heart because, like others, I know that the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill is just the start of the National Government’s agenda in relation to accident compensation. It has tried, and is continuing to try, to deliberately undermine confidence in the accident compensation scheme and to manufacture a crisis, and then to flow that on to the sorts of changes that the ACT speaker John Boscawen has just referred to, which was the previous privatisation of the scheme. Labour opposes the entire bill, with the exception of the provisions to extend full funding for historical claims.

Before I speak about some of the specifics of the bill and some of the submissions to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, I will make a couple of contextual comments. I note that there has been a scaremongering campaign and there has been, of course, an inflated levies consultation campaign. Then there has been the cancellation of the Falls Prevention Strategy for the elderly—that is a good one—and the 20-kilometre travel and petrol reimbursement threshold on carers. How about the cuts in car and home modification budgets? How about denying half of the claims for surgery after injury, and denying sexual abuse victims and survivors counselling in at least 70 percent of cases? I also found it very interesting to read a report recently released to Labour under the Official Information Act. It talks about the accident compensation scheme having moved too far towards a customer focus and says that there is a need to tighten the gateway by reducing the level and costs of treatment provided, especially rationalising the range and services available.

That is the context in which this legislation is happening. As my colleague Darien Fenton asked, where is the focus on injury prevention? I have sat and listened to the Minister for ACC in the House and in the select committee. Where is the focus on injury prevention? It is not in the bill. We in this House should agree that we need to focus on injury prevention. I note that there have been cuts in the number of health and safety representatives being trained—from 6,000 to 2,000 representatives. That is just crazy. Those are the people who, in their own voluntary capacity, make it their job to make sure that their workmates, they themselves, and the public are safe. It is just crazy.

A lot has been made of the costs of accident compensation. PricewaterhouseCoopers reviewed the accident compensation scheme in 2008 and identified a number of major points, including that it has afforded New Zealand’s society and economy four decades of added value and social economic value; that it compares with other worker compensation schemes, and performs well in terms of return to work; and that as a proportion of wages levies are substantially lower than in comparable Australian worker compensation schemes. In Labour’s minority report members will see, if they take the time, the figures that show the comparison. New Zealand has lower claims management expenses than all Australian schemes, and our dispute rate in comparison with others is very low; overall, the scheme performs incredibly well. These are some of the facts that need to be put into the mix.

I also acknowledge, as others have, the submitters to the select committee. I acknowledge the 133 individuals and submitters from interested groups, and the 47 whom we heard in person, for taking the time to share, in many cases, their own personal experiences. Many of them were actually first-time submitters. Some incredibly powerful and moving submissions were made. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the officials who worked with us on the select committee, because we certainly asked for a lot of information, we were challenging and questioning all the way through, and they continued to provide us with that information.

But I am sad to say that despite the submitters’ efforts—who were overwhelmingly opposed to what the Government is doing—they really did not get listened to. Only minor changes were made to the bill at select committee. None of the very real concerns that were raised have actually led to changes; members see that fact with this bill coming back to the House.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Arrogant.

CAROL BEAUMONT: Arrogant Government—indeed, it is.

I will follow up on the question of fairness. Labour values fairness very highly, but inequity does not seem to worry this Government. It seems to me that it would be interesting to know how the Minister believes he can align two of the strategic priorities of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)—“Ensuring New Zealanders have confidence in ACC” and “Open and fair access for all New Zealanders”—with the advice given by Te Puni Kōkiri that “the impacts of the proposed changes are likely to have a disproportionate effect on Māori. Māori are more likely to be employed in high risk jobs, be from low income families, and have higher rates of imprisonment.” or, indeed, with the fact that no gender analysis has been done of the proposed changes, despite the fact that it is clear that there will be disproportionate impacts on women. The National Council of Women made that great point in its submission. It said that “women are more vulnerable to negative outcomes through a lack of social services, and the stringent reductions set out in this Bill will reduce those services further. In addition, many of the service providers—counsellors, physiotherapists, home care workers—are women who depend on ACC funding to deliver their services.” So there will be a disproportionate effect on Māori and a disproportionate effect on women.

Furthermore, there is a disproportionate effect on the elderly. The elderly will be particularly affected by the provisions for a 6 percent hearing loss requirement before people can get assistance. I will go into some detail about that provision. I was very impressed with the submissions in the area of hearing loss. It is fair to say that they were strong submissions, made by a range of individuals and organisations who work in this area. Essentially, the view of all of the submitters on hearing loss was that the figure is an arbitrary one, and that it leads to a breach of faith that—and officials have confirmed this—will return the right to sue in New Zealand. How much debate has there been about that? That is a very, very serious matter that we, as parliamentarians, should be worried about. We have had a scheme with a social contract. The right to sue was given up, because the Woodhouse principles were met, and we had cover. Where we have cover, we cannot sue. It is clear that a number of workers will now no longer have cover, because they fall below that 6 percent threshold. They can sue. Is that what we want in this country?

The amount saved by that provision is estimated to be $3 million to $4 million a year. A voluntary industry accord in the hearing industry has saved at least $10 million in 18 months, yet those players were not even consulted about the changes prior to their being put into this bill. Academic studies that we heard submissions about showed that there will very likely be a trend downward in successful workplace hearing loss claims because we are now getting better at protecting people. So older people—people who have already been in the workplace and who have suffered from working in primary industries such as meat, farming, and shearing—will be disproportionately hit.

I could give members many examples, but I am running out of time, so I will just reinforce the fact that those older New Zealanders are like the man who came to us and talked about the fact that even mild hearing loss can affect one’s relationships with family, friends, and workmates. He asked us to think about what it would be like to not be able to hear the birds singing, to hear one’s grandchildren talk, or to hear clearly on the telephone. That is what this bill will do to older New Zealanders, and I think it is an absolute disgrace. Submitters from the Human Rights Commission came to us and said they believe this provision to be discriminatory. They said that the threshold of “6% loss of hearing before being eligible for treatment amounts to intra-ground discrimination as it imposes different criteria for those claiming compensation for hearing damage as opposed to other forms of injury.” It is discriminatory. Does that matter to the Government? Not at all. Despite very powerful submissions, it is not listening. I am sure its members can hear, but they are certainly not listening.

We could get on to vocational independence, but I am sure I will be told soon that I have little time to speak, so perhaps that will be for next week. In conclusion, I say that this is just a start. Along with clear operational culture changes, we are seeing a process of reducing cover, increasing costs, and moving to a privatised insurance model. Thank you.

MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) : I assure the member who has just resumed her seat, Carol Beaumont, that we were listening, albeit, having a significant hearing loss of my own, it was difficult for me to hear at times. It is a hearing loss that is congenital and probably not helped by the fact that I blew a rugby whistle for about the last 11 years and shot a rifle for the last 30. But if an audiologist had said to me that even one skerrick of that hearing loss was work related, it would have been accepted for accident compensation cover, and I do not think that is appropriate. So I support the changes in the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill. I will talk more about them in the committee stage of the debate. Carol Beaumont’s speech reinforced the polarised views that a committee that is otherwise in a pretty good, cooperative state, had through the submissions. That rhetoric lacked quite a bit of substance, frankly. We had claims about breaches of International Labour Organization conventions that New Zealand has not even signed up to. There were claims that the changes proposed were in breach of the underpinning principles of the scheme, even when some of those changes were to realign scheme entitlements with the royal commission report. Self-inflicted injuries were one such example.

I will come back to the Woodhouse report in a moment, but one of the games the submitters, and even the committee members, played was the game of “my statistic is bigger than your statistic”. A really good example of that concerned motorcycle accident rates, and it came up during protests about motorcycle levies. It was not necessarily directly related to this bill, but those protests became the sort of vanguard of disaffection at the proposed changes in accident compensation. But it was a bit ironic, really, because the protest was about levy increases at the same time as motorcyclists also rallied against the perceived cuts to their entitlements that this bill might give effect to. But the worst of the statistic-versus-statistic exchanges were about the annual reports of Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), and those exchanges continue in the House today. The Labour Opposition has attacked the veracity not only of the data that its Ministers put their signatures to but also of the people who prepared the data. They attacked the employees of ACC, the actuaries, and the Auditor-General’s staff, which is a shame on that Opposition.

Even now, the Opposition denies there is a financial problem. We have heard of climate change deniers, but now we have a large group in this House who are finance change deniers, including the previous Minister for ACC, Maryan Street, who put her signature to a $2.4 billion deficit and who now denies that that is a problem. In her call she described insolvency as a situation when liabilities exceed assets, but she did not say why that was not a problem to her. She thinks that all a Government has to do is reach its hand into the pockets of hard-working levy payers, even at a time when economic conditions do not warrant it. When the reality of the sort of nonsense that went on over the last 9 years started to bite, and the last financial report presented the House with a $4.8 billion deficit, the Opposition still denied the problem—finance change deniers.

I do not intend to cover-off any of the specific changes, in this reading; I will leave that for the Committee stage of the bill. But I will touch on some of those underpinning principles and the suggestions by some that the changes in this bill are against the principles of the royal commission report. I wonder whether many who have referred to the Woodhouse report have actually read it. I suggest they do read it, because it is a very illuminating insight into a different time and a different place. The Woodhouse report contains the five cornerstone principles that Rahui Katene listed—principles that I and my party very strongly support. But it also gives some pretty revealing insights into the society of that time, and the reasons why workers’ compensation was framed in the way it was. I will give members an example: clause 413 talks about cover for women, which is something that Ms Beaumont is very strongly in favour of, of course. I quote: “And we have attempted to resolve the administrative problem associated with minor mishaps to housewives by recommending that for 14 days their families might well take the strain themselves.” The report was replete with references in the masculine form, not only because that was the way reports were written in those days but because it simply did not contemplate that women would participate in the workforce to the degree they do now—much less get injured. The report was written about cover for external force injuries to men who worked on building sites, railway lines, in forests, and so on.

Forty-two years later, life has changed considerably, and the royal commission report, in my view, is simply not able to cover all the new issues that the scheme faces: treatment injuries, sexual abuse, and occupational overuse syndrome. Whole industries like the information technology industry were not even around in 1967. The principles that that report established are strong and enduring, but we should be careful not to deify the report. We should not treat it like some sacred cow, the details of which will endure for all time. The report simply is not capable of being that. Even from the financial perspective, the whole scope of the scheme, as anticipated by the royal commission report, has changed so much that now it is unrecognisable. The appendix to that report contains an estimate of scheme costs, and if we compare those costs—even on a cash basis only and forget the arguments about full funding—what it reveals about the way in which the scheme has grown beyond any sort of comprehension that the report authors contemplated, is quite compelling. If we take the figures in appendix 9 and plot them against population growth and inflation, we find that while there has been an eightfold increase in average salaries in New Zealand, there has been a fifty-onefold increase in the cash costs per person to manage the scheme. Most of that growth has occurred in the last 5 years. By any measure that growth requires a response, and this bill is a very good start along that path. I support the intentions of the bill, I look forward to debating the merits of those individual clauses in the Committee stage, and I commend the bill to the House.

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) : I move, That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill be considered by the Primary Production Committee, that the select committee present its final report on or before 30 April 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). Two weeks ago, I announced that the Government would adopt and prioritise a member’s bill being advanced by the member of Parliament for Tauranga, Simon Bridges. This bill seeks to raise the penalties for animal cruelty offences and redefine the way some offences are described. It sends a clear message that serious offending against animals is unacceptable in our society. I would like to thank the member for Tauranga for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House.

This Government considers it vitally important that New Zealand’s animal welfare standards promote better welfare outcomes for animals. Most New Zealanders expect the animals in people’s care to be healthy, comfortable, and properly fed. We expect animals to receive a reasonable standard of humane treatment, and not to suffer unnecessarily. These expectations have been steadily increasing over recent years. Despite this, there has been a disturbing increase in the number and seriousness of animal-cruelty incidents. New Zealanders have been shocked by recent cases, such as the drunk man who twisted the head off the family kitten in front of his family, and the vicious attack on a herd of cattle, where the hindquarters of one cow were hacked off, and another cow received serious slash wounds. People who are capable of such cruelty to animals are also capable of violence to their families and others.

Curbing animal cruelty is a priority for this Government, and this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill sits alongside a range of initiatives I have under way to improve compliance with animal welfare laws. Under the Act as it stands, “wilful ill-treatment” covers the most serious welfare offences. For this offence to apply, it must be proved that a person intended to cause harm. The ill-treatment has to be extremely serious, resulting in permanent disability, death, or destruction of the animal in order to prevent further suffering. The bill will expand the threshold for this offence to include cases where an animal is “seriously injured or impaired”. This will allow prosecutors to handle cases more appropriately where suffering is extreme but the existing criteria for a section 28 wilful ill-treatment offence cannot be met on technical grounds.

The bill also adds a new offence of “reckless ill-treatment” to the Act. This new offence will sit between the existing “wilful ill-treatment” and lesser “ill-treatment” offences. It will apply where it can be proved that a person knew or appreciated that serious harm to an animal could occur, and unreasonably ran the risk. I expect cases will be prosecuted under this new offence when they would otherwise fail to meet the threshold for wilful ill-treatment. Until now there has been no choice but to prosecute these cases on a lesser ill-treatment charge, resulting in inappropriate sentencing and the wrong message being sent to offenders that animal welfare offending is not serious.

I would now like to focus on the main part of the bill—the penalties for animal welfare offences. The existing maximum term of imprisonment for wilful ill-treatment of an animal is 3 years. The bill increases this term to 5 years. This amendment will give a stronger message to potential offenders that animal welfare offending is not acceptable. The fines for wilful ill-treatment will also increase. The maximum fine will double from $50,000 to $100,000 for an individual, and from $250,000 to $500,000 for a body corporate. The penalty for reckless ill-treatment of an animal will be a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment. In addition, an individual may face fines of up to $75,000 and a body corporate may face fines of up to $350,000 for this type of offending.

There are a range of other neglect and ill-treatment offences in the Act, and the penalties for these offences will also be increased. Penalties for offences such as failure to meet the physical, health, and behavioural needs of an animal; ill-treatment of an animal; and aiding or assisting in animal fighting ventures will be increased in line with the revised penalties for the more serious offences of wilful and reckless ill-treatment. The penalties on conviction of these offences will double—up to 12 months’ imprisonment and/or a fine not exceeding $50,000 for an individual, and a fine not exceeding $250,000 for a body corporate.

This is not a long bill, but I would like to outline some further measures it contains. Under the Act as it stands, persons who are disqualified from owning an animal may apply to the courts to own animals again. They may do so a mere 12 months after the date that they lost the right to own an animal. This is a particular problem in the companion animal area, where disqualified persons regularly reapply to own animals. The bill proposes to enable the court to set a minimum review period of its own choosing. During this period, the disqualified person may not apply for the right to own an animal. If the court does not set a minimum review period, the default period will be 2 years. The bill also proposes to enable the court to order the forfeiture of any or all animals owned by someone convicted of a serious animal-welfare offence where it considers this necessary to protect the welfare of animals owned by an offender.

This bill emphasises that New Zealand society does not tolerate animal-welfare crimes. The Animal Welfare Act is renowned as being progressive and comprehensive legislation. We can be proud that we are judged favourably by our trading partners and the international community. This bill will help to ensure that New Zealand maintains this well-deserved reputation. I commend the bill to the House.

Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) : In New Zealand we have always had a close connection, in both a social and an economic sense, with animals. Our economic success is based on animal-derived products. But we are also proud of our ethical approach to the welfare of animals. We care about what happens to them and we get upset when they are mistreated, whether on farms or in homes. So the Labour Party and the Progressive party welcome the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill today, because it toughens up our ability to protect our animals and it makes offenders pay for any mistreatment. But I am not naive about the issues that it addresses. Those whose incomes depend on animals cannot afford to be overly sentimental. They and we grow animals to provide food, both for New Zealanders domestically and for the rest of the world.

Starting out in the workforce in the 1950s and 1960s I spent enough time in the freezing works of New Zealand to see a few things that would make me cringe even today—they made me cringe then, I might say. But anyone working with animals or simply owning an animal can and should commit to acting humanely, and most people do. I have to repeat that most people do, because in many ways the publicity given to ill treatment would indicate to some people that there is mass mistreatment of animals in New Zealand, and I do not believe that there is any evidence to support that view.

This bill does not target the overwhelming majority of farmers, producers, and pet owners who work within animal welfare guidelines. It targets the small minority who wilfully, recklessly, or because of psychological impairment mistreat animals. It is not hard to think of recent examples. The Minister of Agriculture mentioned a few. We see on our TV screens starving and neglected animals, which focuses everyone’s mind.

New Zealand’s niche in the world is that we are a pure, clean, and environmentally friendly society. In our markets, consumers are becoming more and more demanding about quality production. They are asking searching questions, as they should, about issues like environmental responsibility. They are asking about animal health and welfare, and the quality standards of our production processes. The future for New Zealand’s primary exports will be in having the best answers to those questions that we can possibly have. There is no future in trying to compete on price alone against emerging low-cost producers. We have to compete by guaranteeing the quality and the value of our food production as a whole. If we do not meet the expectations of our customers, then we face potentially very damaging risks to our export base.

This bill will make the Animal Welfare Act work better. An increase in the penalty from 3 years to 5 years shows that we take cruelty to animals seriously. Introducing a new offence of reckless ill-treatment of animals alongside the existing offence of wilful ill-treatment will help us capture those who might otherwise not have reached the threshold of the offence of wilful ill-treatment. But let us be realistic. There is no point in increasing the penalty if we do not have people on the streets and in the fields to investigate the crime. The Government has already cut front-line staff in areas like biosecurity. When the Hadda beetle was found in Auckland recently, it was not found by a biosecurity staffer; it was found by a man walking his dog in an Auckland park. So how does this Government intend to police animal welfare?

The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has exactly five full-time staff to do animal investigations, plus seven contractors. It was thus so when I was Minister of Agriculture. I moved it in the Budget but I never got round to being able to have some more of them. The RSPCA has about 100 staff who investigate animal welfare issues, on whom the Government is heavily dependent to monitor breaches of the Animal Welfare Act. They of course are, in the main, volunteers. The Government pays nothing to their costs, apart from some training costs. In 2008 as Minister of Agriculture, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, I gave the RSPCA a $300,000 one-off grant. But I recognise that it was nowhere near enough, nor has it been consistently funded.

When I was Minister we set up the Fast Forward Fund, which was a partnership between the private sector and the Government to fund research and development. We had over $700 million in the ministry’s accounts, ready to fund research into areas like this—not solely, of course, but it would have been one area. For example, how do we measure animal welfare? It is not always easy measuring how animals feel at any particular moment about their environment; it is awkward at the very least. In 2006 the chairman of the UK Farm Animal Welfare Council, Professor Christopher Wathes, came to New Zealand and asked us how we know whether animal welfare standards are being observed.

When I was Minister, I used to get a huge volume of letters into my office about animal welfare issues, and I know that the current Minister will have the same experience. It was clear to me then, and it still is today, that we have to be leaders in New Zealand not only in animal welfare but in measuring the standards of animal welfare. We have to be leaders in the right techniques as well as in the substantive results of our measuring. The Fast Forward Fund could have helped to deepen our research into animal welfare and therefore improve the market position of our animal-based industries.

I would like to know how the current Government will find the right tools to measure animal welfare now. It got rid of Fast Forward and replaced it with the Primary Growth Partnership. I hope the Primary Growth Partnership addresses this issue. But to date the Primary Growth Partnership has funded precisely no research projects; none. It has only $25 million in the kitty this year to even start.

I support the bill because it is ethically the right thing to do, both for this Parliament and for the industry. But I question how the Government intends to investigate the inevitable increase in complaints. If we have a higher standard, we will have people who are requiring us to meet it. I have not seen anything yet that indicates that the Government has addressed that issue. How will it equip vets, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry staff, or RSPCA investigators to know when an animal is being mistreated, or if it is reported as being mistreated, how will the investigation take place and by whom? That has been a problem we have faced for a very, very long time.

All of us have to recognise the minimal amount of resource that is put into animal welfare issues. It simply is unacceptable and it is not good enough. I do not think anyone in this Parliament would want to defend it. So without that support I fear this bill may end up as more of a window-dressing bill, because it suggests that we are tougher on animal welfare issues without providing the substance that a high-quality animal welfare system in New Zealand will require. In supporting this bill through to a select committee, I certainly give notice to the Government that we will be asking some questions along those lines during the select committee process, and I hope that the Government can give some positive answers.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : There are many reasons why the penalties for offending against animals must go up. First and foremost is that the sentences currently being handed down in courts are far too light. Despite us having a major problem in New Zealand, so far under the Animal Welfare Act 1999 less than 3 percent of prosecutions have resulted in imprisonment. The most common penalty is the lowest possible fine. We can state this even more starkly: in the history of this nation fewer than 10 people have been sentenced to prison for animal welfare offending. When we consider the frequency and the cruel and sadistic nature of some of this offending, involving mutilation and torture, less than 3 percent, or less than 10 people in total, is derisory.

In 2009 the SPCA, as it does every year, had no difficulty publishing its annual list of shame—the 50 worst cases of animal cruelty in a year. I warn the House and those people listening that if they are of a sensitive disposition, they should tune out now. Cases in the last 12 months have included a dog beaten with a metal pole before being strangled to death, so that a South Auckland man could prove a point to his fiancée; a cat killed by a Manukau man by a crossbow for eating chicken in the kitchen; a mastiff Labrador in Waitakere that had its mouth and legs tied together by tape and rope, suffered terrible swelling to its mouth and deep scars to its legs, its tongue had to be removed, and it was eventually put down; a Labrador pit bull was dragged 50 metres behind a four-wheel drive vehicle through Napier so that one leg was ground to bone and the rest of its body was a bloody mess; a Jack Russell in Dunedin was partially strangled with chains, then force-fed petrol before being killed with a spade to the head; and a tabby killed in Christchurch that had at least 14 nails hammered into its body and head. In the SPCA list were several cases from my home city, Tauranga, including one where a mutilated cat was found hanging by a piece of string from a street sign. A nail had been rammed into its head and its tail and three paws had been severed. In another case in the same month, in my suburb of Mount Maunganui, three 10-week-old puppies were found dead, tied up in a plastic bag, on the beach. These cases are not unusual or uncommon. Last week I was at the Gisborne SPCA and saw a cat that had its ears snipped off. I thought it was disgusting, yet such cases would barely rate a mention in the SPCA’s annual list of the worst cases.

Animal cruelty occurs all around the country, all year long, every year. Animal cruelty deserves serious punishment, because it is a wrong in and of itself, and because of what it is linked to. Through this law change we as a Parliament, on behalf of the communities we represent, tell judges to toughen up in this area. We instruct the courts to treat animal offending as truly criminal. Animals are sentient beings that are vulnerable to harm from humans. Animal cruelty is clearly linked to human violence and cruelty. An ever-increasing body of research proves that this offending is linked to family and other violence and to the worst psychopathic offending. By treating animal cruelty seriously, we also help to ensure further serious offending is prevented.

Although the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill does respond to ever-increasing public condemnation and a hardening against the evil of animal cruelty, it is about more than that. This bill is required not only because of a recent spate of horrific cases. As I have said, these cases occur all year round, around the country, every year. Although this bill will ensure tougher sentences, it is also about more than simply that. By putting up penalties for animal offending we provide judges with more tools to protect more animals and to ensure offenders are treated more seriously but also get the attention and treatment from agencies that they require so that further serious offending is prevented.

This bill started life as my member’s bill, and it is now a Government bill. That means it has come to Parliament in a timely fashion, but it also means a substantially strengthened law that simplifies and rationalises offences, increases offence penalties across the board, and does more to protect the welfare of animals. If I am frank, there was the possibility that my bill would have had more symbolic than real effect. Our Government bill will certainly do more than that; it will improve the law across the board.

The reasons for this bill in the first place, and now as a substantially strengthened Government bill, deserve mention. Last year, following a week in Parliament, I was at Wellington Airport going home. Anita Killeen, a lawyer who is very involved in the Auckland SPCA, approached me about a law change, and I undertook to look into the issues involved. To me, it is amazing that we live in the kind of country where a person can approach an MP and only a few months later a Government, and, indeed, a Parliament of 122 MPs, is acting decisively. My thanks go out to Anita. She put me in contact with Bob Kerridge of the Auckland SPCA. He gave me invaluable support and advice, as have others in SPCAs around our nation, including the national chief executive officer, Robyn Kippenberger. I thank Bob, Robyn, and all in the SPCA, who work for animals every single day.

As the bill gained publicity, I was inundated and touched by the supportive letters and emails I received from ordinary Kiwis. These people have given me a broader understanding of the issues involved in this area and the deeply affectionate relationship between humans and our animal companions. In mentioning ordinary Kiwis, I cannot go past Amanda Colmore-Williams in Dunedin, who, because of her belief in this issue, set up a group of supporters of my members’ bill on Facebook. She and now over 4,000 supporters online have my sincere appreciation for giving me constant food for thought and encouragement, and for each of their communities pushing for increased penalties for offending against animals.

From the moment I decided I wanted change in this area of law, the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, has been unfailingly supportive. Since our Prime Minister saw fit to make this change for animals a priority, he has ensured that the initial bill has been substantially strengthened and prioritised. I thank the Prime Minister and David Carter for their leadership.

Finally, I recognise that this is not just a Government acting but also an entire Parliament sending a message. Today we show Kiwis Parliament at its best. We send a message that this sort of offending is abhorrent to society. We tell judges to get serious and toughen up this area, we provide them with the tools to protect more animals, and we help ensure that further serious offending is prevented. I commend this bill to the House.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) : I acknowledge the member who has just spoken and his initiative, I suppose, to bring to the House a bill that will receive the support of Labour and, I am sure, the vast majority of the members in the House. However, before we rush away and pat ourselves on the back and say how good we are to protect the animals of this country, we should think carefully about some of the principles involved in the process of what we are trying to do here.

There is no doubt that we all want to protect animals in this country. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill brings into place penalties for what we will call the wilful ill-treatment of animals. No one wants to see that kind of treatment, particularly in a country that is built on its reputation for, competency in, and compassion for animal management. Through our farming systems and in our domestic situations we have always appreciated, utilised, and protected animals that need our protection. It is the job of this House to protect those animals. We will pass this legislation and hopefully maintain our reputation in the world as a country that upholds the high standards of animal welfare, because, as my colleague Mr Anderton said, we need to be able to sell food with integrity to the world.

But in considering this legislation, we are going through an interesting process. Firstly, the bill assumes that increasing penalties will change behaviour. We cannot guarantee that. We are effectively doubling the penalties for the ill-treatment of animals, and that should be so. However, as has been pointed out, the policing of the existing law, or the new one we will bring into place, will be the key issue if we are to see a change of behaviour. We need to ensure that a change of behaviour occurs, and there is no doubt about that. The reality is that the ill-treatment of animals is connected to the ill-treatment of humans and to abuse; it has been well documented. Preventing the ill-treatment of animals is crucial for any fair and just society, in the same way that we do not want to see the ill-treatment of our fellow human beings, either.

I cannot help but reflect on a situation in the House, about 2 years ago, when we struggled as a Parliament to condone the hitting of people. Many people in this House stood up and made bizarre statements like: “We should uphold the right to hit a child.” Yet, quite rightfully, we are all condemning the unjust hitting of animals, and we should do. Let us not get too ecstatic about this. The bill doubles the penalties for ill-treating animals, but we should think back and ask why so many people objected to penalties for ill-treating children. I cannot understand the hypocrisy of this Parliament—which, for the most part, can make wise and just decisions—in introducing this bill, which Labour supports, yet not too long ago in this House we could not condemn the ill-treatment of children.

David Garrett: Because smacking’s not ill-treatment.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: I tell Mr Garrett that I would not say too much about this. I think we should just reflect on that, and move on.

No one in this House wants to see the ill-treatment of animals or humans who are not able to defend themselves, and that is what we are addressing with this legislation. Let us remind ourselves that it takes more than increased penalties and the quick introduction of a populist bill—because most of New Zealand thinks it is right—to address the issue. Sometimes we do not always make the best judgments.

It is important that the Government backs this change in legislation with better policing. It is not sufficient to have only five people throughout the country to monitor and ensure that this new legislation is upheld. Doubling penalties without proper policing will not change behaviour.

We are a country dependent upon the wise management and the good welfare of our animals. There will, no doubt, be points raised in this debate about the treatment of hens, the treatment of sows, or, possibly, the treatment of cows. We rely on the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, and I think the process is sound for an agricultural nation. My experience as a Minister in dealing with that group of people was a good one. They are very fair people and they uphold the highest standards of ethics in terms of animal welfare and management. They have to address the difficult issues of the balance between economic parameters around animal management and the ethical parameters around animal welfare. I think they do a good job and I do not want to bring those issues into the debate, although I am sure they will be raised.

I think it is important to say to the judges who will be dealing with this new legislation that they have had the tools in front of them for some time to impose higher penalties, but they have not always used them. It is not for me to make judgment on their judgments, but they should perhaps look at the situation and get the message that we cannot tolerate the kinds of animal welfare abuse that we have seen in recent times.

Perhaps it is a reflection of the pressure on society, on individuals, and on families whose reaction is to take it out on animals. If that is the case, then we have an obligation to assist them. It is not just about giving a handout or being namby-pamby, but we need to get in and give clear direction that that kind of behaviour should not be tolerated. That is done through the courts, but it is also done earlier on through the support systems and social networks that we have.

I applaud the passage of this legislation, because it will effectively protect animals that are unable to protect themselves. The question I ask the Government is whether it will guarantee the protection of people throughout this country who are unable to protect themselves. For example, there are victims of accidents in this country who are currently on accident compensation, and who are facing the possibility of removal from the accident compensation client list, which means the removal of their income and their means of existence, because the Minister for ACC wants to balance his books. I expect the National Party to come back and make adjustments to the legislation, and to tell the Minister for ACC that it is not right that he should punish people who are unable to protect themselves. It not right that he will not ensure they have some form of income because they have been injured through no fault of their own. So let us not get too righteous about what a wonderful place Parliament is and how good the National Government is in introducing animal welfare legislation when, at the same time—

Hon Steve Chadwick: Today.

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR:—throughout this country today, there are people who are not being looked after. I know that down in my electorate on the 20th, on a Saturday, 20 people who are supported in their existence by accident compensation payments will be appearing before someone employed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to cut the list down. Those 20 people will stand before that reviewer and are likely to be totally exposed to the reality of receiving no income. Those people, who have not been able to protect their income, have not been looked after by this Government. I acknowledge that this legislation protects animals that are unable to protect themselves, but let us be consistent here. I want to see from the National Government just as much care and compassion for people in this country as it is currently showing for animals.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green) : Today is something of a red-letter day for animal welfare, but it has to be said that for 10 years, until now, there has been a stony silence in this House about animal cruelty. For 10 years the major parties in Parliament have ignored the pleas and petitions of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders to put an end to the worst cases of animal abuse—namely sow crates and battery hen cages. For 10 years when I have raised issues of animal cruelty in this House, MPs have cracked jokes, rolled their eyes, and seemed unable to take the issue seriously. So it is great to sit here and listen to MPs speaking thoughtfully about animal welfare, particularly the previous speaker, Damien O’Connor.

I congratulate Simon Bridges and David Carter on bringing the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill to the House. The Green Party supports the bill, in particular the introduction of the reckless ill-treatment charge, which is new, and the other provisions that will, hopefully, make it easier for the SPCA and Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors to take prosecutions for animal abuse. We will put forward amendments at the select committee to strengthen some of the other provisions in the bill.

I have to say at the outset that we are deeply disappointed that this bill is so narrow in its scope and addresses only a tiny proportion of the cases of animal abuse in New Zealand. We are disappointed, too, that the bill does nothing to amend the loopholes in the Act that allow hundreds of thousands of animals to suffer on a daily basis—for example, pigs in sow crates and battery hens. Simon Bridges said that this bill will improve the law across the board. Sadly, it does not. It deals only with individual acts of cruelty against animals and it turns a blind eye to institutional cruelty against animals, which comprises the overwhelming majority of cases of animal cruelty in New Zealand.

As a Parliament we cannot in good conscience get tough on individual acts of cruelty to animals while ignoring even more serious cases of institutional abuse. The Minister of Agriculture and Simon Bridges have read out examples of individual cases of abuse. They have said that New Zealanders are increasingly shocked by these individual cases of cruelty to animals, and that is true. But New Zealanders were even more shocked by Mike King’s expose of the conditions of pigs in New Zealand. Butt what has happened? Nothing has happened. The pig welfare code that was promised last year still has not materialised, so let us put this bill into perspective.

As animal welfare lawyer Peter Sankoff observed wryly in a recent blog, politicians “only hate some kinds of animal cruelty, and are perfectly happy to promote other types.” It is vital, if we are not to be accused of hypocrisy, that we demonstrate that this Parliament cares about all forms of animal cruelty, not just some, by widening the scope of this bill and ensuring that tougher sentences apply to all people who abuse animals, not just some.

The Green Party supports the increase in penalties for ill-treatment, because this is one of the most common types of offence. But, like Labour members, we want to make it clear that increasing the maximum length of a sentence from, say, 3 years to 5 years will not reduce the incidence of animal abuse in New Zealand. The reality is—and it has been pointed out—that people found guilty of animal cruelty are very, very rarely jailed in New Zealand. There have been only 10 such cases, even though the legislation already permits 3-year jail sentences. In fact, 10 years ago Parliament increased the sentences from 3 months to 3 years, but sentences for animal abuse have not gone up. Not long ago a farmer, Mark Spitz, ignored repeated warnings from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and slowly starved a number of his cattle to death, yet he received only 250 hours of community service and a fine. That case is typical. I quote Peter Sankoff again. He said that raising sentences is “the easiest thing Parliament can do, and sadly, it’s a reflex action”. It is designed to distract us from the real problems of animal cruelty. He said: “It makes for nice yelling, though (Let’s raise penalties! Let’s send those bastards to jail!).”

If this Parliament is committed to reducing animal abuse, we must look at the wider issues. One of them has been touched on: why are there so few inspectors investigating incidents of animal cruelty, why are there so few prosecutions, and why is the funding for animal welfare and prosecutions so pitiful in New Zealand? The truth is that there is very little point in increasing the penalties for animal cruelty crimes if the enforcement authorities are so under-resourced that few prosecutions are ever made. This is the reality; this is the truth.

This bill will raise expectations, as previous speakers have said, and unless there is a huge increase in resources and funding for more inspectors, it will be, as Jim Anderton suggested, window dressing. We also need to address the issue of why the Government does not enforce the Animal Welfare Act properly. Why do we have only five full-time Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry inspectors, even though there are more than 100 million animals in New Zealand? Why does the ministry prosecute only 1.85 percent of the complaints it receives? Why has the Government effectively abdicated its duty to monitor animal welfare to inspectors from a charitable organisation—the SPCA—60 percent of whose inspectors are volunteers, many of whom work part time, and whose work is seriously hampered by the fact that they do not even have full police powers of prosecution?

Why does the Government not properly fund prosecutions of animal welfare breaches, instead of relying on the public to donate to the SPCA? Why does it not fund the SPCA properly? Why has it basically abdicated all its work to the SPCA, which is so cash-strapped that it does not carry out any random inspections and cannot afford to undertake prosecutions that would be expensive.

The Farmers Weekly pointed out a few years ago that the animal welfare team in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry is emaciated. Greg Reid stated, in 2008: “The reality is at the moment we are so thin on the ground and we are running from bushfire to bushfire. A lot of what the public see is just the surface of it—it’s quite chaotic.” In other words, the Government-funded welfare inspectorate budget is so pitiful that it is delegating this work to a charity that does not get funding.

Unless we deal with this issue, the bill will be simply window dressing. Unfortunately, the bill does not deal directly with anything to improve the inadequate system of monitoring and enforcement, but we will seek to amend this at the select committee. The reality is that people, and, indeed, probably judges, perceive animal welfare offences as a different kind of crime from other crimes, so we would like to see guidelines added to the Act to help judges decide on the seriousness of an offence and, therefore, the appropriate length of the sentence.

We are pleased with the clause that provides that offenders can have all their animals removed, not just the ones that were ill-treated, and we agree with a few other aspects of the bill. But we think it is critical that we strengthen the provisions relating to the abuse of farm animals, not just companion animals. Most prosecutions for the abuse of farm animals are taken under sections 12, 13, and 14 of the Act, not section 28, so we would like to see a similar strengthening of provisions around section 12 of the Act.

The Minister has said, finally, that all acts of cruelty are unacceptable to this Parliament. This is music to my ears. Many speakers here have made similar comments. I therefore look forward to the Minister finally acting on issues such as the banning of sow crates and battery-hen cages, because if he does not, the public will see this as a complete double standard. The public will see that we are getting tough on some aspects of animal cruelty while ignoring others.

The former Minister of Agriculture, Jim Anderton, said that our Animal Welfare Act is renowned as progressive by our trading partners. I can assure members that it is not renowned as progressive by most people who care about animal welfare in New Zealand.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : I rise to voice my support and that of the ACT Party for the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I congratulate Simon Bridges on bringing this bill to Parliament initially, and National on adopting it as a Government bill. It is clearly sound legislation. It increases the punishment for those who abuse animals, both individuals and corporate, and brings in a new offence of reckless ill-treatment to catch those who have undeservedly escaped punishment in the past.

Like most members who are planning to speak on this bill, I imagine, I have in my notes a list of sickening examples, but frankly I was personally sickened after hearing Mr Bridges’ examples, so I will not add to them. We do not need any more horrible, sickening examples.

As an MP green in experience if not orientation, I was saddened to find Mr O’Connor unable to resist a little jab by comparing the abuse of animals to the smacking of children. Well, I will explain it for Mr O’Connor. I will explain why so many people in this House and throughout the country—87 percent of them in a referendum—voted against what has been passed here. It is because chastising a child with a hand is not abuse—that is why—and 87 percent of people understand that. It is a shame he had to make that linkage.

As we have already heard, the bill increases the maximum penalty from 3 years’ imprisonment to 5 years’. That is a good idea. I think everyone across the House agrees that it appears the current sentences deter nobody, as there is a range of opinion as to what we should do to stop this from happening.

I was interested and slightly amused to hear even the Green Party members make remarks about judges not enforcing the penalties that are already available. Ms Kedgley said that it was a red-letter day in this Parliament. I have been here for only 15 months, but it is indeed a red-letter day when the Greens are supporting not only a law and order bill—a first in my time here—but, lo and behold, one that increases imprisonment. It is a red-letter day, indeed.

What this bill is doing—and I will be a bit more blunt than my urbane colleague Simon Bridges—is sending a very clear signal and message to the judiciary that this Parliament, this House of Representatives of the people of New Zealand, is unhappy with the level of sentencing. As I think every speaker has noted thus far, the penalties have been there, but I think Mr Bridges said that 10 people in the entire history of this country have been imprisoned for animal cruelty. The judges are being given a clear signal today, and they will get it again at the second and third readings: increase the sentences.

Sue Kedgley: That will solve everything!

DAVID GARRETT: No, it will not solve everything at all, and I will get on to that in a minute. But if the judges do not get the message, we can amend the legislation again because this Parliament makes the law in this country, not those in that monstrosity across Lambton Quay. This Parliament makes the law; the judges apply it. If they are sent a signal from this place and they do not get it, then mandatory sentences are around the corner. That is part of the reason for the “three strikes” bill. The judges have not got it, so we are sending a message. Today we are sending a message on animal cruelty.

I am going to change direction a little, but before I do so I want to make it very clear that my remarks from here on in do not in any way seek to diminish the evil that is animal cruelty. I repeat that I was sickened by Mr Bridges’ examples, so I have left mine on paper rather than verbalising them.

It has been noted by many that there is a clear link between animal cruelty and cruelty to humans. Many studies have shown that serious cruelty in childhood is predictive of human cruelty later in life. A 1985 study of violent male offenders reported far higher rates of what the study termed as substantial cruelty to animals than a comparison group of non-jailed men. In 1998, an assessment of sexual homicide convicts showed 36 percent of those men abused animals during childhood, 46 percent during adolescence, and 36 percent again as adults. I refer to a People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—PETA—article entitled “Animal Abuse and Human Abuse: Partners in Crime”. The article refers to the FBI profiles of some of America’s worst criminals. Invariably their histories contain disgusting acts of mutilation on cats and dogs of the kind that Mr Bridges has outlined. I am very well aware, as many members will be, that we have criminals here with similar histories.

So we have to ask ourselves why some people commit animal cruelty in the first place. A 2001 report from the United States Department of Justice collated a number of theories analysing the link between child abuse, animal cruelty, and violent crime. The report said that those children who suffered physical and sexual abuse were far more likely to dish out the same treatment to animals. As I have said, this leads to violent and sexual crime later in life. That link is clear. There is no dispute as far as I am aware.

So how does that happen? Yesterday I wrote on my website about a member of the underclass, a gang member called Hulio Ataria, who was convicted of murder. The fellow murdered a young man coming to the aid of a woman being beaten by another gang member. The mother of the accused, or prisoner, as he is now, was expelled from court on an earlier occasion for barking like a dog—a somewhat ironic link to this bill. Barking like a dog, for those who are not aware of it, is a symbol of solidarity, support, and approbation for the values the Mongrel Mob represents. It is hardly surprising that Hulio Ataria, raised by such a wonderful role model who has been generously supported by the taxpayer through the welfare system, turned out the way he did. If someone raises a child like an animal, do not be surprised if that child becomes one.

A few months ago we had a Drivers of Crime summit next door, and, unsurprisingly perhaps, there was widespread agreement on just what those drivers were: child abuse, alcohol abuse, spousal abuse, neglect, and lack of education. But everyone skirted around what we should do about it. No one wanted to face the reality that the Hulio Atarias of this country have been dragged up by people like the dog-barking mother who are members of the long-term welfare culture crossing two or three generations. Those people populate our gangs, and they are responsible for a great deal of our heinous crimes against both humans and animals. I agree with others in this respect: the causes of crime must be addressed to prevent future crime.

However, it is on the causes that we differ. I say, and the ACT Party says, that welfarism is a major cause of crime. The welfare system is broken and it must be fixed. We ignore this at our peril. This bill, as Ms Kedgley and others have said, cannot fix everything; it is not a silver bullet. As others have said, including Ms Kedgley, increasing the penalty in itself will not make any difference either. But I find it sadly ironic that the Green Party co-leader signed a Paw Justice petition calling for longer jail terms for animal abusers. That is the only time in my 15 months here that that party has supported any measure that increased imprisonment. I understand it has as its philosophy that imprisonment is completely useless. So it is very interesting that the party has one standard for animals and a lower standard for the treatment of people. I find that confusing and inconsistent. The Green members’ stance is welcome, of course, on this bill but I invite them to consider their stance on future bills affecting people.

I will close by repeating something I said earlier. Parliament today is sending, and will send, a message to judges. I ask them to listen to it; otherwise Parliament will take some more measures.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : As uri of Ngāti Kōata I have grown up in a tradition in which the concept of respecting and caring for animal life is second nature. Our iwi is the kaitiaki or guardian of the tuatara of Takapourewa or Stephens Island. It is our humble duty and obligation to take every precaution necessary to care for and protect from harm these incredible living fossils. So the concept of introducing legislation to prevent the wilful ill treatment and neglect of animals is consistent with my own tribal values and belief.

I hasten to suggest that the sacred status of tuatara is not the only example of an animal being revered and respected by tangata whenua. In part of my tribal rohe on Rangitoto ki te Tonga, otherwise known as D’Urville Island, the spotted brown kiwi occupies a special status as well. In another aspect of the significance of the animal kingdom for Te Ao Māori, kaitiaki manifest in animal form continue as living realities for whānau, hapū, and iwi. Such kaitiaki include the kiwi, kurī, ruru, and tuatara. The parāora or whale also features prominently as an animal revered by hapū and iwi. The practice of whale riding—highlighted in the movie based on Witi Ihimaera’s novel—was a common theme in Māori oral histories. The Whale Rider retells the traditions of Paikea, but there are other notable whale riders, including Te Tahi-o-te-Rangi, an ancestor of the Mātaatua tribes, and Tunui, a tohunga of Hawke’s Bay, who was seen riding his pet whale Ruamano on his way to Cape Kidnappers.

Our history is rich with stories of the great affection that Māori had for animals, including pet kākā, eels, and shags. In fact, Kupe had a pet shag whose remains are seen today at Te Aumiti, the narrow pass between the Mainland and Rangitoto known as French Pass. Kurī, the humble dog, was known as a great companion even back to the days of the explorer Kupe. In other stories, horses are described as extraordinary, some describing them as taniwha or supernatural creatures. One chief from Tūhoe, Te Maitaranui, describes these new beasts as “kurī waha tangata”—people-carrying dogs. For Ngāti Porou there is a particularly strong association with what are commonly known as the Nāti horses, those versatile horses that travel over stony grounds or through water and bush without faltering. And, of course, for Ngāti Tūwharetoa, the association with the wild Kaimanawa horses is so powerful that there has even been a claim lodged with the Waitangi Tribunal to prevent them from being culled.

I share some of these stories with the House as a way of setting the scene for the changes we are today debating to the Animal Welfare Act proposed by the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill—in particular, the drive to increase the penalties for offences involving wilful harm and reckless cruelty to animals. Our history helps to provide us with guidance about how to consider issues such as the welfare of animals. Although the recent media portrayal of this type of offending has demonstrated just how horrifying some of these incidents have been, it is always useful to have a broader context from which to respond. The history of Māori experience with animals tells us that ill treatment and neglect not only was unknown but would be considered grossly inappropriate. That is why the Māori Party remains concerned about the use of 1080 poison to condemn possums to a truly cruel and painful death. How do we measure animal welfare? Why are pests are allowed to be treated in a different way to pets?

There is another aspect to the wilful treatment of animals that I feel duty-bound to bring to this House—that is, the known association between cruelty to animals and human violence, which has been referred to by previous speakers. In 2002 a Child, Youth and Family supervisor in Ōtara, Briar Humphrey, conducted a 3-month sabbatical project resulting in the paper Child Welfare / Animal Welfare—a Discussion Document. In her project Ms Humphrey explored aspects of the animal welfare sector’s relationship with child welfare in Auckland in cooperation with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Auckland. During the course of her study she spoke with animal welfare trainers, managers, and front-line staff and concluded that child protection social workers could learn much from animal welfare professionals working in the same communities, and often in the same homes. In her conclusions Ms Humphrey suggested that child protection social workers should include consideration of family pets in their assessments of abusive and neglectful families.

The study demonstrates that the link between the treatment of pets and the children’s attachments to animals often spoke volumes about the children and the family. In essence, children and young persons who are violent and cruel to animals needed immediate help. I think this is another really important dimension to the debate, as it makes it explicit that people convicted of violent crimes are often also predisposed to the cruel treatment of animals. I think it is also worthy of comment to observe that there are successful models of child and animal welfare agency cooperation throughout the United States and the United Kingdom.

Coming back more particularly to this bill, the Māori Party supports the provisions that enable a court to disqualify a person from having custody of animals and to order forfeiture of animals to the Crown or to an approved organisation in the case of an offence being proven. We need to be able to demonstrate that the threshold of acceptance of any form of violence reflects the serious attitude we have to ill treatment and neglect. We must set the bar high, showing in our actions that we have no tolerance for violence or abuse of any kind. As an electorate MP, I know only too well the horrific levels of violence amongst our communities. As a Māori woman, I know that our women are substantially overrepresented in Women’s Refuge statistics. Our women receive higher levels of medical treatment for abuse, and experience more severe abuse than other groups of women. In fact, I have recently learnt that Māori women between 15 and 24 years of age are seven times more likely to be hospitalised as a result of an assault than are Pākehā women.

This crisis of circumstance must occupy all of our attention within the House. I particularly acknowledge the work that my colleague Tariana Turia has been doing with the Māori reference group on family violence. Its report on how to eliminate family violence within the whānau, E Tu Whānau Ora, is a wonderful resource that can help us to take actions to restore peace across our communities. But our attitude to violence across the wider community is also critical in stemming the tide, and that is why bills such as this are so critical. The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill provides us with an opportunity to understand the links between cruelty to animals and other types of violence. It establishes a threshold of behaviour that rejects the ill treatment and neglect of animals, and creates a public standard that encourages us to act with compassion, care, and respect to all forms of life, including animals. For all these reasons, we support the bill.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) : I am delighted to be able to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. In doing so I must first of all congratulate my colleague Simon Bridges, the MP for Tauranga; the Hon David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture; and, of course, the National-led Government on doing something meaningful, after a period of 10 years, on the issue of animal welfare.

We have heard a range of debate, and I am delighted to see the agreement here around the House. Although we do have agreement, I venture to say that if we were to decide on animal welfare at the extremes of the situation, we would find that our views would be considerably divided. I make that point, because when we look at animals we see that we have different regimes of treatment. I was just thinking that many of us would have a cat inside the house, and we would not like to have our cat outside the house. Some of us have our dogs inside the house; others would not have their dogs in the house.

I have also heard today that judges are the problem, but I am of the view that this bill improves the law. The problem has not been entirely with judges. The problem has been in what somebody taking a prosecution faced, in that a very high threshold had to be met. That high threshold meant that going for a prosecution often meant the prosecutor failed. So for the very point of being able to get a conviction, prosecutors settled for the lesser of the penalties—that is, for the ill-treatment of animals as an offence. That often made things look very, very distorted. In principle, the threshold to show there was wilful ill-treatment of animals was set too high. So to get a conviction at any level there was an attempt to go for the penalty for the ill-treatment of animals, which was a lot less serious. The penalties were not progressive enough and, on that basis, this bill is very, very clever; it introduces another category: the category of reckless ill-treatment. I believe that that is very important, and something that should not be overlooked. I am sure that as we go through this bill in the select committee, and as we consider submissions, there will be situations that take issue with that.

• Debate interrupted.