Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) : I move, That the Appropriation (2004/05 Financial Review) Bill be now read a first time.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues) : I move, That the New Zealand Sign Language Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this bill is to promote and maintain the use of New Zealand Sign Language. To achieve this, the bill declares New Zealand Sign Language to be an official language of our country. It provides for the use of New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings, and it enables the making of regulations to set competency standards for the interpretation in legal proceedings of New Zealand Sign Language. The bill sets out principles to guide Government departments in the use they should make of New Zealand Sign Language.

New Zealand Sign Language is used by approximately 28,000 people. An estimated 7,000 of those people are deaf. It is a language with a unique linguistic structure, and it includes signs that express concepts from Māori culture. Deaf Māori describe New Zealand Sign Language as a tool for accessing their Māori language and culture. Deaf people comprise a distinct and dynamic cultural group. New Zealand Sign Language is central to their culture, with its rich body of distinct customs, mannerisms, art, humour, and history.

This bill is necessary. Consultation with the Deaf community has highlighted that a lack of recognition of New Zealand Sign Language leads to serious barriers to information and services, which can result in injustices for deaf people. The bill will improve Deaf people’s access to information and services that hearing people take for granted, and it will provide acknowledgment of Deaf people’s language and culture.

The bill had its first reading on 22 June 2004, and it was then referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, which reported back to the House on 18 July last year. Before I outline the select committee’s findings, I would like to acknowledge and commend the committee’s efforts to make the select committee process inclusive of Deaf people. For the first time, videotape submissions of Deaf people using New Zealand Sign Language were accepted in place of written submissions, because for many Deaf people English is a second language. New Zealand Sign Language interpreters were accommodated throughout the select committee’s processes.

The Justice and Electoral Committee’s effective accommodation of Deaf people has set precedents for the use of New Zealand Sign Language in our parliamentary processes. I thank all members of the select committee and the clerks for their work. The committee received 189 written submissions on the bill. It also received six videotapes that recorded a further 104 Deaf people signing their individual submission on the bill. That means that a total of 293 people gave individual submissions. The majority of those submissions were from Deaf people, including some Deaf school students and other people with an interest in the Deaf community. No submission opposed the bill. Many submitters expressed celebration at having their language recognised after years of stigmatisation and oppression.

The select committee recommends a number of changes to the bill, all of which I support. Although the changes are mainly minor and technical in nature, they strengthen and clarify the bill. I would like to make particular comment on a few of those changes. The select committee recommends changes that the definitions of “interpretation” and “translation” be more closely aligned with the definition of those terms in the Māori Language Act 1987. Those definitions would now relate only to New Zealand Sign Language interpretations and translations into and from English and Māori. This will help to ensure that interpretations and translations may be practically implemented in courts.

Some submitters asked that the bill provide a definition of a “competent interpreter”. The select committee noted that an interdepartmental working-group is looking into this area. I can advise the House that a group that includes interpreters, Deaf people, and Government officials will be reporting back to Cabinet shortly. The group will propose minimum standards for New Zealand Sign Language interpreters in courts, and that the Ministry of Justice be responsible for the implementation of the proposed minimum standards.

The select committee heard stories in which deaf people experienced problems in gaining access to competent interpreters in wider justice settings, such as in police interviews, in corrections settings, and in gaining legal representation. The select committee considered that issue carefully. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 provides a statutory basis for a Deaf person to access New Zealand Sign Language interpretations in connection with criminal proceedings. Therefore, the select committee considers that the New Zealand Sign Language Bill does not need amending to confer a statutory right to have interpreters provided at all stages of the criminal justice process. However, the select committee considers that further work is needed to ensure that competency standards for interpreters are available for those who work in the wider justice setting. The committee recommends that this further work should be undertaken by the working-group I referred to earlier, and that it should be expanded to include the rest of the justice sector. I support this move, and have asked officials to make arrangements for this wider membership, particularly from both police and Corrections.

The select committee proposes a new clause 10B to clarify that the bill does not extend rights to the Deaf community beyond those already provided in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. It does not limit those rights in any way.

The committee noted that it is important for departments to engage directly with appropriate representatives of the Deaf community when consulting on matters relating to New Zealand Sign Language. To address this it has proposed a new subclause (1A) to clause 9, which provides that Government departments must endeavour to consult with people or organisations that the chief executive contends are representative of the interests of the Deaf community.

The bill’s wider objectives include the promotion and maintenance of New Zealand Sign Language. The select committee considered that monitoring the effectiveness of this bill against its stated purpose should be the next step in identifying further work that may be needed to achieve its wider goals. To support this it has proposed a new clause 10A to provide that the responsible Minister must require a report on the operation of the Act and whether any amendments to its scope and contents are necessary or desirable. That report would be required as soon as practicable after 1 March 2009, approximately 3 years after the bill is enacted. The new clause also states that representatives of the Deaf community must be consulted in this review.

A major theme in the submissions was the pervasive, daily barriers experienced by deaf people. Submitters described problems in accessing information and services that hearing people take for granted in education, employment, health, public information, and marae, family, and whānau events. Providing for the use of New Zealand Sign Language in education settings was seen as a particular priority area. The problems of deaf people’s access to Government services and information are addressed by the principles of the bill and related work streams. This includes work to develop long-term plans for the removal of language barriers in education, employment, health, and broadcasting.

The work on the New Zealand Sign Language Bill provides a platform for understanding the inequalities that deaf people face. In a model society we would provide equal participation for deaf people immediately. The New Zealand Sign Language Bill is a substantial first step towards achieving our vision of an inclusive society. The next steps include developing the capacity of the interpretive workforce, beginning with those in the justice system. The recommended review of the Act after approximately 3 years will also provide a means for monitoring implementation of the bill.

The passage of this bill through the House is very timely. Members of the Deaf community have been seeking recognition of their language for 20 years.

In conclusion, I reiterate that this bill is a monumental milestone for the Deaf community. It gives due honour and respect to Deaf people and to their unique language and culture. By declaring New Zealand Sign Language to be an official language of our country, this House is acknowledging the Deaf community’s presence, its rights, and its equal value in our society. I commend the progress of this bill to the House.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) : The National Party supports the second reading of this historic New Zealand Sign Language Bill, and we congratulate all those who have worked so hard to achieve it and to bring it about today. Although I was not personally on the Justice and Electoral Committee, I understand that the 195 submitters—although I hear from the Minister for Disability Issues, Ruth Dyson, that the total figure was actually 293 submitters—all supported this bill.

The genesis of this landmark bill goes back a long way, but the Deaf community in particular must be congratulated on the long, hard, and consistent work it has done over more than 20 years to bring New Zealand Sign Language to being recognised as an official language in New Zealand. People have asked what is an official language. At present New Zealand has two official languages: English and Māori. Māori is official because it has been declared so by statute, and English is official by convention dating back many hundreds of years into English law.

It is important to acknowledge that New Zealand Sign Language is a wholly visual language with its own grammatical structure, which is different from that of English and Māori. It is distinct, and it differs from the sign language of other countries such as Australia, America, Canada, and Britain. I am also told that a deaf person fluent in Māori who has no English, and a deaf person fluent in English who has no Māori, may equally learn and communicate with New Zealand Sign Language.

The modern history leading up to the second reading of this bill has been more rapid than the long history of obstacles that deaf people in New Zealand have had to confront since the mid-1850s, and probably long before that, as well. As I noted in the first reading of this bill, the Deaf Association of New Zealand has provided fascinating information demonstrating how British sign language was introduced to New Zealand back in the 1880s by deaf migrants, pupils attending schools for the deaf, and tutors working here in New Zealand. But how extremely difficult it must have been if one was a deaf person or child living and working in isolation out on a farm—or perhaps on a whaling station, as my forebears were—to have access to those facilities. There was certainly no New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in those days; in fact, for the majority of New Zealanders there was simply no access to services, whatsoever.

In 1878 the very insightful South Island MP William Rolleston introduced a bill to fund an institution for the deaf. By the 1880s school leavers from Sumner and overseas formed deaf communities. School signs and the British sign language combined to form the New Zealand Sign Language, which has since evolved as a sign language absolutely unique to New Zealand. In 1904 an Act of Parliament meant that parents had to enrol their deaf children at Sumner, but signing was forbidden. However, children signed in dormitories and developed their own signs. So it was from these very early beginnings that I understand the New Zealand Sign Language has evolved and developed.

In 1983 the Deaf Association of New Zealand was persuaded by its hearing president to accept signed English as the official sign language, in the belief that anything else would prevent deaf children from having any kind of access to manual communication. From there, work carried on so that by 1992 a New Zealand Sign Language dictionary was started at Victoria University. In the latter part of that year the New Zealand Sign Language Tutors Association was started. In 1997 A Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language was published. That was a major milestone and contribution.

So today we get one step closer to the recognition of New Zealand Sign Language becoming an official language. At this stage the bill states that official status does not create any legally enforceable right except in respect of legal proceedings. My colleague Sandra Goudie spoke vividly in the first reading debate of the huge misunderstandings that had arisen when deaf drivers were apprehended by the police and communication virtually broke down, until sign language came to the rescue. Dr Richard Worth, another of my eminent National colleagues, will also emphasise the profound difference to the fair working of the courts when sign language was made an official and an enforceable right in legal proceedings.

I absolutely endorse clause 10A, which requires a review of operations of the Act as soon as practicable after 1 March 2009. This requires a report on, firstly, the operation of this Act since its commencement, and, secondly, on whether any amendments to the scope and contents of the Act are necessary or desirable. The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended the inclusion of “an explicit statement to confirm that, aside from enforcing the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in any legal proceedings, the bill does not extend rights to the Deaf community beyond those already provided in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and does not limit their rights in any way.” Again, I understand that clause 10B covers this effectively by stating: “Nothing in this Act affects the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.”

I am concerned, however, that there was no fiscal impact report on the bill. I do see it as inevitable, and in fact as right and proper, that in time there will be further provisions for expansion of signing services into health, education, and other areas. It is important, therefore, that the fiscal implications of this bill are taken seriously. The select committee was told that at this stage further spending would have to come from Vote Justice baseline funding. It is therefore vital and fundamental that Vote Justice is adequately prepared, and that in the future if changes are made they are well-thought-out so they can be sustained effectively into the future.

This bill has had the consistent backing and support of the Deaf community. We now learn that the 293 submissions to this bill were all supportive of it. It is with great pleasure that National supports its second reading.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce) : This is an important day for the New Zealand Deaf community, as it marks a further step towards the recognition of New Zealand Sign Language as an official language. That is important in terms of the symbolism it represents but, more so, on a practical level it provides members of the Deaf community with the confidence to assert their right to communicate in their own language. It is not a prescriptive law but rather an enabling one, and that has been the approach of this Government.

I want to pay personal tribute to the Hon Ruth Dyson in that regard. As Minister for Disability Issues she has worked closely with different communities to ensure that their needs are identified and addressed. In a debate such as this, where none of us have the ability to communicate as part of a particular community, we can do so only on behalf of those members of the community we have met. Having had the pleasure of sitting on the Justice and Electoral Committee that considered this bill, I know that the Minister’s own personal commitment is both recognised and honoured by the community. The Minister can personally feel proud of what she has achieved, and know that the gratitude of the community is both genuine and heartfelt.

As a Parliament, too, we can take pride in adopting a non-partisan approach to this legislation. It means a lot to the community that this bill is passing without dissent.

I want to pay tribute to two very special people—David and Rachel McKee, who head the Deaf Studies Research Unit of Victoria University. At the select committee not only did they provide us with a real insight into the Deaf community but they gave us some training so that we could greet submitters, welcome them to the committee, and thank them for their submission. I know that the submitters were genuinely appreciative of our efforts in that regard and, given that this was probably the first time that many of them had come to Parliament, we were pleased we were able to be welcoming to them.

I also thank the interpreters. Not only did we have the challenge of hearings in Wellington; we also had the added challenge of distance submissions requiring interpreters to be used in other centres, with questions and answers being interpreted in the select committee room at the same time.

All submissions, as we have heard, were in support of the bill. As a result of the submissions, and the excellent support of the advisers from the Office for Disability Issues and the Ministry of Social Development, we made some minor amendments that have strengthened the legislation without detracting from its original purpose, which is to promote and maintain the use of New Zealand Sign Language. The Minister has identified the changes that we made, so I will not go through those here. But I do want to acknowledge that we received many helpful submissions—or advice, really—from a range of departments: the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Department of Corrections, the New Zealand Police, the Ministry of Education, and the Law Commission. What those indicated to me was a widespread understanding within the Government sector of the barriers faced by deaf people when accessing services and information. That leaves me very confident that the interdepartmental working-groups will be working hard to remove the language barriers they know exist, especially in the areas of health, education, employment, and public broadcasting.

I conclude by thanking everyone who made submissions. Parliament’s task is made easier when such overwhelming support for a measure is evidenced in this way. I felt privileged to sit on the select committee, and I am pleased that the House itself has made provision for this bill’s second reading to be made accessible to the Deaf community through agreed hours and interpretation services. As the Minister said, today is a cause for celebration and I, too, commend the bill to the House.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : For the benefit of those who are not present in this debating chamber and who are not watching what is occurring on television, I say that there is at the moment a remarkable sight in this House. What we are saying in the speeches that, as politicians, we are making is being translated into sign language. For those of us watching this event, it is truly remarkable to think that oral language can be translated in such a vivid, visual way.

Dr Hutchison has said, on behalf of the National Party, that we support this bill, and we have supported it from the outset. The reporting back of this bill for its second reading is a splendid occasion and an exciting one. Of course, that is not the end of its journey. There are further parliamentary steps that must be taken, but the second reading is certainly one of the great steps. Lying ahead in the parliamentary process are, first, the Committee stage of this bill, which we in National are confident will have a very satisfactory outcome, and then, finally, the last stage, the third reading, following which the Governor-General will sign this bill and it will become part of the laws of New Zealand.

We do well, I think, to remind ourselves of the exact extent of hearing impairment in the community. According to a New Zealand disability survey that was carried out by Statistics New Zealand, approximately 223,500 adults were either deaf, or had a hearing limitation that could not be eliminated by a hearing aid, in 2001. Ninety-five percent of adults who were deaf, or who had a hearing limitation, were living in dwelling houses. The remaining 5 percent were living in residential facilities. Sadly, an estimated 18,300 children were deaf, or had a hearing limitation that was not then being corrected. Nine percent of those children used some type of equipment for hearing, such as a hearing aid or an FM system. To complete the statistical picture, two-thirds of the partially, or completely, deaf adults in households used some type of special equipment or service related to their disability. The most common types reported were a hearing aid and a volume-control telephone.

Some 7,700 partially, or completely, deaf adults living in households used New Zealand Sign Language and/or Signed English. Others in other places have made comments about the make-up of that very distinct and dynamic cultural group, which represents the Deaf community. Of course, New Zealand Sign Language is central to the culture of that community. Deaf culture, like all cultures, brings together a rich body of distinct customs, mannerisms, art, humour, and history as well as language. New Zealand Sign Language is a real language. It has its own grammatical structure, and it is different from that of either English or Māori. As we can see vividly illustrated before us now, it is not a collection of gestures or mime. It is like all other languages, in that it can communicate a full range of concepts.

Sign languages are not universal. I suppose some of us regard that as surprising, because would it not be a great outcome if there were a universality in sign languages? But that is not so. Of course, it means that New Zealand Sign Language is unique to our country. It is not used anywhere else in the world. It is also unique because it includes signs that express concepts from Māori culture.

I would like to say something very briefly about the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee, because that select committee, as Dr Hutchison has said, was privileged to hear a wide range of submissions across a broad grouping of topics. Although it is right to say that what Parliament is doing has in some sense a real symbolism about it, in creating New Zealand Sign Language as an official language, we are, in fact, concerned with much more than symbolism.

From a legal perspective, reflecting my background as a lawyer, I was particularly interested in what this bill means when looked at in relation to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. The New Zealand Bill of Rights Act provides a statutory basis for a person who is deaf to access a New Zealand Sign Language interpreter in connection with criminal proceedings. What perhaps many of us have not sufficiently thought about, and the Law Commission has brought this to our attention, is that deaf people are disproportionately represented in the criminal statistics. Section 24(g) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act confirms the right of persons charged with an offence who cannot understand or speak the language used in court to have the free assistance of an interpreter. The provisions of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act would require that a person who is deaf, and who is involved in any processes that have a bearing on the resolution of proceedings, has access to a New Zealand Sign Language interpreter. The situation I am talking about is where a person is charged with an offence and is defending himself or herself, either unaided or with the assistance of a lawyer, in a court.

But there are wider implications surrounding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. That legislation provides sufficiently broad rights to ensure that a person who is deaf, and who has been arrested or detained, is not disadvantaged or discriminated against on the grounds of his or her disability during the police interview process. Others have spoken of examples of situations where that becomes critically necessary. If people are to have the reality of the rights given by the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, they need to be able to communicate clearly to the police or the other investigating authorities their position, their view of events, and their innocence.

Dr Hutchison also spoke about aspects relating to the resourcing of this legislation. There is no doubt that if it is to work well, we will need more Sign Language interpreters. I do not doubt that that will be a major task, because the subtlety and significance of, first of all, absorbing the language, and then interpreting it are skills that not many people will have. So I do not doubt that funding will be required, that a commitment will have to be made, and that volunteers will have to be sought so that this legislation will, on the exciting day on which it becomes an Act, have life breathed into it.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First) : On behalf of New Zealand First, I rise to support the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. New Zealand First appreciates that this bill will give New Zealand Sign Language official recognition. As we have heard from the previous speaker, New Zealand Sign Language is a language in its own right and it is to have equal status to spoken languages. Our New Zealand Sign Language differs from that of other countries, just as spoken languages do. It is unique.

I was most interested to read that in 1997 the first Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language was published—a heavy hardback book containing over 4,000 signs and costing around $100. That publication was considered to be a milestone. Five years on, the editor, Graeme Kennedy, produced the concise version—a compact soft-cover book with 2,500 of the most commonly used signs—for about $60. This book was more accessible.

Today is another landmark day as this bill is a step closer to becoming law. New Zealand First believes that this bill is a significant step forward in achieving the vision of a fully inclusive New Zealand as is outlined in the Disability Strategy. The New Zealand Sign Language Bill represents a significant step forward for the Deaf community. The Deaf community and the Deaf Association have been seeking official recognition of their language for a long time. New Zealand First pays tribute to the dedication, the commitment, and the leadership of all of those involved in promoting and advancing this important bill.

As the Minister has pointed out, the immediate effect of the bill will be to provide people with the right to use sign language in any legal proceedings. That is an important component of access to justice.

The demand for interpreters will be increased with the passing of this legislation, in much the same way as occurred with the official recognition of the Māori language. We hope that sufficient people have been trained to ensure that this service can be provided. Now that sign language will be given official recognition, there must be adequate resourcing to ensure that competent interpreters are available as and when required. Unless a high level of competency can be guaranteed, there is a significant risk that the dialogue will not be relayed correctly.

It is very clear that differing standards of interpretation are needed according to the context of the interpretation. The skills required to interpret effectively in an educational environment would be considerably different from those required in a medical or legal environment. We are very aware that there is possibly a shortage of competent interpreters in New Zealand, as is the case overseas. Most interpreters would currently have an employer, and, no doubt, all the work they can handle. The recruitment and training of interpreters will now be a priority. We can only hope that this issue is being worked upon at the very highest levels. Commitment is essential.

New Zealand First is pleased with the introduction of the Diploma in Sign Language Interpreting offered by the Auckland University of Technology. It is the only course designed for sign language interpreting at this point in time. The starting date for that course is February 2006, and it is to be hoped that many students enrol. The successful completion of that 2-year full-time programme must be a prerequisite for employment, because the role of the interpreter is very specialised, with responsibility for facilitating and, overall, being an essential part of the communication between the deaf and the hearing people in society. Signing relies on a very accurate exchange of information that is often carried out at demanding rates, with complex concepts being communicated. We look forward to a steady stream of graduates from that course.

As many as one in five New Zealanders have been identified as having a permanent hearing impairment or disability. For many New Zealanders with a hearing disability, communication and access to information is a key issue. All too often, people are not able to participate in society, because they cannot get the information they need in the form they need it in. The Deaf community must be equipped with the resources necessary to enable them to participate fully within the community.

I was very pleased to read on the Wellington City Council website that the council offers a sign language interpreting service to improve communication between the Deaf community and the council. We hope that other councils have followed or will follow that example.

We will be very interested in the review of this legislation, to be carried out after 1 March 2009, as outlined in the bill. A great deal must be done to ensure that the Deaf community gains the ability to participate fully in society. It will be very timely to review progress at this time.

New Zealand First congratulates the Deaf community on all the work it has done to ensure that this legislation has reached Parliament. It is with great pleasure that New Zealand First supports this bill.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : On behalf of the Green Party, I say how delighted we are to see this bill finally come back before the House. It seems like a long time since we first debated this bill back in June 2004, nearly 2 whole years ago. I am sorry that the processes of Parliament and the election have intervened to slow it down so seriously. I am just glad that this Government is sufficiently committed to disability issues to make sure that we are now dealing with this bill as a matter of priority. At least we are getting there. As of 1 March 2006 New Zealand Sign Language will be an official language of this country.

I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee that dealt with this bill, and I must first of all say what a privilege it was to be part of a process in which all proceedings were interpreted between New Zealand Sign Language and English, and, as an MP, to begin to get even the smallest of insights into the language and culture of the Deaf community in New Zealand. I had had virtually no contact with New Zealand Sign Language prior to that experience, so it was a steep learning curve. Apart from anything else, I now have enormous respect for the skills and stamina of any New Zealand Sign Language interpreters. Select committee processes are long and difficult, anyway—to have to cope with and interpret for submitters, officials, and politicians must have been quite something.

A wide range of issues were canvassed during our consideration of this bill, and a number of amendments have been developed in response to submitters’ concerns—although, as with any legislation, it was impossible to accommodate everyone’s hopes and dreams. Above all, submitters revealed the deep need that exists for quality interpreting services in all aspects of the interface between the Government and citizens, not just as part of formal legal proceedings. People came to the select committee to talk to us about, for example, what it is like to deal with the mental health system when one is profoundly deaf and has no way of communicating clearly with doctors and nurses. We heard of problems with police and prisons, education, and welfare. Deaf people face enormous barriers when trying to access services and information from Government departments, much less when they get caught up with the State as, for example, a patient or prisoner.

I acknowledge that even though this bill is about to go through, there is still an enormously long way to go. Like others, I am pleased that interdepartmental working-groups are working to improve performance in four key areas: health, education, employment, and public broadcasting.

The committee also asked that the justice sector be added as a top priority, for although this bill as enacted will provide for the use of sign language in legal proceedings, there will still be a wide range of gaps at critical junctures even within the justice system—for example, when a person is first facing the police, or when he or she becomes a prisoner. From my own experience of being on that end of the law I know how hard communication can be, even when one is a hearing person with a good education and sound grasp of the English language. It is almost unimaginable what it must be like to be deaf and under threat or in the reality of arrest, or suffering the ongoing impacts of incarceration, without understanding what is going on or being able to tell one’s own side of the story.

Another area in which the committee took a particular interest was in the definition of interpretation. We reworded that so as to make clear the impacts in relation to both English and our country’s other official language, Māori. We also had a number of interesting discussions about how competency in interpretation might be defined. We discovered that a lot of work is continuing in this area, and although some of us would have liked to create a definition in this bill, it will still be possible for that to happen through regulation later on, if necessary.

One fact became glaringly obvious as submissions proceeded, and that was the existence of a severe shortage of fully trained and qualified interpreters in this country. For forward movement in this area it will be absolutely critical that the Government does everything it can to support the maintenance and development of the training that does exist, and facilitate the access of keen, would-be interpreters to that training. I was pleased to hear the comments the Minister made earlier about that area.

Each qualified interpreter is worth his or her weight in gold and, so far, there have been far too few of them. Some submitters put forward the view that this bill should establish a New Zealand Sign Language commission, in the same way that we have Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori. After discussion and advice we considered that, in this case, it would be preferable to establish an advisory group, with strong representation from the Deaf community. The purpose of that advisory group would be to monitor the effects of the legislation, to make sure it is achieving its stated goals, and to advise the Government on further steps it should take in future to promote New Zealand Sign Language. I sincerely hope the Government does make that happen, and does not just see this bill, or the Minister’s report that is required after 1 March 2009, as the end of the story.

In conclusion, I acknowledge all those who took the time and trouble to make submissions to us, particularly those from the Deaf community, who have had such a long struggle to make this bill a reality. I realise that they may remain considerably frustrated by the slow pace of progress, but I see this bill as a critical first step on a journey towards a society and Government that fully recognises and uses their language as part of its operations. I thank them for all their work, and for the privilege of sharing even a tiny portion of their lives, language, and culture with us. This bill is a testament to their courage.

TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : Today we bear witness to the great event of New Zealand Sign Language being wrapped around our Deaf community, providing the warmth and protection of one’s language as a primary means of being in the world. It has often been said that the limits of our language are the limits of our world, and today that world becomes progressively larger for some 28,000 people who are already familiar with New Zealand Sign Language. It also becomes larger for their families, for their communities, and, indeed, for us all. It is a most important day—a day that inevitably draws me back to August 1987 and to the passing of the Maori Language Act that declared Māori an official language of New Zealand.

Today, in conferring that same official status to New Zealand Sign Language, we acknowledge the political will, the determined commitment of the Deaf community, and the recognition of all the specialist support that has made this possible. I particularly commend the Minister for having the insight and fortitude to carry this through—tēnā koe, Ruth. From that day in 1987 on, the Maori Language Act has made it possible to recognise te reo Māori in law, and allows it to be used in the courts. From the basis of that Act, te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori is charged with promoting Māori language as a living language, and as an ordinary means of communication. It is from the normalising of Māori language as an ordinary language and a living language that our world has changed, and there have now been some 136,000 speakers of te reo.

Indeed, I would hasten to suggest that even in this House every single member will have been influenced by the expansion of the use of te reo Māori. We have heard maiden speeches delivered entirely, or spoken for the most part, in te reo; we have observed the way members have sought to address pronunciation issues, and we have heard familiar greetings—tēnā koe, ka kite, he pātai tāku—becoming more commonplace, and the Standing Orders Committee will shortly be considering the important initiative in simultaneous translation to initiate facilities for immediate comprehension of te reo. Our world is expanding daily and, who knows, one day New Zealand Sign Language may be normalised in almost every public setting. It is a long way from the days when Naida Glavish was threatened with dismissal for saying “Kia ora”, or our mothers and fathers were strapped for speaking their native tongue.

For this significant population within Aotearoa, the same but different experiences of marginalisation, of isolation, and of prejudice will also have shaped their memories of expressing themselves in their language. We have heard the stories of deaf children’s hands being strapped behind their backs to stop them from signing. The existence of sign language for years was ignored by officialdom. This new bill confronts all of those days gone by, through establishing New Zealand Sign Language with the official recognition of a national language, and with the purpose of giving it proper status and giving the Deaf access to interpreters for legal proceedings.

The Māori Party celebrates this historic breakthrough and will support this bill through its passage in the House. We are pleased for those for whom it serves, but it does not go far enough. For we want, today, to give recognition to a very significant population within the minority Deaf culture. Hearing loss is an important issue that impacts in a major way on our mokopuna, tamariki, and whānau. Research would suggest that Māori who are deaf make up 30 percent of the Deaf community. For our tamariki and mokopuna the results are particularly stark. In 2001, Māori children under 19 comprised a record 48 percent of the deafness notifications despite being only 19 percent of the population—that is, almost half of all notifications of deafness in this nation were for Māori children. If we want to think of closing the gaps this might be a good place to start, for in the age groups of 15 to 24 years hearing disability afflicts young Māori at a rate that is 3.5 times more than non-Māori.

So how do these high numbers of Māori Deaf fare in a world that is frequently dismissive or unprepared to face the challenge inherent in taking up other means of communicating, isolated from the very essence of who they are? The world of Māori Deaf is constrained by linguistic and cultural boundaries that could be broken down through understanding of sign language and te reo Māori. One of the most profound experiences in my life was when a young man came here to Parliament, into my office, and having stood up to mihi to me he sang his waiata using sign, and not a sound was heard. I was deeply moved as it made me understand how isolated the Māori Deaf can be from the Māori world. I appreciated that the support he had alongside of him was vital to help us to understand and communicate.

The significance of this bill today is that for Māori Deaf official recognition increases the likelihood of being able to use New Zealand Sign Language at hui, marae, and tangi, and increases their access to te reo, tikanga, and whakapapa. Inevitably, of course, the crunch issue lies in resourcing constraints, and we have heard that from other speakers. As I noted earlier, Māori are over-represented in the Deaf community, yet there is a shortage of Māori teachers, signers, court interpreters, and community aid.

A particular concern that the Māori Party would like to see addressed and further advanced in legislation is the complete inability of the bill to address the issue of trilingual interpreters and to recognise trilingual interpretation—Māori, sign, and English. The number of trilingual signers is very few and far between. The Auckland University of Technology trilingual interpreting course was cut as part of the Government’s so-called race-based funding cuts of 2004. It was yet another example of the ethnic targeting no-go zone promoted by the Government. The tragedy of this is that it denies Māori Deaf access into Māori hui where te reo is used. Māori Deaf have every right to understand the true meaning of the processes and kōrero that occur on the marae. Sign language interpreting helps bridge those communication gaps.

This bill must make provision for the urgent need to recruit, train, and retain Māori student interpreters. This is an idea that was first raised at the Taumata Matauranga hosted by Ngāti Tūwharetoa paramount chief Tumu te Heuheu in 2001. The hui brought forward the idea of offering scholarships to train sign language interpreters fluent in te reo Māori. Such scholarships are practical solutions that respond to the dreams and aspirations of our whānau for their children’s access to kōhanga reo and kura kaupapa through the support of New Zealand Sign Language interpreters fluent in te reo. We know that there are some great things happening for Māori Deaf. The initiatives at Ruamoku Marae and at the Auckland University of Technology in supporting student sign language interpreters are exciting, and we also know of the hard work of groups such as Te Roopu Waiora that are focused on the needs of Māori Deaf.

The Māori Party is proud to promote wider recognition of te reo as the first and official language of this country. We welcome the inclusion of New Zealand Sign Language as another official language and we do so particularly under the opportunities for bi-literacy, and even tri-literacy, afforded to the nation by virtue of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Our tūpuna have often gifted us with whakatauki to convey a message about the world in which we inhabit. They are ways of conveying the feelings, values, emotions, and visions that serve to help mould our character and discover a universal truth. These language pictures are best expressed in te reo. But for the significance of today I hope my concluding words will benefit from trilingual interpretation.

Anei tātou nā ko te pā anō tātou nā he rā ki tua.

Here we are in the night, comforted by the day soon to follow. There is light ahead. Nō reira, tēnā koutou katoa.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. Let me say, first of all, that I was not a member of the select committee, the Justice and Electoral Committee, that worked on this bill, but I have noted the report of the committee and have made a couple of notes that I think are significant.

Firstly, in all the 195 submissions received by the committee no one opposed the bill, and all expressed strong support for the recognition of New Zealand Sign Language as an official language of New Zealand. I also noted that 104 people contributed to the submission process by using sign language, and that the advent of video conferencing made possible a new and important way for those who are hearing impaired to enjoy greater access to, and greater participation in, the parliamentary process. Long may this continue, not just on issues relating to deafness but on all matters concerning Parliament.

It is also worth noting that the committee chose to make reference in its report to the fact that no one on the committee could communicate in Sign Language. Yet, with the help of interpreters and the Deaf Studies Research Unit of Victoria University, the process went very smoothly. The report pays tribute both to those who supported the committee with advice and interpretation skills and to the Deaf submitters who worked with them so well.

The passage of the bill is an important milestone for the hearing-impaired community, but it should not be, and is not intended to be, an end in itself. The committee has recommended that an advisory group be established to monitor the effects of the legislation against its stated purpose. Many submitters expressed concern that the application of the bill must not be neglected. They noted that there was a need for sign language to be promoted proactively, and that merely giving the language official recognition was not necessarily going to achieve that.

The initial obligations and applications under the bill will be in the justice arena, but the current efforts by interdepartmental working-groups to remove language barriers for the Deaf community in the health, education, employment, and broadcasting sectors need to be encouraged and to have measurable time frames around any goals that are set. The select committee noted that even the justice sector could consider improving services beyond the obvious applications outlined in the bill. United Future supports the amendment, which was agreed to by the committee, that requires all Government departments to take responsibility for consulting with Deaf communities on matters that relate to New Zealand Sign Language. That is to ensure that departments do not sit back passively and wait for the Office for Disability Issues to initiate discussions on relative issues.

United Future believes that as the interpretation services workforce capacity is built over time—and that must be a priority—then amendments to the bill should be actioned so that the current barriers faced by deaf people when accessing services and information are removed progressively and deliberately. Funding considerations will be the measure of any Government’s commitment to removing barriers to the hearing impaired. The select committee shied away from making specific recommendations in this regard, and suggested that the matter would need more specific attention once the period of monitoring and reporting had been completed.

United Future is therefore very pleased to be supporting the bill, and congratulates everyone who has played a part in progressing it through the select committee process. With 8 percent of the adult population affected in some way by hearing impairment, it is good news that the bill moves another step towards becoming law. I take a moment to welcome to the public gallery those people who are affected most by the bill, and I want to thank the interpreter for making what I am saying understandable.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT) : I rise to speak to the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill on behalf of ACT New Zealand. Some people will be disappointed to learn that the ACT party is opposing the bill. I ask them not to be offended, for we mean no offence. We applaud the intent of the bill, but fear the wider-reaching implications of it.

In the first reading of the bill, ACT’s Gerry Eckhoff spoke movingly of his own experience of deafness, and, in particular, of the difficulties that he faced growing up as a hearing-impaired child. He described his difficulty in the classroom, the school reports stating he did not pay attention in class and could try harder, and his reputation as a troublemaker because he switched off when he could not follow what was going on. I am sure that many will be able to relate to that situation.

The reason that we oppose the bill is that it is unlikely to do anything to help members of the Deaf community. The reason for that is simple. The Government is proposing to create rights for Deaf people to use New Zealand Sign Language, but it has no plan in place to fund the provision of the services that would be necessary for those rights to be met. There are people who think that the money will be found, just because the right is established. I ask them to think again. The Minister of Finance guards his surplus millions closely, and can scarcely bring himself to part with a single cent. We have seen legislation like this before, with the establishment of rights on paper that do not exist in reality. The absence of any Treasury comment on this bill means that nobody in authority has even begun to think of how to pay for its provisions.

Perhaps the best thing about this bill, and there are many good things in it, is that it has highlighted the issue of communication for the deaf. The discussion and debate it has attracted has certainly heightened general awareness, and that in itself is very positive. That is why ACT supported the bill at its first reading and its progress to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The intention of the bill is very creditable.

We also agree that in legal processes it is essential that a deaf person, like every New Zealander, be presented with information in a way that he or she is readily able to understand. History has many examples, and we have heard some today, of injustices suffered by the deaf because they could not follow proceedings.

From my previous career as a health professional, I know that in the hospital setting the provision of translation services is a frequent problem. It is a problem for deaf patients and for people who do not speak English. It is usually possible to organise translators, but when interviewing patients, health professionals are conscious that they are relying on the translator’s goodwill. Translators are expected to provide the service in their own time, or, if they are hospital employees, in addition to their usual duties. In that situation there is a tendency to make use of family members as translators, but that can create problems of its own with regard to sensitive issues. Those obstacles are not, of course, confined just to the hospital setting, but impinge on every facet of life.

A better approach is the one that is used in Britain, for example. It is to provide a budget for translators, so that they are paid for their work and in proportion to the time they devote to it. It is a simple and relatively cheap, practical measure that would help people to get more accurate diagnosis and better treatment, and it would assist everybody involved.

However, good intentions alone do not automatically translate into good lawmaking. Making New Zealand Sign Language an official language will not in itself achieve very much, without proper support and definite funding allocations. There is absolutely no evidence of that in this bill. In ACT’s view, it would be more useful to follow the Australian example of recognising the Deaf community as a language group. In Australia the policy is as follows: “It is now increasingly recognised that signing deaf people constitute a group like any other non-English speaking language group in Australia, with a distinct sub-culture recognised by shared history, social life and sense of identity, united and symbolized by fluency in Auslan, the principal means of communication with the Australian Deaf Community.” ACT believes that that approach would be more appropriate for the New Zealand situation.

Another issue is that sign languages differ from country to country. The international sign language was Gestuno. Now called International Sign Language, that is what is used at international conferences and meetings. The obvious comparison is in the world of music. A musical score can be read by those with musical training no matter whether their native language is Spanish, Arabic, Cantonese, English, or any other language. To give New Zealand Sign Language official status, as the bill proposes, automatically disadvantages those signing in any other sign language. According to the 2001 New Zealand disability survey, some 7,700 partially or completely deaf adults live in households using New Zealand Sign Language and/or Signed English, and another 51,000 are able to lip-read. Although that is a significant number, the question that must be asked is whether that is sufficient for New Zealand Sign Language to constitute an official language.

An unintended consequence of awarding official recognition to New Zealand Sign Language may well be for other non - English speaking groups to then seek official recognition of their languages. For example, can we expect demands for Braille to be extended similar status, or for other spoken languages such as Mandarin or Cantonese to receive official status?

If this bill is passed, I predict that the services necessary to fulfil the obligations of organisations will not be in place. Our current Government will then move slowly to fill the gap, hiring full-time translators who will then spend very little of their working day doing the job they were hired for. I have to wonder whether the money could not be better spent on the treatment of deafness. In my research into this subject, I discovered that 21 percent of partially or completely deaf adults in households had an unmet need for some type of special equipment or service related to their disability. The most common reason for that unmet need was financial. It seems that if Government money is to be spent, then that might be a good place to start.

Politics is not confined just to this debating chamber, and I am aware that some in the Deaf community look on lip-reading as a poor relation to sign language. Yet approximately 51,000 hearing-impaired Kiwis lip-read—a fact that should not be overlooked.

To conclude, the ACT party supports the aspiration of the Deaf community to integrate fully into society and accepts that that will quite rightly involve greater use of sign language. We have doubts about the wisdom of making New Zealand Sign Language an official language, and feel that this bill, as it stands, will give the appearance of progress but achieve very little. That outcome is the worst of all worlds.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central) : This is a proud day for people who are deaf and hard of hearing in New Zealand, for those who lobbied for years to give real status to New Zealand Sign Language, and also for my colleague Ruth Dyson, who has been the all-too-important voice inside the tent as Minister for Disability Issues.

Reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee, which I chaired when this bill went through public submission and subsequent detailed consideration and some amendment, the bill is now starting the last lap of its complicated journey from idea to law. As previous chairperson of the committee, I want to highlight some of the issues raised in the committee’s report. One hundred and ninety-five public submissions were received, and over a period of 8½ hours we heard 26 of them. They were the people who told us that they wanted to talk further.

I say “heard” nervously, as among the numerous profound effects that our work on the bill had on our committee members was a careful examination of the everyday language that we used. Maybe National’s PC eradicator could learn a lesson from the fact that some language that we in the hearing community regard as normal is far from normal or acceptable to some. Not often could I say that Parliament has, through its select committee process, released voices that were just wanting to cry out, but this was certainly one occasion when that was happening. All 11 members of the committee went through an intense awareness-raising process and became quite gripped by trying to work through the implications of the proposed law. One of the great things about select committees is that they offer that direct contact with ordinary New Zealanders with something to say, and also something to challenge.

The bill is fairly short and straightforward, but as we tried to see how it would work in a variety of public services and contexts, the full implications and the inevitable difficulties became very obvious. For example, we considered whether the New Zealand Sign Language used by Māori who are fluent in te reo required a separate recognition. On repeated advice we concluded that it did not. We considered the establishment of an equivalent to the Māori Language Commission to nurture and promote the development of New Zealand Sign Language. After much thought we decided that although the function was important, more basic challenges, such as the shortages of signers, were more urgent. We looked at the range of public services that might develop detailed plans, and even separate regulations or laws, relating to New Zealand Sign Language. We were pleased that working-groups involving people from various Government departments and the Deaf community itself were working on four particular areas: health, education, employment, and public broadcasting. These were stated in the select committee hearings by people from the Deaf community to be the most important areas. Add to that the justice-focused rights that are explicit in the bill. We were gratified to see that the issues raised by submitters were the issues that the system was already starting to address.

Communication is at the heart of the bill. The Justice and Electoral Committee members did not have skills in sign language, and even tuition by experts, who are present today in the Gallery, did not help very much. The lead adviser to the committee and a team of signers did much to open our eyes, both to the barriers presented by our world to people who are deaf and also to the liberation offered by sign language. I thank them and the committee staff who took us along that journey.

This bill generates but a modest cost to the State in order to implement, and I believe we have a moral and a legal duty to do that. I find it extraordinary that some put the issue of resources before the issue of fundamental rights for people who are deaf, particularly in a situation where we are moving towards universal rights—United Nations - instituted rights—for people with disabilities. I find it amazing that someone would deny even the modest rights contained in this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. It is historic, it is a first for New Zealand, and it is the proper thing to do.

NICKY WAGNER (National) : As we have heard from several other speakers today, sign language in New Zealand has had a chequered career. Although British Sign Language was introduced by deaf immigrants, and sign language tutors were working in New Zealand as early as 1880, the first schools for the deaf banned sign language, and signing was forbidden. An Act of Parliament allowed only oral education for the deaf, and kids were punished for signing. It is a very similar story to that of Māori. But, kids being kids, and desperate to communicate, they continued to sign among themselves in their dormitories. Those school signs, combined with English Sign Language, have become the basis of New Zealand Sign Language.

New Zealand Sign Language is unique to our country. It encompasses cultural ideas and traditions, both European and Māori, that are our very own, and it is something we should be very proud of. Its present form is relatively new, and it is enshrined in the Dictionary of New Zealand Sign Language, which was published in 1997.

The New Zealand Sign Language Bill means that 125 years after sign language first came to this country, our own locally developed language will now be recognised as being an official language of New Zealand. That means that, as an official language, the use of New Zealand Sign Language will be maintained and promoted. The bill has been strongly supported by the Deaf community, which has worked long and hard over the last 20 years to receive official recognition for New Zealand Sign Language.

Most New Zealanders have no idea what being deaf means. The frustration of watching an interesting television programme with no sound can give us only the slightest inkling. The submissions reflected on the huge price that deaf people pay because of difficulties with communication. They understand only too well that the lack of effective communication brings social isolation and, with that, often frustration, loneliness, and despair. Research tells us that children who are deaf and who do not sign take far longer than hearing children to develop mentally and socially. Their language skills and their personal motivation suffer.

Poor communication often leads to low self-esteem, low achievement, and low levels of social interaction. As children who have poor communication skills become adults, their employment opportunities are limited, and access to the public information and services that hearing people take for granted can be irritatingly difficult. Work, and the rewards that we receive from having a job, are a very important part of life. It is much harder for deaf people to get work and to keep it, and they have a significantly higher unemployment rate than the norm. It is not surprising that deaf people suffer disproportionately from depression, and far too many commit suicide or end up in jail.

The bill also provides the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings, where signing is a person’s first or preferred language. By using sign language, and with skilled interpreters, there will be more effective communication for the Deaf in our courts and tribunals, and we hope that that will help to reduce frustration levels and miscommunication with officialdom. It is also hoped that it may underpin better judgments.

Many submitters saw this bill as a small, first step towards a whole raft of measures where the use of sign language and the provision of interpreters could enhance quality of life for the Deaf. They want more interpreters in education, in health, and in all parts of daily life. Many submitters explained in graphic detail the huge reliance they have on interpreters to get them through their days and the problems of obtaining them when they were needed. Some of the stories were truly heartbreaking. As we know, submitters supported the bill unanimously, as did all the parties that spoke in the House on the first reading.

Everyone will celebrate when this bill is passed into law, but I have some real concerns about its implementation. It is an enormously important bill for the Deaf community. The Deaf community has worked long and hard for it, and it is keenly supported by the House. Therefore, it is imperative that it does not disappoint. I am concerned that although the bill states things the public wants to hear, it may not deliver—for two reasons. Firstly, despite concerns expressed during the first reading, there has been very little discussion about the costs created by the bill or the earmarking of money to pay for its provisions. I could find no budget advice, no fiscal impact report, and no Treasury report. As we all know, unless funding for new services is allocated, then, regardless of rhetoric, nothing tends to happen. Already in the House this week we have seen important roading projects that, time and time again, have been promised to the public being postponed or pushed out into the never-never because of a lack of money.

Secondly, competent interpreters are the key to the effectiveness of this bill, and although some interpreter training is under way, there is a real fear that there may not be enough trained interpreters to meet the demand. We defeat the whole purpose of the bill unless experienced and competent interpreters are available. Ensuring the highest standard of competency is enormously important, and there is provision in this bill for regulating the quality of work, if necessary. But a lack of skilled interpreters will leave the Deaf community back where it started.

This is a good bill, but the Government needs to deliver the money, and with it the skilled personnel, to make sure that it really means something for the Deaf community. I would hate to see all its hard work, the work of this House and our select committees, and the very good intentions of this bill undermined because the Government has not fully considered the fiscal or personnel ramifications or has not allocated money. National takes great pleasure in supporting the second reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour) : I take the opportunity for a short call on this bill, given that I am now an ex-member of the Justice and Electoral Committee and I participated in the hearing of submissions at the time when I was a member. I have been keen to keep a close eye on the progress of this bill—hence the reason why I have entered the Chamber—and I am thankful for the opportunity to raise a few issues.

I would like to commend the Minister for Disability Issues, Ruth Dyson, for having the foresight to promote the bill and the effects this legislation will have, and I thank her for that.

I recall that when I was talking with submitters about the issues surrounding the setting up of a commission, we talked about the comparison with the Māori Language Commission. I see from the bill that the select committee has agreed to the establishment of an advisory group, which would have the role of monitoring the effects of the legislation against its stated purposes. It is my view that as time progresses we will need to seriously consider implementing a commission. I know from my experience in promoting Māori language and the reo that that is a good platform to continue to promote the development of any language.

I also recall learning about sign language through the process of hearing submissions, learning that there are subtle differences between the language from country to country and learning that sign language includes signs in respect of the reo. I thought that was pretty amazing. Having the opportunity to learn that was, for me, unique.

This bill represents a platform to ensure that the language is protected and promoted. But we must also be conscious that the language must be given an opportunity to survive, which is the reason why practising it on its own is not enough. We need to give more consensus to the development of the language. I recall also that part of that development was in relation to ensuring that we had quality interpreters, and I do disagree with the ACT member when she stated that the bill will do nothing for the language. I do think that recognising the language in the way that we are doing gives the opportunity to continue to promote it, to practise it, and to consider further ways to achieve that outcome.

I commend the bill to the House.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister of Labour) : I move, That the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.

The Employment Relations Amendment Bill gives effect to the Government’s intent of ensuring that the terms and conditions of employment for New Zealand’s most vulnerable employees are protected when their work is restructured. The bill also encourages businesses to utilise existing talent, and facilitates productive employment relationships that are built on good faith. The bill balances the need to allow businesses to grow and contribute to New Zealand’s economic transformation with the need to provide protection to specified employees who are particularly disadvantaged when businesses restructure.

In 2004 the Employment Relations Act was amended to introduce a two-tiered system of protection for employees affected by restructurings. Specific groups of employees, such as cleaners and food service workers, were provided with the right to choose to transfer to a new employer on their existing terms and conditions of employment. These groups of employees had been particularly susceptible to, and disadvantaged by, successive changes in contracts. Other employees were given protection through a requirement that their employment agreements contain a provision describing what steps their employer will take to protect employees affected by sale, transfer, or initial contracting-out situations. The intent of those amendments was that the right to choose to transfer should include all situations where a new contractor replaces an existing one, and the specified employee’s work is affected.

In July 2005 the Employment Court’s decision in Gibbsv established that the amended Act does not provide the protection the Government intended in these subsequent contracting situations. That decision highlighted a gap in the protection that the Employment Relations Act was intended to provide. This must be rectified. Specified employees must be ensured of a right to transfer to the new employer on their current terms and conditions of employment in subsequent contracting situations.

This bill ensures that specified groups of employees have the right to choose to transfer when contracting in or contracting out, on the sale or transfer of the employer’s business, and in subsequent contracting situations. This right applies regardless of whether a new contractor intends employees to perform the work. This right to choose to transfer applies regardless of whether the work was at some stage performed in-house. The right also applies whether or not the contract for service was terminated by one of the parties, or just expired. The right does not disappear just because the new contract does not start immediately. There has been no change from the Government’s policy in this area since 2004; the bill implements the Government’s original policy intent.

This bill not only addresses the issues raised by the Employment Court in the Gibbsv case concerning subsequent contracting but also clarifies the practical application of the Act in restructuring situations. By outlining specific scenarios, providing examples of how the bill applies in practice, and introducing specific penalties and remedies for non-compliance, the Government can be certain that the protection it intended to provide is implemented. The court’s decision highlighted certain areas in which the Act is unclear. Additional loopholes have been identified, following the court’s decision, that have the potential to frustrate the original policy intent. The bill closes those loopholes and prevents the use of contracting mechanisms that have the effect of avoiding the Government’s original policy intent.

The use of fixed-term employment agreements linked to the end of a contract for services is one such mechanism. To prevent specified employees from being stripped of the right to choose to transfer when their fixed-term agreement ends at the same time as a restructuring, the bill provides that specified employees whose employment agreements are linked to a contract for service or to an intended restructuring may elect to transfer, even if the fixed term has expired. This means that the obligation to provide specified employees with the right to elect to transfer cannot be avoided through the use of fixed-term employment agreements.

The bill also clarifies how the protection applies when the work is subcontracted. At the moment, the application of Part 6A of the Act to subcontracting situations is not clear. To provide certainty and to ensure that some specified employees are not excluded from protection, simply because work is subcontracted or they work for a subcontractor, the application of protection in subcontracting situations is spelt out in the bill. This, again, is not a policy shift from what was intended in 2004; the bill clarifies the Government’s original intent. These amendments will not prevent businesses from having the freedom to choose how to do their business and whether to contract out work. The amendments will ensure that specified employees are not treated as disposable commodities, to be cast off when a business contracting arrangement comes to an end. To clarify the practical application of the Act, the bill provides that the terms and conditions that transfer to the new employer include all statutory leave entitlements accrued. This ensures that employees can access these rights on transfer.

The bill does not mean that specified employees are assured of jobs for life. This bill affects specified employees at the time of a restructuring. It does not change the usual employment rights of specified employees after they have elected to transfer. Following the transfer, an employee’s terms and conditions can be renegotiated in accordance with the provisions of the Employment Relations Act. Employers and employees can agree in good faith to changes that are satisfactory to both parties. If performance or employment relationship problems arise following transfer, then the mechanisms for employment relationship problem resolution already in place under the Employment Relations Act will apply as usual.

The bill also clarifies that if an employer has surplus staff due to a transfer, employees may be made redundant. In such a case, the employee will get the redundancy entitlements provided for in the employment agreement. If the agreement is silent, then the employee can bargain for redundancy entitlements from the new employer. If the employer and employee cannot agree, they can apply to the Employment Relations Authority for a determination on redundancy entitlements.

The bill delivers on the Government’s original policy intent. It is about providing clarity and certainty to employers and employees, and stability to specified groups of vulnerable employees. It ensures that businesses maintain the freedom to grow, but confirms that employees who are particularly disadvantaged when businesses restructure are protected. I commend this bill to the House.

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore) : The law was bad back in 2004, and it is bad now. Let us take, for instance, the current situation—and I appreciate that the Act does not strictly apply here. Let us imagine, for instance, that an airline company wants to change the service provider for the maintenance of its aircraft. This is not an airline company that is just having a change of shareholders but one that wants a different service provider to do its maintenance. Under this bill, that airline company would still be stuck with the very people whom it did not want continuing to do the maintenance. That is a flawed theory.

Labour’s argument is that a special group of people is much more vulnerable than any other group of people: cleaners. I have to ask whether there are hordes of unemployed cleaners around the country, and whether cleaners are actually disadvantaged. It is one thing to be low-skilled and to have modest wages; I acknowledge that cleaners are often in that situation. Cleaning is often part-time work, night work, and so forth. But that of itself does not mean that people in that situation therefore cannot get jobs and are always on the unemployment list—it is not like that. In fact, at various times when I was at university, I did some cleaning jobs, and I am sure many people in Parliament can testify that they also did so. The reality is that those jobs were easy to get. The industry is characterised by relatively high turnover. Cleaning is typically not a job that people want to stay in for long periods of time. It is a falsehood to argue that workers in that industry are uniquely vulnerable and need a job guarantee. It does not matter what the Minister says; that is effectively what will happen.

This legislation is a form of job guarantee, irrespective of whether the person who originally needed cleaners wants to change the people who are doing the job. The employer may say that contractor X is doing a bad job and that a new contractor is needed to do the work, but the Government says that the employer cannot do that.

Chris Auchinvole: Really?

Dr WAYNE MAPP: No, the employer cannot do that. The employer is unable to get new cleaners, if that is what is needed, because the original cleaners can say: “Hang on a minute; we just want to transfer over.” The Government says that that applies even in cases such as Gibbs and others v , which referred to subsequent or second-generation contracting. So it applies not only in a situation where there is simply a change in shareholding but in the situation of a franchise operation where there is a change. The original cleaners will always be able to say that they want to keep cleaning a place, irrespective of whether they are doing a good job. Irrespective of whether the job has been satisfactory, those people are able to stay.

That cuts across business freedom. The Labour Party will say that that sounds all very harsh and unreasonable, and that the National Party is just taking a prejudiced view against people on low incomes. I acknowledge that people in the cleaning industry are on lower incomes. But let us look at the facts of the Gibbs and others v case. The people were cleaning kindergartens. Kindergartens are not flush with money; they have to be careful with their resources.

Chris Auchinvole: And they have to be well cleaned.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: And that is the key point—well cleaned. People do not just change cleaners willy-nilly; there has to be a reason for people to change a cleaner. Perhaps the job is not satisfactory, or it is over-priced. It could be any one of a number of reasons, and I am certain that people with commercial experience know the truth of that. Kindergartens are not noted for being rapacious organisations. They had very good reasons to make the switch, and they did so. They sought to employ Crest Commercial Cleaning, an organisation that did not directly employ cleaners. It used franchise operators, which it then engaged to do the actual cleaning. It was on that point that the court stated the 2004 legislation did not apply—that it would have applied only if Crest had been directly engaging the cleaners, as opposed to operating a franchise operation.

Labour wants to ignore the whole concept of the integrity of contracts. It wants to ignore the whole concept of franchising, and of different arrangements. It just wants to cut across that completely.

Chris Auchinvole: No free enterprise.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: We know that the Government does not understand free enterprise. So, in practical terms, this Government is prepared to say to the kindergarten organisations in Dunedin that it is too bad if they have bad cleaners who are not performing as one would reasonably expect them to perform, because they are stuck with them. The Government is telling those organisations that it does not matter what arrangements they make—whether they change firms or try to get franchises to do the work—because they are still stuck with the original people. Where is the incentive for better performance in that? How will people actually improve competitiveness, productivity, and all the things the Government says we need to do in the New Zealand economy? Essentially, people will stop taking those sorts of actions.

National is fundamentally opposed to this legislation. It cuts across commercial reality and across the ability of people to improve their performance. It means that one has to take on, as the new cleaners, the very people to whom people are choosing to say: “Actually, we need a new group of people to do that work.” Only then can one apply all the new tests. Actually, the test was being applied at the time of changing the contract in order to get a different firm. Let us imagine the situation if we did that with regard to carpenters. Let us say we engaged a group of carpenters to build a house, but found halfway through the contract that things were not going in quite the way they were supposed to go, and that we needed to get a new builder. If we went along to the carpenters and told them that the contract was not working and that we needed to get in a new firm to complete the job, those carpenters could say to us that we were perfectly entitled to do so, but that they would still turn up the next day and continue to work on the house, because their jobs would just continue on. That is exactly what Labour proposes in this legislation. Labour thought that the 2004 amendment to the Act was marvellous. Well, it was not marvellous. It has led to a less productive economy.

In the couple of minutes I have remaining, I want to say that this country has a problem with its productivity. Everyone in this Parliament acknowledges that. The way to boost productivity is by boosting skills and competitiveness, by eliminating compliance costs, and by reducing taxes. Labour is failing the test on every one of those. For instance, Australia—the country with which we compare ourselves—spends, under a conservative Government, more than we do on skills training and on building expertise. It puts 1.5 percent of its total wealth into boosting skills. It does that not just in the universities and polytechnics but right across the board, at all levels. This country spends 1.3 percent.

One of the key choices Australia has made is to boost productivity. This country has not made that choice. I ask Labour—because it will have a choice in 2 or 3 weeks—whether it will support a 90-day probation period. Every country in the OECD has done that. Some—for instance, Britain—have a year. New Zealand is the only country that does not have a 90-day probation period, and that holds back productivity. Will the Government do that?

Lindsay Tisch: That will be a test.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: It will be a test for the Government. Does it want to have a more competitive economy?

Chris Auchinvole: It says it does.

Dr WAYNE MAPP: It says it does, but if this legislation is anything to go by, then the answer can only be no.

Finally, will the Government reduce taxes for hard-working New Zealanders—low-income earners especially—irrespective of their incomes? The answer to all those questions is no, no, no, and no, and that is why so many people are going to Australia.

This is bad law. It was bad in 2004, and it is bad in 2006.

Hon MARK GOSCHE (Labour—Maungakiekie) : That member spent 10 minutes displaying his utter ignorance of many people’s working realities in this country. I will tell him a few home truths. The people who clean his office and who feed him in Bellamy’s are contracted-out employees. For years and years those people have done those jobs. He said that their industries were high-turnover industries. What would he know? Is he here at midnight watching his office being cleaned? No, he takes it for granted that his office is cleaned nicely for him every time he rolls into it in the morning after eating his breakfast. For years and years under a National Government, workers in the contracting industry were subject to abuse. This legislation seeks to make sure that that does not continue. For years prior to the National Government changing the law, that was the reality. Yes, people could have a contracted-out situation. New contractors could come in and take over a job. They took over the workforce with the existing wages and conditions, then they set about trying to get productivity gains. Most of them did it this way: at the Auckland hospital they simply said to the cleaners who had one ward to clean that they were sorry but they would now have to clean two wards, in the same time and for the same money—and they did it. What better productivity can one get than that?

But were the contractors satisfied with that? No, they were not. They said to those workers that they were still not doing their job well enough and that they were still shirking, even though they had gone from cleaning one ward to two in the same number of hours and for the same money. They were not satisfied with that level of productivity gain, so, as well, the workers were to have their hours cut and were to do their work in an even shorter time.

So all those full-time workers, many of whom had worked there for 20 to 30 years—[Interruption] Wayne Mapp laughs, because he thinks it is a big joke for people who have been hospital cleaners for 30 years to be told they have to do twice as much work in fewer hours for less money. He thinks it is funny. He thinks that those people should be treated with derision, and that is what the National Party does in voting against legislation such as this. Those people are largely Pacific Island and Māori women who have been working in those jobs for 20 to 30 years. Their kids are now achieving academically and are representing us internationally as sportspeople.

Those are the sorts of people we are talking about. They are the people who feed that member and who clean his office while he is comfortably tucked up in bed. When those people are transferred from one contractor to another, they have a right, when they turn up for work the next day, not to be confronted with a contract that says: “Sorry, I’m your new boss. Here’s your new contract. You’re going to work for $10 a week less, or $20 a week less, and have your penal rates and allowances taken off you. If you don’t like it, go away.”

That was the reality under the National Government. Labour does not believe in that sort of absolute rort. If that is the commercial behaviour that Wayne Mapp wants to see in this country, God help us if he is ever on this side of the House making laws! That is the kind of slavery-type situation that the National Party would prefer to see. National members laugh at that, but they have never, ever seen what I have seen as a union official representing those workers—the utter chaos that is created in people’s lives. [Interruption] That new member over there is laughing, too.

Paula Bennett: I think you’re living in bloody Noddy-land.

Hon MARK GOSCHE: She knows all about that! She was on a benefit and claims that she knows all about the lives of the low paid. A landlord does not say: “Oh, look, the cleaning contract has just changed, I’m really sorry that you’ve lost 50 bucks a week, I’ll drop the rent.” The bank does not say that people do not have to pay the mortgage any more because their boss has suddenly cut their wages and conditions.

That is the harsh reality of life for those people, and this law seeks to redress that sort of imbalance. It is a good law. We are going to make sure it gets passed and that it protects those most vulnerable workers. They are the people who clean Paula Bennett’s office and Wayne Mapp’s office, and who feed them at Bellamy’s. Those members are happy to see them completely rorted. If members do not believe that that happens, they should ask the people at Bellamy’s what happened when the services were contracted out. Those employees were going out of here in droves, and their wages and conditions were taken off them by the contractors. It is happening right here in this building; it is not just out there where members cannot see it. It happens every night after members have gone home, when people clean members’ offices. Members should go and ask those people for once and not just ignore them or say to them: “Thank you very much for my coffee.” If members thought about those peoples’ wages and conditions and what this law will do to protect them, they would support this bill.

SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) : It is my pleasure to take a call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I was heavily involved in the original debate on the Employment Relations Act. That legislation came in under extraordinary urgency in, from memory, early or mid-2000. We worked for 4 days on the trot, with very little sleep, to pass that bill, and this amendment bill is evidence of the fact that passing the original bill under extraordinary urgency was a very stupid thing to have done, indeed. I say that because by my recollection—and Mark Gosche or Ruth Dyson are welcome to correct me on this—this is at least the 12th amendment to the principal Act since it came into force in 2000.

That leads us to one very simple conclusion: that the legislation was appallingly put together in the first instance.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Simon, you’re a lawyer; you know that we would correct it.

SIMON POWER: Ruth Dyson chips in by saying that I am a lawyer. I cannot think of another piece of legislation, in the 6 and a bit years that I have been in this House, that has required 12 amendments—two per year—in order to get it right. [Interruption] Mark Gosche asks what is wrong with that. I will tell the member what is wrong with that. Labour members should have got the legislation right in the first place—they told us at the time that the Act was perfect in every way. We had applause and people yahooing and congratulating each other when it was passed, and that legislation comes back to the House every time it needs yet another amendment.

The interesting thing is that the Government did not swallow its pride initially and admit it had made a mistake. It took the Employment Court to tell the Government that there had been yet another mistake in the drafting of the Act that would require clarification by yet another amendment. Here we are, with legislation that was poor law to start with. It was poor law because regardless of whether members agreed with the ideological drive behind the Act—and we certainly had a very long and protracted debate over that, particularly during the Committee stage, when, from memory, 11 or 12 parts were debated—it was poorly drafted in the first place. Because it was poorly drafted, it has allowed situations like this to evolve. [Interruption] That member should read her Standing Orders, and then she would know that she cannot move from her seat to a position of advantage in order to interject. She should move back to her own seat. Yet again there is a major problem with the Act that requires the attention of this House—for at least the 12th time, by my count, since it passed into law.

There are concerning things about this bill. Frankly, some of the points Mark Gosche made in his contribution make sense only if the public is of the view that no matter what kind of contract or arrangement two people enter into, it will not count for anything. The Government is simply legislating straight across one of the most important principles of law in this country: the sanctity of contract, or the ability of two consenting adults to enter into a contract for the provision of goods or services. It is an extraordinary situation when the Government decides to introduce legislation that tells young people who want to get into business after coming back from overseas, those who want to set up contracting businesses, and those who want to employ people that when they pick up a contract for the provision of services to a particular business, regardless of the quality of service that was being provided up until that point—which, of course, may be the very reason an organisation or business wishes to let the contract out to a different organisation in the first place—there is no way that the new employer can make any changes of a substantial nature to the workforce.

That is just extraordinary. It essentially suggests to somebody who is prepared to take the risk to get into business, set up contracts, employ people, and make a contribution to the economy by lifting productivity that if that is what the business chooses to do, that is fine, but it must do so with a workforce that it has been decided was not up to scratch. That is just the most extraordinary set of circumstances.

This Government wonders why the flood of people who come back from the UK, New York, and other places around the world stops in Sydney and Melbourne. It wonders why that is the case. I will tell Government members why that is the case, because those people are firmly in the same demographic as myself. They are in their mid to late 30s and keen to set up businesses. They usually have one child, or possibly two children, and they are coming back because they believe that New Zealand offers them a wonderful lifestyle—the opportunity to set up a business and settle down here. But they come and look at the sort of nonsense that is contained in this legislation and say that if their children go to the local kindergarten, and the standard of cleaning at that kindergarten is so bad that the hygiene regulations are being breached, this Parliament is telling them there is nothing the kindergarten can do about that. The kindergarten associations say they want to change the contractors for the provision of those services, but there is nothing they can do about the standard of cleaning.

The most extraordinary thing is that members of the Government, who are sitting there now, sat and listened to the most boring, ill-informed, repetitive speech I have heard in my 6 years in the House. Yet again we heard Helen Clark come to the House and talk about so-called economic transformation—

Dave Hereora: We want to buy in haste.

SIMON POWER: There is Dave Hereora having a bit of a chip there. That is great; that is his contribution for the next 3 years. So we had Helen Clark come to this House and talk about economic transformation, yet with her other hand the Prime Minister is allowing the introduction of legislation like this, which is the very antithesis of economic transformation. This legislation means there is no incentive for performance, no incentive to improve the services that are provided, no problem if those providing a service are negligent or careless, and nothing an employer or a new provider of those services can do about that. It just seems to me that that is an unrealistic expectation to put on those who proclaim they are the masters of an economic transformation in New Zealand.

Well, that is true, actually, in one very small way: the economic transformation we are seeing with at least the 12th amendment to the Act is one that takes us back to the days when this country’s chances of getting back up the OECD ladder have just taken a serious knock backwards.

PETER BROWN (Deputy Leader—NZ First) : I listened intently to that speech, and though the member made some very good points, I thought—fair points—he is wrong on one count, at least. This legislation is not an amendment to the Employment Relations Act; it is an amendment to the amendment to the Employment Relations Act.

New Zealand First has looked at the bill fairly thoroughly, and we cannot support it. That is not to say we do not have sympathy for vulnerable workers. We have, and that is why we are fighting very, very hard to raise the minimum wage. We are very keen to make the minimum wage $12 an hour. We were going along—

Lynne Pillay: What about the cleaners on the ships on the waterfront, Peter?

PETER BROWN: The honourable member can rest assured that I will get to shipping sooner or later in my speech. I will get to shipping and waterfront work sooner or later—probably sooner than she would care me to.

Lynne Pillay: What about those simple sailors, Peter?

PETER BROWN: The member is looking at a simple sailor, a very simple sailor. I claim to be nothing else.

I want to go back to the roots of why this bill has been introduced. It has been introduced because Labour Government members did not, in their eyes, get the legislation right a year or so ago. I listened to Mark Gosche’s speech, and it almost brought tears to my eyes, but he did not make one reference—or maybe he made just one reference—to what this bill is about. He was talking about the bill that has already been passed and become an Act that protects vulnerable workers; he was not talking about this set of clauses that address what we might call the Dunedin kindergarten issue.

I want to refresh members’ memories of what happened in Dunedin. The Dunedin Kindergarten Association engaged a cleaning organisation called Southern Cleaning Services. The association members were not happy with the service or quality of cleaning that that organisation gave—that is my understanding—so early in 2005, when the contract expired, the association said thank you very much to the cleaning organisation, and told it that the contract was being put out for tender. The tender was won by an organisation called Crest Commercial Cleaning. It saw no sense in having to employ—I hope I am not doing it a disservice here—employees of Southern Cleaning Services, so it offered the work to contractors, whom it called franchisees, and I gather they have done the work very well since. Since that time, some of the cleaners employed by Southern Cleaning Services have been made redundant, because their jobs had been dependent on the firm having the contract to clean kindergartens. Those workers believed they should have been re-engaged by Crest Commercial Cleaning. They went to court, and they lost.

Should they have lost? Well, I do not know the answer to that. Should they have had an automatic right to job protection—should they have been engaged no matter which company had the main contract? New Zealand First says that, no, we should not be extending that sort of protection to anybody. We do not extend it to normal occupations, so why should we extend it to employees who are not delivering the service that the employer—the kindergarten association in this case—wants?

Let me be absolutely frank: competition is essential for the better economic well-being of this country. We need competition. Competition brings with it innovation, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness. To some degree it drives wages down, but once one achieves the level of service that is worthwhile paying for, the effect is the reverse. So New Zealand First’s position when it comes to vulnerable workers is that, first and foremost, we want the minimum wage increased. We want to give employers some tax benefits, some tax cuts, so that they can afford the increased wages, but we want competition to remain a tool, if one likes, of employers to ensure they get the best service—the best bang for bucks.

I come to the waterfront, because sooner or later I have to talk about it. The waterfront used to consist of pooled labour. When I was a stevedore I had to engage labour from a pool of people. I could not bring in modern equipment any more than my competitor could. I had no say on whether the workers would use it, or whether they would work different hours. The workforce determined the hours and determined the equipment that was used. As a result, our ports did not keep pace with overseas ports, by a long way. In Tauranga, where I come from, we prided ourselves that we had the best port in New Zealand, but when it was compared with ports on a worldwide basis we saw that it was less than satisfactory.

In 1989 all that was changed. We changed the method of employment—employees worked for company A, B, C, D, or whatever, and were part of the team of that company. They were not part of a pool of labour. As a result, modern equipment came in, loading rates went up, discharge rates went up, wages went up to some degree, and everybody was happy. I have to say that the then National Government then passed the Employment Contracts Act, and that put downward pressure on wages, which was most unfair to many working on the waterfront.

So, in essence, New Zealand First will not support this bill, because we believe that it could lead to protection of incompetence or less than quality service. That is our concern. I am not saying that it will do that, but we believe that it will protect incompetence to some degree. It will not affect the big cleaning companies, at all. They are already captured into the market by whatever. But it will affect mum and dad cleaners—the small people—and quite dramatically, and it will put a number of small businesses out of business. The alternative is to ensure that cleaners—if we are talking about cleaners—and other people on low wages get a reasonable wage. That is why New Zealand First members are striving and fighting for a higher minimum wage.

The other issue in this country that should be addressed is casualisation. Many, many industries have moved to casual employment. We believe that there should be some rules around employing people on a casual basis. New Zealand First will have some ideas to present, probably to this Government during this term, on how that can be achieved.

So, in essence, higher wages and controls on casualisation are the answer to the issue of vulnerable workers. [Interruption] That member ought to take a call to make her view known. The answer is not potentially to protect incompetence. New Zealand First members are not prepared to do that. Therefore, we will be voting against this bill.

SUE BRADFORD (Green) : The Green Party supports this Employment Relations Amendment Bill and hopes that it will work its way very quickly through the necessary processes. We fought hard for the transfer of undertakings provisions in the Employment Relations Act in 2000—the committee process that Dr Mapp remembers so well—and we were really disappointed when the Labour Government of the time felt obliged to remove this clause from the bill before it ever came back to the House. We were delighted then that the Government made a second, more serious attempt at dealing with this thorny issue with the inclusion of Part 6A in the Employment Relations Amendment Act in 2004. We now support the clarification of that legislation so that it achieves what we intended to do all along—protect those who were most vulnerable in the workplace when their jobs are sold out from under them.

The intention of the bill in front of us today is not new at all. Parliament already agreed to it when it passed the Employment Relations Amendment Act in 2004. I am well aware that it is simply an unintentional drafting error that has given rise to this situation. We are here because the Employment Court decided in Gibbs and others v that the law as currently written did not apply to them. The matter that went to the Employment Court was around cleaners who had been cleaning premises belonging to the Dunedin Kindergarten Association. The cleaning contract was re-tendered and the previous employer, Southern Cleaning Services, lost the contract to another firm, Crest Commercial Cleaning.

As soon as Crest Commercial Cleaning won the contract it gave notice that it did not intend to employ any of the current cleaners, but were going to subcontract to independent franchisees. There can be no doubt that those workers were in a vulnerable situation. There can be no doubt that this situation was similar to that described by many of the submitters to the select committee when we heard evidence on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. There can be no doubt that the select committee thought that it had drafted a bill that supported vulnerable workers in this situation. As a member of the committee I was there, and I have no doubt that that was our intention. It is for this reason that I believe, forlornly I know, that the bill should be supported by all parties in the House. It simply reinforces the intention we had when we passed that Act in 2004.

The Employment Court case that led to the need for this bill also touches on a number of other aspects of worker vulnerability that are of concern to myself and my Green Party colleagues. One of the issues is the claim by the new contractor, Crest Commercial Cleaning, that it was not going to be employing staff but was going to engage independent franchisees. Whether those independent franchisees were employees by another name, I do not know, but I have my suspicions. However, I am concerned about the growing use of so-called independent subcontractors, and the way in which corporations and larger employers use them to reduce their costs.

We have seen it clearly in the care service industry, and I think that every party—except, perhaps, ACT—has spoken out about the need for the health industry to look at how it employs and pays its carers, who, in many cases, have to pay for their own transport from job to job. As MPs, we get paid for our travel. It is totally outrageous that workers disguised as subcontractors or independent franchisees, earning as little as the minimum wage of $9.50 an hour, or less if they are under 18, are having to pay for their travel between clients. In other cases, they even pay for their own cleaning equipment. It is no wonder that the provision of home-based age and disability care is in almost total meltdown in some parts of the country.

In the 2001 census, there were over 12,000 people working in cleaning services. The Service and Food Workers Union says that the average wage of a cleaner on a collective agreement is $10.40 to $10.60 an hour. That is the rate for a collective. We can safely assume that there are many workers who are on less than that, especially those who are not in a union. They will be on the minimum wage of $9.50 an hour, or even lower if they are unlucky enough to be under 18. Many of those cleaners are doing two to three jobs just to make money to pay the bills and to keep themselves and their families going.

Commercial cleaning is still one of the most undervalued and underpaid occupations in the country. I hope, like Mark Gosche, that all of us here spare a thought from time to time for those invisible workers who leave their families in the middle of the night to come here and make our offices habitable once again.

The bill before us this afternoon does not, and cannot, address all the problems that surround vulnerable workers, but I hope that perhaps, later in the term, we will see more legislation that will offer them greater protection and support. Meanwhile, the Green Party is right behind the bill, and I hope it will progress with considerable speed through the necessary processes.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) : I have been amused by some of the political commentators who have passed judgment on the performance of Māori Party MPs, suggesting that because my learned colleague from the north, Hone Harawira, and myself have donned a tie, miraculously we have acquired a sense of discipline, an honest work ethic, and a conscientious approach to the endeavours of this House. The reality is that hard work, industry, efficiency, planning, and accomplishment are synonymous with what it is to be Māori. Our earliest documented histories emphasised the advantages of work and of communal effort. Equally, it is evident from any analysis of pre-colonial employment that idleness, clumsiness, and wastefulness were treated with contempt. One of the expressions of that time was: “Mā te werawera o tōu mata e kai ai koe i te haunga ahi o te kai.” That can be interpreted to mean that by the perspiration on one’s face, one will taste the piquant flavour of cooked food. In other words, hard, honest work by all will bring its own rewards.

The rewards of collective prosperity, of unity, and of the well-being of people are values that pass down the generations. In this world view, the possibility of vulnerable employees who are affected by the sale or transfer of a business or the contracting-out of work simply does not fit. For a start, as in the old English adage, the measure of a community is only as strong as its weakest link. Moving down the centuries, I wonder what our tīpuna would have thought of the workplaces of today.

The Māori Party will be supporting the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. We do so in recognition of the fact that quality employment and productivity emerge from a decent work environment and decent wages. A decent work environment means that all staff are valued, including vulnerable workers, and that is exactly how it should be. Mauri mahi, mauri ora; mauri noho, mauri mate. Industry begets prosperity; idleness begets insecurity. Or, through collective effort, supporting all members of the team, we can achieve economic gains and social stability.

To achieve those goals, we now know that employment protection is required to ensure that groups of vulnerable employees are not standing out in the cold. And who are those vulnerable employees? Well, one thing is for sure: they do not get promoted with a glossy career profile, encouraging our children to grow up to be a vulnerable worker. Yet the combined trade unions, the Minister of Labour, and the other Labour Ministers all sing the same song, justifying the introduction of this bill as necessary to protect the terms and conditions and continuity of employment of vulnerable workers.

When we consider the situation for vulnerable workers we are considering the situation for many Māori and Pacific Island workers. In the 1980s, the ruthless economic restructuring driven through by Labour increased Māori unemployment to record levels. I remember when it was 22 percent. The damage caused in the 1980s has left a lasting impact, with the unemployment rate of 7.6 percent for Māori still three times that of Pākehā. That equates to thousands of Māori available for, and seeking, work. Facing the choice between the dole queues or the food banks, many of our people will accept employment that is casualised, lowly paid, and insecure.

The Māori Party members believe that the bill being discussed here today will benefit the many Māori workers and their whānau who are affected by subsequent contracting. Without the amendments that are tabled in this House, vulnerable workers stand to lose employment, and thus their income, to face precarious terms and conditions, or to have changes imposed upon them—such as changing hours of work and increased workload, and associated stress—when there is a contract change. The legislation will overtake the Employment Court decision made last year that said employees did not have employment protection in succession-to-contract situations. Again, this House is facing the dire consequences of an error of lawmaking, much as we saw last week with the Land Transport Amendment Bill.

The legislation amends Part 6A of the principal Act, and relates to the transfer of terms and conditions of certain vulnerable workers when a business is sold or work is contracted out. As this House will recall, last July—and it has been mentioned before—six Dunedin kindergarten cleaners lost their bid to keep jobs, in the first case to test the employment protection provisions included in the legislation in 2004. The workers found themselves out of a job after their employer’s cleaning contract was taken over by another company, Crest Commercial Cleaning, which declined to keep them on. It is all well and good to say that the intent of the original Act was always to protect the terms and conditions, and continuity of employment of vulnerable workers such as cleaners. Well, as the Employment Court in Gibbs and others v showed, the provisions of the Act were not clear enough to uphold the intention in the event of subsequent contracting.

Once again, as with the land transport error, it is real families, real workers, real situations that suffer because of sloppy drafting. They are workers who are already on low incomes; workers who may already be under pressure as they manage the demands of juggling their employment with childcare, and with whānau and community commitments; workers who may be struggling to manage multiple employment responsibilities, in the stress of trying to supplement low pay and scrabble together enough to put bread on the table. We know that the faces of a lot of these workers are brown. We have been glad to meet with Te Kauwae Kaimahi Rūnanga, which represents the jawbone of Māori trade union workers. We are aware of the huge impact of poverty wages, casualisation insecurities, and cultural undervaluing, all of which go on for far too many workers who are Māori.

The amendments are setting in place a practical solution to a very real problem. The Māori Party is aware that contracting change-overs are happening all the time, and every week low-paid workers are losing their employment as a result. Workers are telling us too often that imposed changes to work hours can, and do, result in job loss. Without the amendments, employers are able to screw down wages and conditions. The bill ensures that employees can now enforce their rights when an employer fails to provide the right to elect to transfer, by providing remedies and penalties for non-compliance. If workers transferring to a new employer are surplus to needs, they have the right to bargain redundancy entitlements from the new employer.

The legislation being laid before us today is a step along the way to assisting our vulnerable workers improve their lot. But it is still only a limp band-aid on a seeping hakihaki—that is like a sore—oozing out over this nation: the spreading sickness of poverty. This Parliament must seek to reduce the gap between low-income taxpayers and the average income for the nation. How often do we need to remind this House that six out of every 10 Māori have an annual income of $20,000 or less, or, putting it another way, that the incomes of Māori people are, on average, $163 less per week than those of Pākehā—$437 compared with $600? The Māori Party has always said that if we are looking for real progress for our workers and families, the most effective policy change would be to increase the minimum wage to $12.50 per hour. This would mean a figure of in the vicinity of $25,000 for those working between 37.5 and 40 hours per week. So while we are happy to support the new amendments in their intention to establish employment protection in succession-to-contract situations, we will not resile from continuing to front the challenge against poverty in Aotearoa. We believe that in a buoyant economy we should expect more people to benefit from employment opportunities and wages that can support real living conditions.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I rise on behalf of United Future to speak on the first reading of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. I do so understanding that the bill’s intention is to provide protection to vulnerable employees in all change-of-employer situations, including succession to contract and contracting in and contracting out of work. I understand that “vulnerable workers” is a term that mainly applies to those who work as cleaners, and that the aim of the bill is to ensure that benefits are continued, regardless of the changing employment arrangements around the worker. We understand that the bill is being put forward by the Service and Food Workers Union, and we also understand that the trigger for it, as referred to by other speakers, was a particular case involving Dunedin kindergartens that was before the Employment Court in Dunedin—Gibbs v was the name of the case.

United Future has decided not to support the bill, for several reasons. We have several concerns and apprehensions about it, and I will quickly explain them. Firstly, we are unconvinced of the need for this legislation. Most large companies with cleaners have multi-employer contracts with unions, with provisions that already cover succession to contract, and contracting in and contracting out scenarios.

Our second concern is that the employment of an employee who elects to transfer to a new employer would be treated by the amendment as continuous. It is a little unclear at this stage what “continuous” means, and what sort of period of time is covered by the continuous employment provision.

Third, we fear that the bill will force out minor players, by imposing on them the same rules that larger companies have to contend with. Larger companies tend to be able to absorb these kinds of rules and regulations more easily than smaller ones. We are concerned that far from protecting vulnerable workers, the bill could do the reverse and push them out of employment. A number of the smaller players are often small family businesses and, interestingly enough, quite a large number of them are owned by Pacific Island families. Our legislation in this area should be aimed at making it easier for new immigrants to work and to set up their own businesses when they feel ready, not to make that harder than it is at present. We feel that the bill has the potential to keep new players out of the cleaning industry.

The very nature of competition between businesses is that one can out-price, but one can also outperform, competitors. My experience of employing cleaners is that most people who take out a contract for cleaners, rather than being completely constrained by what it will cost, are more interested in the quality of the work that is to be done. I myself, since coming to Parliament, have employed a cleaner—and I would like to say that I pay my cleaner well above the minimum wage, and I hope I am a good employer. To say cleaners are somehow undervalued could not be further from the truth, in my experience. When I go home on a Friday, at the end of a hard day, the most wonderful thing is to walk into my home and see what has been done on my behalf, and I do not begrudge a cent of what I pay. But what I value is the quality of the work that has been done. I do think that when a contractor has not been performing to the standard that was expected, and when that has been communicated and the staff have not complied with that advice, then the contractor should be able to move on and, if necessary in order to make the necessary changes, bring in new staff who will work to the standard that has been set.

United Future will not support the first reading of the bill.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : I have much pleasure in speaking in support of this important bill, and I congratulate Minister Dyson on bringing it to the House so promptly. It is a very complex area, and it is very clear that some members of the Opposition do not understand it. I hope I will have the opportunity at the select committee to explain to those members exactly how some of these things work, but I will try to make it clear tonight, if I have the chance.

It is very evident that they do not understand the real world of working as a cleaner, as a food service worker, as an orderly, in our hospitals, in our schools, in our office buildings—in any sort of business where employers and contractors compete in the competitive tendering process on the basis of lower labour costs through reduced wages, cutting hours, or reducing staff numbers. So although my colleague over there might pay above the minimum wage, in this situation I am sure she does not understand that what can happen is that staff hours are reduced.

The purpose of the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is to implement the Government’s intention to provide protection for vulnerable workers in situations where workers are contracted out or a business is restructured. As people have said, the amendments are necessary because of the decision of the Employment Court in Gibbs and others v . The law does not provide specified workers with the protection the Government intended in situations of subsequent contracting.

The bill was originally introduced in response to the devastating effects of more than a decade of competitive tendering and repetitive contracting-out of the thousands of low-paid workers. Over the last couple of decades a repetitive process of competitive tendering has become the norm as businesses seek ongoing cost reductions, particularly in easily outsourced work, such as cleaning, food services, and orderly and laundry services. Contractors compete on the basis of lower labour costs in a race to the bottom, through reducing wages, reducing staff numbers, or reducing hours.

The effect on those workers has been catastrophic. Workers lose their jobs, often at short notice, in a process that can be repeated up to four times a year. Contractors seek to win contracts by reducing hours of employment, pay and conditions, so even where workers continue to be employed by the incoming contractor, they face “take it or leave it” situations in jobs with less pay and, more often than not, reduced hours of work. Those whose jobs are terminated often have no redundancy compensation protection, and no other jobs to go to.

The proposed bill is not a new idea, and it has been carefully considered over many years by this Government; nor is it an idea that is unique to New Zealand. The UK has had a protection called the transfer of undertakings since the early 1970s, and it is currently in the process of strengthening that legislation. Australia has similar protections for the transmission of business, and it has had them for years. Having listened to Peter Brown, I think he does not understand that the horse has bolted. Part of the legislation will continue to apply, but what will not apply is the situation of subsequent contracting for those vulnerable workers described in the legislation—cleaners, laundry workers, food service workers, and others—where they are already contracted out. Tens of thousands of those workers work in our schools, polytechnics, airports, commercial buildings, Parliament, and aged-care facilities. The Crest Commercial Cleaning decision means that succession-to-contract situations are now explicitly excluded from subpart 2 of Part 6A of the current Act, so the terrible irony is that the most vulnerable workers, who were intended to be covered by this Act, are now left to the vagaries of the market. I accept that there is a balancing act in weighing up protections for workers and the requirements of business, but there is also a requirement to balance the relative powerlessness of workers who have little bargaining power and are more vulnerable.

I will now address some of the things that have been raised. I think Wayne Mapp does not understand the nature of competitive tendering. One cannot just sack a contractor because one does not like the cleaners; it does not work like that. Peter Brown raised the point that this legislation could lead to the acceptance of incompetence and the protection of incompetence. Well, performance is a management issue, and our current labour laws give employers the right to deal with performance issues right now. The other thing that people do not understand is that this protection applies only at the point of transfer. It applies to the workers, so that they have the right to transfer. After that, the incoming employer or contractor has the right to restructure the business, subject to current employment laws.

It is really important for the workers whom we are talking about that this legislative protection proceeds through the House, because it will make a huge difference to tens of thousands of workers, many of whom are women, Māori, Pacific Island, and new migrants. It will mean that they do not have to come to work each day not knowing whether, by the end of the day, they will have to go home and tell their families that they no longer have jobs. I also want to make the point that this is not about preventing contracting-out or undermining competitive tendering.

• Debate interrupted.