Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : I move, That the Appropriation (2007/2008 Financial Review) Bill be now read a second time.

• Bill read a second time.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : I resume my speech in this second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. This bill gives effect to the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. The review found that there were delays and inconsistencies around the legislative procedures of the Act, as well as confusion about some of the definitions in the Act. There was also a lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity.

The bill provides additional powers for Ombudsmen to request information from both public and private organisations, and to coordinate cross-agency activity. This bill widens the definitions of who is a “public official” and who is an “employee” for the purposes of this Act. It extends access to the Act and also extends access to its protections. This bill also allows whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoings, even if that belief is found to be mistaken. Two further amendments were made to the bill on the basis of the Government Administration Committee’s recommendations. The first amendment was the insertion of section 6C(2), inserted by clause 6, to specifically exclude private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for further information about that organisation’s internal procedures. The second recommended amendment to the bill was the insertion of section 15E(3), inserted by clause 8, to include section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act, which is the section relating to offences under that Act. This makes it an offence to refuse to provide the information specified in that section to an Ombudsman.

The 2003 review of the Act found that there were no fundamental problems with the Act’s substance, but that roles and processes within the Act could be easier to follow and that guidance should be available for people proposing to make disclosures. The amendment bill improves aspects of the Act. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen as coordinators and facilitators of investigations. The Act will also make it easier both for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate. The Government supports the broad approach of the Act and any efforts to improve its operation and administration. It should be noted—and I believe it is clearly understood—that Ombudsmen are held in high regard across Parliament and in public, and that they are a good fit for an increased facilitation and coordination role under the amendments to this Act.

National expects that with the better tools provided under this amendment bill, Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner and to hold the Government to account. Finally, protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative changes; ongoing operational improvements are also very important. With those few points, I commend this bill to the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I call Darien Fenton.

METIRIA TUREI (Deputy Musterer—Green) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you know, there is a guide for the order of speakers, and I understand that we are now at the usual position for a Green Party member to take the call.

Mr SPEAKER: According to the list that I have, it was expected to be a further Labour member.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is one further Labour member before we go to ACT and the Green Party.

Mr SPEAKER: I have called Darien Fenton. Has she given the floor to the Green member?

Darien Fenton: Yes.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I thank my colleague Darien Fenton for allowing me to speak at this time. I have another appointment. The Green Party supports the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. It will help to protect the genuine whistleblowers who expose serious wrongdoing in the public sector.

Under the Act at the moment, whistleblowers can meet a brick wall if they make a procedural mistake regarding the organisation, whom to complain to, or how to complain. If they make a procedural mistake then their complaint can be ruled out. One technicality is that whistleblowers have to refer specifically to the Protected Disclosures Act 2000. Now, with this amendment bill, such a technical mistake will not rule out their complaints.

Whistleblowers will also be able—as the other speakers have indicated—to get help from the Ombudsman in a number of ways, in terms of the procedures and how to carry the matter further if they reach some obstacle. The Ombudsman will be able to give whistleblowers help even before they make the disclosure if they want help prior to beginning the whole process. The Ombudsman can help further by investigating the issue on his or her own initiative or in coordination with the whistleblower or can refer the complaint to the relevant Minister.

The complainant does not need to be absolutely sure of the situation before making the complaint. There has to be room for error, because, in many cases, the whistleblower will get an inkling something is wrong or might have certain evidence that something is wrong but will not be absolutely sure of all the wrongdoing that has taken place. There might be a set of mirrors in the organisation and the wrongdoer is obfuscated, and I think it is important that this does not hold up the investigation of the complaint by the proper people.

The more assurance the whistleblower has that he or she is protected, the better it will be for getting complaints into the system. We have found so far under the present Act that in the year 2006 there were only eight such whistleblower complaints. The reason for this low number is partly the potential whistleblowers’ lack of knowledge about procedures and what is possible, and partly because the whistleblowers are not entirely confident that they will be protected—that is, that their anonymity will be protected—which is important if they are to continue operating in the workplace, or even in terms of their reputation outside the workplace.

There is also the question of persecution. Any worker can be persecuted by the organisation’s management if it thinks the whistleblower is exposing something it does not want exposed. The whistleblower’s workmates may think that the reputation of a fine organisation is being sullied by the complaint, and the whistleblower can be persecuted as a result. So protection is important if we are to encourage whistleblowing.

In the original bill the problem was not helped by the channel of complaints having to go up through the hierarchy of the organisation to managers who could be, at least in part, responsible for the wrongdoing either directly through incompetence, through not managing their affairs properly, or even through looking the other way and not doing anything about wrongdoing by a subordinate. This bill will mean that complaints will not just be channelled up through the existing structure but that there will be a role for the Ombudsman. People can go to the Ombudsman and ask how to work through the process.

It is important that volunteers are now included in the process, because a lot of organisations use volunteers. Volunteers can recognise wrongdoing within an organisation and they should be able to whistle-blow too. Obviously, non-governmental organisations use a lot of volunteers, but so do State organisations such as the Department of Conservation. Volunteers should be able to be part of the whistleblowing process.

All this is very important, as the Bazley report on historic police wrongdoing indicated. If one reads that report one sees that a lot of what went on—the wrongdoing within the police at Rotorua, etc.—happened because good police did not blow the whistle, for reasons such as they did not feel they could, they thought their careers would be affected, because of mateship, or whatever it was. A combination of things meant that the whistle was not blown and the situation got worse.

Even in some of the discussions we are having now on whether things are going wrong in prisons, it is important that we allow the maximum opportunity for whistleblowing rather than perhaps having some horrendous thing happen and then we debate it in Parliament. That situation could be short-circuited by people whistle-blowing at an earlier stage.

This bill will help organisations to act more morally, will hold them—particularly public organisations—to account, and will make them more in accord with recognised codes of conduct. Thank you.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I am really pleased to have an opportunity to speak in the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. This is an important bill that was introduced by the previous Labour Government. In fact, it is so important that I see it still has the Hon David Parker’s name on it. It builds on the Protected Disclosures Act, which was also introduced by the previous Labour Government, in 2001. The bill was considered in the last Parliament by the Government Administration Committee, of which I was deputy chair, and I think the committee did an excellent job.

It is pleasing to see that this bill has not been discharged by the National Government, unlike some other important legislation. One such bill that was particularly close to my heart was the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 3), which would have given temporary and casual workers, both in the State and in the private sector, much more certainty and security in these very difficult times. I am relieved that the bill has survived the appalling denigration of public sector workers that we are seeing from this National Government. In its lexicon, front-line workers means good workers, and workers behind the front line are bureaucrats who, in other words, have jobs that are useless, pointless, and wasteful. The worker is often described as lazy, bloated, and dispensable.

It must be awful to work in the State sector at the moment. There is nothing worse than having one’s job devalued, having one’s work constantly criticised, and living under the threat of the knife day after day after day. I feel for State sector workers and, indeed, I meet many of them as I go about my parliamentary duties and family responsibilities. I cannot imagine life without the clerical workers in hospitals, for example, who help us through the maze of public hospitals when a family member is in hospital. I cannot imagine life without the workers who help each of us here in Parliament, like those who work as our executive assistants, and those who work in our offices outside of Parliament. Are they bureaucrats or are they front-line staff? Who knows? It does not really matter to me, because they do important work and we rely on them. I would love to see National Party MPs telling their executive assistants that they are bureaucrats and therefore valueless and useless, and to see how far they get in their day’s work. The National Government, unfortunately, is currently responsible for the demoralisation of State sector workers—the very workers it will need help and cooperation from as the economic crisis grows and New Zealanders expect more assistance from this Government.

As previous speakers have said, this bill amends the Protected Disclosures Act, which facilitates the disclosure and investigation of serious wrongdoing within both public and private sector organisations, and protects those who bring that information forward, in accordance with procedures under the Act.

John Hayes: Just table your speech, Darien. We can read it.

DARIEN FENTON: I beg your pardon?

Moana Mackey: Maybe the Prime Minister could have tabled the answers to his questions today.

DARIEN FENTON: That is a good idea; the member is right.

The need for the Act arose after 10 years of a National Government, in a climate of fear in the public sector during the 1990s. There was the well-known story of Neil Pugmire, a nurse at Lake Alice Hospital who expressed concern to his employer—which was then known by the ridiculous name of Good Health Wanganui; members will remember that name and how crazy that was—over the release of dangerous psychiatric patients into the community. When he got no satisfactory response he went public about his concerns. He was suspended and then fired. This led to much public debate about the importance of public servants being able to speak out about abuses or corruption that they see in their workplaces.

Unfortunately, I think that the climate of fear is reasserting itself in the Public Service. We have signs that this National Government will not tolerate dissenting views from public servants. [Interruption] That is right. The National Government is seeking to control even the very words that public servants use. There are bizarre examples. I have heard that NZAID staff have been told that any reports or papers written for Minister Murray McCully cannot include the words “poverty alleviation”, “human rights”, or “gender”, in case they upset the Minister. There are other stories about stupid instructions from Ministers in relation to State sector staff about words that will not find favour—for example, “social justice”.

Moana Mackey: Public health!

DARIEN FENTON: “Public health”! These kinds of directions are quite scary, and when a Government seeks to direct or limit the very language of public sector workers, we are heading down a very dangerous path.

Then we have the strange circumstances of Dr Nick Smith seeking to muzzle the chief executive of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) in the recent select committee debacle. That was after he muzzled the chair and the entire ACC board. Tony Ryall is pretending that if he dumps pay equity investigations then the problem does not exist. Soon we will not be able to use the words “pay equity”, and women will just have to put up with being paid less than men for doing work of equal value.

This Government is muzzling the State sector. It is shutting down dissenting views and it is shutting down debate. The National Government’s old prejudices are emerging.

In speaking about disclosures, let me ask about the interesting disclosure in the New Zealand Herald yesterday that New Zealanders are being asked whether the Government should allow nuclear-powered ships back into our waters. Workers for a market research company have disclosed that they have been polling voters about nuclear power. They claim that the survey was being carried out for the National Party. The original Act did require a review, as other speakers have referred to, and this was carried out by Mary Scholtens QC. It was an excellent report, and she concluded that the Act had not been used a great deal and that it had not always been used well. That was of concern to the select committee and of concern to me. She identified that there were problems in the uptake of the rights of this bill, and that many workers did not know about protected disclosures. She also said there were delays, inconsistencies, and other difficulties in using the legislative procedures properly.

The report also highlighted that there was a strong perception among workers consulted on the Act that the identity of a whistle-blowing employee would not be protected. That perception goes to the heart of the effective operation of this Act and this bill. Without protection for those who set out to disclose wrongdoing in their organisation, the confidence of workers is diminished. Ms Scholtens’ review concluded that the Ombudsman could assist whistleblowers, coordinate referrals between appropriate authorities, and guide and review the Act’s operation. The Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill gives the Ombudsman that enhanced role. It also picks up on a number of other recommendations designed to improve the Act’s protection and processes.

The right of public sector workers to speak freely about their concerns will be severely limited by the current approach of this National Government. Which public servants in their right minds would be courageous enough to challenge their bosses in this kind of environment?

Hon Steve Chadwick: Down the road.

DARIEN FENTON: Absolutely. So many jobs are on the line, there is so much uncertainty, and the very work that workers do has been denigrated and maligned for month upon month, both before and after the election campaign. The Government’s approach is highly dangerous not only to State sector workers but to the reputation of our Public Service. It also endangers our consistently good rating on the annual survey of Transparency International as a corruption-free country.

In the current environment, with National’s razor-gang approach—it is a razor gang on the march—this legislation is more important that ever. Unfortunately, the National-led Government is destroying the goodwill of public sector workers, let alone other workers. National members think they can get away with attacking young workers and vulnerable workers with the 90-day bill. They think they can risk alienating temporary and casual workers by dumping the bill that would have given them protection. They think they can denigrate the accident compensation scheme and fool the public into believing that privatisation and reductions in services are acceptable. They think they can ignore the State by refusing to provide alternatives such as the 9-day working fortnight for struggling departments and workers losing their jobs. Well, I am here to tell National that its Government may be able to fool some of the people some of the time, but it cannot fool all of the people all of the time. Thank you.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : If I had one concern about the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill, it would be in the title. How much easier would it be if we knew we were standing to talk to the issue of workplace whistle-blowing—or even to talk to the bill to report serious wrongdoing in the workplace?

The concept of disclosure has, of course, many and varied meanings. As a former lawyer, the context I am most familiar with is disclosure as interpreted across various statutes. In company law, disclosure relates to giving out information about public or limited companies. Disclosure, in a property context, refers to information being disclosed about aspects to do with real estate that might influence the property values or appraisal. Or, in a criminal law action, it might be understood within the context of the victim protection scheme. In a health context, disclosure might relate to the nature of one’s disability or specific health condition. Whereas “workplace whistle-blowing” would clearly convey the types of disclosures that might promote investigation of serious wrongdoing in the workplace and provide protection for employees. Of course, we would expect that “serious wrongdoing” could benefit from a full definition, as well.

This issue—of knowing exactly what we mean when we refer to protected disclosure—was a key concern brought forward by Mary Scholtens QC in her 2003 review of how well the protected disclosure legislation was working. In her assessment, there were many difficulties associated with using the legislation procedures properly, not the least being confusion over some definitions.

Another key group of concerns was around a perceived lack of confidentiality and protection of identity. The review went so far as to say that the perception was so strong as to be possibly a reality—that it was unlikely the identity of a person making the protected disclosure would remain confidential. This is, of course, at the heart of the legislation, so is a significant concern that this House must address. David Woodnorth, a barrister writing in Employment Today, observed that “employees may only be prepared to blow the whistle on wrongdoing when they can be reassured that a high degree of confidentiality applies to their identity as the informant.” If confidentiality cannot be assured, then employee confidence in the process will be unlikely, and as a consequence the Act will only ever have limited effectiveness.

In response to these not insignificant concerns, the 2003 review recommended that the functions of the Ombudsman could be extended under the Act to give more explicit powers related to information-giving and advising. The bill highlights the role of the Ombudsman, giving him or her an enhanced role in guiding, reviewing, and investigating disclosures of serious wrongdoing. In particular, the Office of the Ombudsmen is charged with facilitating a collaborative, cross-agency approach. We support the role of the Ombudsman in taking up a more substantial responsibility in managing and coordinating the various investigative functions of organisations and we were pleased to see the amendment from the Government Administration Committee making it an offence to refuse to provide the Ombudsman with information about internal procedures.

Accountability, transparency, credibility—these are all concepts that the Māori Party has always placed a great deal of weight around. In our policy manifesto He Aha Te Mea Nui we were keen to investigate a more substantial role for the Office of the Controller and Auditor-General. We had envisaged that an important new function they could take on would be reporting annually on the effectiveness of interventions targeted at Māori, Pasifika, refugees, migrants, and youth. This same reporting procedure might encompass an annual report on the capability of the State sector to achieve outcomes for Māori. So opening up one’s books—throwing light on to the affairs of any entity—is something that we believe is fundamental to the operations of a healthy democracy. We welcome, therefore, the recommendation to ensure both public and private sector organisations and employees will be required to provide information about their internal procedures around disclosure, in the public interest.

I have to admit—and I am sure the Minister would be of the same view—that it made serious reading to learn of the concerns raised by John Crowther. Mr Crowther was acting for Deborah Houston, who was the whistleblower in matters of conflict of interest with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Ms Houston was acutely aware of the importance of getting it right in improving the protection of whistleblowers. In her experience, the risk of retaliation was high. More evidence around this is provided in the New Zealand State Services Commission integrity and conduct survey of 2007. It was extremely disappointing to learn that district health boards have the lowest awareness of the provisions in the Protected Disclosures Act. Less than a quarter—some 23 percent—of our district health boards knew about the provisions of the Act. The other revealing finding was that there was less belief at the district health board level that senior and middle-management would exhibit and practise elements of ethical behaviour. The third disturbing conclusion from the survey was that although district health board employees report breaches of standards at about the same rate as the State services average, their reasons for not reporting are typically more fear-based. In the report of the survey, it notes that of the district health board employees who report misconduct, some 30 percent claim to have experienced retaliation as a result. The leaders and decision makers of the institutions focused on the health and well-being of New Zealanders are at fault. I believe this is also a specific issue for all who are charged with responsibility in the health sector to face.

On the basis of the 2003 review by Mary Scholtens and the submissions received for this bill, there clearly has been an inconsistent application of the Act, including questions about what agencies are included as “appropriate authorities”. And yet, at the same time, when the provisions of the Act had been incorporated into an organisational culture—when the risk management policies of an agency and the procedures relating to appropriate ethical conduct are sufficiently robust—then it has appeared to work well.

We in the Māori Party have an interest in all organisations working well, which will ultimately be in the best interests of the workforce, of families, and of the wider community. We believe the implementation of the Act would be successful with a greater involvement from the Office of the Ombudsmen, and we support the overall thrust of extending human rights protections to those making disclosures of serious wrongdoing. The Māori Party supports this bill. Kia ora.

JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) : I rise to support the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill, and I kick off by saying that New Zealand has a tradition of strong leadership. It perhaps began with “King Dick” Seddon in the 1890s and the first Labour Government around the Second World War, conscription, and the post-war era. I think of Sir Robert Muldoon’s administration during the economic crisis of the 1970s, the fourth Labour Government from 1984 to 1990, and the National Government from 1900 until MMP arrived in 1996. The unbridled power of executive Government has been described as perhaps the most streamlined form of democracy in the world. I also think of my constituents, and I see New Zealanders valuing pragmatism, flexibility, and innovation. When we want to change things, we generally adopt an incremental approach to deal with problems. By and large, the New Zealand community is happy to make changes in the way that we run our legislation. I see in my community a strong sense of egalitarianism and a sense of fair play, and I think that honesty is a strong New Zealand value. In my community, there is a widespread view that everybody should have a fair go and there is a belief that when injustices occur, they need to be remedied. If someone has made a mistake or caused a problem, even unwittingly, he or she needs to front up and admit it.

Over recent years there has also been a shift in the way that New Zealand officials, local government politicians, and others engage with business. There was a time when businesses took the view that central government would create broad business conditions through taxes, trade policies, subsidies—way back when there were things like subsidies—and monetary policy. They thought that there was not too much that local bodies could do to influence business conditions, and their activities were minor. Over recent years we have seen the role of central and local government change quite significantly. If I think of my own electorate, I have seen the Universal College of Learning, a State-owned enterprise, involving itself in Martinborough by going along and saying that it was going to set up a cuisine school. More recently, I have seen activities under the aegis of the Canterbury Regional Council and its wholly owned subsidiary Target Pest Enterprises Ltd. That company went into receivership and cost people in my community serious amounts of money. I see that as indicative of an environment where our local authorities are much more engaged in commercial activity. I think of the Greater Wellington Regional Council and the consistent loss-making entity called BioWorks, which is also competing with private sector companies. I support the broad approach of the 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act for those reasons, as does the Government. There is a need to improve the workings of the legislation both in its day-to-day operations and in its administration.

I recall about 2 years ago saying to John Belgrave, a friend and a man I highly respected as an Ombudsman, that the Office of the Ombudsmen was vital because it was the one guarantor that the right thing could be done, and when the right thing was not done then politicians and people in the community relied on the integrity of the Office of the Ombudsmen to get good disclosure. I know that across our communities the Office of the Ombudsmen is held in high regard, as it is in this Parliament. With this legislation, we are trying to facilitate the Office of the Ombudsmen and the coordination role that it has.

If we provide better tools through this amendment bill, we can expect that Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner, and will be better able to hold Government—both central government and local government—to account. I stress local government because that is where I keep seeing some entities owned by local government stepping out of line in provincial communities. For example, the Universal College of Learning, a tertiary provider, is stepping out of line in some of the things it is doing. It is ultimately the people inside an organisation, at all levels, who are watching what is going on and very often are best placed to get engaged in the business of saying: “Excuse me, I’m not sure that this is right. Could we please have another look at it?”. If they cannot get their colleagues in the organisation to do that, then they need a vehicle for blowing the whistle. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative change; we also need ongoing operational improvements, which are very important. We must learn from our mistakes. Silence is not in the public interest. We want the public to have confidence in the process of making a protected disclosure, and in my 3½ years in Parliament I can point to a number of instances where that level of confidence has not existed or has not protected people.

This bill will give effect to the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Protected Disclosures Act, and I commend my colleague Tony Ryall for bringing this legislation back to the House and progressing it within the first 100 days of this administration. That review found there had been delays and inconsistencies around the legislative procedures of the Act, as well as confusion about some of the definitions and a lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. That is something that can be very hard to do in an environment where a relatively small group of people know what is going on.

This bill provides additional powers for Ombudsmen to request information from both public and private organisations, and to coordinate cross-agency activity. The bill widens the definition of “public official” and of “employee” for the purposes of the Act. It extends access to the Act and to its protections. The bill will also allow whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoing, even if this belief is found to be mistaken. There are two further amendments to the bill that I will remain silent on at this point, but I hope to address them in the third reading of the bill. Again, I wholeheartedly support this legislation. Thank you.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : Today I want to focus on the issue at hand and not waste time, unlike some of the members opposite. Last week we heard Mr Grant Robertson talk about a whole range of irrelevant areas rather than focus on the topic being discussed. National has delivered this quickly after all the other results it has achieved in the first 100 days, so I am pleased to stand to support the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill in the second reading.

National recognises the need to protect those who wish to speak out in the best interests of New Zealand. We need to recognise that whistle-blowing comes with some risk to employees. We also know that silence is not in the public interest. I want to address a comment that Ms Fenton raised around the possibility that the current Government might want to stifle freedom of speech. I remind the House of legislation passed by the then Labour Government called the Electoral Finance Act. That Act did everything it could to avoid members of the New Zealand public having their say. The National Government is proud to support freedom of speech. I want to talk about the original intention or objective of the initial Protected Disclosures Act 2000.

Darien Fenton: Passed by the Labour Government.

LOUISE UPSTON: Absolutely, it was passed by that Government and National is proud to make sure that the Act works as it was intended to. That is why we are bringing this amendment to the House.

The Act was intended to operate by facilitating the disclosure of serious wrongdoing, facilitating the investigation of that serious wrongdoing, and protecting employees who make disclosures under the Act. The Act also provided for a review to be made of its operation no sooner than 2 years after the commencement. That 2003 review appears to be comprehensive, comprising of around 90 pages. That review was in 2003, so I am not quite sure what happened in the intervening years; it has taken 4 years for that bill to come to the House and the results—or at least some of them—were introduced last year by the then Labour Government. It took 4 years. In contrast to the previous Government—and I am not quite sure what it focused on—National has not wasted any time in picking up this bill and taking it forward to this second reading.

As my colleagues Jacqui Dean and John Hayes have stated earlier today, this bill gives effect to the recommendations of the 2003 review of the Act. The review found delays and inconsistencies around the legislative processes of the Act, some confusion about definitions, and a lack of confidence in the protection of a whistleblower’s identity. Of course, it is incredibly important that those who have information to disclose are adequately protected. The bill provides additional powers for the Ombudsmen to request information from both public and private organisations, and to coordinate cross-agency activity. The bill widens definitions of “public official” and “employee” for the purposes of the Act, and extends access to the Act and—more importantly—its protections to include board members and volunteers. National recognises the important work that volunteers undertake and we recognise that those in unpaid work need to be equally protected in terms of disclosures. It allows whistleblowers to continue to receive the protection of the Act if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that the information provided relates to serious wrongdoing, even if this belief is found to be mistaken. It recognises that mistakes can occasionally occur, but we would much rather that people feel confident in their ability to be protected while disclosing important information even if, on the odd occasion, they are mistaken.

Two further amendments were made to the bill on the basis of the Government Administration Committee’s recommendations. One is the insertion of section 6C(2). It specifically excludes private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for information about an organisation’s internal procedures. The other amendment is to section 15E. It includes section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act, which is the section relating to offences under the Act. It makes it an offence to refuse to provide an Ombudsman with the specified information.

When looking at the 2003 review, the committee found that there were no fundamental problems with the Act’s substance, but that the roles and processes could be easier to follow and that guidance should be available to people proposing to make disclosure. One important thing is that if there are steps that can be taken to make it easier for people to disclose, then it might encourage more people to take that opportunity. That is why it is really important that these processes are simplified, and, rather than sit on our hands for 4 years, this Government is taking action in the second reading of this bill. The bill improves aspects of the Act. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen as coordinators and facilitators of investigations, and it will make it easier both for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate. We want to make sure that organisations that investigate whistleblowers’ information find the process easier than it currently is.

National supports the broad approach of the Protected Disclosures Act and supports any efforts to improve its operation and administration. National expects that with the better tools available through this amendment bill, Government agencies should be able to respond in a more coordinated and effective manner in holding the Government to account. Protecting whistleblowers is not just a matter for legislative change; ongoing operational improvements are also important. We recognise that any time a law is changed there are important changes to processes that then make that legal change relevant. We recognise that silence is not in the public interest. We want the public to have confidence in the process of making a protected disclosure.

I stand before members thrilled to support both the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill and the Minister of State Services, the Hon Tony Ryall. This bill improves aspects of the Protected Disclosures Act. It enhances the role of the Ombudsmen as coordinators and facilitators of investigations, and it will make it easier both for whistleblowers to speak out and for organisations to investigate. I commend this bill to the House.

NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) : I wish to take a call on the second reading of the very important Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the wonderful work of the then members of the Government Administration Committee that was chaired by Shane Ardern: Darien Fenton, Brian Connell, the Hon Harry Duynhoven, Sandra Goudie, and the Hon Dover Samuels. The select committee heard four written submissions and one verbal submission.

This is very, very important legislation, and I will give the House some of the reasons why I believe it is extremely important. I acknowledge that this bill still allows for people out there to blow the whistle, and that is extremely important. They will continue to receive the protection of the Protected Disclosures Act 2000 on the grounds that they believe it is reasonable for information of serious wrongdoing to be provided. That is a very important part of this bill. It widens the definitions of who is a “public official” and who is considered an “employee” for the purposes of this Act. This extends access to the Act and to its protections.

Two further amendments were made to the bill through the work of that very important select committee. I will spend a little time, if I can, on those two recommendations, which have already been alluded to by some of the earlier speakers this afternoon. The first is the insertion of subsection (2) in section 6C, inserted by clause 6, which specifically excludes private sector organisations from being obliged to comply with a request from the Ombudsmen for information about an organisation’s internal procedures. The second amends section 15E(3), inserted by clause 8, to include a reference to section 30 of the Ombudsmen Act, which makes it an offence to refuse to provide the Ombudsmen with the information specified in that provision. This is a very important bill, which this Government is progressing. For that reason, the Government supports the second reading of the Protected Disclosures Amendment Bill.

• Bill read a second time.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : It is good to take a call and finish what I was beginning to say when we started talking about Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, a bill that stands for the great principle that crime should not pay. Part 2 achieves that purpose. Part 2 is the lion’s share of the bill, with over 220 clauses. It provides for restraining orders, civil forfeiture orders, and much more than that.

I note something in relation to the civil forfeiture orders, and it is really a large theme in this legislation before the Committee. I note that this provision takes us to a civil regime, which is a very significant and important change with this bill. Most of the time in criminal law, the standard of proof is one of being beyond reasonable doubt. This standard means that juries have to be sure. If they have any sort of reasonable doubt as to someone’s guilt, then that is the end of the matter. That may be OK—in fact, it is more than OK; it is absolutely right—when we are dealing with the liberty of a citizen, but it is not necessarily right when we are dealing with sums of many millions of dollars that are probably ill-gotten gains. Parliament has made a good value judgment in this bill in moving from the criminal standard of guilt being beyond reasonable doubt to the civil standard of guilt being more likely than not, or more probable than not. In my view, that is the right thing to do.

This is a significant change in the law. It makes all the difference, because there is now no need for the offender necessarily to have been caught; it is about the offence. The corollary of this is that we can get to people and to money in situations where the person involved did not necessarily get his or her hands dirty. We can get the assets, even though there may be a series of Chinese walls between the person and the money. It is quite a common situation in the criminal arena that people higher up the chain have their mules do the work. They have others—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Or their camels.

SIMON BRIDGES: —their camels, if we are going back to earlier in the day—do the work.

So there are two significant shifts here. There is a change in the standard of proof, down from the criminal standard to the civil standard, but there is also a change so that no longer do we need to have a person be caught in the act. We can get to the property even where, as is so often the case in gang-related activity, the people at the top have managed successfully to get away from the criminal behaviour—where they have managed to extract themselves and to have others who are lower down the chain do the work. That is often done through very nasty means or through coercion, and it may surprise some in this Chamber, including the Greens, to learn that those means can include torture. That happens in this country. I have been involved in cases where people have been forced by torture into doing illegal acts. This bill cuts through all that, as we have gone to a civil standard of proof.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I also rise to support the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. As we know, much of this bill was authored by the previous Labour Government. I think the member opposite has made some valid points. I was over in South Australia—and I believe the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, was there—recently. It has had similar legislation to this bill for some time.

Hon Simon Power: No, they haven’t had this one yet.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I am sorry; South Australia is getting it. The member who just spoke made an interesting point. He said that the tentacles, if you will, of crime can extend right through to secondary and tertiary parties. In this country we know that they often extend, with regard to gangs, to kids—to children. Children are often used, to use the previous speaker’s term, as mules: as people who can traffic drugs or act as couriers. Those young people are often used because a different standard of law applies to them if they are caught and put through the court system than applies to adults. The forfeiture regime within the bill allows the tentacles of the law to go right to secondary and tertiary parties in order to recover money and assets.

This bill, in Part 2 particularly, strikes at the heart of organised criminal activity. As members have already said, crime should not pay, but we know that some members of our society are uniquely placed, as criminals with devious criminal minds, to be able to hide assets and funds and to accrue income well beyond their means unless it has come directly from criminal activity. The bill deals with that problem. It gives the Crown the ability to move in and confiscate those assets and profits, if they have been obtained by criminal activity, on the basis of the civil standard of proof, as the previous speaker said. I think that will strike at the heart of some of the organised crime and gang activity that we see in this country.

I am not sure who it was, but I think a member of this House has said previously that if we do many of these measures, some people in our society will accuse us of driving gang activity underground. Well, I would argue that the real gang activity, the organised criminal activity, is always underground. The real activity is always the stuff that we do not see—the heavy-duty crime—and many organised criminal groups and gangs do not want the light to be shone upon them. They do not seek any profile, because they want to carry on very quietly and stealthily, in the criminal activities that they engage in, in order to amass substantial assets and dollars.

When we look at the provisions within Part 2, we see that they are common-sense, substantial provisions. There are a number of safeguards, and that is appropriate. In its report, the Law and Order Committee has argued that the police should be the recovery body, and that the definition of the owner of property should be extended to include those who might have, as the previous speaker, Simon Bridges, has said, an interest in that property. The easiest thing for criminals to do is to sign over all the assets—the boat, the Porsche, the flash cars, and all the shares—because some of these criminals are involved in quite substantial, so-called legitimate commercial activities, to their family members, trusts, or whatever, so that the criminal appears to be asset-less or penniless when the recovery body, in respect of the police, comes around to do its duty. As I say, these provisions give the ability to extend the tentacles of the law into secondary and tertiary parties.

I think the bill is a good, solid bill. It will have a very solid and practical effect. It does not deal with apparel, as we have done recently. I mean no disrespect to the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, but, although it is well intentioned, I do not think that bill will deal to and cut to the heart of gang activity. There is an old saying that we should follow the money, and I think that is right. We should follow the money and the assets when we really want to hurt, harass, and deal with the activities of gangs and organised criminals. Those criminals do not really mind what they wear, but they do mind when we take their cheque books out of their pockets, their wallets off them, and their boats and flash cars away, and when we do not allow them to make money or accrue those assets. That is at the heart of this bill, and that is what we support.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I follow the member who has just resumed his seat, Clayton Cosgrove, and I will make a couple of comments in response to his remarks. Of course, Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill contains some of the clauses that matter in this part of the legislation. The previous speaker is right in that I did spend some time in South Australia recently, looking at the gang legislation, but also meeting with academics and the local law society to get a broad view of that legislation. One of the things I learnt while I was there was that we are actually a bit ahead of the game on this particular work. Yes, other jurisdictions are looking at the complete outlawing of gangs by way of what could be described as the equivalent of domestic terrorism legislation. I suspect that that is the best way to term it. New Zealand is leading in some respects with this particular bill.

Exactly what we are doing here should not be underestimated. This bill flips the burden of proof in respect of the confiscation of assets, in quite a remarkable way. Rather than the prosecution having to meet a certain standard in order for forfeiture to occur, the burden is flipped to a civil standard to allow those assets—and in “assets” I include cash—to be seized. Of course, then the burden of proof that the assets were not gained from criminal activity is placed upon those seeking to recover the assets or cash that has been, up to that point, confiscated. Safeguards exist in the legislation for innocent third parties who might find themselves caught up in this regime. Those avenues give plenty of opportunities for matters to be rectified when a perceived injustice has occurred—for example, in regard to a spouse or partner of some criminal whose family home has been caught up in this regime, but without his or her knowledge of the criminal activity that was occurring.

We should neither underestimate the strength of what is proposed here, nor turn from the fact that both major political parties in the House have supported this legislation from the start, when it was introduced, right through until this point. That goes to show how seriously the Parliament takes this issue. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove is right in that to go to the heart of the power of these organisations is to take from them the assets and cash they derive from illegal activity. Therein lies the modern equivalent of the cry made by, I think, Norman Kirk, to “take the bikes from the gangs”. In fact, the modern equivalent of that cry is to “take the assets and the cash”.

The bill that appears in the Committee stage today had a fairly good working-over in the Law and Order Committee under the watchful eye of Martin Gallagher, who ensured that a fair and robust discussion was allowed to occur without implanting his own personal views on the proceedings of the committee. That was helpful, because I was not sure what they were. Part 2 contains a fair chunk of the operative clauses here. I will listen with interest to contributions from members, and I look forward to hearing their views on some of the clauses contained in this part.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, and to voice my support for it. As other members have acknowledged before me, this bill was originally, of course, a bill introduced by the previous Labour Government. I do not get the opportunity to do this very often, but on this occasion I will congratulate the National Government on showing some good judgment. I have heard other members speak about the principle behind this bill, which is that crime simply should not pay. I think everyone in this Chamber would agree with that very sound and precious principle.

The Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 allowed the Crown to confiscate profits made from a crime after someone was convicted, but we all know that those profits can be spread among many people, and not all of those people can be convicted. I might use organised crime as an example of that. This bill addresses that problem, and gives the Crown the power to confiscate the profits and assets obtained. It will allow us to tackle gang leaders who, although they do not get their own hands dirty, certainly enjoy the benefits of illegal activity. We think this bill strikes an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal and property rights. I also note that Australia, Ireland, and the UK have passed similar laws quite recently.

Two orders are established to deal with removing the profits of crime from a person. One is the forfeiture order, which deals with a person’s unlawful income. It also targets the property used to commit the crime. For example, if a farm is used to grow marijuana, then that property will be termed an “instrument of crime”. A recovery body is also established under the bill, and that will be part of the Organised and Financial Crime Agency. The New Zealand Police will still be responsible for the confiscation of instruments of crime, but the bill will help the two agencies to carry out their roles by giving them a broad suite of powers to search for, seize, and restrain the proceeds of crime. All in all, the bill is a very constructive one, which goes a long way towards addressing what was missing before it came into the House.

Like the previous speaker, the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, I would also like to acknowledge the Law and Order Committee, which undertook a robust—I think that was the Minister’s term—analysis of the bill, and also, under the very excellent guidance of its chair, Martin Gallagher, gave some very constructive suggestions, which were taken up. Certainly, maintaining that the Police should be the recovery body, defining the owner of the property, extending that definition to include those who may have an interest in the property, and defining the term “instrument of crime” are suggestions that show this was a very hard-working committee, as I am sure the Minister will agree.

Other recommendations from the committee include the clarification of the circumstances in which property was acquired after a restraining order was made, the clarification of the ability of third parties to have property separated from a restraining order, the deletion of the powers of the director of the recovery body to issue a notice requiring production of documents, and alignment with other legislation regarding immunity for people who disclose information on money laundering. I think that was a very important contribution that the select committee made. The committee also recommended that the Inland Revenue Department be permitted to provide the police with information for the purpose of civil recovery. I think there were other recommendations that covered asset forfeiture only, interests on a title of the Crown, and the duration of production orders being shortened to 30 days. The retention of documents for as long as is necessary only was a very common-sense suggestion, and I am sure the Minister will agree with me on that point. The disclosure in the application for the search warrant of any other applications made and the provision that tax advisors are protected with professional privilege were other recommendations of the select committee.

All in all, after what was already a good draft bill from the Labour Government, the committee amendments and suggestions and the common sense that has prevailed have gone a long way towards making this a very good bill that will really address justice and, as I said before, really reinforce the principle that we all hold dear, which is that crime should not pay. Thank you very much, Mr Chairperson.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. As speakers who have gone before me have pointed out, this bill is supported by Labour. I think it gives some contrast to the bills that we have previously debated in the House around the consequence of gangs in our communities. I also think it goes beyond some of the more tokenistic legislation that we have seen coming through this Chamber to date, so I am pleased to be debating this bill. I am also pleased that the—

Hon Simon Power: Tokenistic? It took me 3 years to draft it!

JACINDA ARDERN: I say to the Minister of Justice that I would not call this bill at all tokenistic. I also point out that we are pleased that there is some acknowledgment over the seriousness of the shift in onus, which the Minister has already spoken about, and which is probably the most substantial part of this bill.

We are debating Part 2 of the bill, which deals with the forfeiture regime. We have already heard about the primary aims of the bill, and that is the means by which we extend the confiscation of property used to facilitate or commission a crime beyond those solely convicted—and for good reason. The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has already talked about the comparisons that we can make with New South Wales and the legislation that has been used there. I would like to make some comparisons regarding the monetary difference that this legislation could make. In New Zealand in the past 12 years $14.3 million has been paid to the Crown through assets seized on the basis of criminal activity. In comparison, taking into account the different jurisdictions that we are dealing with, New South Wales has seized more than $100 million in the past 14 years. It is a comparable time period, and it shows a significant difference in the size of the criminal proceeds that have been recovered.

Our existing law at that time had been criticised as being too weak because of the requirement of proof that assets were acquired by the profits of crime, so the onus was primarily on the Crown in that regard. I reiterate that shifting the onus on to the criminal to prove that those assets were legally obtained is a significant shift and one that will make a marked difference to the way this legislation operates in our jurisdiction. In shifting the onus, it is still important to have a certain number of standards around such a procedure. We are talking about those who have not necessarily been convicted through the criminal courts, but we are still giving the Crown the ability to seize their assets. This bill does that very well, as the bill still requires a civil standard of proof.

The Law and Order Committee deliberated for some time on two additional protections that are in the bill, and I will dwell on a couple of those important features for a time. One is around the instruments of crime. The bill stipulates that these are liable for forfeiture only after criminal conviction. This is in order to reflect the reality of some of the seizures that we might see in a New Zealand context. For instance, it may be unknown to a farmer that marijuana is being grown on his or her property, and we have seen that in some parts of New Zealand where forestry is particularly thick. I am thinking of parts of the Bay of Plenty and around the Rotorua area; this might occur in some of those areas. I would love to hear the member from that area take a call on this issue, and, I am sure, applaud this bill also.

This bill is not intended to unduly punish those who have not been part of some kind of criminal activity, so there are protections in it to make sure that that does not occur within the New Zealand context. I think those are important tests.

The bill also looks at the issue of third parties. On both sides of the Chamber, we acknowledge that there is the potential for third parties to be unfairly brought into the seizure of criminal property when that may not be intended. They may have a stake in forfeited property but it is not known to them that this criminal activity has occurred. This bill, in the forfeiture regime provisions, gives the ability for the situations of dependants, banks, spouses, and innocent victims to be considered and for them to be able to make appeals to have their part of an asset excluded.

I will dwell very briefly on some parts of Part 2 that demonstrate well the gains that have been made through this bill. Clause 13 lays out that no identifiable owner is required for certain proceedings relating to specific property. This will give additional speed to the Crown when dealing with forfeiture, and it addresses a problem that was raised back in 2007—and highlighted, I think, by the media—that it can take decades and beyond to resolve the issue of, or to fully confiscate, land that is identified as being involved in criminal activity, due to the very lengthy process that has to be undertaken once land is seized. That is one mechanism that could move a little more swifty. Clause 16, “Quashing criminal proceedings does not impact on civil forfeiture”, demonstrates again the considerable shift from a criminal test; it allows civil standards to be used around our forfeiture regime. Also, clause 17 allows for multiple forfeiture orders. Clause 17(1) states that nothing restricts a court from making one or more forfeiture orders—one can cover assets, instrument forfeiture orders, and profit forfeiture orders, in combination. Again, it is particularly comprehensive.

In considering this bill, the select committee has done a very good job of ensuring that we have found the right balance between making sure the Crown is able to act where it is obvious that the profits and proceeds of crime are in abundance—they may not have been of direct benefit to a criminal, but they may have been moved around in a particular way—and applying a new standard, a civil standard, that also includes safety checks and measures for those who may indirectly be affected. I think we have come out with a very balanced bill. It achieves what it intends to achieve, and it ensures that no one benefits from crime in this country. I look forward to seeing the effective implementation of this bill.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I rise to take a call this afternoon on Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, and I comment, as other members have done, on how pleasing it is to be speaking in the Chamber on a bill that has such widespread support and such wide agreement on its necessity. There is recognition of the fact that our current law is simply not meeting the needs of our community, hence the need to get it done.

I also join with my colleagues on both sides of the Chamber in congratulating the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, the former Minister, the Hon Annette King, and the select committee that worked on the bill. As we have heard this afternoon already, there is currently a significant deficiency in the law we have around the recovery of the proceeds of criminal activity. We have heard that under current legislation we are not able to get right to the heart of the gang empire, which is, as has already been said, in gang members’ pockets. If we cannot start effectively to get them where it hurts, we will not make meaningful inroads into the problem.

We are looking at the moment at Part 2, which is obviously the most meaty part of the bill before us. It is made up of 10 subparts, and contains the real heart of the regime. It goes about setting up a new civil forfeiture regime, which I think will be a powerful enhancement in the crime-fighting arsenal we currently have, and which will certainly aid New Zealand’s police force in its ability to clamp down on gang activity. Let us remember at this point that gang activity is a serious concern to the people of New Zealand. Up and down this country it is one of the No. 1 issues being talked about, and I think that it is no coincidence that this bill has been so widely supported.

We have heard already, in relation to this bill, that the current Proceeds of Crime Act really helps us only in the simple crime situation where the guy who has pulled the trigger, for want of a better term, is the one who will profit from the crime. But the reality is that that is just not the way the business of complex crime-rings now works. And it is a business—that is what we need to recognise. It is a business, and to effectively deal with it as a business we have to stop the money flow. That is what this bill will do.

We need a more comprehensive system where those ill-gotten gains can be traced right through the criminal network, and the important point is that that goes beyond those directly involved in the commission of the offence. That means we have to have a system that does not require the physical, legal owner of the goods to have been convicted of a specific offence, and that is the key aspect of the change in this bill. Part 2 clarifies the civil aspects of the regime, and the property that can be restrained or forfeited, or first restrained and then forfeited. We know that restraining prevents property being sold, and moves it to the official assignee on the basis of there being reasonable grounds to believe that the property is tainted and that the person has unlawfully benefited from significant criminal activity. In general terms, restraint of that property would expire 1 year after the order was made or until a forfeiture order was granted or declined.

One of the points I want to make around forfeiture orders, in particular, is about their flexibility. The assets to be forfeited can be the specifically tainted assets that were involved in the crime, which is provided for under assets forfeiture orders, or—and this is particularly interesting—they can simply represent the value of a benefit a person has derived from significant criminal activity. This is an important hurdle to be able to overcome, because we no longer need to show that the Harley Davidson the gang member in question is riding is stolen; it is enough if that item represents the value that that gang member has acquired from criminal activity. That flexibility will go a long way to addressing those deficiencies in the current legislation that I have already spoken about.

If we did not bring into place that sort of change, it would be an insurmountable evidential hurdle. I suspect that that is why we have seen relatively few successful prosecutions under the Proceeds of Crime Act, we have certainly seen a decline in the numbers and value of proceeds that have been confiscated under that regime. That evidential hurdle is significantly reduced if prosecutions can go for either tainted property or property representing the value of the benefit.

Part 2 also deals with the difficult question of who the recovery bodies should be, as we have already heard talked about, and, following the particularly good work of the Law and Order Committee, which we have already made reference to, the bill now provides that the recovery body for this legislation should be the New Zealand Police. I think the consensus we have across the Committee is that that is the obvious and sensible place for that function to rest.

RAYMOND HUO (Labour) : As I said in my earlier speech on this bill, I support and like this bill. Originally authored by the then Minister, the Hon Annette King, it is based on the clear principle that crime must not pay. Labour believes that this legislation will help to uphold that principle. I like this bill because it is a bill that has real teeth. To tackle crime, particularly organised crime, we need bills of real substance, not window dressing. In my last speech on this bill, I cited the ACT Party’s “three strikes and you’re out” bill idea as one of the window-dressing bills. Mr John Boscawen felt, in his own words, honour-bound to stand up and respond to some of the comments I made. Fortunately, Mr Boscawen’s speech was brought to an end because it was not addressing the right bill—namely, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill—and he had ample time to respond to what the chairman believed was a passing comment made by me on the “three strikes and you’re out” bill. Unfortunately, Mr Boscawen did not respond to my comment that the “three strikes and you’re out” scheme was one that had a 20-year implementation period, and that it was internationally condemned as a failed model. Therefore, to tackle crime, particularly organised crime, we need measures that have real teeth.

The Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill consists of three parts. Of course, it is intended that at the end of this Committee stage, Subparts 1 and 2 of Part 3 will be divided from the rest of the bill to become two separate bills. Parts 1 and 2 will remain as the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, and on commencement will replace the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991. Currently, the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991 allows the Crown to confiscate the profit made from a crime, but only after someone is convicted of that crime. This bill deals with this problem, and instead of employing the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt”, the bill gives the Crown power to confiscate profits and assets obtained through criminal activity on the civil standard of proof on the balance of probability.

Subpart 3 of Part 2, which we are debating, establishes two orders to deal with the removal of the profits of crime from a person. One is the profit forfeiture order, which deals with the unlawful income of a person; the other is the assets forfeiture order, which targets property directly or indirectly gained from criminal activity, regardless of who the owner of that property is.

It is also worth noting that the report from the Law and Order Committee has recommended a number of changes. The key recommendations include that the New Zealand Police should be the recovering body, the definition of the owner of a property should be extended to include the words “who might have an interest”, the definition of instruments of crime should be amended to include the words “proceeds from the sale of a property”, and other aspects that I hope we will be able to address in detail at a later stage.

To conclude, this bill is a substantive measure that will go quite a way towards addressing, hitting head-on, and dealing with gang leaders and organised crimes. Labour believes that this bill finds an appropriate balance between targeting the proceeds of crime and protecting personal and property rights. Thank you.

PAUL QUINN (National) : Indeed it is a pleasure to be able to stand today with my colleagues from both sides of the Chamber to support the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, particularly when the Committee is speaking as one, rare though that is, on an issue of such importance as gang violence. We are addressing Part 2, which is the cornerstone of this bill because it gives effect to the intentions that this Parliament wants to drive in recovering the proceeds of crime.

In particular, I highlight clause 18, “Applying for restraining order”, which provides the power to a commissioner to apply for a restraining order to seize property, whether it has been directly acquired by an accomplice or by associates. Clauses 19 and 20 detail how that process will work. Clauses 24 and 25 talk a bit more about the way that those specific restraining orders are to be applied, and defines tainted property in terms of the property that is to be confiscated.

The reason that all of those specific requirements are needed is simply that there is no doubt we are dealing with organised crime in this process. Of course, although we are aware that we do not operate in the true style of the Mafia where organised crime had its own tradition, none the less it is present in many of our gangs. During my research in support of this bill, I was able to obtain information on a number of cases where in recent times the law enforcement agencies have been unable to, if you like, take from criminal gangs and their associates the proceeds that have been acquired during the course of carrying out crimes. The importance of that, of course, is that the fact that they might do time in jail is really of little consequence to them. It is more of a badge of honour. What really does hurt them is when their nest egg is taken away. That, of course, is the intention of this bill. It provides the power for the authorities to do so, which we should fully support.

The next point I want to highlight, which is equally as important as that, is that in exercising such powers it is incumbent on the authorities to do so responsibly. Those accountabilities, if you will, are set out in clause 28, and I think it gives a very thorough description of the process so that we do not have unbridled power in the exercise of those authorities. The recent gang killings at airports in Australia are an example of what is being driven by the drug trade. There is no question that throughout organised crime, and particularly in the gangs, high levels of money and assets are involved. I heard it described on Television One last night as a house that is full of money. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise in support of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, and I am speaking to Part 2. I note a number of issues that were raised in debates when this matter was previously before the House that drew some concern from people, particularly from the Māori Party, who were concerned about parcels of land or assets that were held as joint property or where a number of people had an interest in that property. It is important to note that there are a number of protections within the legislation that provide for that interest, and for the protection of that interest. For instance, where the matter is brought before the court and in proceedings before the court, whether it is on the initial application or whether it is for an extension of an application for an order, anybody with an interest in the land or in the property has an ability to be heard in that respect.

That is important, obviously, from an interest of justice point of view, because it could well be that where there is an interest in a particular property by a large number of people, there needs to be the ability to protect that interest not only for the people who are aware of it but for those who will come later and will take over that interest further down the track.

It is interesting to note, too, that where a search order has been made in respect of any item of property, the person who is holding the property or facilitating the execution of the order is not to disclose the existence of the order or the execution of the order to certain people. Those people may well have had a duty to disclose in any other circumstances, under any other legislation, or under another provision. Of course, the reason for that, obviously, is to protect the integrity of the investigation or the examination that is being carried out, to make sure, for instance, that the property is not dealt with in some way that would prevent the public interest in being able to restrict the use of that property or to prevent the disposal of that property.

I turn to Subpart 9, which looks at offences, including clause 156, “Contravention of restraining orders or foreign restraining orders”, clause 157, “Contravention of forfeiture orders or foreign forfeiture orders”, and clause 158, “Failing to comply with orders and search warrants”. It is those particular clauses that protect the integrity of that investigation and prevent those parties who are the respondents in these actions from being able to dispose of that property. It is an offence to disclose the existence or operation of a search order not just when it has been actioned—for instance, if it is to do with proceeds of a crime being held in a bank account or a security box within a bank’s premises—and not just when it has been executed but also as soon as a person becomes aware of it. Then, of course, it is an offence to obstruct in any way the execution of such an order. That is important, too, because when one is executing a search warrant the ability of one person or another to hinder the execution of that order or warrant has the ability to affect the evidence that can be brought before the court at a later date.

Clause 163 makes the point that compliance with the order is not actionable. So it could be, for instance, that if an order were being executed on a legal firm, then clients who would normally expect their lawyer to operate with a duty to them to not disclose information may try to take some action against their legal counsel—the person whom the clients would expect to act in their best interests—to prevent disclosure of what remains on their file, or within the confines of the law firm, from being disclosed to those who might come and look for it. So it prevents an action against people such as solicitors, accountants, bank managers, and so on.

Clause 164 provides an indemnity for enforcement officers who are acting out and executing the order as required by the documents. Once those documents are signed before the court, the enforcement officers’ actions are protected from contest on behalf of the respondent.

It is legislation that works very hard to protect those members of the public who are the victims of crime. Obviously, if there are organisations or individuals who work towards gaining property and profit at the expense of others, we need to do all we can to prevent them from moving down that track and creating more victims. In the past a much higher standard of proof has been required, and these particular actions could be taken only when someone had been before the court and convicted of an offence.

Part 2 allows for an explanation of how the whole bill will work, once it is enacted. It provides for a reverse onus of proof in cases where some significant piece of property is found—whether it be land, motorbikes, vehicles, houses, or homes, as we have heard before—in circumstances where there does not appear to be any explanation to show that the property items were gained legitimately. There is a reverse onus on the respondent to prove that it was gained legitimately, and then only to a standard of the balance of probabilities. And with the balance of probabilities being less than within the criminal jurisdiction, a heavy weight is put upon those people who, most of us would say, have been getting away with it for years.

We all know of such people within our communities. We have all looked around the neighbourhood and seen someone who is driving a new car, or riding up and down the street on a brand-new motorbike, or towing a big boat behind a big four-wheel drive. We have then wondered how that person on the dole is able to afford that late model Toyota Land Cruiser with the $30,000 boat being towed behind it. We all know that it is the fruit of ill-gotten gains. We want to live in a society where those people are held to account. It is not so much a matter of Big Brother watching over our shoulders, but of it being a protection for those of us who work hard to earn a living, support our families, and pay our taxes.

I am pleased to be part of an administration and a Parliament—because this bill has received wide support right across the House—where these people will be brought before a court and held to account if there is no clear explanation as to how they obtained that property. I am pleased to stand in support of this bill, and I encourage the whole of the House to continue in their support for it.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : I want to summarise what I last spoke about on Part 2, and in general on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. Firstly, it seems to me that we have a consensus that the purpose of this bill is that crime should not pay. We want to make sure that it does not pay. The issue is whether, in implementing the purpose in Part 2, we will achieve that. There is an interesting dichotomy between the purpose and the implementation, and whether we will achieve our goals or intent in this bill. Having read it, I would say to the Committee that we are achieving them. We will be able to implement the purpose very successfully. Secondly, I say the other notable thing this bill shows is that the House is able to come together on important, significant issues, gain agreement, and act in a bipartisan manner. I think that Governments should not be afraid, or ashamed, of picking up bills drafted by previous Governments when they have merit, examining them on their merits, and taking them from there. This Government is doing that. I think that is something to be proud of, and it is good to see that the Opposition—the previous Government—is sticking with the position it had when it was in Government. That is a very good thing. We have agreement about the purpose, and we have bipartisanship being shown on this bill.

I have talked already about Part 2, and about the fact that there are a couple of important changes. Firstly, we are moving from the criminal standard of proof to a civil standard. That is a substantial change and a good one, given that we are not dealing with the liberty of our citizens in this bill. We are dealing with large amounts of money on the basis of the balance of probabilities, and that is right. We have made the right value judgment on that issue as a country—as a nation—in this Parliament. It is proper that such a change is decided on by Parliament and not by the courts. We have done that. Secondly, we have got away from the need for there to be an offence committed by a particular offender, and we are dealing with the property. I think that that is exactly right as well, given that, as the Hon Clayton Cosgrove said, we can have situations where things can be many parts removed from the offender. So we have done the right thing there also.

I want to talk about Subpart 3 of Part 2, which deals with civil forfeiture orders. Clause 43 tells us that those orders may be applied for by the Commissioner of Police rather than the Director of the Serious Fraud Office. There are in fact some important safeguards in Subpart 3 that, I think, really put to rest any concerns that civil libertarians—whom I have a great deal of time for; they play an important role in relation to criminal legislation—may have about this bill. Firstly, civil forfeiture orders can be applied for only in the High Court. I think that is significant. These applications will not be coming before the District Court on a busy list on a Monday morning, when a District Court judge may have 25 drink-driving cases and many other cases to deal with. Applications will be dealt with on their merits in the High Court by our High Court judges, who are, essentially, the best lawyers in the country. That is a significant safeguard. It means that applications will be heard by judges who are alive to the justice of the case, who will give it detailed consideration, and who are aware of the nuances of the facts before them. That is pretty important.

Clause 45, “Application for civil forfeiture order on notice”, also provides a significant safeguard, given, as I have already said, that we have decoupled this measure from the offender. There is not a need for an offender to be included. Clause 45(1) states: “The Commissioner must serve a copy of an application . . . on every person who, to the knowledge of the Commissioner, has an interest in the property”. So it is not as though there will be difficulties with regard to people being unable to get before a High Court judge and have their say about this property. The spouses, the affiliates, the whānau, or the neighbours who say they have an interest in the property will be able to come along, and they must be served with notice of an application for an order. That is far from a ramshackle situation.

PAUL QUINN (National) : It is good to be able to stand again to speak to the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, given that a little earlier so many people wanted to speak in support of it I had to stand down. I want to talk in particular this time about quite a significant change made by the Law and Order Committee to a provision that was in the original bill when it was introduced to the House, which, so far in my intensive listening, I have heard no one mention—and in particular, no one from the Opposition. It is the move now to make the authority in respect of pursuing these cases the Commissioner of Police.

When the original bill was first tabled, there was a proposal that the Serious Fraud Office take responsibility for the oversight and management of this legislation. That is, of course, addressed in Part 2. I must say it is pleasing to see that the select committee came to its senses and overrode the intentions of the previous Government to have the Serious Fraud Office oversee the enforcement of the measures in this bill, particularly given that the previous Government was working to disband the Serious Fraud Office, either by way of ensuring a lack of resourcing for it or, as we subsequently found out, by doing a deal with its then coalition partner. The Labour Government was not only, in fact, preparing to disband it but also failing to even provide it with sufficient resources. There was some suggestion that it would get $3 million.

The fact of the matter is that the people who are being pursued here are hardened criminals. They will stop at nothing to protect their property—in particular, they will do so in very violent ways. So it really is sensible that at the select committee the enforcing authority in respect of this legislation was shifted from being the Serious Fraud Office to being the Commissioner of Police. One can imagine the situation, as was talked about last night on TV, of arriving at a house full of money. One can imagine the machine-guns, shotguns, or any other source of armoury that the gangs would use to protect their ill-gotten gains. So it is only sensible that our law enforcement division, being the New Zealand Police—and in this case probably the armed offenders squad—be given responsibility for entering into these very dangerous situations.

I want to commend the select committee for recognising the deficiency in the original bill, removing the Serious Fraud Office as the empowering body, and turning that role over to the Police—in particular, to the Commissioner of Police. That now means that in enforcing any power that is used in respect of the provisions of this legislation, we can provide appropriate levels of resourcing to address any situation, particularly when it is dangerous, and we can take great comfort from the fact that the commissioner will be the one who oversees that enforcement.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I rise to take another call on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, because this part really is the teeth of the legislation and it contains a number of important points that are worth commenting on further. Before I speak on Subpart 2, I will endorse the comments just made by my colleague Paul Quinn. He made the point, absolutely correctly, that it is sensible that the New Zealand Police is the enforcement body that will be looking after this matter. It is the organisation that has the detailed knowledge of criminal activity in this country. It has the best knowledge and understanding of our criminal organisations. Certainly it makes sense that the police can use that knowledge across the board, not only in their crime-fighting and law enforcement objectives but also in extending that out to the recovery of the proceeds of crime. So I do endorse what Mr Quinn has said in that regard.

However, what I want to talk about primarily in this call is Subpart 2 of Part 2, which, in complement with what my colleague Mr Bridges was talking about in relation to forfeiture orders, is the part that deals primarily with restraining orders. This is often where the rubber meets the road in these recovery claims and I think it is worth spending just a few moments on it.

We see in Subpart 2 the core constraints in relation to applying for restraining orders. We know that not only can the Commissioner of Police apply for restraining orders for specific tainted property but also the prosecutor can do so in respect of a prosecution for an offence that has been committed. That gives us two key aspects, and in clause 19 we go through what the order has to set out.

Clause 22 is titled “Application for restraining order without notice”, and anyone who has been around the legal system will understand the importance of being able to bring these sorts of applications without notice. To put it quite simply, often we are not playing by Queensberry Rules in these situations. If we give gangs notice that their Harleys will be seized a week from Tuesday, my bet is that they will not be there to seize. So it is really important to highlight that provision. These are not people who play by the rules. We have to give the good guys every tool we can to help make these provisions effective, and that is what we are talking about here. We are taking policy that we all agree with and giving it more teeth to make it more effective. Clause 22 is a very, very important aspect of the proposal.

Clause 24 lets us know that the court can award that restraining order if it is satisfied there are reasonable grounds—and that is the civil standard of proof coming in there—that the property is tainted. With all of this, and the debate that has gone on in the Committee today, people who are listening to the debate may start to wonder whether law enforcement is given just too much width. Yes, we need to crack down on gangs and crime, but the bill also gives considerable weight and, I think, proper consideration, to the checks and balances that need to be put on this sort of order being made. I am very pleased to see in Subpart 2 that a number of the provisions include those sorts of checks and balances. Certainly, if I go back to the issuing of the order without notice, there are all the usual provisions one would expect to see around that sort of order in terms of timing, notification, ensuring that the application is suitable, and the like.

We know that when the restraining order is being made, the court has the ability to consider a number of factors, not least amongst them the reasonable living costs of the respondent and his or her dependants, reasonable business expenses, the payment of specified debts, and the like. So the court does seek to strike a balance, when making the restraining order, with the fair and reasonable circumstances of not only the respondent but also his or her dependants, in debt situations. We do not want to be creating more hardship and more problems for ourselves. So that check and balance is there and it allows the court to give due weight to those factors.

Another check and balance in this Part is in clause 29, which provides the court with the power to require undertakings for damages or costs. Again, that is a very significant legal mechanism by which the bodies that are charged with applying these rules are made to be very careful that they do not overstep the bounds. If they get it wrong, there can be considerable cost. That sort of check and balance is an important mechanism to make sure that these powers are not used inappropriately.

One of the other points I wanted to talk about is the rights of co-owners of property that might be affected by restraining orders, and in particular clause 30 of the bill.

Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) : I move, That the question be now put.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I will take another call or two.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : I thank my friend and colleague on the other side of the Chamber for giving me the opportunity to speak so early in this debate. I recognise the work that the Law and Order Committee has previously done on this issue. As I was looking through the notes just a moment ago I noticed that of the members of the select committee who worked so hard on this issue, some are currently in this Chamber, but, unfortunately, some are no longer with us today. I recognise a former chair of the select committee, Ron Mark. When it comes to Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, which is quite a weighty part, if Ron Mark—a man who spoke very strongly on law and order issues in this House and outside of it—was in favour of this, then that means some good work was done in that select committee.

I also say that it is good to see that this bill has been given priority, and I congratulate the Government and the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, on taking the issue of gangs seriously and on taking the issue of crime seriously. I say to this Committee that anything that we can do as humble representatives of the people of New Zealand and our electorates to be serious about gangs and get on top of crime so constituents in our electorates and all the people who live in New Zealand will be safer is worthy of our consideration tonight.

It is time we clamped down on gangs in this country, and time that they hear a message loud and clear from this Parliament that they serve no good purpose in New Zealand or for New Zealand society and that we will not condone them or their criminal practices. This bill goes a long way to starting the process of getting on top of crime and gangs in New Zealand. Some communities in my electorate of Rotorua are afflicted by the poison that gangs spread. The gangs act criminally and they trumpet their gains from crime. If their possessions are gained through illegal activity, as the bill refers to and as Part 2 deals with, then they deserve to have them taken from them, and they deserve to be imprisoned. I think there is no disagreement in this Committee about what should happen to goods gained illegally.

In certain circumstances the bill will alter the burden of proof, and do so quite substantially. If we are to take the confiscation or recovery of the proceeds of crime seriously, we must, as a Committee, balance the possible loss of the rights of some in New Zealand against the rights of the majority of law-abiding New Zealanders who have nothing to do with crime and who have nothing to do with gangs, and make sure that gangs cannot profit from their crimes.

The bill seeks to reform the existing criminal proceeds recovery regime, and Part 2 is an important part of this. My colleague Paul Quinn spoke earlier about the role of the New Zealand Police, and I think the Committee has rightly seen that the police are in a very good place to implement parts of this draft legislation. Criminals care about their possessions, and they seem to care even more about possessions that have been gained through illegal activity. In my electorate there is a small town of great people, called Murupara. People have come together and stood up and said that gangs are not acceptable to them, that crime is not acceptable, that they want a better future for themselves in their small town, and that they want a better future for their children in their small town.

As I cast my mind back to last year, I recall that a certain gang in New Zealand—I will not mention them, because I do not want to give them any more publicity than they deserve; indeed, they deserve none at all—decided to call a meeting. Gang members from all over the country came to Murupara to do whatever it is they do on their weekends away. The police in Rotorua were superb in the way that they dealt with this issue, at what could have been quite a difficult and dangerous time for the people of Murupara. They showed a presence; they took it seriously. When I was able to meet and talk with them and ask them why they were so successful at making sure Murupara was not damaged and that the great community was not harmed by these people, whose intent was illegal, they told me that in showing a presence they set up roadblocks and they went out and stopped the various bikes to see who was there and find out what they were doing.

It surprises me that the police said that some of these bikes, which would have been gained through illegal activity and the proceeds gained from illegal conduct, are so important to these big, burly gang members that they left their bikes at home. They got in minivans and asked their partners and wives to drive them to the meeting so that they would not lose those possessions.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I call Todd McClay.

TODD McCLAY: Thank you. I had not quite finished talking about the great work of the police in Rotorua and Murupara.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I remind the member that this speech should be a little more about the bill and less about his personal reflections.

TODD McCLAY: In fact, Part 2 refers directly to the role that the New Zealand Police has. I want to give an example of why it is important that the Committee has recognised that the police should play a role here. To finish what I briefly started, I say that the example from Murupara suggests to me that the police can get out and stop gang members from riding their illegally gained motorbikes into a town or a small community. This bill will help them to do this when it passes into law. The police know greatly what they are doing—and they should do.

Paul Quinn also said that criminals will stop at nothing to protect their gains and the gains from crime, and that they will be violent in doing so and will wreak havoc upon society. I accept the intelligent and sage words of my colleague Paul Quinn. I am glad that I have had the opportunity to hear him speak on Part 2 this afternoon, because this is a serious issue for New Zealand. When we come to Part 2 we see that it does a number of things. As I look at the overview—the great work of the select committee—I see it states that Part 1 and Part 2 will “provide for the restraint and forfeiture of property derived as a result of significant criminal activity without the need for a conviction;”.

Simon Bridges: Define “significant”.

TODD McCLAY: Well, “significant” is obvious to those people out there in New Zealand who have suffered at the hands of these criminals. We need to get serious about this issue; we need to not allow criminals to hide behind the current law and to use the law to keep their property. I think Part 1 and Part 2 will go a long way towards this. The overview also states that Part 2 “deals with general matters relating to the criminal proceeds and instruments forfeiture regime;” which is important; it “deals with the restraint of property that may later become the subject of a forfeiture order;”, which is also important; and “it deals with civil forfeiture orders (which are assets forfeiture orders and profit forfeiture orders);”. I am glad that my colleague Simon Bridges spoke at great length on this issue earlier in the evening, particularly on Part 2.

Simon Bridges: He makes it sound like it was boring.

TODD McCLAY: It was an entertaining speech from my colleague from Tauranga; I can see why the people of Tauranga like him so much.

Part 2 deals with civil forfeiture orders, as I have said. Also, it “deals with certain procedural matters associated with conviction-based instrument forfeiture orders;” and “sets out the powers of the Official Assignee;”, and “subpart 6 of Part 2 sets out the powers of the police;”. I think everybody in this Chamber supports the role of the police, and I am glad that the Committee is able to decide that this is an appropriate place for the power to implement the bill. Part 2 “provides for investigative powers for various agencies;”—well, if we do not know what these gangs and criminals are doing and where they are hiding their assets, then how can we find them to take them from them? Part 2 also “deals with foreign restraining orders and foreign forfeiture orders;”.

Simon Bridges: What’s a restraining order?

TODD McCLAY: A restraining order is an order whereby we restrain something, in the simple terms of the law. Finally, it sets out the consequential amendments to the bill. I would like to refer to other parts, but I say to members opposite that yawning, in itself, will not help the people of New Zealand, yawning will not help us move Part 2 forward, and yawning in relation to this bill is part of the reason that members opposite are on that side of the Chamber and not on this side. I happily offer my support for the bill.

Hon Annette King: It happens to be our bill, actually.

TODD McCLAY: I again congratulate the select committee on its good work. I recognise that the bill was put up by the previous Government, but how many years did the bill sit on the Order Paper? It is serious legislation—Part 2 in particular—and the previous Government trumpeted it election after election, but the bill just sat there. Although Part 2 will do the most to implement this law and make New Zealanders safer by getting rid of gangs, the bill languished on the Order Paper for far too many years. I congratulate the Government and the Minister on deciding that the bill must be a priority. I very happily give my support.

Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) : I move, That the question be now put.

Paul Quinn: Mr Chairman—

Hon Annette King: This is absolute repetition.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): No, I think the speakers so far have been doing all right. I call the honourable Paul Quinn and I hope that he speaks directly to Part 2 with a luminous address.

PAUL QUINN (National) : I indeed intend to talk specifically to Part 2, because previously I had—unfortunately—been unable to finish what I was focusing on, due to running out of time. I turn the Committee’s attention to Subpart 6, “Role of police”, in Part 2 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. This issue is what I was addressing a little earlier, and I want to highlight the specific fact that it is in Part 2.

I note the common sense that obviously came out of the Law and Order Committee’s consideration in respect of the redrafting of those powers of the police. There is a large amount of redlining in many parts of Subpart 6. I compliment the members of the select committee, particularly the National members, who obviously managed to bring some sense to the issue of the actual authorities that would enforce this legislation, because the previous Government was responsible for first bringing the bill to the House. But during the select committee deliberation, members were able to highlight the fact that the New Zealand Police is the proper authority to deal with this matter, and Subpart 6 spells out quite specifically what can be done. The police can move rapidly to obtain orders and to go to the High Court, because time is of the essence in those sorts of things. The select committee members, particularly the National members—hard-working, loyal members—should be congratulated on driving the change necessary for the Police to be the appropriate authority to deal with this. I congratulate those hard-working, loyal members on bringing sense to the deliberation of the select committee. Thank you.

• The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Simon Power to the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 7 in his name to new clause 154 be agreed to:

to omit “section 149A(3)(a), (b), or (c)” and substitute “section 149A(2)(a), (b), or (c)”.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I will take just a brief call in respect of clauses 1 and 2. Members would have noticed, no doubt, as they read through the detail of clause 2, that the legislation will come into force on a date that is 8 months after the day on which it receives the Royal assent. I am advised that a substantial transition period such as this is designed to allow regulations to be developed to deal with one or two particular matters. One is the necessary forms and the usual kind of stuff that goes with these types of transitional provisions and periods. The second is the official assignee’s gearing up for the necessary orders of profit forfeiture, and the like, to be fully developed and put in place by the necessary institutions. Although 8 months is not an ideal period of time, it is the length of time that the select committee—I was not there for this particular issue—was no doubt advised these things take.

I take this opportunity to thank all members of the Committee of the whole House for their support of this legislation. It is something that we think, as no doubt the previous Government thought, will make a difference.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I rise to take a call on the title and commencement clauses of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. This is a good title in that it is clear and describes exactly what the bill sets out to do. It is really what we have been talking about this afternoon: the ability of the law of this land to effectively get at and recover the proceeds of crime. But within that—and I will make the point again, because it is central—we need to look at exactly what the proceeds of crime encompass, and at what we are seeking to recover by amending the legislation. We have heard it said before, by members from both sides of the Chamber, that the law we have at present, although seeking to achieve broadly the same fundamental and philosophical aims, simply does not have the teeth to truly get in and recover those proceeds of crime. Here we have a bill that began, as we have heard, under the previous Labour Government—and I commend it for that—but we, as a National-led Government, are now prioritising it through to its completion in this House.

The nature of the proceeds that this bill aims to bring within its ambit is considerably widened, and this is really the key point of the debate this afternoon. It is not just the proceeds of crime, it is not the money someone stole from the bank or the methamphetamine that is ripped off from the chemist, but the wealth that those criminal offences bring to the criminal element that organises that sort of offending. We have to be a lot more creative as law drafters and lawmakers to set up a system of recovery that can look much more holistically at where the money is in crime, how it gets there, and how we can get it back.

The title of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill is clear and descriptive as to what exactly the legislation will do. It will do that, because it will put teeth into the existing philosophy and will ensure that the proceeds of crime in New Zealand can be far more effectively recovered and far more effectively removed from the entities that are benefiting from crime. Importantly, we are not limiting ourselves to the tainted property specifically; the recovery of any benefit or even goods of an equivalent value that can be removed certainly will achieve those same aims of the bill, because we are seeking to ensure that crime does not pay. That is why we have heard this afternoon in the debate that the bill goes on to target any fruits of a tainted tree. It is a clear maxim of law that fruits of a tainted tree are as tainted as the tree itself. That is why we know that we cannot have good title to goods that have come down through a tainted process.

We have talked before in the debate about the important safeguards in place to ensure those powers are not misused and misapplied. I think that we can have confidence that the drafters of this legislation have worked very hard to put in place appropriate safeguards to make sure that, although we are increasing significantly the powers of the New Zealand Police to punish gangs and the criminal element through hitting at their asset base, we are doing so in a way that enables our very talented and highly respected judiciary to ensure that the powers are not used inappropriately.

I just comment also in respect of this title clause that the mere passing of legislation called the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill sends a message, which is an important part of the work we do in this House. It sends a message that this Parliament—and I say “Parliament” because of the cross-party support that this bill has enjoyed—will not tolerate gangs, criminal organisations, organised crime, or anyone else who seeks to make money from breaking the law. We will not tolerate that sort of behaviour and allow those organisations to thrive.

To be able to stand up in each of our electorates in all parts of this country and say to New Zealanders that this Parliament has passed the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill is a thing to be proud of. It makes a very clear statement about what we, as a Government, as a Parliament, and as members in this House are prepared to accept and about the standard that we demand. Where we see clear evidence that the law is not achieving the ends that this House had for it, then it is certainly incumbent upon all of us to take steps to address that situation. This bill certainly does that. I wish to commend, once more, the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, for bringing the bill before the House.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I am pleased to take a call on this particular part of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, and to reflect on the work of the Law and Order Committee as it was when we processed this legislation through the select committee, under the wise stewardship of Martin Gallagher, the chair, and then later Ron Mark. A number of select committee members had very full interaction with submitters coming before the committee, and amongst themselves, to try to get this right.

It was interesting to note that early on in the piece it appeared that the then Government was quite strongly in favour of the Serious Fraud Office being the recovery body for this bill; then later on it seemed to change its mind. The bill was obviously targeted at organised crime, and particularly at gangs, and the view of the National members early in the piece was that the New Zealand Police should be the recovery body because it was the police who had an understanding of how gangs worked—essentially of who was who in the zoo—when it came to organised crime throughout New Zealand. In actual fact the Serious Fraud Office, as it was then, did not have the institutional knowledge, in the view of the National members, to be able to fully implement and enforce the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill as it was drafted.

We are pleased to note that part-way through that process there seemed to be a bit of a change of heart on the part of the then Government. That was slightly embarrassing to the Labour members of the committee, because they were not aware that Mr Goff had had a bit of a change of mind and that was where the bill was going. There was a bit of a lack of transparency as to why there seemed to be that reluctance, but we got there in the end.

It is sad to note that some parties in the Committee are not in support of the bill, and it is a long time since I have heard a call from the Māori Party or the Green Party articulating clearly the reasons why those members are not in favour of it. I recall that the last time we were in Committee on this bill, the Māori Party had a number of concerns around people with interests in multiple-owned property, particularly land, and around what effects, for instance, a restraining order or a seizure affecting one person with an interest in the land would have on the other parties with interests in the land. I know of a number of instances of cases where pockets of land have been used by certain members of a family or an interested group to grow cannabis or to store stolen property. If that land was then seized or restrained in some way, it would deprive those people with an extended interest in the land from exercising that interest. Anyone would recognise that that situation is unfair, particularly if those people had no knowledge of what was actually going on on the site—and the vast majority of those people would have had no such knowledge.

But within Part 2, which we have just been discussing, we have tried to explain the terms of the sections that allow for people to come and give evidence, to elicit and adduce evidence, and to make applications before the court. This recognises that they will have the opportunity to speak to the court, and to take action against the removal or the restraint of the land or property if they had no knowledge of what had been going on there. Where, for instance, 20 or 50 members of a group might have an interest in the land but the criminal activity that had been going on, on that land, related to only one or two of them, I cannot see a situation where a reasonable application would be made that that land should be taken by the Crown, and that the property rights of the other interested parties should be removed.

I understand, then, why the Māori Party has had those reservations about the legislation in the past, but I fail to see why those reservations are maintained in the light of the ramifications of the provisions within Part 2. I have also yet to hear from the Green Party as to why it is opposed.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : Kia ora. I am happy to take a call on this matter. The first thing I will make a point of is that the title of this bill, the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, is an absolute misnomer. It is totally deceptive. This bill does not deal with just recovering the proceeds of crime; it also deals with the forfeiture of tainted land—that is, land that may have been used to grow crops that could be used to produce drugs, for example. I reiterate that the land might have been used for those purposes, because the bill deals with issues where there is suspected crime, not just where crime has been proved. The bill relates to land where there is a suspicion that crime has been occurring.

With regard to the matter that was dealt with by Mr Borrows—that procedures are in place for owners of Māori land to able to speak to this matter—I have a concern about that. In order for those people to be able to make an application to the court so that the land they have an interest in is not forfeited in this way, they have to be aware that the matter is coming before the court. When the Crown makes its application to the court, will it send out notices to all owners of Māori land so that they can come along and make this application? There is a real problem here, because, as owners of Māori land, we do not know what is going on on our land because we are not living there. I have made this point before. We are not always aware of what is happening on our land. We are not always aware that the police have arrested one of our whanaunga members and that that person will be coming to court, and that he or she is also an owner of land in this block.

There are real problems with this bill and they have not been dealt with. Those are the reasons why the Māori Party is opposed to this bill. Those problems have not been adequately dealt with. Although it is good news that this issue will be dealt with at the High Court level rather than the District Court level, there is already a precedent at the District Court level where Māori land has been taken by the Crown. It has been ordered to be forfeited by the court and given to the Crown, and it will continue to happen. This is of concern for us. Kia ora.

PAUL QUINN (National) : I rise in support of the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill. I note that the Labour Opposition has been somewhat disappointing. Those members have been complaining about this Government dragging this out, yet the same members become vitriolic when we do not debate bills. When we give them the opportunity to debate bills, they sit there and look dumbfounded about what they are supposed to be doing. The reason I make that comment is that this is a very important bill.

Hon Members: Our bill!

PAUL QUINN: Those members are claiming victory and saying that it is their bill. This bill was introduced on 13 March 2007. We are now over 2 years down the track—2 years. What have you been doing for the last 2 years? That is what I say to you. You claim this is your bill, and for 2 years you have done nothing. It is only because this National Government has come along that this bill is being progressed. National has acted to make our streets safe. This bill is part of a suite of actions we have taken to bring safety to our streets and to address the issues around crime, while those members on the Opposition benches have done nothing. The bill went to the Law and Order Committee, where, through the wise counsel of the National members on that select committee, it was enhanced.

Having said that, I do not want to focus on the negative of the Labour members’ inaction; I want to focus on the positives contained in this bill. Firstly, in addressing the title component of this bill, we should focus on what the objectives are. They are to confiscate property from persons who have engaged in, or who have profited from, significant criminal activity, to reduce the rewards from crime for individuals, and to reduce the attraction of crime to potential offenders. The bill is all about hitting criminals where it hurts and getting into their piggy banks so that when they come out of jail, after they have served their time, there will be no nest egg left. The current legislation, the Proceeds of Crime Act 1991, is not working, so it is necessary to repeal it. This Government is acting to achieve that. Instead of sitting on this legislation, we are bringing it into place.

I want to contrast the activity and leadership shown by the Minister of Justice in pursuing this suite of activities with the previous Government’s inactivity. For instance, during the 2005 election, the previous Government promised to “hit gangs where it hurts” by removing the proceeds of crime.

Hon Member: What happened?

PAUL QUINN: It took the previous Government 2 years to introduce a bill, and still it did not get that bill through.

Shane Ardern: It sat on the Order Paper for 18 months.

PAUL QUINN: There we are; there was total inactivity. We have come along and placed this bill before the House because we attach much importance to it.

It is the gangs that we are hitting in this process. They are the modern-day mafia.

Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I understood that we were talking about the commencement aspect of this bill. It is a very small area of debate and it is not wide ranging. In fact, the Government has been filibustering and it has taken 14 speeches. I think it would be really great if, when speaking on our bill that the Government supports, Government members could stick to just the commencement aspect of this bill.

Hon Simon Power: Of course, the Opposition whip will know that when discussing clauses 1 and 2 in the Committee stage, the debate is wide ranging and offers members the opportunity to sum up their arguments as they put them in other parts.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): I draw members’ attention to the review of the Standing Orders in December 2003. This is an unusual thing to do. I refer members to page 63, where the Standing Orders Committee, which the House endorsed, said: “However, we consider that, when debating the preliminary clauses at the end, members should have some latitude to summarise, and make concluding remarks about, the issues they have raised during the committee’s consideration of the bill.” So the member has some latitude to raise wider issues.

I just advise the member that, from time to time, he tends to use the word “you”. He talks about “you” doing this and “you” doing that. I do not do any of those things, nor do I want to. It is a difficult convention to debate in the third person. I invite the member to continue and to take on board the comments that he is entitled to summarise, but I advise that he should still speak on the bill.

PAUL QUINN: Thank you for your guidance, Mr Chairperson, and I deeply apologise for dragging you into the discussion. In fact, it is a discussion that the National members seem to be having amongst themselves, because there is a lack of engagement from the Opposition benches in respect of the very serious and important bill that we are discussing.

As I was saying, in terms of the organised crime that affects New Zealand, we are talking about gangs and they are our modern-day equivalent of the mafia. The gangs are wide ranging. We talk about Black Power, the Mongrel Mob, Highway 61, the Killer Bees, and the Tribesmen. They are endless, and we can review the literature.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I was not going to take a call on this, but I was up in my office listening to the rant from Mr Quinn. When I left the Chamber, the Minister in the chair, the Hon Simon Power, had just made an intervention. I thought it was a very good intervention, of a very positive nature, around the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Bill, given that the previous Labour Government had authored the bill and the current Government is picking it up.

But I must say that Mr Quinn is doing his usual. I will enlighten him about why members on this side of the Chamber are not taking multiple calls: firstly, we wrote most of the bill; secondly, we support it; and, thirdly, the Government wants it passed. I am sure the Minister in the chair is on his second wave of smelling salts to keep himself awake—I do not mean any disrespect to him.

Hon Simon Power: None taken.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I know why! His own members are trying to filibuster the bill. So I say to Mr Quinn, who speaks in his own very uncharitable way, that I think this bill is absolutely supported by all or most parties, or certainly by parties on this side of the Chamber. I tell Mr Quinn that the reason why Opposition members are not taking multiple calls on this bill is that we wrote it while in Government, and now his party, in office, supports it. I would have thought that Mr Quinn, the Minister in the chair, and the New Zealand people would like the thing passed. I say to the new member, who chirps like a parrot from the back row, that rather than being uncharitable and trying to score political points, he might actually want to address the bill. It is good legislation. When it comes into force 8 months after the day it receives Royal assent, it will actually do a lot, I tell that member, towards addressing organised crime and gang activity in New Zealand. So I would have thought that as we go through the commencement and title clauses, this is not a time to start scoring cheap political points.

I say to Mr Quinn that in this place of robust debate there are times, once or twice, when you do actually put politics aside, when you do put aside the colours of red, blue, green, and yellow, the political flags of the House, and when you do actually support what the people want—

Paul Quinn: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. As Chairperson you discussed with me particularly the fact that I had used the word “you”. I have listened to the member saying “you” three times in the last minute; I would ask you to address the same comments to the Opposition member.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker): The member makes a point, but when the word “you” is used, it is very often in the context of a sentence. If someone talks about “the party” etc., then goes on to mention “you”, the person is connecting the word “you” to the principle of the sentence. On most of the occasions, that was the case with Mr Cosgrove. I invite Mr Cosgrove to continue his speech.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I will say that that intervention was better than the speech I heard on the TV. The best Mr Quinn can do is to be advised by his colleague, as she sits beside him on the Government benches, to raise a point of order and break up a speech. I suppose we all did that as new members, maybe, but some of us have learnt.

I say to Mr Quinn that now is not the time for cheap political points. Now is not the time to play politics. On this side of the Chamber, we support this legislation. We support its commencement date. We support the provisions, and the new amendments that have been lodged to strengthen it. We have not taken calls because we will not waste taxpayers’ money; we support the legislation and we would like to see it passed. [Interruption] Yes, I will stand up for 5 minutes, because I think it pertinent to address the impertinence of that member who has just spoken. I say to Mr Quinn that maybe this is a good learning experience for him. Perhaps other members who are sitting around him, like Mr Ardern, for whom I have respect, will take Mr Quinn aside in the dinner break and suggest to him that there are one or two occasions in this Chamber when we should act in a bipartisan way for the good of the country. I am sure that people watching today hope that we will act in a bipartisan way, that we will support the Minister in the chair—it is now his bill although it was formerly ours—and that we will get on and pass it.

I believe that the Government has taken 14 calls. Mr Power might want to get the Parliamentary Library to examine the record of filibustering from his own Government, but I am sure he would like to see this legislation expedited and passed rather swiftly. We on this side of the Chamber support it. We wrote most of it. We support it even though the Government has put it up. I think it will address, substantially, gang and organised crime in our country. I invite Mr Quinn, perhaps over a good feed of bangers and mash in the dinner break, to reflect on his own conduct.

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I move, That the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Social Services Committee for its consideration.

The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to make it easier for older New Zealanders to travel or live overseas. Personally, I find it quite hard to imagine why anyone would want to live anywhere but in New Zealand; I cannot quite figure out why those superannuitants would want to go and retire overseas. New Zealand may be facing some tough times, but this is still the best place in the world to live. However, National is the party of choice. We have a commitment to encouraging New Zealanders to make their own choices. So if people currently wish to move to places such as Pitcairn Island, Guam, or Samoa, we agree that they should be freely able to transfer their New Zealand pension entitlement.

There are a variety of ways that older people can be paid overseas, depending on where they intend to go and for how long. Those living overseas temporarily can receive full payment for up to 26 weeks and are not affected by the amendments of the bill. There are three methods of paying older people who wish to leave New Zealand to live in an overseas country. First, there is a network of social security agreements that allow pensioners to receive up to the full rate of payment, depending on how long they have lived in New Zealand. Second, there are special provisions for persons who go to live in certain Pacific countries. I admit that some of these Pacific countries have a fantastic climate and I can see why some people would want to go there, particularly when they are battling against Wellington’s wind some days. Finally, there are provisions for people who move to all other countries, and those are known as the general portability provisions. Older people who leave New Zealand to reside in one of these countries are paid a flat rate of 50 percent of the gross rate of their pension.

The amendments in the bill relate solely to the general portability provisions and will not affect New Zealand’s social security agreements or the special provisions for certain Pacific countries. This bill is necessary because the rules prevent many of our older New Zealanders from retiring to a country of their choice or travelling overseas long term. Three main issues will be addressed by this bill. The flat rate of 50 percent provides insufficient income to allow a reasonable standard of living in many countries. The current rules restrict the ability of older people to move to more than one country, because payment is linked to residence in one particular country. And because payment overseas is linked to residents in a particular country, retirees who wish to undertake long-term travel or to travel between countries have been unable to continue to be paid their superannuation. In these days of global villages, eftpos, and email, these rules are long out of date. Consequently, the bill will make three changes.

The key change is a new, more generous maximum payment. Instead of the current flat rate of payment, older New Zealanders will be able to receive up to 100 percent of their pension, depending on the number of years they have resided in New Zealand. The bill will also free up the rules that restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around once they get overseas. It will allow payment to be made to those people who wish to reside in any country with which New Zealand has no social security agreement, whether they remain in such a country or begin travelling. For example, if an elderly couple were to head to London, buy an old combivan, and decide to travel around Europe, they would be entitled to continue to receive their pensions with comparative ease. The bill will also allow payment of superannuation and veterans pensions for those pensioners who wish to travel to a country or between countries.

The amendments contained in the bill address the three main issues with the current general portability provisions. I am confident that the amendments will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel or reside overseas. The new provisions will represent a modernisation of the payment overseas policy that has been in place since 1990. The rate was originally set at 50 percent, partly because the superannuation surcharge was not applied to payments overseas. Now the surcharge has gone and therefore has no relevance to the amount of pension we pay overseas. Forcing older people to remain in one country or preventing their ability to travel to a variety of countries serves no particular purpose, and is not in tune with the desires and aspirations of today’s retirees or with the philosophy, quite frankly, of this National Government. Some older people wish to go out on a boat and travel for a couple of years. Some people who reach the great age of 65 think they would like to sail around the world and actually take the time to do that. They will be able to take their superannuation with them. That is a great thing.

The National-led Government is committed—

Hon Steve Chadwick: This is a Labour bill.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, Labour had 9 years to bring in this bill and did not bring it in.

Simon Bridges: 9 long years.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Labour had 9 very long years and did not bring in this bill, and now it is trying to claim it as its own. Labour had 9 long years to actually do something about it, but chose not to. Labour chose not to give New Zealanders that choice. It is fantastic that we are stepping up now and actually making this measure happen. There can be a lot of talk and a lot of chit-chat, but this Government is one of action. That is where it is at.

We should not prevent any elderly person from having his or her “grey OE”—I quite like that. Our silver surfers can head off overseas and do what they want to do, and this bill gives them that ability. They may choose to be near their family and whānau, and as much as we might like them to stay, this party believes they should have those sorts of choices. We are committed to ensuring that our older people are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in their community, whether that community is really local here in New Zealand or whether for them it is in another country.

For those countries that we currently have social security agreements with—which include Australia, Canada, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Jersey, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom—those agreements are already in place and this bill will not affect them. I know that one of the other MPs in this House will raise issues about Australia—he has certainly raised them with me, and he is quite correct—and say that if a New Zealander moves to Australia, then he or she goes on the Australian superannuation scheme. The Australian scheme is income and asset tested. That currently means there is a difference between the Australian and the New Zealand schemes. This bill will not touch that. It will not change those arrangements, but one could move to another country where superannuation is not income and asset tested and, as this bill will allow, receive 100 percent of New Zealand superannuation. If one moves to Australia and has assets, then those assets could be tested under the Australian scheme. However, we did not want that to hold up this scheme from going ahead.

I want to give members a bit of an understanding, as well, of how many people are currently paid New Zealand pensions or benefits overseas. Currently, a total of 19,542 people who live overseas are receiving New Zealand superannuation or a New Zealand benefit. Of this number, 18,715 are covered by agreements, 575 are covered by the special portability arrangement, and 252 are covered by the general portability rules. This bill will open up those categories to a whole lot of other people. I know that when members sit with people in their electorates—and my electorate is a classic; I have a lot of Croatian people in it, and we have certainly been talking about social security agreements with them—we find that many of them want to go back and spend some of their retirement years in their home countries. If those people have been in New Zealand for 10 years or more while they were under the age of 65, then they will be entitled to take 100 percent of their superannuation with them, and I think that that is a fantastic thing. Many of them have approached me and said they would like to do that. As I said earlier—and I cannot quite stress it enough—there are people who want to take the time to go sailing and to leave New Zealand to sail around the world. I just cannot see why they cannot take their superannuation with them.

We estimate the cost of this measure to be around $6.4 million, but the reality is that that is for those who would have lost their pension because they had left. It does not really cost us more, because people are entitled to that pension, and they should be able to take that superannuation with them.

We are committed to our older people. So it is with pleasure that I stand and move the first reading of this bill, which supports them in having that choice of where they want to live and of how they want to live, and in being able to take their superannuation with them. As I have said, Labour had 9 long years to do this but did not. Yet again, we have stepped up and we have done this for those people. It is with pleasure that I commend this bill to the House.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) : Labour supports the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. I hoped there could have been just a little bit of charity from the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, her knowing that this bill was introduced into this House in September 2008. I think that if I am right, the Government of the day introducing this bill was a Labour-led Government—

Hon Paula Bennett: No one remembers.

Hon ANNETTE KING: If the member does not believe it, I suggest she picks up the Order Paper for 31 March—for those who do not have it before them—turns to the second page, looks under the fourth item on the agenda, and sees that this bill was introduced on 22 September 2008. This is a Labour bill. This is a Labour bill that is being passed under a National minority Government.

I am very happy that National members have picked up this legislation and are taking it through the House. I thank them on behalf of superannuitants, pensioners, and veterans in New Zealand. But I would have thought it would not take a lot of effort just to acknowledge that two major parties accept and approve of this bill, rather than to make a speech and try to make out that Labour did nothing in respect of it. A lot of work was done on this bill. In fact, we consulted on it, and I suggest that members look at the explanatory note of the bill, under the heading “Consultation”. They will see that Labour consulted with the National Party, the Green Party, New Zealand First, and the Progressive party before the election, and got support for this bill before the election. The honest National members will acknowledge that that consultation took place, the details of which are included in the body of this bill. So to come into this House and say that the National Party is the party of choice is just another slogan; this bill was a Labour bill, and it certainly gives choice to a lot of older people.

The Minister said that she wondered why people would ever want to travel overseas. But before I address that, I have to say I am pretty insulted by her views about Wellington’s wind. After all, this is one fantastic place in which to live—

Nathan Guy: Only in Rongotai.

Hon ANNETTE KING: —and I am pleased to see that the senior Government whip agrees with me. He said that this is a great place to live—the greater Wellington area. The wind does not bother us. The Minister cannot imagine why people would live in any other—

Paul Quinn: Doing a mayoral speech? Preparing a mayoral speech for the super-city?

Hon ANNETTE KING: Well, of course, I do not know why Paul Quinn lives here. I have no idea, at all. He does not contribute anything except to have his tongue flapping for hour after hour.

The Minister said it was hard to imagine why anybody would want to live overseas. But what has happened, I think, is that families have changed. I look at my own parents, who are retired and living near their children. They live near one daughter, and two children live in Wellington; we have only to go across Cook Strait to see them. They are very happy to stay put in New Zealand, and they are well into their 80s. But then I look at the next generation, and at parents like myself. My husband and I have children who live in Australia, who have lived in Thailand, and who move around the world. We want to have the ability, when we reach that age, to go and visit our children. Maybe they will come home; maybe they will not. But what has happened is that families have become mobile. They may be across the Tasman, they may be back in the Pacific Islands, and they may be in the United Kingdom, and older people want the opportunity to go and visit them. Those older people do not want to have to go for just a month; they spend all that amount of money to be able to go for a much longer period of time.

That is what this bill is all about. It gives those people the option—a choice given to them as a result of this Labour-introduced bill—to spend a longer time with their families and still receive New Zealand superannuation when they are overseas. I agree that the flat rate of 50 percent does not provide enough income in most countries where people would go and live, so it is important that there is a higher level of income for those who want to live overseas—for them to be able to live overseas with some level of comfort.

If members look through this bill, they will see that people, under the provisions of the bill, will be able to receive payment overseas of New Zealand superannuation or veterans pensions, based on a formula of 1/540th of the full rate for each month of residence in New Zealand, between the ages of 20 and 65. A lot of work was done to find a formula that was fair—fair to New Zealanders who are taxpayers and who pay their money year after year in their working lives. It was to be a formula that enabled them to get the maximum amount, but that still enabled those who had lived here for a shorter period of time to be able to have an increase, over and above the flat rate of 50 percent.

The bill provides for the ability to receive payments in other countries—not just one country but a number of countries. The Minister mentioned people who live on boats, and who want to travel around the Greek islands or go yachting off the coast of Australia, or who want to be in an old combivan and go around Europe. People often do want to travel and live between more than one country. If people have one part of the family in Australia and another in the United States, they may well want, in a number of months, to be in a number of places. That will be able to happen under this bill.

It is a good bill. It adds to the toolkit, if you like, of things we can do for superannuitants in their retirement. I believe that the previous Labour Government looked after the interests of older New Zealanders and veterans, and I think this is another part of providing a much better ability for people in retirement. We are worried, however, about the future of superannuation under the new National Government, and I think it is worthwhile mentioning that we put in place a superannuation fund so that our children and our grandchildren would have the ability to have superannuation when they retired. But we believe that that is under threat, and we are interested to know what will be in the Budget and what money will be taken from, or not put into, the superannuation fund. Not to provide money into the superannuation fund is a short-term approach, which could mean that our children and our grandchildren will be those who suffer. It is all very well taking the approach that we just look after today; we have done that for far too long in New Zealand when it comes to superannuation.

I agree with Peter Dunne that we have agreement on superannuation, in this House and across political parties, whereby we have said we have to put money away for our kids and grandkids, and for future generations. But now we have, for the sake of short-term expediency, a National Government looking at not putting money into that superannuation fund year after year to maintain its value. If money is not put in next year or in the year after, then there will be a shortfall for our kids. Maybe the National Government does not care about that, but I do. Our kids deserve as much as we have, and in fact when their time comes maybe they will deserve more. We are very concerned about the National Government’s approach to superannuation.

This bill, when it is passed, will provide an opportunity for superannuitants and veterans to take their pensions and go and live in another country for a period of time and with enough money so that they may be able to live far more comfortably than they did before this bill was passed. We will support this bill right through all stages. It is a Labour bill, introduced in September last year, but we are delighted that the National Government has picked up our bill and will see it through to its conclusion. We should be grateful, for the sake of pensioners and superannuitants, that there will be wide support for the bill in this House, as it was consulted on before it was introduced and we had wide support from all parties for it.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) : I rise this evening to contribute to the debate on the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. I listened with interest to Annette King, the member opposite who rightly pointed out that this bill was introduced by Labour, and of course it is supported by National. I was a little concerned because although the bill had its genesis in the forty-eighth Parliament, I waited for 9 long minutes to hear the member opposite talk about that. I was really worried because I heard, only in the last few seconds, the member opposite mention the bill. But what I also heard was concern from members opposite about National and about superannuitants and veterans.

Hon Steve Chadwick: We’ll watch the Budget with great interest.

JO GOODHEW: Members will have to wait only a few more hours. We do not have to wait for the Budget. Tomorrow, 1 April, and it is no joke, New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension payments will rise by—wait for it—up to $15.64 a week for a couple who both qualify, to $478.38 a week, compared with 1 October last year. For a single person living alone, superannuation and veterans payments will go up by $13.16 a week, to $310.95. We will be waiting only a few more hours, but not for the Budget. Soon the superannuitants and veterans of New Zealand will be feeling much happier about what is coming their way. I see that the heads opposite have gone down, so clearly that was not good news for members on the other side of the Chamber. But it is good news for these New Zealanders.

I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak on the bill tonight, which I enthusiastically support. I played a part in the genesis of this bill, because I, like many members of this House, made representations in the previous Parliament to the previous Government about the problems with not supporting the superannuation payments of New Zealanders who are living overseas. Some of my constituents who were working as volunteers overseas got in touch with me. One partner was a superannuitant but his wife was not, but now she is as well. They were not getting any support from New Zealand, yet they felt they had paid their taxes all their lives. This is a very, very good bill for the likes of those people, and I know other members like myself have made representations to have this bill come before Parliament.

What do we hope for our hard-working older New Zealanders when they choose to retire? We hope they will have good health, they will have the wealth to enjoy the days of their retirement, and they will be able to enjoy the pastimes that they have saved up, so to speak, for their retirement. But for some lucky New Zealanders, retirement means a chance for them to travel overseas. Some will travel for the pleasure of travel, some will travel to see their relatives and friends, and some will travel, as my constituents did, to do voluntary work in communities that do not know the wealth of opportunity that we have in New Zealand.

This bill is an important step forward in making it easier for New Zealand superannuitants and veterans pensioners to travel overseas, or to retire there. I take the Minister’s point, and I also wonder why they would want to do that. I certainly hope my parents and relatives do not choose to live overseas, but we would not stop them if they wanted to do so. We would prefer they stayed in New Zealand, with family. But again, those older folk may be travelling so as to live closer to family. National is committed to making the retirement of older New Zealanders a little easier, and this bill gives them greater choice in where they may wish to retire to.

The purpose of the bill is to make amendments to the provisions to the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and also to the War Pensions Act 1954. The measures that provide for the payment of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions overseas have been in place since 1 April 1990. That is 18 years ago, and I say that with no hesitation because our daughters were born just a couple of months later.

The current measures provide for a flat rate payment of 50 percent of the domestic rate of benefit. I am just setting out the current situation and describing it, so that we can see why there is a need for change. An important point relates to where a person leaves New Zealand with the intention of residing in a country with which New Zealand has no agreement relating to reciprocity of social security monetary benefits—that is, it is not a specified Pacific country. This flat rate payment of 50 percent deters older New Zealanders from retiring overseas, because it certainly provides insufficient funds or income to allow them a reasonable standard of living in retirement in most countries. My constituents were lucky. They were supported by the community that they were living in, in part, but it was particularly difficult for them not having any funds. This bill is again, as the Minister described, about giving more choice to older New Zealanders.

Payment is also currently linked to residents in one particular overseas country, which means that superannuitants or veterans pensioners cannot travel to or between multiple countries and continue to receive their payment. If they are doing their big “grey OE”—I do like that phrase—then going to just one country would seem to not be in the spirit of what they have saved for, for their retirement. The status quo is not an option, and that is why this bill has been brought to the House this evening.

The current law creates many problems, as I have outlined, for our older New Zealanders. To qualify for New Zealand superannuation, a person must have had 10 years’ residence in New Zealand since the age of 20, 5 years of which must have been since the age of 50, and the person must, of course, be 65 years of age or over. New Zealand’s residence-based pension system contrasts with the contributory nature of most overseas pension schemes, and it does not easily lend itself to situations where people move in and out of New Zealand.

Two key issues have arisen as a result of the increasing international movement of people, and they include the method of dealing with overseas pensions paid into New Zealand, which effectively tops up the amount of overseas pension to the appropriate full rate of New Zealand superannuation. I certainly believe that every member in this Parliament would have received representations from their constituents on that one. It can be a contentious issue, and it is difficult to administer, but it has remained essentially unchanged for 70 years. The rules for payment of New Zealand superannuation overseas are overly restrictive, and they prevent many New Zealanders from receiving payment while living in the country of their choice or from receiving payment while travelling without having the intent to live in one particular country. That is also problematic.

It is time for change, and this bill will, from 2 November 2009, allow the qualifying superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel in or to or between any overseas country to retain their entitlement. That is an important word. When we hear from people who have paid taxes towards their superannuation, they truly believe they have done their bit to prepare for their retirement. It is important that when they later become resident in a country with which New Zealand does not have an agreement, they are able to collect their pension. For those who wish to reside in any country with which New Zealand has no agreement relating to reciprocity, it will mean that they can retain their entitlement if they become resident in that country, or even if they begin to travel.

The Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill is increasingly more and more relevant for older New Zealanders. New Zealand, like most OECD countries, has an ageing population. The older population is predicted to double by the year 2028, and the population aged over 85 years will almost treble during that period. That creates quite a lot of issues in the planning for that change in New Zealand’s demographic. By 2051 older people in New Zealand will make up approximately a quarter of the population. Older people want to travel. They want to keep connected with their families, who are often spread far and wide across the globe. Despite older people being more mobile, they suffer many problems, which is a situation that National is committed to making easier over time. This important bill gets us started on that process.

I look forward to participating in the select committee’s examination of this bill as we hear the submissions on it. I also commend this bill to the House, as others before me have done. I am really very pleased that there is cross-party support for the bill, and I believe that New Zealand superannuitants and veterans wanting to travel or live overseas will congratulate the whole Parliament on this bill. Thank you.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) : It is my pleasure to rise and speak in support of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill.

Paul Quinn: Bated breath!

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Well, bated breath is not too bad, I say to Mr Quinn. If the member does listen he will soon understand very clearly why I support this bill, and it might be very different from that member’s understanding of my reasoning.

I support this bill primarily because it is pro-family. It sets out to understand what is happening to the modern family, and it continues to put together a whole series of policies from when Labour was in Government. Labour will continue to support every such idea that comes from the Government regarding this bill. It is also pleasing to support this bill because it is a Labour bill, and no amount of criticising its time frame takes that away.

Paul Quinn: Keep it clean!

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: It does not take it away, as that member will soon realise. The bill delivers on Labour’s pro-family commitment, which is longstanding and can be seen in the purpose of this bill. The member may smile at that, but we certainly can argue that point with him.

This bill primarily modernises an aspect of New Zealand superannuation in response to the changing nature of life for our citizens who are over 65 years of age. It takes a little bit of thinking through to really appreciate the changing nature of New Zealand families and what that might mean for a series of social policies that are designed to support our families at various stages of their lives. This particular bill certainly supports families at the tail end of their lives, post their working phase. If members consider for a moment the changes that have been taking place in the New Zealand family—which are not atypical in terms of the changes that families globally are facing as well—then the first thing to realise is that our families in the 21st century are globalised. They come from many different places, and they have many different connections. If we understand the changing nature of New Zealand families, and the changing nature of New Zealand society in terms of its ethnic diversification, then in the future many of our older people will be from different ethnicities with strong connections to different parts of the world. They live here because they love this country, and they have contributed to it. But it does not mean they have discarded their relationships with their old countries or do not want to ever go back there. What precludes them—it has precluded some I know—from going back there are the problems that this particular bill sets out to address.

We have an ageing population, so soon there will be more and more people in this particular stage of their lives. Life expectancy increases for all kinds of reasons—that happens. This population is increasing, and therefore people’s needs and their interests, both here and globally, become particularly important. They do become very, very important players in the globalised world. Families now live at the same time in a number of countries. My mother lives in Vancouver, and she is 90 years of age. I am one of 14 children all over the world whom she is able to travel to see and spend time with.

Paul Quinn: Does that mean you’re going to be 90?

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Well, my mother will be pleased to see Mr Quinn as well, if he would like, when she comes here. The member might find it very, very useful to meet somebody who is a beneficiary of a similar provision elsewhere. My mother is able to travel, knowing that she has the comfort of being financially secure, because she is able to take her own pensions with her.

Families live concurrently in a number of countries, and they have connections to a number of countries. As family members grow older, their grandchildren are now living in other countries and many of these families of ours in retirement want to go and live with their families overseas and to spend time with their grandchildren—and for a significant proportion of time as well. Therefore, I find it difficult to understand why the Minister for Social Development and Employment would find it difficult to understand the motivation behind many of our superannuitants who want to take advantage of this particular—

Hon Paula Bennett: What a load of rubbish! I’m bringing the bill in! So obviously I’m supportive of it. I just said New Zealand was beautiful, and I think that New Zealand rocks.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The Minister says that this is about driving combivans and living in the Pitcairn Islands—that is a cynical approach to the needs of our families. In time, the Minister will understand what this is about. The Minister can crow as much as she likes, but it is about trying to understand our families. The Minister shows no understanding of the changing nature of New Zealand families, and how indeed this provision might address that.

Perhaps the Minister might be generous and at least acknowledge that that indeed is what this bill tries to do. Those are the kinds of provisions. It is very easy to talk about a provision in cynical terms. There is nothing cynical about this set of provisions. This is serious business. This bill was well-designed and well-thought-out, and it addresses an aspect of New Zealand society at the present time. Indeed, maybe it will be our mothers and our relatives who will take advantage of this. This measure is about understanding the importance of the ability to travel and to go and live somewhere else and, perhaps, more important than anything else, to spend time with grandchildren and be of assistance to them at a time when families require that type of support. It is grandparents—and great-grandparents, of course—who are able to provide that kind of support. But what precludes grandparents from doing so—apart from anything to do with distance—is believing that they would have to live overseas without financial support or security of income. Then the possibility evaporates. These provisions enable families to go and live with their loved ones, support them, and still be comfortable themselves.

As I said, in the last 20 years many, many such families have migrated to New Zealand. They have made New Zealand a great society. They have increased our diversity. They have played an important part in our society, as well, but they have retained links to where they have come from and they do want to go back. The bill provides portability to superannuitants and to holders of the veterans pension who live in countries that have no agreement with New Zealand in terms of the reciprocity of social security benefits.

As I have said, it is likely that this will be a growing list of countries—some of which we might not have imagined a few years ago. I think it is timely to address this particular issue The bill is timely and it is responsive, and many people will appreciate its introduction. But it is also urgent. It is urgent because the record of National in Government is not very good on superannuation. I remember very, very well—

Hon Paula Bennett: It’s going up tomorrow.

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The Minister is not old enough to appreciate the point, so perhaps she might want to listen. Then she might appreciate the point through research or through listening. This may be a time for members opposite to listen. There was a period in the early 1970s—

Paul Quinn: This is unbecoming of you!

Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I think Mr Quinn should listen and appreciate the fact that when all of us were enabled to open an account in our own names, in our New Zealand superannuation system, it was one of the greatest things that New Zealand society did. If allowed to carry on, it would indeed have given this country a huge resource base, in terms of financial capital. The National Party actually succeeded in telling the electorate that this would be used to socialise every aspect of New Zealand society, and when coupled with the racist browning idea of New Zealand society that was promoted at the same time, the then Muldoon Government, in one fell swoop, took this away. We have suffered ever since. We now have a multiparty accord, and there are signs that the Government wants to tinker with that, as well. The Government cannot be trusted on superannuation, and, therefore, this becomes quite urgent as well.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : The Green Party will be supporting the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veterans Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill, which, from what we can ascertain at this stage at least, simply makes a logical and long-overdue amendment to the way this country treats superannuitants and veterans who travel or reside overseas for more than 6 months.

At the moment, people who are eligible for superannuation or the veterans pension and who journey abroad for longer than 6 months, or who go to countries that do not have reciprocal social security arrangements with New Zealand, are unable to go on receiving their entitlements. This, of course, means that they have the option either to return home or to be reduced to seeking employment, to penury, or to dependence on others, if they choose to remain away from New Zealand. In the current economic situation around the world, the first option, that of getting paid work, will become even more difficult for our older citizens in the times ahead than it is already, no matter what country they are in. Penury will be an even more likely outcome for many.

It is therefore timely that the Government has decided to present this bill to Parliament, and I hope it will go through the select committee and House processes with considerable alacrity. It is hard to imagine that any party in this Parliament will hold it up—and given the speeches so far, I do not think that will happen—given that this bill provides for a significant improvement in the lives of our older citizens who choose to spend time or live permanently overseas.

The only issue I can see at this stage as possibly creating a little angst is the provision that superannuation or the veterans pension will be paid in these circumstances at a rate of 1/540th of the full rate for each month of residence in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65 years. However, for those who have spent a substantial portion of their working lives elsewhere, this has the upside that should they receive an overseas pension, for example, from the UK, it will not be reduced by the amount they may have earned during that period when they were not in New Zealand. Having sat through a number of discussions on various reciprocal arrangements we have with other jurisdictions while on the Social Services Committee over the last 9 years, I can say that it is something of a relief to see a bill coming through in this area that is not dependent on the negotiation of exact arrangements with another sovereign nation, and that aims to be inclusive in its effect, rather than exclusive.

The bill also appears to have a side effect of potentially removing the barriers that currently exist that preclude a social security agreement with the United States. I am sure that there will be many who will welcome this, given the number of citizens of both countries who move between them.

However, this bill does not attempt to deal with the vexed issue that has come to the select committee, and, I am sure, to all of our out-of-Parliament offices at different times, relating to the operation and effect of the dollar for dollar deduction against New Zealand social security benefits imposed in respect of contributory pension schemes administered by Governments overseas. This matter has been raised time and time again by people aggrieved by the fundamental unfairness of arbitrarily missing out on the benefits of contributory pension funds that they have been part of—often for a substantial part of their working lives—because of the unfair provisions imposed by section 70 of the Social Security Act.

The issue is really quite simple. If overseas pensions are paid from taxation revenue gathered by overseas Governments, as New Zealand superannuation and benefits paid under the Social Security Act are, then a dollar for dollar deduction is totally appropriate. But if a portion of the revenue for such overseas pension schemes is from contributions by employees, then the dollar for dollar deduction is simply unfair. Whether an overseas Government or a private fund administers the scheme should be an irrelevant consideration.

The previous Government promised for most of its tenure to address this knotty issue. Legislation was promised to be introduced in the last parliamentary term. When this bill was introduced I expected the bill to deal with this issue also. It does not. Both New Zealanders living overseas and contributing to pension schemes administered by overseas Governments, and immigrants to New Zealand who have contributed to such schemes for many years before coming here, will continue to be unfairly penalised unless urgent action is taken. I heard National members talking about this in a most sympathetic and understanding manner in years gone by when they were in Opposition. I hope that in this new Parliament we might see some progress made on this broader and more significant problem.

I invite the Minister to consider amending this bill to address this issue as an option, and invite her to meet with me to discuss ways in which the gross unfairness of section 70 of the Social Security Act can be most readily addressed. If National remains true to the statements of its spokespeople when in Opposition, this is an issue on which we could work together, and, I am sure, on which other parties in the House could work, as well. Meanwhile, I commend to the House this minor but welcome amendment to our superannuation and pension laws.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) : ACT supports the general thrust of this bill, and supports its referral to a select committee. I thank the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, for her ready response to my request for additional information relating to this bill. I raised with her what I believe could be seen as—potentially at least—one or two unfair aspects of this bill, and I take the opportunity to raise them in the House.

I take the example of a New Zealander who has worked here for 45 years, between the ages of 20 years and 65 years. If that person retires and goes to Thailand to live, under this bill that person will get a 100 percent superannuation payment, and that seems a reasonable provision. If we take the example of someone from a Pacific Island country who works in New Zealand for 20 years—240 months—or more, then returns home, that person will also get 100 percent of his or her superannuation rights. On the other hand, if we take the example of a New Zealander who was born in New Zealand, who worked in New Zealand from, say, the age of 20 to 65—for 45 years—and who moves to Australia, that person could get zero superannuation payment, as a result of the reciprocal social security agreement we have with Australia.

In other words, a New Zealander who has worked for 45 years and then lives in Thailand will get a full superannuation right, another person who has come from one of the islands, and worked here for 20 years or more then returned home will also get 100 percent, but a New Zealander who has lived in New Zealand for 65 years and worked here for 45 years, who has a few assets or has a bit of other income, and who goes to Australia, will get absolutely zero, because of the social security agreement we have with Australia. Such people will get zero from New Zealand, but also they will get zero from Australia. In other words, they will get no pension whatsoever.

I think a lot of New Zealanders will see that as an anomaly that we need to address. Why should it be that if one goes to Thailand or a Pacific Island, one gets 100 percent of one’s pension, yet if one goes to Australia—or, potentially, to other countries with which we have social security agreements—under the arrangements we have made with Australia one receives no superannuation, at all?

I have raised that issue with the Minister, and I thank her for the information she has given me. She has been very open. But I think the issue should be addressed and thought about at the select committee.

TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) : Ā, tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tātau e te Whare, kia ora tātau i tēnei pō. Arā anō te whāinga matua, te mātāpono rānei o te ao Māori, arā, ko te whakanui, ko te whakamana i te hunga kuia, koroua rānei. Kei te pūtake rātau o ngā tūmanako, ko rātau tonu te tauira mō te whakatipuranga hou. Nō reira, he oranga ngākau kua tae mai tātau ki tēnei pire. Kai te tautoko ake mātau i tēnei pire i te mea, he hāngai tonu ana ki te tiaki i tēnei āhuatanga o te tiaki me te manaaki i te hunga koeke me te hunga tūmatauenga me kī. Me kī ko te āhuatanga o tēnei pire he mea kua roa e kōrerohia ana e te Pāti Māori, arā, kia whakahou i te hiahia, kia whakarahi ake, kia whakapiki ake te utu a superannuation tae rā anō ki te hunga kua haere ki tāwāhi, me te mōhio anō hoki me whakaheke whakararo te taumata ā-tau nei mō ngā rōpū e mate moata ana ki tērā o te wā o te nuinga, o te rahinga me kī.

Kua roa te Pāti Māori e kōrero ana kia heke whakararo me kī te tau e āhei ai te nuinga ki te whiwhi i te peneihana tēnei mea te superannuation ki te 60 tau mō ngā rōpū me kī, e moata rawa te mate. Me kī i te katoa o te motu mō te ao Māori me kī, ngā āhuatanga katoa kai raro tonu te ao Māori e putu ana. Me kī, ka mate te ao Māori te nuinga o te wā tekau tau i mua noa atu o te ao Pākehā. Ko tā mātau e kī nei, he pai kē me whakaheke te tau e āhei ai te tangata whiwhi penihana, te pūtea rānei, ā, ka mutu, he painga anō rā ka puta ki ngā mea katoa o Aotearoa nei. Mō te ao Māori me kī, ngā tatauranga o te ao Māori, 4 ira 5 pai hēneti o mātau kua eke ki te 65 tau, pakeke noa atu rānei. Nō reira, ki taku mōhio, taku titiro ko tētahi o tērā hunga me kī te 28,260 o te ao Māori nei he mema tonu o roto i tēnei Whare Pāremata. Me kī mō te hunga Pākehā 14 ira 5 pai hēneti kua eke ki te 65 tau, pakeke noa atu rānei. Me kī pēnei au, o te hunga makawe hiriwā o Aotearoa, 5 ira 3 pai hēneti o te katoa o Aotearoa kua eke ki te 65 tau, pakeke atu rānei he Māori tonu.

E rua ngā take nunui kei roto i ēnei kaute. Tuatahi, e ai ki ngā kōrero whakatau tata me kī ki te 6500 Māori o te 65 tau pakeke noa atu rānei kai Ahitereiria e noho ana. Tuarua, e ai anō rā ki ngā tatauranga, kua rahi ake te hunga koeke Māori ā ngā tau tata kai mua i te aroaro, arā, mai i ngā tekau tau e 2, e 3 rānei kai mua i te aroaro. Nō reira, arā noa atu ngā take e tika ana kia whakariterite tātau i a tātau anō mō ngā tau kai mua i te aroaro. Mō te aha? Mō te hauora o te ao Māori i Aotearoa nei. Ehara i te mea kai te whakaaro noa ake mātau mō Aotearoa me tōna kotahi i roto i te ture nei. Kei te titiro anō hoki mātou ki ngā Kuki Airini, ki Whītī, ki Kiripati, ki Niue, ki Hāmoa, ki Tokerau, ki Tonga, ki Tuvalu, Vanuatu me ētahi atu me kī o Te Moana Nui A Kiwa i whakaingoatia i roto i te New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act o te tau 2001.

Nō reira, ko te painga o tēnei pire, e āhei ana te hunga koeke me kī, me te hunga tūmatauenga, te hunga e hiahia ana ki te haere ki tāwāhi ki reira noho ai, e haere ai rānei. Mēnā karekau he kirimana i waenganui i a Aotearoa me tētahi atu, mō te utu hauora nei, e āhei tonu ana rātau ki te whiwhi i te moni, i te pūtea me te penihana e kōrerohia ake nei. Āhua whai tonu i te āhuatanga o ngā pire pai kua tae mai ki te Whare Pāremata nei, e whakapai ake nei i te āhuatanga mō te hunga koeke. Ko tāku e whakaaro ake nei ko te Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Act, te SuperGold Card legislation tae rā anō ki ētahi pūtea whakawātea ka āhei mō te hunga nohotahi, ngā tāne, wāhine rānei kia whiwhi pūtea tonu rātou. Katoa o ēnei he āhua pai. Nō reira, he pērā anō hoki tēnei pirei. Ehara i te mea kua mutu me kī te katoa o ngā āhuatanga ka mutu, me ngahau tātau. Ko tā te Pāti Māori e kī nei, mēnā hiahia ana tātau ki te whakamana i te hunga koeke me te hunga pakeke, mēnā e hiahia ana tātau ki te whakamana i a rātau tae rā anō ki ngā mea e tika ana kia whiwhi i a rātau, arā noa atu ngā mea hai whakariterite mā tātau. Ā, ka mutu, arā anō ngā mea me kī ka kimihia e te Pāti Māori i mua i te aroaro o te Kāwanatanga, Ko tā mātau e kī nei me titiro tātau ki te āhuatanga me kī o te noho-ā-whānau, o te noho-ā-kāinga kia āhei ai te hunga pakeke ki te noho atu ki ō rātou ake kāinga mēnā e hiahia ana ka mutu, kia whai wāhi anō rā me kī e whā pea ngā wā ki te whakatā.

He mea nui tēnei ki a au i te mea, kei te mōhio tonu au ki te āhuatanga o te tiaki i tētahi o tō whānau. I pērā rawa te āhuatanga o tōku ake tuahine. Ko tōna oranga, ko tōna hauora he mea nui ki a mātau o te whānau nō reira, kai te mōhio tonu ahau i tōna mutunga mai, kia riro mā te whānau te tangata e tiaki. He mea nui tērā ki ētahi o ngā whānau katoa me te mōhio anō hoki, tērā pea mēnā ka pērā, arā noa atu ngā painga ka puta. Ko te whakakore i te rārangi poka tinana, he take nui tērā ki a mātou. Ka mutu, ko te tuku o te kāwanatanga i ētahi pūtea mō ngā ratonga mate whawhati tata nei me kī, kia kaua kē e waiho ake ki roto i ngā ringaringa o te hunga mahi kore utu nei. Ko tā mātou e pīrangi nei me kaha tātau ki te tiaki i te hunga pakeke, ā, ka mutu, ko te hauora he kaupapa nui tērā ki a rātau, me te mōhio anō hoki ko tēnei mea o te whānau ora, ehara i te mea ko te rongoā i tōna kotahi, ko te mahere whakaora i tōna kotahi.

Ko te whānau ora, ko te tiaki me kī, te whānau ka mutu, ko te whakanui i te whānau, ko te whakapakari i te whānau kia whiwhi rātau i ngā painga e tika ana i roto i ngā ratonga katoa. Me whakanui i a rātou kia taea e rātau te puta me kī ki te whaiao, ki te ao mārama i runga i te mōhio kua ora te tinana. Ko tā mātau e pīrangi nei, ko te whakaora i te wairua o te whānau kia mōhio rātau, arā noa atu ngā huarahi hai whāinga kia puta te hauora ki tēnā, ki tēnā o rātau. Ā, nō reira, ko taku kōrero whakamutunga, “He tira kaumātua tērā te haere nā.” Me kaha nei tātau ki te tiaki i wā tātau pakeke te tūmanko ia, mō te wā roa ka mutu, me kaha nei tātau ki te whakaaro ake mō ētahi huarahi hou ki te tiaki i wā tātau pakeke kia taea e rātau te tiaki i a rātau anō ka mutu, ki te whai i ngā huarahi e hiahiatia nei e rātau. Ka tautoko te Pāti Māori i tēnei pire.

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

[Greetings to you, Mr Assistant Speaker; and the House tonight, greetings to us. A golden principle within Māoridom is that due and proper respect is accorded to our kuia and kaumātua—our elders. Our older people are the foundations upon which our hope sits; they are literally the walking legacies that we model ourselves on. How pleasing indeed it is, therefore, that we have come to this bill. We support it because it is about taking due care of superannuitants and veterans. The context for reading this bill is, of course, a longstanding call that we in the Māori Party have made, promoting the need to raise the rate of superannuation and veterans’ pensions, while at the same time lowering the entitlement age for groups whose life expectancy is lower than average.

The Māori Party has always advocated lowering the age of entitlement to New Zealand superannuation to 60 yearsfor groups whose life expectancy is lower than average. The average mortality age for Māori across the socio-economic spectrum is around 10 years earlier than for non-Māori. It is our view that a lower entitlement age will allow more equitable uptake of New Zealand superannuation for all citizens. In the Māori population, just 4.5 percent of us are 65 years or older—I have very good reason to believe that at least one of that precious community of 28,260 older Māori is a current member of this House. In comparison with the non-Māori population, 14.5 percent are 65 years or older. Putting it another way, in that golden-oldie, silver-haired segment of our society, only 5.3 percent of the total population who are 65 years or older are Māori.

But there are a couple of important riders to these demographics. The first is that it is estimated that some 6,500 Māori aged 65 years or over are currently living in Australia. The second is the population trends, which tell us that the proportion of older Māori will increase quite rapidly over the next two or three decades. Therefore, there is every good reason to plan ahead to take ample consideration of the work we need to put in. For what purpose? For the health of Māoridom here in New Zealand —except that it is not just Aotearoa we are thinking of in this legislation. We are also including the Cook Islands, Fiji, Kiribati, Niue, Samoa, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, Vanuatu, and the other Pacific nations identified in the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001.

This bill will enable superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel or live in another country where New Zealand does not have agreements relating to reciprocity of social security payments to still have the ability to receive New Zealand superannuation and pension payments. It continues the passage of positive legislation that has advanced opportunities for our elders. I am thinking of the Social Security (Long-term Residential Care) Amendment Act, the SuperGold Card legislation, and the progress made in extending the eligibility for the single or single living alone rate to include spouses and partners. Those were all initiatives that we were happy to support, as we will this bill, but that is not to say that everything is polished off and we should celebrate. The Māori Party is of the view that if we really want to value our ageing and older people, if we really want to afford them the status they are entitled to, then there are many things we need to deal with and will seek to raise with the Government. We believe there needs to be greater investment in whānau-based and home-based care options to enable older people to choose to remain in their homes, with access to respite care at least four times a year.

This is something I have a particular passion for, knowing the reality of the enduring challenges we faced as a whānau in the care of my late sister. Her care and ongoing well-being were of absolute priority to us, so I am in no doubt whatsoever that whānau care is something many families would love to be able to benefit from. The elimination of surgical waiting lists is an important future goal to us. Also important is the need for Government investment in ensuring the provision of emergency services instead of relyingon voluntary community efforts. We want to see every priority given to our aged and elderly. Excellent health care is a key part of this.

Of course, whānau ora is more than just prescriptions and treatment plans. F amily well-being is also about uplifting and strengthening whānau: ensuring whānau are properly resourced and have access to all services, invest in themselves, participate in society, and determine their futures. We want to restore a sense of confidence in whānau, that whānau is and can be a meaningful and secure centre from which to care well for one another. So my closing statement is: “That which traverses there is a company of elders.” Let us insist that the path of ageing is steady, sustainable, and strong. We must be bold enough to think of new ways to care for our aged and elderly in a way that enables them to tend for themselves and to pursue avenues they desire. The Māori Party supports this bill .]

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker): Before I call the next member, the issue of central heating in the Chamber has been raised with me. People feel a bit warm. I have asked my trusty assistant to check on the matter. I am advised that the air conditioning has now been cranked up a notch, and things should cool down a bit in the Chamber. Whether that is a good thing or a bad thing, who knows?

KATRINA SHANKS (National) : It is my pleasure to stand in the Chamber tonight and support the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. As society changes, it is important that legislation keeps abreast of those changes. This bill represents change because our society in New Zealand has changed. It has become a lot more multicultural and a lot more global.

Many families now have children, grandchildren, and siblings who live overseas and who intend to stay overseas and not come back to New Zealand. My own family is an example of that. I have a mother who lives in New Zealand and a sister who lives in Sydney. I have four cousins. One of them lives in Sydney and another lives in Brisbane. In my own family we are global, so when we need to get together as a family, when grandparents want to see the grandchildren, or when we want to visit our siblings to keep the family unit together, we have to get on a plane. Our society has changed and people are travelling a lot more, especially the elderly. They are travelling a lot more to keep that family unit together by visiting their siblings, their grandchildren, and their children. This bill is a result of change in our society that has meant that parents and grandparents now have to travel, and they do travel.

New Zealand has also become a very multicultural society where a lot of siblings and grandchildren live permanently in countries where the grandparents originally came from. For example, grandparents are going back to India or Asia for months at a time to visit their family.

This legislation is very positive and is keeping abreast of the times. Even though travel costs have reduced, many people who travel are on fixed incomes. Many elderly people save to go away, but if they lose their superannuation while they are overseas, they get into a bit of financial hardship. Not everybody who travels is wealthy, and a lot of people—especially the elderly—save to visit their family, because that is a priority in their lives.

This bill makes it easier for older people to travel or live overseas. The new provisions represent a modernisation of the overseas policy payment that has been in place since 1990. The Government is committed to ensuring that our older people are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in their community, whether that community is in New Zealand or in another country, and whether they participate in that community for 1 week, 1 month, or 6 months. It is important that they participate, and that they have dignity while doing so because they do have income. Forcing older people to remain in one country or preventing their ability to travel to a variety of countries serves no particular purpose, and is not in tune with the desires and aspirations of today’s retirees.

The Government is amending the legislation as the current system offers limited options. The current rules are preventing many of our older New Zealanders from moving to the country where they would like to live, or from travelling overseas. The current policies generally reflect the universal and resident-based nature of New Zealand’s system, and provide good protection for most New Zealanders. However, the recent review identified a number of specific issues with the policies on the treatment of overseas pensions, and the payment of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pension overseas.

The key change is a new, more generous maximum payment. Instead of the current flat rate of payment, older New Zealanders will be able to receive up to 100 percent, depending on the number of years they have resided in New Zealand. The bill will also free up the rules that restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around once they get overseas. It will allow payments to be made to those people who wish to reside in any country with which New Zealand has no social security agreement, whether they remain in such countries or begin travelling. It will also allow payment of superannuation and the veterans pension to those qualifying superannuitants and veterans pensioners who travel to, or in, or between any countries.

The amendments contained in the bill address the three issues with the current general portability provisions. The amendments will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel or reside overseas. The bill also proposes some technical amendments that will resolve some prior drafting errors and existing inconsistencies between the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954. The bill amends the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954 to make it easier for older New Zealanders to travel or live overseas. The new provisions will represent a modernisation of the payment overseas policy that has been in place since the 1990s.

The key features are, first, the payment of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension overseas based on a formula of 1/540th of the full rate for each month of residence in New Zealand between the ages of 20 and 65. Second, payment of New Zealand superannuation and veterans pensions will be made to superannuitants and veterans pensioners travelling to more than one country. The National-led Government is committed to ensuring that our older people are able to live in dignity and participate fully in their community, whether that community is in New Zealand or in other countries.

The purpose of the bill is to amend the legislation as the current system offers limited options. The current rules are preventing many of our older New Zealanders from travelling and from seeing their families. Currently there are three main ways in which New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension can be paid to people resident overseas: general portability agreement, special portability agreement, and social security agreements. The current policies generally reflect the universal and residence-based nature of the New Zealand system, and provide protection for most New Zealanders.

However, the recent review identified a number of specific issues with the treatment of overseas pensions and the payment of New Zealand superannuation. There are three main issues that this legislation will address: the flat rate of 50 percent provides insufficient income to allow a reasonable standard of living in many countries; the current rules restrict the ability of older people to move to more than one country, because payment is linked to residency; and payment overseas at present is linked to residence overseas, and older people who wish to undertake long-term travel in another country or travel between countries cannot continue to receive their payments. Because of those issues, the bill will make the three main changes.

The key change is the more generous maximum payment. Instead of the current flat rate of payment, older New Zealanders will be able to receive up to 100 percent of New Zealand superannuation, depending on the number of years they have resided in New Zealand. Secondly, the bill will also free up the rules that restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around. Thirdly, it will allow payment for those people who wish to reside in any country. The bill also proposes some technical amendments that will resolve some prior drafting errors and existing inconsistencies between the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001 and the War Pensions Act 1954.

I look forward to this bill coming to the Social Services Committee and to the submissions that we will listen to. The last time this bill was amended, in 2001, there were 269 submissions, and I am sure there will be great interest in this bill this time as well. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker.

SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Greetings and acknowledgment to members of this House.

The Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill is a great bill and I am privileged to have the opportunity to take a call on it. We in Labour will fully support this bill through the legislative process; this bill is, after all, a bill that the previous Labour Government did all the work on. Under the previous Labour Government, a review was initiated on the treatment of overseas pensions and the payment of New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension overseas.

This review began in 2002 and was completed in October 2007. Appropriately, the review was undertaken by the Ministry of Social Development and Treasury. It is comforting to know that other Government agencies such as the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, the Inland Revenue Department, and the Department of Labour were consulted, and provided advice throughout the review. I am glad also that the review took into account the views expressed in correspondence to the Ministry of Social Development and to various Ministers at the time on the treatment of overseas pensions and the overseas payment provisions.

I want to therefore acknowledge my friend and colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson for all her work and effort in ensuring that this work took place. The Hon Ruth Dyson, as the previous Minister for Social Development and Employment, had a good rapport with all of our communities throughout New Zealand, and was in tune with the needs of our communities—in this case, with pensioners and veterans.

I also want to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Paula Bennett, for keeping this bill alive and for allowing it to proceed through the legislative system of this House. In my view, the Minister has done an extraordinary thing, and I suspect it would have required enormous courage to do so, as I have noticed that anything that Labour worked on or introduced, or that is associated with Labour, suddenly gets dumped. We have seen examples of this not only with the dumping of Ross Wilson as the chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation board but with the further dumping by the Minister for ACC of other board members. I acknowledge the Minister for bringing this bill through. Some in this House might ask why we should acknowledge the Hon Paula Bennett, when she did not do any of the work. I would like to think that she had the courage to convince her Cabinet colleagues that even though this bill had been introduced by the previous Labour Government, she should still advance it through this House. So I salute the Hon Paula Bennett.

Advancing this bill is also extraordinary because of the environment that the National Government has created around superannuation generally. I want to give members some context for the bill that we are now debating. I would say to members of this House that the National Government has created a lot of worry and uncertainty around superannuation. Earlier in the year the National Government created uncertainty around the future of the Superannuation Fund with its comments about borrowing to fund it, suggesting investment losses, and never, for one minute, recognising that the Superannuation Fund operates on a long-term strategy.

National has always been uncomfortable around superannuation and is now refusing to rule out plundering the fund. In fact, comments made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance were captured in newspaper headlines. The National Business Review on 27 February this year stated: “Stopping super payment inevitable”. Another quote from the Southland Times on 25 February stated: “Key won’t rule out Super Fund suspension”. These kinds of headlines only remind Grey Power and senior citizens throughout New Zealand of the National Government in the 1990s. Members will know about the comment: “no ifs, no buts, no maybes”. Then the National Government of the 1990s broke National’s pre-election promise to scrap that surcharge, and instead increased it from 20 percent to 25 percent, and lowered the income exemption so that more superannuitants were affected by the surcharge. In 1998 the National Government linked superannuation to the level of the consumer price index. At the same time it cut its relative level from 65 percent to 60 percent of the average wage, which was estimated would lead to between one-third and one-half of New Zealand’s elderly living in poverty.

Hon David Parker: Who was Minister of Finance?

SU’A WILLIAM SIO: Yes, that is right. The newspaper headlines captured the National Government’s attitudes towards superannuation in the 1990s. I quote from the Evening Post of 13 January 1999: “Govt looked at bigger super cuts”. Another one is from the Daily News of 2 February 1999: “Super sacrifice”. That is the kind of background against which we now debate this bill. It is one of the reasons why I said that it must have taken courage for the Hon Paula Bennett to advance this bill, particularly when the rest of her front bench is intending to do other things with superannuation.

We come now to the bill, the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. As I said, Labour is supporting this bill. It is aimed at ensuring that New Zealanders who wish to retire overseas are able to do so comfortably, in the country of their choice. When I look through the bill, I see that it is pro-family, as my colleague Dr Rajen Prasad has said.

This bill recognises that we, the ordinary New Zealand or Kiwi family, have international links. The Minister mentioned Croatia. In my electorate we have Māori whose family live in Japan and in China, and the parents like to visit their kids there and to stay a little. We have Pacific people who are linked to family in Rome and family in the USA. We have Latin American people, Chinese people, and people from the UK in my community. We have parents and grandparents who are travelling and wanting to spend time—sometimes a year, sometimes 2 years, sometimes more—with young relatives who live overseas.

I would be very much interested in hearing the views of some of these families with regard to this bill. I am pleased that it will be going to a select committee. In particular, we have church organisations that send out elderly people on missions, sometimes for 2 years, 3 years, 5 years, or longer, and I would be interested in hearing their view in terms of what impact, if any, this bill may have on them. I am also particularly interested in the views of Pacific communities. This bill specifies 22 Pacific countries that we will have relationships with under the bill, and I would be interested to know the views of some Pacific individuals in those specific communities who have experience in this regard.

I also heard earlier a member of the ACT Party mention the potential problems associated with our relationship with Australia. I have had a couple of families come to me with similar problems with Australia. Australians who have come here or New Zealanders who have gone to Australia, have had difficulty in securing their particular pension. I would be interested in hearing the views of families that have had difficulty in transporting their pension to or from Australia and New Zealand.

I can see that you are getting tired, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, and my time is running out, so I am pretty pleased to speak in favour of this bill. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) : Mr Assistant Speaker Roy, may you find this contribution even more electrifying!

It is wonderful to hear the member for Māngere and his colleagues all declaring their great support for this Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. But, yet again, they seem to find all sorts of ways of talking around it. In particular, I was astonished to hear that member, Su’a William Sio, remind the House yet again about the shambles in accident compensation that his party bequeathed to the new Government. Instead of his shedding crocodile tears over the future of Mr Ross Wilson, I say to Mr Sio that I think Mr Wilson will probably applaud this bill more than most members of the public, because the likelihood is that he will have plenty of chances to enjoy some travelling in the next few years.

I commend our excellent new Minister for Social Development and Employment for bringing this important bill before the House. As she noted in her introductory remarks, it is yet another example of a measure that the previous Government claimed it was promoting, but that languished on the Order Paper throughout its 9 long years of inactivity.

Amy Adams: It’s a long time.

TIM MACINDOE: As my wonderful colleague Amy Adams points out, in her long and distinguished career in this House almost every measure that we have had to work on falls into this category. So it is great that we have, at long last, a Government that is getting on with the job. I suggest to members opposite that they reflect on why the previous Labour Government was so strong on the talk and so weak on the walk. It is no wonder that New Zealanders are overwhelmingly describing this Government as a breath of fresh air and as a Government that keeps its word and tackles the issues that matter.

It was a pity that the deputy leader of the Labour Opposition, like her colleague the member for Māngere, could not remain focused on the bill.

Amy Adams: Who is it?

TIM MACINDOE: Mrs King, I think her name is—at least, this week. Instead she opted for more Labour Party scaremongering, just as Mr Sio has just done, over future superannuation arrangements generally. Well, let us put that issue to bed straight away, because I want to remind the House, and I am proud to remind the House, that the Prime Minister has repeatedly stressed his personal commitment and that of our Government to maintaining existing superannuation arrangements.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Just borrow more.

TIM MACINDOE: It is not only dishonest, I say to Mrs Chadwick, for the Labour Party to suggest otherwise but also actually cruel for her party to do that, because many retired people may be listening—in fact, I am sure that during this contribution the number of retired people listening has gone up fourfold—to the contributions of Mr Sio, Mrs King, and others, and wondering why a measure that is broadly supported in this House and very much in the interests of our retired people should be hijacked in such a misleading and dishonest manner. It is an irrelevant contribution; it is also a very, very unfair one.

As the chair of the Social Services Committee has noted, many will benefit from the provisions of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill, and no doubt they will be chirping merrily over their cornflakes tomorrow morning as that memorable title trips off their tongues so effortlessly.

As Jo Goodhew noted, the status quo is no longer an option. I doubt whether many members of this House have not been contacted by constituents who are concerned about the inflexibility of the present arrangements. I know that Mr Woodhouse has had them beating a path to his door almost every day on this matter, and what a fine member he is in the way that he handles the whole issue.

Sad as we are to see older New Zealanders depart these shores, it is understandable that some take that option after watching their children and grandchildren settle overseas. Of course, as we all know, that was happening at an alarming rate during the term of the last Government, and it is to be hoped and expected that the exodus will slow considerably now that sensible government has been restored to New Zealand. It is certainly understandable that some of our older people opt for extended periods of travel after a lifetime in the workforce—and do they not deserve it? We are grateful to them; let us make it possible for them to go off and have that overseas trip that many of them have worked for literally for decades.

It was initially good to hear Dr Prasad make a more constructive contribution than the deputy leader of the Labour Opposition did. But even Dr Prasad resorted to dancing on the head of a pin as he tried to portray the Minister in charge of this bill—this wonderful Minister—as being somehow dubious about the bill that she is actively promoting through the House.

Dr Rajen Prasad: You heard what the Minister said.

TIM MACINDOE: Maybe the Labour members are dancing on the head of the pin, I say to Dr Prasad, because they have had to drag themselves away from watching Dancing with the Stars tonight. I suggest that being on that programme would be a very good way for the member to occupy his time.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Very cynical.

TIM MACINDOE: She is a very, very good Minister. As I said, the Minister is actively steering this bill through the House. She is fully committed to it. She has the strong support of all her colleagues on this side of the House, including those on the front bench, despite the nonsense that we had to listen to a few minutes ago.

We can only come to the conclusion that it is obviously a very strange and disconcerting experience for the members opposite to find themselves in Opposition, and to realise that they face being in Opposition for a very, very long time. They are struggling to function as an Opposition when, in their hearts, they know that they are facing a National Government that is firing on all cylinders, keeping its promises, and delivering so positively for the country.

Despite those members’ curious contributions, I welcome the indications from members opposite and from the minor parties that there will be broad support for this bill’s passage through the House. As a member of the Social Services Committee, I look forward to our work during the select committee process, and to bringing this bill back to the House for enactment at the earliest opportunity.

As Sue Bradford noted, the previous Government promised throughout its tenure to adopt this measure. We in the National-led Government are to get on with the job and do just that. Why our predecessors could not do it after 9 years at the helm is utterly baffling.

The Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill gives our senior citizens the options they deserve. The current rules prevent many older New Zealanders from travelling overseas as they would wish, which is unfair and distressing for them. It is within the power of this House, in the next week or two, to alleviate their stress and to reduce that obstacle to the fulfilment of their aspirations. That is because this National-led Government is committed to ensuring that our older people are able to live in dignity and to participate fully in their communities, wherever they may be, whether in New Zealand or abroad. Forcing older people to remain in one country or preventing their ability to travel to a variety of countries serves no particular purpose. It is not in tune with the desires and aspirations of today’s retirees, and it is far, far short of what we should be able to offer in a civilised and prosperous nation.

The bill that we are debating will also free up the rules that restrict the ability of superannuitants and veterans pensioners to move around once they get overseas, and that is a very important part of this particular measure. It will allow people who wish to reside in countries with which New Zealand has no current social security agreements to access their entitlements, and to travel freely between such countries. They will have none of the current stress that if they begin in a country with which New Zealand has no such arrangement, they will find that their entitlement dries up right at the outset.

The bill will also allow the payment of superannuation and the veterans pension to those qualifying superannuitants and veterans pensioners who wish to travel to or between the countries—[Interruption] Mr Assistant Speaker—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Pull the pin!

TIM MACINDOE: I have 2 minutes to go—wonderful! I can see that members opposite are hoping for an extension of my time.

The amendments contained in the bill address the three main concerns that arise from the general portability provisions, which are a very important aspect of this measure. As I have mentioned, the amendments will ensure fairer and more equitable treatment for superannuitants and veteran pensioners who wish to travel or reside overseas. I am sure that most members of this House will be acquainted with people who will really appreciate this legislative change. I am particularly pleased that it is an acknowledgment of the wonderful contribution that our veterans have given to our country and our Commonwealth over many, many years. Our Government is committed to ensuring that our older citizens are able to live in dignity, enjoy their retirement, remain in touch with family and friends here and overseas, and contribute fully to their communities, wherever they choose to make them. Let us help them to do just that.

I commend this bill to the House, and I thank members for the broad support it clearly enjoys, even though from time to time we seem to have to listen to discussion of everything other than the bill.

NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) : It is a great privilege to rise and take a call in the first reading of the Social Assistance (Payment of New Zealand Superannuation and Veteran’s Pension Overseas) Amendment Bill. It is a very exciting bill for the constituents of the Ōtaki electorate, because we have the highest number of people aged over 65 per capita of all electorates across New Zealand. Indeed, like many of the previous speakers in this evening’s debate who have been lobbied by their own constituents, for me this is an important bill, which the National Party is supporting in Government. I commend the good work of the Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Paula Bennett, for bringing the bill into the House this evening.

I will make a couple of points. There are currently about 20,000 superannuitants under this regime who are paid a New Zealand pension or benefit while living overseas. These changes will benefit approximately 500 veterans per year. The cost is somewhere in the order of $6 million to $7 million over 4 years. This bill is extremely important. When members actually step back from the bill and think about the contributions that these people have made in their lives, whether it is through bringing up a family, supporting their children, paying taxes, or making a contribution to society, we ask why those people in their twilight years should not be given the opportunity to travel and collect their superannuation while they are overseas.

The important point is that quite a bit of this work is happening already, but the Government wants to make some further progressive steps to ensure that those veterans or pensioners who travel overseas will be able to collect this in a greater form. We currently have temporary absence provisions for those who are overseas for 26 weeks. We also have provisions for those who make a contribution to aid work. We have the social security agreement that is currently in place with countries like Australia, the Netherlands, Ireland, Greece, Jersey, Guernsey, Canada, and Denmark. Indeed, New Zealand superannuitants residing in the UK are entitled to the UK State pension.

The other important area that I wish to make a contribution on this evening is the special portability arrangement, whereby payment can be made at a rate of around 50 to 100 percent while the superannuitant intends to live for 52 weeks or more in 22 of the specified Pacific countries. I do not wish to name those 22 Pacific countries, but there are a whole variety of them across the Pacific.

In summing up, I say that this is a very busy Government. Indeed, it will be a very busy Social Services Committee that will work hard on this bill and, hopefully, report back to the House towards the end of the year. This side of the House wishes to support this bill, which is particularly favourable to those superannuitants and veterans pensioners across New Zealand. That is why I commend this bill to the House in its first reading this evening.

• Bill read a first time.

• Bill referred to the Social Services Committee.

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I move, That the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time, I intend to move that the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration, and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2009, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions, 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).

This bill fulfils part of the small-business relief package announced by the Prime Minister on 4 February this year by expanding the jurisdiction of a disputes tribunal to reduce the amount of time small businesses are tied up in District Court battles. The Government is very keen to smooth the way for these businesses, so we will encourage the use of the disputes tribunal, which provides a simple, cost-effective, and fast forum for resolving small civil disputes. The tribunal provides access to justice for New Zealanders through a more conciliatory approach to justice, rather than the traditional adversarial court system.

The Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill will increase the maximum claim levels of the disputes tribunal. The current maximum claim levels are $7,500, or $12,000 where both parties agree, but these were last reviewed by the previous National Government in 1998. This bill will increase these levels to $15,000, or $20,000 where both parties agree. This will improve access to the disputes tribunal for individuals and small businesses, reducing costs for up to 3,600 additional cases annually. Many of these cases would currently be dealt with in the District Court, with its higher associated costs, including the cost of legal representation. The reduced costs for these cases will be more proportionate to the value of their claim than if they had been dealt with by the District Court. This increase in the maximum claim levels will therefore free up valuable time and money for small businesses and individuals.

The decade or more that it has taken to increase maximum claim levels of the disputes tribunal has increased the gap between cases that can be taken to the disputes tribunal and those that are financially viable to be taken to the District Court. In other words, this bill will improve access to justice for individuals and businesses pursuing cases that would otherwise have fallen through the cracks. Part 1 of this bill amends the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 to reflect the increased maximum claim levels. Part 2 contains a number of consequential amendments to reflect the change in statutes that confer jurisdiction on the disputes tribunal.

I ask that the Justice and Electoral Committee consider this bill in a shortened period of time, to allow the new maximum claim level to be implemented quickly, thereby assisting small businesses across the country to resolve their disputes during the tougher economic climate we now face. We need to lighten the load on small and medium sized businesses so they can get on with the business of producing goods and services. Expanding the jurisdiction of the tribunal also fulfils National’s election promise to increase the jurisdiction of disputes tribunals to reduce pressure on District Courts. This increase in jurisdiction levels is a first step, and we do not rule out making further increases to the threshold. I commend this bill to the House.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I think it is fair to say that New Zealand has a long history of dispute resolution that is freed from the rigours of the rules of evidence and from the formalities of the rules of common law. Labour sees the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill, which increases both the default and the by-agreement jurisdictions of the disputes tribunal, as a logical extension of that history. We will support the bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee, where our members on that committee will listen carefully to the evidence to determine what our final position on the legislation ought to be.

I referred in my introductory remarks to the long history this country has of these forms of dispute resolution. I respectfully refer the House to Peter Spiller’s excellent book on disputes tribunals in New Zealand, because the history is well set out there.

Hon Dr Richard Worth: Co-edited by Mr Chauvel.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: It is nice to see Dr Worth in the Chamber. I say “Namaste, sir!” to him.

I note that the Supreme Court was established in New Zealand in 1841. It heard the important cases—the big cases—of high monetary jurisdiction, but it did so according to the rules of evidence in the English courts. As early as in 1844 the legislature of New Zealand set up another body called the Courts of Request. They were set up to hear claims for the easier and speedier recovery of small debts. Lawyers and advocates were not permitted to appear in these courts, and their decisions were final, in respect of law and fact. Then, in 1846, Resident Magistrates’ Courts were established for the simpler and speedier administration of justice. They were required to give judgments according to the concept of equity and good conscience. The Courts of Request were abolished in 1858, and the Resident Magistrates’ Courts were renamed the Magistrates’ Courts after 1893. They became the only redress for dealing with small claims.

The lawyers in the House will know that the equity and good conscience jurisdiction remains in the District Courts, which is what the Magistrates’ Courts became after the Beattie commission in 1981. It is interesting to note that the jurisdiction continues in other fora, such as the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court. It is intended to allow the courts to hear the claims of a litigant according to their moral and equitable rights without the application of the rigours of the rules of evidence.

Spiller records in his book that by the 1970s there were doubts about the Magistrates’ Courts’ ability to do justice in cases of small claims. He identifies four reasons for this: first, representation by lawyers was costly; second, laypeople felt overwhelmed by the legal process; third, adversarial processes were unsuitable for the settlement of small claims; and, fourth, the equity provision was at the discretion of the presiding magistrate. These concerns coincided with general desires in the community for the promotion of better access to justice. It is no accident that the citizens advice bureaux and the community law centres in their current form date back to this time.

Legislators in this Parliament looked abroad for examples of other low-level tribunals. There were the North American small claims or small debts courts, which existed in Canada and the United States from the early decades of the 20th century. In this part of the world, Queensland, then Victoria, then the other Australian states and territories led the way. At the 1972 election, Labour, in its manifesto, promised to give favourable consideration to the setting up of small claims courts after having studied similar projects in other countries.

In 1975 Labour’s Attorney-General, Dr Martyn Finlay, introduced a small claims tribunal bill. The legislation passed into law in 1976. The first referees were appointed on 3 June 1977 in Christchurch, New Plymouth, and Rotorua. The original jurisdiction of the tribunal was $500. From 1980 the tribunals were established elsewhere, and by October 1985 they existed in 36 centres. The $500 limit was raised to $1,000 in 1985 by Labour’s next Attorney-General, Geoffrey Palmer, who also reformed and updated the system significantly via the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988. The jurisdiction was extended, and this included raising the monetary limits to $3,000 by right, and $5,000 by consent—the first time that an as-of-right versus by-agreement dichotomy was introduced into the system.

As the Minister in charge of the bill, Simon Power, said, legislation in 1998 and 1999 raised the monetary limit to the presently applicable levels—$7,500 as of right and $12,000 by consent. I think it is correct to say that, at that time, credit contract and hire purchase claims were also included in the jurisdiction of the tribunals. By 2003, 54 referees were stationed around New Zealand, servicing 59 centres. The current bill is designed to extend the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunals from $7,500 by right, or $12,000 with the consent of the parties, to $15,000 or $20,000, respectively. There are consequential amendments to the Consumer Guarantees Act, the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, the Fair Trading Act, the Fencing Act, the Minors’ Contracts Act, and the Retirement Villages Act.

I said in my introductory remarks that Labour would support the introduction of this legislation and its referral to a select committee. We do so because of our proud tradition in this area. As I have shown, it was a Labour Attorney-General, Finlay, who first introduced the legislation setting up small claims tribunals, and it was his successor, Palmer, who introduced the legislation transforming them into their current form—the disputes tribunals.

It is clearly sensible to continue to update the jurisdiction of a tribunal, but I ask the Minister to consider the following matters as members on this side of the House consider their position on the bill. If we are going to be amending legislation such as the Consumer Guarantees Act and the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, why not look at inserting provisions in that legislation that, for example, would regulate the imposing of usurious interest by pay-day lenders? I have signalled I think that ought to be done by this Parliament, and I will seek to do it by a member’s bill if there is no other such legislation before the House. And why should we not think about an unlimited upper limit on the jurisdiction of the tribunals if the parties so agree? What is wrong with parties agreeing to seek access to justice in an informal forum like this, and agreeing—provided that the agreement is made by informed consent—that there should not be an upper limit on the monetary claim? Why should we not be able to do away with lawyers altogether, in that sort of situation?

Hon Simon Power: Steady!

CHARLES CHAUVEL: I can see by the Minister’s smile that he will consider this seriously. [Interruption] If I could just be heard over the rabble opposite, I will ask the Minister why we should not solidify the promises that have been made to community law centres as to funding this year. Why should we not announce a solution going forward, given the hard times that New Zealand is going into, and given that many low-income earners with claims of over $15,000 will be forced to use the ordinary courts, because they will not be able to get agreement from the other side that $20,000 ought to be the limit? Those low-income earners will have to use legal aid and have recourse to community law centres, at a time when the funding of those centres remains uncertain despite the undertakings that have been given to date by the Government.

So Labour members on the select committee will be looking for solutions to the matters I have just raised, but, as I have said, we will support sending the legislation to the select committee because, on its face, it addresses an important issue—the updating of the jurisdiction of the tribunals, which should happen. We should always keep the monetary levels of jurisdiction of our courts and tribunals under review as circumstances change. But there are important issues as to consumer protection and access to justice that remain unaddressed by this legislation and that must be faced at some point by this Parliament.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I rise in support of the Disputes Tribunal Amendment Bill, of course. It is interesting to note the words of the previous speaker, Charles Chauvel. It is a bit of a worry for me that he made so much sense I found myself agreeing with him, so maybe I should change my point of view! But a number of the points he made are very valid, and one of them is the need to continually reflect on the tariffs and tenures of the various courts and tribunals we operate in. The disputes tribunals are ones that allow easy access to justice, because people are allowed to come before the tribunals without the presence of lawyers. It is not that lawyers are all bad; it is just that most lawyers are quite expensive. So a couple of parties that have a dispute are allowed to argue that dispute in front of an adjudicator, and one of the rules, of course, is that there is no legal counsel in the room as those parties argue before the adjudicator. The only real contest is that there must be a dispute.

The tribunal is not a facility, for instance, for the collection of bad debts. It is not somewhere a person can go to obtain a summary judgment on the fact that money has not been paid or that money is owed. There must be a dispute to put before the tribunal. Obviously, the use of the tribunal comes at a very low cost. I think that for the sum of $40 an action can be started. A person can go to the court and fill out the forms in triplicate. The forms are then served on the other party, and the parties end up with their day in court. But over time the upper threshold has been so low that any real dispute that is causing angst has not been able to find its place for a hearing within the disputes tribunal process. If that ceiling is too low, people are forced to go before the District Court and all of a sudden one tends to find an inequity of arms. The person with the dispute—for instance, against the house builder, the garage mechanic, or the provider of goods and services—has far less financial grunt than the person on the other side of the contest, and before the District Court the business owner usually has access to counsel. The person in dispute does not have access to legal aid for that particular argument, and its cost and charges can then be put over his or her house property, for instance, in recognition of the cost of legal aid at that time.

The cost of the dispute before the court may well be taken against the person on the sale of that property some years down the track. So it is good to see that the Government is taking the opportunity here to raise the ceiling to $15,000, or to $20,000 by consent of all parties. The point made by the previous speaker was that maybe there should be no lid or ceiling on it. The problem with that would be, I guess, the skill level, the history, or the legal experience of the adjudicator. For instance, if the sum was $150,000, then some serious jurisprudence might be made there, and that is a bit of a concern for the people who would look at the adjudicator and ask where the skill base was and whether it was appropriate to have a person not legally qualified and judicially recognised sitting on a case involving those sorts of figures.

Disputes tribunals provide cheap, simple, and fast access to justice. In Hāwera, where I live, people who have filed papers in the local court can appear before the disputes tribunal within a couple of months. That is very speedy justice when compared with appearing in a courthouse, and, as I said earlier, the filing fees are significantly lower. Therefore, raising the ceiling will close the gap between claims that fall within the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal and claims that are financially viable to bring before the District Court. I guess it would be fair to say that even a relatively straightforward dispute before the District Court could cost someone in the vicinity of $8,000 to $10,000, and that would be seen as relatively cheap, comparatively. If there was a $15,000 debt a person could spend a heck of a lot of whatever satisfaction that person may have received, on trying to satisfy legal costs. Whatever costs are awarded through the District Court are never sufficient to meet the actual bill sent by legal counsel.

National campaigned quite heavily in the area of raising the ceiling in respect of disputes tribunals, so it was obviously something that anyone working within the justice system had recognised as being needed for quite some time. There is significant backing for this move, right across the justice system. National is working to increase the cash flow and make the enforcement of debts easier for small and medium sized businesses. We often find the ability within the disputes tribunal mechanism for businesses to be able to enforce a debt that is in dispute, as well as the means by which a dissatisfied customer can exercise his or her right to argue the dispute in front of an adjudicator.

This legislation has been required for some time. Access to justice in this country frequently boils down to access to the financial wherewithal to be able to bring a cause of action. It is very important, in the interests of justice, that access to an adjudicator and to justice is provided as cheaply and speedily as possible. It is interesting to note that the previous Government did not increase the jurisdiction during its entire 9-year term, and the last increase was made by a National Government in 1998, just a year before it left office. It is a shame that the previous Government did not see as a priority the need to have a check and to see how things were progressing. For instance, we can look at the rate of inflation over time and see that that ceiling is creeping down all the time. As we are now moving into a time of recession, it is important to note that there has to be a way to bring these matters before an adjudicator quite quickly.

A former colleague of mine who works in the document service business in South Taranaki has brought to my attention the fact that in 1999 he served 90 default notices, and through to August 2005 that number had grown to 247. If we looked at last year, we could see that the number was well over 350. That means that more and more people have been enticed into debt, and although the disputes tribunal is not a mechanism for satisfying unpaid debts, where a dispute arises there is a real need for people to be able to come before an arbitrator to state their case, to do it cheaply, and to do it in a timely fashion. Thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker.

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) : I rise to concur with the previous speaker from the Government, Chester Borrows. Labour has some areas about which we would like to see further questions raised by the select committee, but we are happy for the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill to be considered by the select committee. My colleague Charles Chauvel raised some very good points in his speech. I will not dwell on them, but I have some additional questions that I think it would be useful for the select committee to consider.

The disputes tribunal, as it currently stands, was established in 1988, and it has come to be regarded as a well-respected body and one that serves a very important purpose in New Zealand’s legal system. Two of the aspects that make the disputes tribunal such a well-respected body are, first, its accessibility and, second, that it contributes to our overall status as not being an overly litigious society, which is an important point and a situation that I think we would wish to preserve in New Zealand.

What differentiates the disputes tribunal from our other court processes? It is important to point out these differences, in order to test the suitability of the shifts in the claims levels that are being proposed in this bill. The first difference is that the referees’ decisions are based not on law but on the merits and justice of a case. That is an important point to make. The second difference is that the grounds for appeal are limited and can be met only if the proceedings were conducted in a prejudicial manner. I will go back to that point later in my speech. The third difference is that the disputes tribunal does not allow legal representation of parties. Again, this contributes to the fact that this regime is an accessible regime, not an overly litigious one. The fourth difference is that referees are not required to be legally qualified, although many of us will know that a large proportion of them are qualified. Finally, the proceedings are held in private and the discussions are not published, which I think contributes to the openness of the discussions that are had when two parties are going through the dispute process.

It is important to put a little bit of reality into this discussion and to start talking about the kinds of situations where the disputes tribunal is used. That will demonstrate to us the impact of these changes. The first point I make is that the tribunal is able to be used regardless of whether a party has put in writing or stipulated in a contract that no responsibility will be accepted or has explicitly said that a situation cannot go to a tribunal. That will not necessarily hold. This means that the disputes tribunal is always available to parties where they may fall under the criteria captured by the tribunal.

What are the criteria? The kinds of claims that can be made to a tribunal include if work has not been done properly if a person has contracted someone to conduct work on his or her house—and the amount charged for work done—and if goods purchased are not the ones asked for. These are all circumstances where everyday citizens who are going about their daily business may incur some kind of injustice that could be righted through the disputes tribunal.

The criteria also include damage to property and loss of property. Even if, for instance, someone lends something to his or her neighbour, this may be captured by the criteria. Hire purchase agreements or someone denying that he or she owes money when an account comes in for settlement are other areas that may be captured by the criteria. This is where the small-business aspects of the disputes tribunal come in, but it is important to remember that this bill has implications not just for small businesses but for private citizens. We have to keep that in mind when we are looking at quite a substantial shift in the claim levels. It is a reasonable leap to go from $7,500 to $15,000 if we are talking about private citizens, and from $12,000 to $20,000 where there is at least some agreement around that amount. Also, there are areas where it is quite explicit that the tribunal cannot traverse.

One of the things we should keep in mind when this bill goes to the select committee is the disputes tribunal’s accessibility. Currently, a number of fees are set around going to the tribunal, but they are quite low—and for good reason. If a claim is for less than $1,000, the fee that a private citizen or a party is likely to incur is about $30. If the claim is for an amount of $7,500 or more, then the fee goes up to $100. We need to keep the accessibility of the disputes tribunal in mind. If we are going to take a leap of up to $20,000, is the Minister undertaking that that regime will stay the same? It is my hope that it would.

I would also like to cross-reference again the remarks made by my colleague Charles Chauvel about legal aid. Many private citizens may choose to seek advice from a community law centre when faced with a dispute, and we must consider the accessibility of those services when the maximum claim levels are ramped up. They are going to be lifted, and given that there is no right to have a lawyer in the tribunal when a case is heard, it may be advisable that the citizens have some kind of legal advice if the claim levels are going to be lifted so heavily.

I will reiterate the reason why that is particularly important. In the disputes tribunal, the grounds for appeal are extremely limited. One can, for instance, make an appeal only if one believes that the proceedings were conducted in a prejudicial manner. It is the process one can dispute but not necessarily the outcome. That is particularly important if we are considering private citizens accessing this procedure and a maximum claim amount of $20,000. That is not an insignificant amount for a private citizen.

Generally, we have seen that these amounts that have been set down where the disputes tribunal does have jurisdiction have been suitable. They have been fitting to the types of cases that have gone through the tribunal. It will be up to the select committee to consider in more detail whether an amount of $15,000 or $20,000 will attract the same types of suitable cases, or whether we might be going beyond the realms of what cases we previously considered the disputes tribunal should be considering.

Why is it important to make sure the cases are relevant? It is important not only because the grounds for appeal are limited but also because if a person has a limited right to appeal, the consequences of a ruling are significant. If, for instance, a distress warrant is issued to a bailiff or a collections officer, then those officers can come to a person’s property and demand full payment, if a ruling has been made against that person. They may seize personal possessions—and rightly so if a ruling has been made against that person—but if there is a lack of money or assets, the creditor can then apply to the courts to start bankruptcy proceedings.

That may not be a situation we would see frequently when we are talking about claims around the $7,500 mark, but at the $20,000 mark, and with a significantly larger number of cases being taken to the tribunal, as the Minister has talked about, we may very well see that occurrence happening more often. The select committee should consider that situation. Perhaps the select committee would like to question officials on the proportion of current cases where that situation arises, and whether that is a favourable outcome. The select committee must consider what both the Government and the select committee would wish to achieve in a regime that allows very little right for appeal and has very strong consequences for those who are involved and who have very little legal representation at the time.

Given all those things, it is still important to consider the merits of continuing to ensure a balance between having an accessible system and avoiding excessively litigious processes in our justice system. That balance is something we should continue to defend. It is something we have seen undermined in this House up until now, particularly in the first 100 days of the current Government. We have always, particularly when Labour was in Government, strived to ensure that workers’ rights were intrinsically included in legislation and were not something that had to be established through testing of the courts. We have had measures like the 90-day bill and the cancellation of pay equity, and we have the potential privatisation of accident compensation. We have already seen in Australia that experiment leading to a significantly larger number of cases being disputed directly with private insurance companies. In the United States model, one would have no right to dispute any single case in that situation.

We must continue to ensure that New Zealand does not become a litigious society. We have not seen that approach to date with the policies brought forward by the National Government, which wants to see everything tested through the courts. I look forward to the select committee striking the balance between accessibility and assessing the merits of an individual case. Thank you.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : The Green Party is happy to support the referral of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill to the select committee. We find the rationale for the bill to be entirely fair and reasonable, given the fact that the levels for claims were set over 10 years ago. We do have some interest in noting the three different options that are set out in the explanatory note of the bill. It will be our intent to pursue those further, and other concerns as well, in the select committee. But it is sufficient for the moment just to affirm that the Green Party supports the bill’s referral to the select committee, and we will look forward to pursuing it there. Thank you.

Hon HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I rise to speak to this first reading of the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill on behalf of the ACT Party. It is pleasing to see that this very sensible bill has good cross-party support in the House. The ACT Party endorses the comments of just about every speaker to date. The disputes tribunal operates as a cheap and effective means of redress for disputes, such as consumer-to-business disputes, business-to-business disputes, or person-to-person disputes, such as neighbouring fence issues and the like.

Under the Disputes Tribunals Act referees are able to consider the merits of a case in reaching a decision. That is one of the advantages of using the disputes tribunal—the referees are not obliged to follow the letter of the law if doing so would, for instance, result in a perverse judgment outcome.

As we have heard from other speakers, disputes heard by the disputes tribunal are currently limited to the amount of $7,500, but disputes up to the level of $12,000 may be heard if both parties consent. This piece of legislation allows for the lifting of the level of claims to $15,000, or to $20,000 with the agreement of both parties. That is a very sensible and pleasing move that, as I said, the ACT Party is pleased to support.

The move is part of the Government’s small-business relief package, and the ACT Party fully supports that, as we have made very clear. It is aimed at improving the business environment by reducing the impact of taxes on firms’ cash flows by improving firms’ access to credit and reducing business compliance costs.

The decision to increase the financial limit is also good news for consumers, and it is important that we consider their rights. Community law centres and groups such as Consumer New Zealand and the Principal Disputes Referee have suggested for some time that the current limit is inadequate and should be raised. The limit is currently resulting in consumers and small businesses missing out on access to redress as many claims are valued higher than the limit, and many consumers and small businesses are not in a position to take those claims to the District Court, as they would have to do if the disputes tribunal did not exist. The Small Business Advisory Group and the Arbitrators and Mediators Institute have also advocated for a much higher limit. So it is good to see good general support for this move. In fact, I would have been supportive of raising the level even higher so that many other cases would not have to go through the court process and through the legal system.

The principal referee of the disputes tribunal, Dr Peter Spiller has had quite a lot to say about this. He said he has directly communicated to the Ministry of Consumer Affairs that he strongly supports a large increase in the limit, and I think he has raised some very good points. Dr Spiller considers that the value of the limit has been undermined by inflation and rising court costs and that these have not been taken into consideration as the limits have stayed put.

There is a growing gap between the upper limit and the point at which it is financially feasible to take cases to the District Court. Dr Spiller has also advised that, increasingly, claimants are actually having to abandon part of their claims to bring them within the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal, as they cannot afford to take their claims elsewhere.

Before the bill goes to the select committee and is considered by the members of that committee, there is one other issue that I would like to raise here, and I have written a letter to the Minister of Justice in this vein. Publication of decisions of interest from the disputes tribunal currently is not allowed. I would like the select committee to at least consider that point. The representatives of community law centres have expressed a view that there should be publication of these decisions. They note that the majority of consumer disputes with traders are taken to the disputes tribunal rather than being resolved by other means—for example, through the courts. Currently, the proceedings are private, and, as a result, it is difficult for the community law centres and other groups to show to those who use their services examples of how cases have been successfully resolved and how cases might best be approached. These representatives have said they do not necessarily need the publication of all decisions; instead they suggest that the Principal Disputes Referee could perhaps be given the ability to describe cases that are of interest and have their basis in consumer legislation. I think that is a very valid point. This would generally affect cases involving the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, the Credit (Repossession) Act, the Consumer Guarantees Act, and the Fair Trading Act.

Consumer problems are the most common type of legal problem faced by New Zealanders, and the disputes tribunal is the primary forum for hearing consumer grievances. So I think that it is a valid point to raise at this time. I would like the select committee to consider this, and I have also written to the Minister of Justice in this vein.

Hon Steve Chadwick: He’ll listen.

Hon Simon Power: I always listen. I’m a listening Minister.

Hon HEATHER ROY: I have asked the Minister of Justice to consider making a direction under section 57 of the Disputes Tribunals Act, and he is very is reasonable. I am sure he is taking that into consideration. I have asked him to consider making a direction under section 57 asking the Principal Disputes Referee to periodically publish reports of cases that he considers would provide useful information to consumers, traders, and the general public.

As I have already made very plain, the ACT Party supports the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. We strongly support raising the disputes tribunal monetary limit to a higher sum. In fact we would have been happy to look at a higher level—

Hon Simon Power: All in good time.

Hon HEATHER ROY: Well, we look forward to that. We strongly support raising the disputes tribunal monetary limit to a higher sum, as it will help satisfy those issues and will allow greater access for consumers to a cheap and expert disputes resolution forum.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : It is good to take a call on the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I do not feel too bad about taking the call off Lynne Pillay as I am sure we will be saying very similar things and both making good points about this bill. It is a very small bill of about two or three pages, so I am sure that the Minister in charge of the bill, Simon Power, wants me to speak equally briefly and efficiently. The bill contains a powerful idea, and that is access to justice and the gap between—

Lynne Pillay: That’s what I was going to say.

SIMON BRIDGES: As I say, great minds think alike. The problem is the gap between where we, as citizens, are able to go to the disputes tribunal—currently for claims of up to $7,500 without consent—and where it is feasible and economic to go to the District Court. As we all know, this bill expands the jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal. Of course, as a lawyer, and having talked to many lawyers over the years, I can say that something that people and lawyers have been particularly concerned about in the past has been quality issues in the disputes tribunal. Lawyers used to say flippantly that one could flip a coin to see how a case would go, but that is no longer the case. Peter Spiller, the Principal Disputes Referee, has done an excellent job tidying up the disputes tribunal’s act, and there is considerably more certainty there now.

I do not think that we should overestimate the extent to which even in court cases there is a large amount of uncertainty in the process, even in the best of cases. I remember a Queen’s Counsel once saying to me that even if the case is 100 percent watertight on paper, one still only has a 70 to 75 percent chance of winning the case. Even in court cases, certainty can be overrated, and it is good that we have now a District Court where quality issues are being addressed; it does a good job.

The threshold, as I say, has been lifted. Frankly, we have a situation in New Zealand at the current time where any lawyer worth his or her salt who is advising a client would be very clear to the client that for a dispute of any amount less than $30,000—some would say more than that—going to court is decidedly uneconomic. The uncharitable might say that part of that is because lawyers complicate matters through discovery, through pleadings, and so on, but, as I say, there is a gap between where the disputes tribunal finishes and where it is feasible and economically viable to go to court. So for that reason alone it is very good, indeed, that we are raising that barrier. I thank you, Mr Assistant Speaker, for your wise choice in letting me take the call.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : It is a pleasure to stand and take a call on the Disputes Tribunals Amendment Bill. I am sure members have heard from my colleagues that Labour is supporting this bill going to the select committee. I think it is very important for the public to come and have a say on this bill. It is certainly quite a simple bill, as Simon Power—not Simon Power; he is sitting over there—as Simon—

Hon Members: Bridges.

LYNNE PILLAY: Simon Bridges. There is a Simon thing in the National Party. As Simon Bridges said, it is—

Hon David Cunliffe: How do you tell them apart?

LYNNE PILLAY: It is very hard. It is the Simple Simon approach to bills in this House. This bill is actually quite simple, yet still quite complex in what it does. It raises the maximum claim levels of the disputes tribunal from $7,500 or $12,000, to $15,000 or $20,000 respectively. That has to be with the consent of both parties. I think that is really relevant to this bill. The change is with consent, it is a common-sense way, and—as members opposite have said—it is about access to justice. The bill provides a way whereby, instead of going through the full court process, there is, by consent, access to justice to address these issues.

If we look at when the disputes tribunal amounts were last set, we see that it was in 1988. At that time, as I said before, they were $7,500 or $12,000. Since 1988 there has been considerable movement in terms of inflation and in terms of the costs. I have to be quite honest here in terms of the costs of access to justice, in terms of people looking at a dispute that may not be huge, and in terms of looking at what the remedy would be—what the solution is—versus what the cost would be if they were to engage legal assistance. I note that even though through the disputes tribunal the vast majority of cases use referees—people who are legally qualified—there is no actual requirement to do that. I think that is very important. It means that if people do not have funds to remedy what may be deemed a minor dispute in monetary terms, they will have access to that.

If we look at the original claim level of $7,500, we see that in this day and age that amount falls far short of the mark of a reasonable amount if one were engaging legal counsel. The bill increases that amount to $15,000 or an upper limit of $20,000, and that is certainly more realistic. The levels were last changed two decades ago and in that time there has been considerable movement. I see Mr Assistant Speaker acknowledging that fact.

Members on this side of the Chamber support the bill going to the select committee, and we think it is important for the public to have their say. In terms of the regulatory impact statement, we note that other consideration was given to alternative options. The first option was no increase to the maximum claim level at all but, as I said earlier, there was agreement that that would just retain the current inadequate situation and make no allowance whatsoever for inflation. As I said, there are rising costs associated with litigation, and there are a variety of reasons for that. In terms of access to justice, it is all about the viability of taking a case to the District Court for low-value claims. If it is not viable, because the legal costs outweigh the cost of what the remedy would be, then we see that justice is not served. So that first option was not seen as viable or sensible.

The second option would increase the maximum claim level to $25,000. That would allow the disputes tribunal still to be at a greater level to provide a cheaper and faster service, but it is my view, and the view of expert advice, that those protections would need to be strengthened, because of the amount of money at stake. I hasten to add that many people would not wish voluntarily to go through this system with those high stakes.

In terms of the bill, it is very sensible. I really look forward to the select committee having the opportunity to hear submissions, because it is something that many, many organisations and members of the public would wish to have a say on, and I commend the Government for that. Many times, more important bills have not had the opportunity to go to a select committee. I think that is very sad and I know that we can all recount a number of bills that have had quite detrimental—

Hon Steve Chadwick: In the first 100 days!

LYNNE PILLAY: Exactly! But it would seem now, in the next 100 days, or whatever, that there is more of a responsible approach being taken by the Government and more opportunity for the public to have their say. I, along with other parties in the House, am very pleased to stand in support of the bill going to the select committee so that the public can make submissions and have their say.

PAUL QUINN (National) : I know the time is short, but it is a very warm pleasure to hear Ms Pillay offer her commendation to us, and I respectfully and humbly accept that commendation.

• Debate interrupted.