SUE MORONEY (Labour) : I am disappointed to hear that the member for Hamilton West did not take his remaining 2 minutes to speak, because I was waiting for an apology. I was waiting for him to say sorry to the people of Hamilton and, in fact, to the people of New Zealand for standing by while the very best facility that we have had to date to deal with high-risk offenders has been closed down by his Government in his back yard—in Hamilton. Yet during the member’s whole speech last evening, not one mention was made of Te Hurihanga. Perhaps the member is embarrassed, and rightly so. He should be embarrassed that his Government is flying in the face of the good people of Hamilton. It is flying in the face of two Hamilton bishops—the Anglican Archbishop, David Moxon, and the Catholic Bishop, Denis Browne—who have both come out to criticise the Government about this very bad decision.

If the Government was truly serious about dealing with youth crime and helping to turn angry young men’s lives around, then it would continue to invest in the Te Hurihanga model. Te Hurihanga is now a proven model. It had been piloted for 3 years in Hamilton, and the assessment was glowing about the results it had achieved with those very high-risk offenders. For people who are not aware of that model, I say that it took in young men who had committed, on average, 23 offences before they had even stepped inside the facility. That was the high level of offending, and we know from research and evidence—which the Government ignores, at its peril—that it is the small number, the minority of hardened offenders who cause the majority of grief in our community and our society. That is why Te Hurihanga is so important. It was dealing with the hardened, high-risk youth offenders, and it was achieving success.

Yet this Government today, in urgency, is pushing through a bill to go back to a failed model. It is almost like having the McGillicuddy Serious Party as the Government. Talk about the great leap backwards! This is the great leap backwards: back to boot camps, and back to a situation that we know does not work. We have research and evidence that proves that it does not work here in New Zealand; we have tried it. It does not work overseas; it has been tried overseas. This Government is going for the great leap backwards to something that does not work.

I want to know from the Government—I still have not heard anything from the Government members, and I will not, as this is the last call on this bill; they have studiously avoided this question—what will replace the Te Hurihanga model in Hamilton. There we have a custom-built facility—an eight-bed facility—

Tim Macindoe: The facility is remaining open. Child, Youth and Family is taking it over. You know that—it’s all publicly available. The whole thing has been announced.

SUE MORONEY: The member seems to know, but he has not told the Hamilton community what will be replacing it. I ask Mr Macindoe whether it will be a 12-month programme.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not a word!

SUE MORONEY: No, he does not know. He does not know, and neither does the Hamilton community. I ask Mr Macindoe whether it will be a 6-month programme. I ask the Minister for Social Development whether it will be a 6-month programme. They do not know. They have closed down this successful programme—an 18-month comprehensive wraparound programme—and they are trying to convince the country and Hamiltonians that they will do exactly that same programme, but they will do it for about a third of the cost.

Members of the Hamilton community are not dumb. They know that that programme cannot be delivered for $40,000 per offender. They have been told it will cost only $40,000 per offender. Currently, the Ministry of Justice says that the programme the Government has cut was costing about $170,000 per offender. That has been a very contentious issue. The Ministers have tried to inflate that figure and say that it cost $600,000 per offender. The Government’s own ministry, the Ministry of Justice, says otherwise. So who is telling the truth? Well, I would go to the Ministry of Justice website to see who is telling the truth. It is costing $170,000 per offender, and that is a fantastic investment in stopping crime in our country, and in particular in my city of Hamilton.

The Government—in its short-sighted, uncaring way—has come to that community and completely disempowered it. I tell members that nothing is more disempowering for a community than to completely embrace a programme—even the people who opposed its being set up in the first place—and then have to fight the Government to keep it in place. Even though some people opposed the programme in the beginning, they now know that it works. They have seen the results in their community and for those young men, and they have turned their opinion around. But has the Government turned its opinion around? No way. That community has supported the programme—has put its heart and soul into it—and now an uncaring, unthinking, unfeeling Government has come along, against all the research and evidence, and said that it will not have that programme, because we are going to have boot camps.

Why are we going to have boot camps? It is because it made for a great bumper sticker slogan during the election campaign. That is the reason; there is no research or evidence for it. In fact, the research and evidence shows otherwise. Once again I find myself in this House—as I have on many occasions, and over many other pieces of legislation in respect of this Government—asking where the research is. Where is the evidence? What is the Government basing this decision on? The Government is not listening. Not only is it not listening to what I am trying to impress upon it, but also it is not listening to the Hillcrest community in Hamilton. It is not just the Hillcrest community. If Tim Macindoe thinks that this will not be an issue in his area, then he should talk to the Methodists, he should talk to the Catholics, and he should talk to the Anglicans, and he should take heed of what they are saying. They are interested in social justice, and they are interested in finding a true way forward. That member and his Government are more interested in bumper sticker slogans that will just turn into plasters over wounds. That is what will happen.

This legislation is putting us in the predicament of having the Te Hurihanga programme close in June—mind you, it will not if the Hamilton community has its way, because it is in fight-back mode against this Government. It is in fight-back mode.

Tim Macindoe: No evidence of that.

SUE MORONEY: Tim Macindoe says he has not heard that Hamilton is in fight-back mode. Where has he been?

I congratulate Karyn Knight, a woman who lives in Fairfield who has started up a petition. When she came to see me for some advice and asked me to receive the petition and table it in the House for her, I told her that I absolutely would, because I firmly believe that the Government has made the wrong decision. I was interested in what her motivation might be, so I asked her why she was doing this and whether she was a staff member at the facility, and whether a family member had gone through it. When I asked her what her vested interest was, she told me that she had no involvement with that facility, but that she just thought people deserved a second chance. That is the type of sentiment that this Government should be listening to—not to bumper sticker slogans, but to things that actually work. It should be listening to real people’s sentiments and programmes that the research and evidence—the Government’s own research and evidence, and the assessment that it paid for—show work with our most hardened offenders.

I think it is extremely shallow that all those members opposite have got up and said that they want to stop youth crime. If they really wanted to stop youth crime, they would not be closing down Te Hurihanga and they would not be passing this bill. I am very proud to be part of a party in this Parliament that is opposing this shallow bill.

TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) : Good morning to my colleagues and to members opposite. As I was sitting having a good breakfast after a great night’s sleep, I thought that all members might be in the same mood that I am in this morning, but it is obvious from that last speech that some members in this House did not sleep as well as others. I would like to briefly thank a number of my colleagues, and, in particular, the Minister for Social Development and Employment, for bringing the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill to the House so quickly after the election, for supporting the Social Services Committee in its work, and for speaking so clearly about youth in New Zealand in all stages of this debate. Certainly, yesterday the Minister spoke many times during the Committee stage and now during the third reading.

I want to recognise other colleagues on my side of the House who worked on this policy when we were in Opposition. Anne Tolley certainly worked very hard on this, as did Chester Borrows. Chester Borrows, a member of Parliament whom I respect greatly, has 20 years of experience as a policeman in our community, working with the very young people whom members opposite were so quick to disregard during their term in office. Can I say—as I did during the second reading when Chester Borrows told the House that this bill will make a difference to young people—that I back what he said and I accept it fully. I would listen to Chester Borrows any day of the week before I would listen to a single member on the other side of the House, as members opposite often have opinions but cannot back them up. I want also to recognise members of the select committee, and the officials who worked very diligently for us over the last year. I thank submitters also. We heard from a wide range of submitters who had an opportunity to put their views—

Hon Member: And they weren’t listened to.

TODD McCLAY:—and they were listened to. We had great discussions.

I will be very brief during this call, because this is the last speech in the debate, and Parliament is about to pass this bill. On 1 October the bill will come into effect. The bill will make a number of changes, and it will make a number of changes for the 1,000 worst youth offenders in New Zealand. The last speaker for the Opposition said that a small number of hardened offenders cause most of the problems in our society. I agree with her—but, guess what? There are not just 1,000. Every year those young people who commit crimes and get into trouble reach the age of 17, and they go on to fill up our adult prisons. Every year younger people start committing crimes, and those 1,000 young people stay in the group. What has happened over the last 9 years is that that group of 1,000 young people has grown, so it is about time the House took this issue seriously and did more to help these young people.

The bill will expand the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to include 12 and 13-year-olds. This will enable the Youth Court to play a greater role in the support and rehabilitation of 12 and 13-year-olds who commit the most serious crimes. We are actually giving out a very important and very serious duty and power to the Youth Court. We heard from some submitters that there is concern that the Family Court had options available to it that the Youth Court would not have. Well, guess what? The bill was changed so that a judge in the Youth Court can decide, without intervention from others—members opposite or anybody else in this Parliament—whether a child should remain in that court or should be sent back to the Family Court. I have listened to the judges, I have respect for them, and I think that is an appropriate measure.

The bill will also strengthen the Youth Court and expand its powers to give a new range of compulsory orders, including parenting education. I would guess that the vast majority of the young kids who are getting into trouble and continuing to get into trouble from very early ages until they reach the age of 17 do not have family backgrounds that are the same as members in this House. I would guess that they do not have parents who spend enough time with them or care for them, and therefore parenting orders, to be directed by the court, are a very good step in the direction of ensuring that parents realise that they have greater responsibility. Also provided are mentoring and drug and alcohol treatment programmes, which are very important, as we very clearly know that there are children who have problems with drugs and alcohol.

I have heard about military style camps, and this legislation will bring in such camps in order to bring respect and discipline to some of our worst repeat youth offenders. These camps are the most intensive intervention that there is in the bill, and are intended to help get the lives of youth offenders back on track before they reach the age of 18 and end up in our prisons. There is also an option for longer supervision with residence; residence can increase from 3 months to 6 months, and supervision can be up to 12 months. Another option is longer supervision with activity, which is 6 months of activity and another 6 months of supervision. There will be more intensive monitoring. This is not just about children going before the Youth Court. It is also about judges being able to keep an eye on them. There is provision in the bill for electronic monitoring for repeat offenders and those who breach community orders. There is also judicial monitoring.

I want to conclude so we can move on to other business, but can I say to members opposite and to people listening this morning that we are not talking about young people who lead ideal lives. We are not talking about young people who have strong family support and backgrounds, or supportive parents. We are talking about young people who have started on the path to serious repeat offending, and we are talking about young people who are on a path directly to prison if the State does not intervene and give them more support. This bill gives those young people a chance, and, in some cases, a last chance. I support it fully. Thank you.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : Perhaps I should make a few preliminary comments before Mr Chauvel makes a contribution. The main changes in Part 1 deal with the creation of the position of deputy commissioner. This person, as with the commissioner, will be appointed on the nomination of the House. The Attorney-General is required to consult the Chief Justice about the proposed appointment, and the deputy commissioner will act when the commissioner has a conflict of interest or is otherwise unavailable to examine complaints.

The provisions as reported back from the Justice and Electoral Committee are unchanged from the bill as introduced. There are, however, a couple of changes, which are set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108. They relate to disposal of complaints, and they are designed to give the commissioner a greater ability or a greater discretion to deal with complaints in a particular way. There are minor amendments to section 15 and consequential amendments to sections 16 and 17.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I would like the Minister in the chair, the Attorney-General, to amplify the comments he has just made about the Judicial Matters Bill. One of the issues that Labour has with regard to this legislation is that although Labour is supportive of the substantive provisions—as we originally advised during the first reading, and as was our position at the Justice and Electoral Committee—it is of concern that the changes proposed on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Chris Finlayson are significant. Perhaps that is not so much the case in respect of the amendments to clauses10(1), 11, 12, and 12A. I can see that the Minister would want to characterise those amendments as being machinery changes. I imagine that he will tell the Committee that those amendments are improvements that have been made on reflection and on the advice of officials following the select committee process. But I think it would be helpful if we were to have a little more explanation of why these changes are being introduced by means of a Supplementary Order Paper rather than through the normal process, even if they are relatively minor. Indeed, the changes may well be improvements. If they are, and if the Attorney-General can enlighten us as to why that is, it may well be that we will support those parts of them.

I do, though, foreshadow a concern about the other matters that are proposed to be dealt with on that Supplementary Order Paper. They are more substantive matters, but they do not relate to this part, so I will not speak to them substantively. I do foreshadow to the Attorney-General that we have a concern about bringing them in, in particular at this late stage, without the scrutiny of a select committee or debate. That is a matter to which I will return.

The other thing that would, I think, be useful to the Committee, while members have the benefit of the presence of the Attorney-General as the Minister in the chair, would be for the Attorney-General go back over the general philosophy of his party relating to the Office of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner. It is the case that, as he acknowledged in his first reading speech, initially the National Party opposed this office. I think in Chris Finlayson’s second reading speech on this bill we heard from him that that position had changed, but we did not really hear why it had changed. Given the vehemence of the comments that came from him and his colleagues when the original measure came to the House, it would be helpful if we were to get that sort of explanation. I remind the Attorney-General that at the time of the original proposal for the creation of the office he said: “This bill will not be supported by the National Party. The material dealing with the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner is as misconceived as the contents of the substantive legislation.” Not only the amendment but also the whole notion of this process—this backstop measure; this measure of confidence—was something that National stood against.

I think it would be helpful for the Committee to be given an explanation of National’s change of position, given the relatively scant recantation that, shall we say, occurred at the second reading debate, and given the substantive policy reversal that we now see. We are pleased about that. We do support the primary legislation, as I have said. We think this is a useful measure to encourage confidence in the judiciary, and we are delighted that the National Party has changed its mind and the Minister is now progressing with this legislation, which began its life as a Labour measure. But given the vehemence with which National originally opposed the legislation, given that we have not had a real explanation for its change of heart, and also given that we have not really had the new provisions proposed in this part explained to us in any way, or described in terms of how they are a correct and proper improvement, it would be good to hear substantively from the Minister on those points.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : The member Charles Chauvel raises a couple of substantive points that are worthy of reply. The first relates to the alleged call on the road-to-Damascus change of view. There was a real concern on the part of my party about interference with the conduct of the judiciary. Having spoken, however, to the Chief Justice and other members of the judiciary, we found they were of the opinion that after a couple of years their initial concerns had evaporated and they felt that the post was relieving the heads of benches of numerous complaints that tended to be made and that there was a filtering system that was put in place. On that basis we were prepared to change our minds. Changing one’s mind is not necessarily a sign of weakness; it can often be a sign of strength, I say to Mr Chauvel. What we are now seeking to do is to ensure that the commissioner is not placed under a huge burden with the number of complaints that are being lodged these days. Sometimes, inevitably, as the member will know, in a relatively small jurisdiction there will be conflicts of interest or other reasons why the commission is unable to deal with the matter. That is why it is proposed that there be a deputy judicial complaints officer.

As the member would know, because he was in partnership with the commissioner Sir David Gascoigne, for example, a number of the member’s and Sir David’s former partners have been appointed to the bench, and it would be rather difficult for the commissioner to have to deal with any complaints against those judges. That is why, having listened to the judiciary and having listened to submissions on the part of the Law Society, the Government, or the National Party, was prepared to change its mind.

I come to the other point the member raised. If the member looks at section 15 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act 2004, one sees that the commission is required to conduct a preliminary examination of a complaint and then the commissioner—if one looks at subsection (4)—may make inquiries into the complaint that he thinks is appropriate, obtain documents, and consult the head of bench. Then in subsection (5), having completed the preliminary examination, the commissioner may take certain steps. The commissioner can dismiss the complaint, refer it to the head of bench, or recommend the appointment of a judicial conduct panel.

Commissioners have found that for some complaints a complainant can be satisfied following an explanation or an apology by the judge. What normally happens, as I understand it, is the commissioner will write to the judge who is the subject of complaint and ask for at least a preliminary response. Then on the basis of that there may, for example, be an apology, and that could be considered to be the end of the matter. The new section enables the commissioner not to take further action in respect of a complaint if the commission is satisfied that further consideration of the complaint would in all the circumstances be unjustified. It is really just giving the commissioner additional powers in order to deal with the matter.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : I want to speak on this part of the Judicial Matters Bill, not to make an enormous substantive contribution, but to ask the Attorney-General whether he thinks this is the sort of legislation that should be passed under urgency or whether this is the sort of legislation that should be carefully considered. There is a degree of agreement, certainly around this part of it, and one that has developed over a period of time; we think that is good.

The question I have is whether the Minister, as Attorney-General, thinks it is good lawmaking practice to ram this sort of legislation through the House under urgency. The House is sitting under urgency, and there is chaos. There was a point of order yesterday that took about one and a half question times—just for one point of order. The House has not been well organised. The Attorney-General, as the chief legal officer of Parliament, has responsibility, along with the Leader of the House, for process. The process under which this legislation is being addressed is shambolic, and I want to know what responsibility he is taking for that.

I want to know whether the Attorney-General has advised the Leader of the House that in taking this approach to this bill, which it is fair to say is constitutional in its approach, it is one that should properly be dealt with under urgency or, using the words of Steven Joyce at the Cabinet table, “whether the optics are good about this or not.” “Are the optics of this good?”, I ask the Attorney-General, or is the bill something that could probably have easily been dealt with in a much shorter period? We would not therefore be having speeches like this or, I am sure, like some that will follow, other than under urgency.

As I have indicated, as far as this part of the bill is concerned Labour will be supporting it. Whether we will be supporting it to the closure is a discussion that we are currently having. It is good that we have a careful look at it. But is it necessary to waste Parliament’s time by taking a bill of this type? I do not want to say that it is not important, and that there will not be some things later where there will be some more—

Charles Chauvel: It’s important.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, the bill is very important, but it is not urgent. It is also a bill that could have been dealt with on its merits, rather than by having a big debate about the process—if the process had been organised properly.

The essence of the point that I want to make to the Attorney-General is that he needs to take some responsibility. He was the one who was parading around town saying he wanted to be a QC, or thinking he would be a QC, before he became a member of Parliament. He was someone who was so upset, on procedural matters, that he might be turned down by a previous Attorney-General, for that sort of thing; “prissy” I think was the word that was used around the place, as to his approach. So I ask what has happened to those principles. What has happened to the Christopher Finlayson who wanted to be a QC, and to the proper approach to lawmaking that he used to promote? He might have changed his mind on the substance of this bill, and I congratulate him on catching up with people who were well-briefed back in those times. I think it is good that he admits now that he was wrong then. But does he think that this is the sort of process that should happen? Is he associating himself with Gerry Brownlee’s chaotic handling of this House over the last week? It has been absolutely chaotic; an opportunity was turned down to have things done in an organised and proper manner. He will get much, much less through Parliament than he would have, had he accepted that opportunity. Longer time was spent on one point of order than on an entire question time, and now we have the chief legal officer of Parliament ramming constitutional legislation through this House, under urgency, in a manner that is just inappropriate.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) : I have already expressed, in the second reading of the Judicial Matters Bill, the Green Party’s support for this important but not urgent bill, especially in regard to Part 1. But in this intervention I will address just one matter. In a sense it is a procedural matter not unlike that which has just been articulated. It has to do with Supplementary Order Paper 108, submitted by the Attorney-General. That Supplementary Order Paper would, among other things, insert a new section 16A, as I understand it, in the Judicial Matters Bill, which in turn would amend section 9 of the District Courts Act 1947. That amendment would specify that higher duties allowances—

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The member is actually speaking on new Part 1A. We are on Part 1, so I ask the member to concentrate on Part 1.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Thank you. I will wait until the next part comes up.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) : I will follow on from the comments that my colleague Trevor Mallard made, because we should not be debating this bill under urgency. I know that Hansard will record that this contribution was made on 23 February, but I think that in fact—I do not have my diary with me—we are up to 25 February. That means that—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not in here, we’re not.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Well, for Parliament, time stands still. Most people do not know about the effect of the urgency motion: the day stops on the day that the urgency motion is adopted by the House, and then we are essentially extending the sitting hours of the House so that even though we get to go home to bed at midnight and come back at 9 o’clock in the morning, in actual fact Parliament shows itself as sitting on the same day—in this case, 23 February.

Normally at this time I would be chairing the Commerce Committee—a very, very good committee. I think that other members of the House would agree—

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Good chair.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Good deputy chair over there, as well. We are very effective. And Charles Chauvel would be chairing the Regulations Review Committee. He is a very good chair of that committee; it is a very good committee.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no. It sat this morning. We dealt with the business.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Oh! Well, the point I am making is that other business of the House would be being conducted in other forums if this bill were not going through under urgency.

I think Mr Mallard missed one essential point about the nature of this legislation. Even though we agree with Part 1—we were the Government that introduced Part 1—we will have a further debate about moving amendments, under urgency, to what is a constitutional bill. That is the point Mr Mallard did not pick up on—this is a constitutional bill. Judicial matters bills always are constitutional bills; that is why the Attorney-General is the Minister in the chair.

This bill is not a matter for the Minister of Justice; it is a matter for the Attorney-General. I am very pleased we are debating Part 1. I also congratulate the Attorney-General on having the integrity—

Charles Chauvel: The grace.

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: —the grace, to say that after reflection on practice, the situation is different from how he expected it to be.

But there is a little bit that kind of sticks in my throat—just a little—and I thought I would cover some of the things the Attorney-General said when he was of a different mindset. First of all, he talked about the ridiculous nature of the regime. He said that in 2004 National had opposed the substantive legislation. He said: “We said that it was an unwarranted attack on judicial independence and that it would encourage ineffective and stupid complaints—in fact, that it would encourage a culture of complaints.” Later on in that same commentary, he said: “Of course, judges can be rude, grumpy, or discourteous. In many cases one can hardly blame them, given the quality of submissions they have to hear from lawyers. But are we such a weak-kneed, sissy society that if a judge barks at us we have to run off to some judicial complaints body?”

I think that that was spoken by a true list MP. If that member had ever had a constituent in his office talking about how he or she felt about judges—not just the decisions but the way in which the constituent was treated and spoken to by the judge; sarcasm, no eye contact—the member would know that those are all things that lead to a grievous sense of grievance. It is much worse, often, than it is at the beginning of court proceedings.

I had such a constituent in my office last week, and I can understand how he felt. I also understand the message the judge was trying to give, but there was a total disconnect. Therefore, there was a complaint. I see this judicial complaints process as a steam valve on what would otherwise be a pressure cooker environment. It is not for lawyers that the complaints provisions exist; it is for the ordinary people who live along the street, who end up in a court environment, and who find themselves on the receiving end of something more than rudeness, grumpiness, discourtesy, or a lack of grace; it is a complete lack of a meeting of the minds.

People often think they can effect change by court proceedings. I think that the Attorney-General and I would probably agree that that is not possible. So neighbourhood disputes end up in our courts when they should never end up there. People want to prove they are right, so others have to be proved wrong, but the court is not the place to prove those sorts of things. The Judicial Conduct Commissioner has really helped in that process.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I rise to support the Judicial Matters Bill, and also to record my support for the submissions that have been made by earlier speakers as to process. I think it would have been desirable if this bill had not been considered under urgency, and I think it would have been desirable that the changes proposed by a Supplementary Order Paper were made in some other way. The points have been well made by earlier speakers, and I will not add to them. Thank you.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : I rise to take a short call on the Judicial Matters Bill. I record Labour’s support for the bill, and its opposition to the Supplementary Order Papers. As the previous two speakers have noted, this bill affects matters of a constitutional nature. It is largely above politics and is about the conduct of judicial behaviour. The important place of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner in our system is recorded, as is the need for judicial conduct panels.

The main provisions of the bill include establishing the new office of the Deputy Judicial Conduct Commissioner, appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives, after the House has been advised by the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has to consult the Chief Justice on that recommendation. The function of the deputy commissioner is to carry out the duties of the commissioner in relation to complaints during his or her absence from office or incapacity. Of course, on occasion the commissioner can face potential conflicts of interest, and if those arise the deputy commissioner will be able to step in. That is all in the name of ensuring that the conduct review process is quite clearly beyond reproach, as is appropriate, and I am sure that the Attorney-General, who is sitting in the chair, would agree.

The bill gives to the commissioner a power to take no further action in respect of a complaint if he or she is satisfied that further consideration of that complaint would, in all the circumstances, be unjustified. That is a magnificent legal truism; none the less it speaks to a point, which is that there needs to be discretion on the part of the commissioner to decline to deal further with complaints that might be, for example, of a vexatious or frivolous nature, or complaints that in the commissioner’s view are outside the powers or role of the office of the commissioner. That power is in addition to the three current powers to dismiss the complaint if it is vexatious, to pass the complaint on to a judge who is a superior to the one subject to complaint, or to set up a special judicial conduct panel.

I guess it goes to the point that my colleague the Hon Lianne Dalziel made, which is that we should not ignore the possibility that judges themselves can come under pressure. It is a difficult job. They receive variable submissions, and they have to deal with a large number of clients who find themselves in all sorts of different circumstances. Judges come under some enormous time pressures, and from time to time they can show that pressure. I think it is also important for us to note that judges are human. Judges themselves bring to the courtroom their own perspectives and they reflect their own backgrounds, and from time to time, unusual as it is, those factors may cause a judge to demonstrate behaviours that might not, in other circumstances, be appropriate. It is also fair to say that a large number of our judges are male, a large number of them are relatively senior in years, and most of them are Caucasian. Those factors all bring a certain inherent perspective, and it is important that we have processes that provide assurance to the public that no matter what the background or constitution of the judge, they will be entitled to a fair legal hearing before the courts.

I think members across this Chamber would be of the view that one of the great treasures of living in New Zealand is that we have a legal system that, by and large, functions pretty well and accords to New Zealanders the opportunity to have their business heard, should they need to, in a fair and just manner. That is why, of course, we have things like legal aid. It is important that justice is available for all; that cases are decided primarily on the merit of the case, not on the size of the wallet; and that access to justice reflects the constitutional rights of every citizen. This bill is one small way of enhancing the process of further buttressing the review mechanisms within the process, to ensure that unfortunate biases or errors of behaviour can be dealt with. As such, in general, the Labour Party supports it.

Labour will be voting against Supplementary Order Papers 108 and 109, and I will take just a moment to explain why. According to the explanatory note, Supplementary Order Paper 108 will give the commissioner an added option, after the preliminary examination, to refer the complaint, if substantiated, to the head of bench, under section 17 of the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Act. Of course, a number of consequential amendments flow from that amendment. It will increase from 140 to 156 the maximum number of District Court judges. It will authorise the payment of higher duties allowances to High Court judges serving in the Court of Appeal so that they rest on a more secure constitutional foundation—what a lovely turn of phrase.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): The substance of the member’s speech is now relating to new Part 1A. We are on Part 1.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Thank you, Mr Chairman, for that clarification. I thought it appropriate to mention the overall position that the Labour Party is taking, but I take the guidance of the Chair that it is not appropriate in this part of the debate to go into the detail of those Supplementary Order Papers. I merely record the fact that the Labour Party will be opposing both Supplementary Order Paper 108 and Supplementary Order Paper 109.

In continuing, I note that the current Attorney-General raised a number of objections when in Opposition during the first reading. He said: “That is the National Party approach—do it subtly, but do it effectively.” I think that comment bears remarking upon, perhaps more in its general context. A very active debate is going on in this country about whether the hallmark of the current Government is subtlety or effectiveness, in the words of the Attorney-General. Those of the “subtlety” view, including many in the business community, are of the view that the Government is so subtle that it is almost impossible to discern its direction of travel. That has been one of the main responses of the commentariat to the Prime Minister’s opening speech to the House. Certainly in the economic policy area, which is for a debate different from today’s, there is a great deal of concern in the business community about whether the Government’s intentions are clear enough and whether there is a coherent strategy that would allow the economy to expand and create jobs. Labour members would welcome further elucidation of the Government’s intentions in that sphere, because try as we might, we are not quite sure how the so-called pillars of change add up to a substantial positive impact on the economy. That is the “subtlety” school of thought.

The “effectiveness” school of thought, which gives some members of the business community comfort, is that the Government really does have a significant plan for change up its sleeve, but it does not yet wish to tell New Zealanders what it is, because they might not like it. The “effectiveness” school tends to the view that many of these things will be revealed in the Government’s second term, if it is fortunate enough to have one, and that in the second term we might see the Government showing a more—what would be a good, judicial phrase? It could be “a more flagrant”—perhaps not. It could be “a more unmasked determination to deliver to core stakeholders”, as they might put it.

I am admittedly drawing a bit of a tangential bow from the, as always, perspicacious semantic approach of the Attorney-General. He has nailed National’s approach: “do it subtlety, but do it effectively.” In so doing, I think the Committee would congratulate this one office holder on unifying these two strands of thought about the nature of this Government. He has unified them in one sentence, and he has said they are both right.

Charles Chauvel: He’s their philosophical oracle.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As my colleague has pointed out, he is their philosophical icon—was that the word?

Charles Chauvel: Their oracle.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: He is their oracle. He has gone beyond icon to oracle. No doubt we will be addressing him as Sir Christopher Finlayson before long.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: No.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The Attorney-General, I am told, is a republican and for that reason would not accept the title of Sir, were it proffered. I see he is not rising to his feet. I wonder whether he wishes to clarify, for the record, whether he is a republican—my understanding is that he is—and whether he would turn down the title of Sir if offered, but presumably not during the first term of office. Automatic knighthoods for all members of Cabinet are one of those second-term things.

We look forward to the day when the true nature of this Government comes to full blossom.

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : I should clarify just one matter. After having consulted colleagues and having heard the Attorney-General’s explanation of the new changes proposed in Part 1, the Labour Party finds itself in the position of being compelled to vote against Supplementary Order Paper 108 in its entirety. This is a procedural point; it is about the undesirability of bringing this matter before the Committee, both under urgency and by way of Supplementary Order Paper rather than through the select committee process. Obviously Supplementary Order Paper 109, the measure simply to divide the bill, will not be opposed.

• The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 1 be agreed to.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : We now come to what is to be Part 1A. I will go through the motions, notwithstanding the information of Mr Chauvel, and then we will have to take further steps. As required by Standing Order 299, I seek the leave of the Committee to move the amendment to the District Courts Act set out in Supplementary Order Paper 108, which is the new Part 1A amendment to the Judicial Matters Bill. Leave is required because the amendment is a substantive one to an Act not amended by the bill as introduced. All parties represented in the Committee were actually consulted on the amendment, and until this morning my understanding was that all parties had indicated they would support this course of action.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that course of action.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I just seek clarification in terms of that consultation, because there may be some misunderstanding here. If we gave an undertaking that we would support that legislation, I would like that to be clarified before we take the vote, if that is possible.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): My understanding is that the undertaking was for the support of the consideration—not necessarily for support of the amendment—so that the amendment can come back to be debated now. That is my understanding. Is that acceptable? Do you understand the position?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Yes, I think I understand the position. I was confused.

The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : I move, That the Committee report progress and ask to sit again presently.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue that has arisen is in relation to a Supplementary Order Paper on the Judicial Matters Bill. What was proposed was that leave be sought—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker, he is talking to a bill—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: You have called a bill.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): No, I have a point of order—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Yes, you have called a bill, Mr Speaker.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): Please sit down. The member has raised a point of order. He said it was a point of order, and I am hearing it. I have not yet determined whether it is a point of order, but the member has raised a point of order and I need to hear it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: He cannot raise it on a bill that is not before the House.

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I will determine that.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am dealing with a procedural matter, if the member would listen carefully. Because leave was denied in relation to part of Supplementary Order Paper 108, the House reported progress. Because of the numbers of people standing, around here, I was not in a position to stand up and move a motion in relation to seeking leave that the Committee deal with that particular part of the Supplementary Order Paper, which is the motion that I was seeking to deal with. But you, Mr Assistant Speaker, then moved on to item No. 5 on the Order Paper.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) : The first point I make is that that is not a point of order because it is not relevant to the bill that is currently before the House, which is the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. There was an opportunity for, and we were expecting, Mr Finlayson to move a motion. We were waiting for him to move a motion; he did not. He missed it. What happened then was that the Clerk called the next bill and you offered the call repeatedly. I tried to get the call; my colleague Maryan Street tried to get the call. I tried to get a Minister to speak on the bill that is currently before the House. Neither of the two Ministers who were in the House, the Attorney-General or the Minister for Social Development and Employment, rose. You called repeatedly for a Minister; a Minister did not rise. I am not quite sure what happens now. I think possibly we might even move on to the next business. I think it is a matter of getting advice. But it is very, very clear that the Minister now—and there has been one call on that bill—has an ability to adjourn the House, if he wants to. He can take a call on that bill and adjourn the House, or he can wait for another couple of calls and at that point move a motion to get the House back into Committee. But for at least two calls now, a Government call and an Opposition call, we are on the student loan legislation.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) : I was watching events on television—this is a high-rating programme—and saw what happened. I clearly heard you call Government order of the day No. 5. I saw the Clerk stand and read out the name of that bill. I then heard, although the microphone was not live, the unmistakable sound of the call of Mr Mallard saying: “Mr Speaker! Mr Speaker—”, and I heard you say that you were seeking advice.

Clearly, Mr Mallard cannot be the first speaker on a Government bill, because a Minister is required to move a motion with regard to the second reading. Mr Mallard points out that neither Minister present in the Chamber did move so, so we are in a quandary. There is no question that we have moved on from the Judicial Matters Bill; I think that is clear. We have called Government order of the day No. 5 and we are on to that. However, I see that the Minister of Revenue, Mr Dunne, has arrived. The bill is in his name. I think that for the best sense of order, the most appropriate thing would be for Mr Dunne now to move the second reading of this bill so that we can proceed. Otherwise, I think we are at an impasse that cannot otherwise be resolved. I cannot seek leave on behalf of another member, but we would have no objection if Mr Dunne sought leave to take a call at this time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to that—

The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy): I do not need any further assistance. I think the only thing we are very clear of is that the House is in a somewhat confused state. Even in the report of the proceedings in the Committee there was some question about how that was summed up and presented. I can understand there being some element of confusion about that. Consequently, the Hon Christopher Finlayson may not have had quite the opportunity to make the point he was going to make. In any case, I have called Government order of the day No. 5. Only a Minister can respond to that, and that is why I could not give the call to the members who were both seeking it. I think they understand that. I am prepared to take a call from a Minister on Government order of the day No. 5.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) : I move, That the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The measures in this bill are part of continuing efforts to ensure that the student loan scheme is managed in an efficient and consistent way. They include a suite of mainly technical changes to the repayment rules to ensure that the law is clear and consistent, and that it operates as intended. The bill also extends interest-free loans to borrowers from Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau, which share a special relationship with New Zealand that is sometimes referred to as their being part of the Realm of New Zealand. I note that when I used that term in an earlier debate Mr Hayes, I think, took some exception to it, but I quickly reminded him that it is the phrase that the Governor-General often uses in such situations, and without bringing him into the debate, I think it is appropriate to follow his guidance. Because the Ross Dependency is also part of the Realm of New Zealand, borrowers who go there may also qualify for an interest-free loan.

The 183-day requirement for borrowers to be present in their country is the same criterion that must be met by New Zealand - based borrowers to qualify for interest-free loan status. That requirement is in place to encourage borrowers to remain in New Zealand or to return home from overseas to make their contribution to our economy and growth. The bill applies the same 183-day requirement to borrowers from what we now describe as realm countries so that they have an incentive to return home after their study and make a positive contribution towards the economic and social future of their particular country.

This bill also acknowledges the value that students who pursue further study overseas bring to New Zealand, and extends interest-free loans to include students furthering their education overseas through full-time study under formal exchange programmes or formal agreements between New Zealand and overseas tertiary education providers.

I acknowledge the work of the Education and Science Committee on this bill; it made several worthwhile refinements to it. The first of these extends the overseas exemption to include those engaged in full-time study overseas if their New Zealand tertiary provider has confirmed that their studies cannot be completed in New Zealand, but would count towards a New Zealand qualification at level 8 or above. The other small but important change provides greater clarity by defining the term “overseas tertiary provider” so it is clear what type of organisation borrowers must be engaged in full-time study with overseas in order to qualify for interest-free loan status.

The remaining changes in the bill are largely of a technical or remedial nature to ensure that the law works as intended. Briefly, they include an amendment to correct an unintended change to the hardship relief provisions made by the Student Loan Scheme Amendment Act 2007, a change that allows the Inland Revenue Department to raise the compulsory deduction rate from 10 percent to 15 percent to help ensure that borrowers pay their correct loan repayment amounts, and the removal of a technicality so that borrowers returning to New Zealand who wish to fully repay their loans before they have met the 183-day requirement to qualify for an interest-free loan can do so.

They are the main features of the bill. I record my thanks to the select committee for its detailed consideration of this matter, and for its thoughtful recommendations, which have made for further improvement and clarity in this bill. I think that, overall, these changes will help ensure that the student loan scheme works in the way that it was intended for both borrowers and the Crown, and consequently with great pleasure I commend this bill to the House.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I rise basically in support of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill, but to begin with I need to draw attention to the complete shambles that has developed in this House because of the taking of urgency. This may be the one bill in the whole panoply of bills that the Government has put up under urgency that actually warrants urgency, because some action is required to be taken by 1 April. But this bill is about the only one that does. Even this bill was teetering on the brink of not being able to be introduced into the House for its second reading, because there was not a competent Minister in the Chamber to move the motion. The Government whips had no sense of anticipation that because of the shambles that was developing over the previous bill under consideration, they needed to alert the Minister in charge of this bill, the Hon Peter Dunne, to get to the House promptly so that he could take it up. In the event, two Ministers, the Hon Chris Finlayson and the Hon Paula Bennett, were sitting in the House, but neither of them had the wit to get up and even move procedurally or do some kind of form speech while waiting, presumably, for the whips to ring the relevant Minister’s office to get the relevant Minister to the Chamber pronto.

This is a complete shambles. This is what happens when a Government tries to avoid question time, when it has been trying to use the procedures of this House in order to defend indefensible Ministers. This particular bill warrants urgency. I am—and we in the Labour Party are—perfectly happy to acknowledge that it warrants urgency. We support this bill. But this cannot go past without some trenchant criticism of the process by which we have got to this moment. In the urgency motion there was a raft of legislation that did not need to be taken under urgency. It was clearly a ruse and a device that allowed the Government to let its panicked, panicky Ministers—such as the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, or the Minister of Housing, Phil Heatley—to get off the hook and not be subjected to the kind of grilling their performance in the task of being a Minister of the Crown absolutely demands that they be subjected to in the process of question time. This cannot go past without comment. Although we are now at the second reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill, I have to say that it is only by the skin of its teeth and by some cooperation on our part that this bill is reaching this stage in any kind of order. That fact goes to the competence of the Leader of the House, Gerry Brownlee, and to the attention paid by the Government whips to what is actually transpiring in the House as we proceed.

However, there is one other thing I wish to raise in relation to the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. Between the time this legislation was first introduced into the House, was referred to the Education and Science Committee, and appeared for its second reading, we have had a change of Minister for Tertiary Education. Although this is a bill that rightly comes under the purview of the Minister of Revenue, it will be interesting in the Committee stage if the new Minister for Tertiary Education responds to some of this debate, so that we can discover whether the Minister of Revenue has briefed him about this bill. This is about the student loan scheme, it is about miscellaneous provisions, and it refers to exemptions. It will be interesting to see whether the fact that the new Minister, Steven Joyce—who was brought in to repair the damaged and broken relationships between this Government and the tertiary education sector, which resulted from the stewardship of the previous Minister for Tertiary Education—has student loans in his sights has any bearing upon this current legislation.

This legislation extends the student loan scheme to all those within the Realm of New Zealand, and that is a good thing. We support that, despite the fact that there are not many in the Ross Dependency who are likely to take this up—we may have the best educated penguins in the world. We are supportive of the extension of the scheme to people in Niue, Tokelau, and the Cook Islands. However, I am somewhat at a loss to know quite what the direction of the student loan scheme will be under the new Minister for Tertiary Education. He has made it explicit that although he acknowledges it was a political call to maintain interest-free student loans—in other words, the Government would have taken a real drubbing on this issue at the general election had it not decided to continue to support it—he has decided that he will make it harder for students to access student loans. This is clearly on the agenda of this Government under the new Minister. The previous Minister’s relationships with the tertiary sector were in such a parlous state that she was beginning to not even meet with them any longer.

Carmel Sepuloni: She was in a helicopter flying over them.

Hon MARYAN STREET: She was busy in helicopters. However, the point is that we have had a change in direction around student loans from the new Minister. If he makes it harder for people to access student loans, how does this legislation, which extends student loans to people throughout the Realm of New Zealand, in that old terminology, square with the new Minister’s intentions? Will the loans be harder to access?

One of the provisions in this legislation will permit the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to increase the standard rate of repayment deductions from 10c to 15c in the dollar where borrowers have failed to have correct deductions made or failed to pay any other due amount. I understand the Green Party’s objection to making that burden harder, but I think it is also incumbent upon the Government to ensure that people are not abusing and misusing the scheme. The vast majority of students whom I know and to whom I talk have been deeply grateful for an interest-free student loan policy because they absolutely need this money to get through their studies. The amount of abuse is infinitesimal compared with the number of those who use the scheme for its correct purpose.

We support the bill, albeit recognising the Green Party’s objection in its minority report from the select committee. We are not objecting to incentivising people to pay back their loan. However, I do not see how this legislation, as it stands now, will fit in with the Minister’s express desire to make it harder for students to access loans, therefore making it harder for people to access tertiary education, and, therefore, reducing the number of students in our tertiary institutions, which will reduce the expense to the Government. I hope that the Minister of Revenue has already taken this up with the new Minister for Tertiary Education. Thank you.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) : It is a pleasure to take part in the second reading of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. I start off by pointing out that National did commit to keeping interest-free student loans in place. We recognise that the scheme is a very generous contribution by taxpayers to tertiary education students, so we want to see that the whole process around the student loan scheme is tidy, appropriate, and fair. That is the very essence of this bill. It tidies up a number of areas, enhancing the student loan scheme and giving people certainty and clarity. We need to do that because 500,000 New Zealanders have student loans. Therefore, the scheme has a significant impact on the Crown accounts as a debt to be managed. It is in the region of $10 billion. We want to ensure that those people who enter into a student loan get quality education and that the country in return receives the most benefit from those people’s higher education by way of completions, success, and the students realising their potential.

One concern we have in Government on this side of the House is that under the previous administration there was a total lack of incentive to repay one’s student loan. In fact, there was a general sloppiness in the behaviour of the tertiary education sector,. That is why the Government in September introduced the 10 percent bonus repayment, which means that if people pay over $500 of their loan above their minimum requirement, we give them a benefit or a bonus on that.

This bill has come through the House courtesy of the Minister of Revenue, who has oversight of it. I encourage everyone in the House to go on to the website and download the annual report relating to the student loan scheme. It is quite staggering to read. The principle itself is a good balance. In the context of this bill and the student loan scheme, there is an enormous amount of public good, but done properly there is an even greater amount of individual good. That is what we want to see.

I will get on to the bill and interest-free loans for residents of the realm countries. We do a lot to aid those countries within our region—and when talking about our region, I am referring to the South Pacific, effectively—be it Niue, Tokelau, or the Cook Islands. Those countries have rights under our laws, and one of those rights is access to interest-free student loans. Up to this date, when those students came to New Zealand that was the case, but when they returned home it was not the case. This bill appropriately extends the provision so that students can continue to have interest-free loans when they return to their home Islands. That change is very good, because it benefits not only the Islands but it also balances out students’ rights to the student loan scheme. Otherwise, invariably those students would stay in New Zealand in order to keep that right. Those Islands have an enormous need to be supported and to grow economically, and one hopes that those things are gained from the student loan scheme. The change will apply when the bill is brought into law.

This bill deals with a very interesting aspect of overseas study. At present there is a gap in our education system. At times there is no ability for students to continue their studies overseas on an interest-free loans basis, even though there may be a formal relationship between an institution in New Zealand and an overseas institution. This bill addresses that matter. Where there is a formal agreement between the New Zealand tertiary education provider and an overseas tertiary provider, there will now be the opportunity to retain the status of an interest-free student loan.

Up to this date, as soon as a student left the country to study or work, the calculator would start ticking away. I trust that we can manage this change. We will need to register what those institutions are and what courses are being taken. The education needs to be at that higher level and one that is not provided in New Zealand. That, in itself, is fair but we must remember that when the interest-free student loan scheme was implemented it came to the attention of the Minister of Revenue that some 40,000 students overseas were claiming interest-free student loans but were not really deserving of them, so that had to be tidied up. Exemptions are an important aspect of bill, and we look to this amendment to tidy up matters respectfully around that issue, because we want the full ambit of opportunities to be opened up to students, whether they are doing a master’s degree, PhD, or whatever.

The other aspect that I thought would be controversial, with regard to the Green Party minority view, is that the Inland Revenue Department will have the ability to increase the rate of repayment deduction from 10c to 15c in the dollar for borrowers who have failed to have the correct deductions made or to pay any other amount when it is overdue. It became clear under examination by the Education and Science Committee that that provision does not include the occasion when there is failure by the Inland Revenue Department to send out the appropriate notification of payments. It would be unfair to be ruthless and try to claw that money back in an insensitive way. However, in many situations the department needs that flexibility. When we are talking about 10c to 15c in the dollar, it is not just one or the other; it is a sliding scale.

This is a small bill, and although some speakers in the first reading debate said there was not a lot of substance to it, it is an important aspect of the legislation going forward. The bill adds to, critiques, and improves the Student Loan Scheme Act 1992. It is a balanced bill, and, generally speaking, on the select committee we worked collegially, and the advice we received from officials was very appropriate. The bill, in the form returned to the House, is still in much the same vein as it was at its first reading. The committee made a couple of recommendations and it was good to see that the Minister has picked up on those. On that basis, it is a pleasure to commend this bill to the House in the second reading.

STUART NASH (Labour) : My colleague Grant Robertson said to me a moment ago: “Get ready to jump up; it sounds like Colin’s winding down.”, but he said that from about the first minute of Colin King’s speech. I wonder whether Colin King has any interest in education or whether he was given that speech and told to read it because we are 2 hours early, due to the earlier stuff-up in the House. He should show a bit of passion about education.

I think that education is the most important thing we can do for our children and our communities. That is why I stand now to speak in support of the second reading of the bill. It is hard to believe that the first reading was in August last year. Too many important bills affecting the people of New Zealand have been rushed through the House under urgency since then. Goodness me! We are only into the third week back this year and already we are rushing legislation through the House in what appears to be a slap-hazard way. I assume there must be some sort of plan or logic to the process—

Chris Hipkins: That’s a bold assumption.

STUART NASH: Yes, I know. I certainly cannot follow it. I do not know whether Mr Hipkins can. Can anyone follow this? I do not think so. I do not think that the lack of process or progress is what the people of New Zealand voted for. There is a lot of stuff going on at the moment that I do not think the people of New Zealand voted for.

This bill, by and large, is a technical bill. The previous speaker said it did not have much substance. Well, it does have quite a bit of substance, but it is a technical bill. It enshrines a couple of important philosophies that we, as the Labour Party, strongly value. That is one of the main reasons why I support this bill. The Labour Party has always seen the fostering of the economic development of our Pasifika brothers and sisters as one of its major responsibilities and goals. This bill also builds on Labour’s fantastic law of giving interest-free student loans to all students, and what wonderful legislation that was. It was, of course, as we all know, Labour legislation.

Education has to be the cornerstone of economic development, and in my humble opinion the interest-free student loans legislation was one of the greatest pieces of economic development legislation passed in a generation. It certainly passes the Nash test of: “Is it right for the people of New Zealand?”.

Grant Robertson: I thought that was Harry Holland’s.

STUART NASH: In talking of Harry Holland, I had to smile last night in this Chamber when Mr Macindoe was putting words into the mouth of the great Harry Holland, one of the Labour Party’s great early leaders. I mean no disrespect to the member from somewhere in Hamilton, but those who know their political history will know that Mr Macindoe has a few more years of sweating blood for the people of New Zealand before he can even start to speak on behalf of the great Harry Holland. Sir Roger Douglas will know that, will he not? Harry Holland was a great man, but I digress.

This bill makes some technical amendments, but, by and large, it does three things. Firstly, it allows those from the nations of Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency who have come to New Zealand to seek educational opportunities to return home in order to put their education and learning into practice. Secondly, it provides an incentive to those currently resident in the aforementioned countries to come to New Zealand to be educated, and then return home to families, friends, and jobs while achieving the same advantages as citizens domiciled already in New Zealand. Thirdly, it provide opportunities to New Zealand citizens who may wish to travel to Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency in order to pursue professional opportunities for any number of reasons.

This bill also allows interest-free loans for students engaged in full-time study overseas under a formal exchange programme approved by the New Zealand Government or a formal agreement between a New Zealand education provider and an overseas tertiary education provider. In this day and age of globalisation that is a wonderful thing, so I commend the Minister of Revenue for that.

In my speech in the first reading debate I said I had a grave concern that the National Government would look to repeal the interest-free student loan provisions, which would therefore necessitate my being back in this House within 2 years in order to repeal the amended legislation. Well, why do we have it? I suppose Mrs Tolley was never going to do it. She had enough problems as it was, and loading the repeal of the interest-free student loan scheme upon her already fragile shoulders would probably have just been too much. So Mr Joyce was given the task. Are we surprised? Absolutely not.

I tell members that as soon as the Labour caucus heard that Mr Joyce was being appointed the Minister for Tertiary Education we knew that it spelt trouble for current and aspiring students. In fact, it probably spells trouble for every person who has a student loan and is not paying interest at the moment. But at least Mr Joyce is honest. Well, he is honest on this: he said that his supporting the student loan scheme when he was the campaign manager for the National Party was a political call. That is nice! There was no philosophy or idealism behind that; it was a political call. At least we know what he believes in—nothing.

The irony about National’s planned removal of the interest-free student loans scheme is that the vast majority of members on that side of the House who went through the tertiary education system did so when it was free, yet here they are taking away those opportunities for students who now want to study and better themselves. That is amazing, actually.

This bill, as it stands, is, apparently, aspirational. With regard to this bill, the Minister of Revenue, Mr Dunne, said: “This is another positive step that will allow people to further their studies overseas in a way that will benefit New Zealand in the longer term.”, and I totally agree with the Minister. That is one of the reasons, as I said, why I am supporting this bill. But, with all due respect, I ask this question: what about those who live here and want to stay and study in New Zealand? The National Government is about to steal the educational opportunities of thousands of New Zealanders, and that is simply not fair. It represents incorrect priorities. Well, let us see where the money has been stolen from. We are talking about just money stolen from education here, not from elsewhere. There is the $11 million from the training incentive allowance that the Prime Minister, Minister English, and every other National MP, Māori Party MP, and ACT MP have stolen from those who can least afford to get into education. That is $11 million gone. I am talking about solo parents who make a proactive choice to engage in education whilst they are bringing up their children. They have suddenly had their opportunities taken away—gone. The Government has cut them out; it is unbelievable. Where are the priorities? That is dreadful.

What else has been taken away? The guidelines for healthy food in schools have gone. The Government has slashed, burnt, cut, and got rid of that. It has taken that away. Those members have taken away the funding for those who require it most. Where else has the money been taken from? It has been taken from high school night classes. It is unbelievable. Money has been taken from adult and community education.

Where has the money gone? I can report that about $35 million has gone into private schools, and I wonder whether that is fair. Thirty-five million dollars was stolen from the poor and given to the rich.

Paul Quinn: What private school did you go to?

STUART NASH: I tell Mr Quinn that I did not go to a private school. I believe in the State sector. I went to an incredibly good State school.

This Government is Robin Hood in reverse. We have the modern-day Sheriff of Nottingham, or the “Sheriff of Nothing”—

Paul Quinn: Hey! I went to a private school and I’m proud of it.

STUART NASH: And look what it did for that member. Goodness me! I would not mention the school’s name if I were Mr Quinn, because it would be embarrassed to have him as an alumni; there is no doubt about that.

What else is this Government doing? It is raising GST to 15 percent. That will help everyone, will it not? I just cannot understand the logic. So $11 million has been taken from the training incentive allowance and $13 million has been taken from adult and community education classes, yet $35 million has been given to private schools. Yeah, that is about equality, is it not?

Amy Adams: At least they teach their kids to read.

STUART NASH: Wow! That is an interesting assertion, is it not? That member said that State schools do not teach their children to read but private schools do. That is a damning indictment on the teachers who teach in the State education sector. Imagine saying that; it is unbelievable. The reason that member would not send her children to a State school is that only the private sector teaches children to read—the State sector does not. I can inform the member that that is not true, at all. The State sector has some of the best teachers in this country and it does an amazing job. I take that as a slight against every teacher who teaches in the State sector. It is unbelievable.

National has never had a mandate or a belief system, and that has just proven it. That is why those members can slash and burn and make those sorts of comments to such an extent without any conscience. I can tell this House that under the next Prime Minister, the Hon Phil Goff, Labour will bring principled spending back to education. We believe, as we have always believed—it is what the Labour Party stands for—that the people of New Zealand demand and require the sound education system they had under Labour. The Government side of the House is taking away opportunities. This bill, though, provides opportunities, and that is why I commend it to the House. Thank you.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Assistant Speaker Roy. The Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill has some merit, but the Green Party has looked at it closely and, in context and on balance, we remain opposed to some of its key provisions. We may be a lone voice in the House and easily dismissed as unreasonable, because some good ideas are cemented by this legislation, namely the extension of interest-free loans to borrowers from Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency. The Green Party is delighted to see the principle of interest-free loans being expanded to these communities. We hope this indicates recognition by the Government that education can be made inaccessible by both geography and market principles, and that the State can positively assist access to tertiary study. But under the new Minister for Tertiary Education we are not holding our breath and under the previous Minister we were not, either. There may not be many students in the Ross Dependency at the moment, but who knows? If we stick to the current pathetic climate targets, the area may become warm enough in the lifetimes of our children for a whole university.

The Green Party applauds also the modifications that have been made to the bill since the select committee process. They have resulted in the Inland Revenue Department accepting, after a little bit of pressure, that it made a mistake in not notifying some students about overdue loan repayments, and, therefore, could not penalise them. There was a proposal to enforce a 15 percent repayment penalty on those students, but fortunately—after some discussion at the Education and Science Committee, which I was happy to persist with—the department withdrew support for that idea. This is a good example of the value of select committees in highlighting anomalous provisions that would create unintended consequences and unfairness, and the change is well made.

We remain concerned about this bill, mainly because of the late payment penalties. As the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations stated in its submission, the increases proposed to the compulsory repayment deduction would be unmanageable and unacceptable. Student loan repayments kick in at the very low threshold of $19,084, and now is one of the worst possible times to increase student repayment rates. Whatever the optimistic economists and politicians choose to say, we are in recession. Many students are part of the low paid and underpaid. They are struggling to meet rent, food, and clothing costs, let alone debt. This especially applies to women students and to former students who are yet to experience pay equity in many occupations, let alone in the public sector. It is all so easy for Campbell Live to focus on the minority of irresponsible young people who wasted their money on inappropriate goods and behaviours. However, they are not necessarily the people who will be hurt by the increase in late repayment fees. Even they are merely reflecting back to us the lessons we have taught them: that they can have it all, that they can borrow and spend, and that they can live with debt because they are worth no real investment, and they must bear the risks.

The relationship with debt that the student loans scheme entrenches is one of the most insidious and destructive processes invented. In a world where shopping for the latest goods and experiences that global capitalism can provide is promoted to everyone on every screen, we cannot blame the young for wanting it. Then we lend them money for their education. First, there was the crippling interest on all those loans and all students and then there was interest on overseas students only. Now there are murmurings of more changes to the student loans scheme by the new Minister for Tertiary Education, Steven Joyce.

It is pretty clear that Mr Joyce was not given this portfolio just as something to do while eating his lunch in between building more unnecessary motorways, and that the student loans scheme could always be made worse for students. This was also signalled in the Prime Minister’s statement to this House when he waxed lyrical and said he wanted “a careful look at … student support and allowances to ensure that taxpayers’ generosity is not being exploited”. What did he mean? He is really concerned about the public getting their money’s worth, but students are also members of the public, and they are not getting their money’s worth. Now Steven Joyce is rolling up his sleeves to see what can be done about it. The political risk of reintroducing interest on loans seems too high right now, but, as Steven Joyce said last weekend, “we’re going to look at other requirements around those student loans,”. What does Mr Key mean by taxpayer generosity? Does he mean that all of us older politicians who had no student loans are being awfully kind by indebting the next generation, and that we will demand more blood? What does Mr Joyce mean? Could he be referring to eligibility to enter study or to remain there? Will that be tightened? None of this is good news for students.

In the meantime this bill causes concern for the Green Party, mainly because of new section 20A(2)(a), which allows for an increase in the standard deduction rate of 10c in the dollar to a maximum rate of 15c in each dollar. Clause 20, which relates to section 55, talks about hardship relief. Considering that many, many students are in hardship they might need to think about this provision, because it could apply to a lot of people the Government is about to impose extra penalties on. If the Commissioner of Inland Revenue considers that a repayment obligation would cause serious hardship, he or she can offer hardship relief. But as serious hardship is not defined and would have to be proven, very many people are unlikely to be able gain this form of protection from clause 20.

We are very concerned about adding debt to people who are already failing to repay. It does not incentivise; it punishes. This is a bit like environmental pollution, whereby the burden of proof is always on the citizen and not on the polluter. The burden is on students to prove they are in hardship. Students have no choice but to have a debt if they want to study, and if they are not wealthy they cannot always earn their way out of it. At the select committee there was much talk about how students could earn their way out of debt. So many people I know who have left university are not earning their way out of it, because they are barely managing to live, let alone get a mortgage, and their student loan is still a huge burden on them. They are not progressing financially in the way that my generation just took for granted. It is purely unfair. It is a real indication of the value we put on our student body and the value we put on our society as a whole. The poor cannot earn their way out of debt when they start off with debt as young people. That is something I did not experience.

We oppose the additional burden, and the burden of proof being on students to prove that they are in hardship. We are opposed to the provisions of the bill to such an extent that we have to vote against the bill. Although we thought there was good discussion at the select committee about all the different aspects of the extension of interest-free loans, and we support that extension, we are deeply in opposition to clause 20, which adds to the hardship. It is just not fair to use the student loan scheme as a way of keeping people in poverty. To say that it is a debt on the country is true, but we have to take responsibility for the debt that was created. We created that debt when we created the student loan scheme. Many people out there today know what I am talking about, because they have not earned enough. Women, migrants and refugees, tangata whenua, Pasifika, and people with disabilities have absolutely no chance of the high-wage economy that the student loan scheme assumes is behind people’s ability to repay loans. So the Green Party will continue to be consistent and principled in our attitude towards the student loan scheme and towards added burdens on young people in their education and in future life, and we will not support this bill. Kia ora.

LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) : I am very pleased to stand and speak in support of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. That is the bill we are talking about. It is actually in the name of the Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne, but, unfortunately, some of the Opposition members keep mentioning other Ministers in the House, so it would be very helpful if they could remember that. This bill is in the name of the Minister of Revenue, and it is a technical bill that makes some changes. I am very pleased that I am able to remind members on the opposite side of the House of that and to correct the error of their ways.

I want to agree with other speakers today on one thing: I want to agree with an earlier speaker from the Labour benches, who said that education is the cornerstone of economic growth. Clearly, a National Government totally agrees with that: education is a massive platform for us in terms of growing our economy, and we are extremely committed to having in place a student loan scheme that is balanced. But the important thing is also to put the right incentives in place to support and enable people to pay off their student loans faster than at present.

I just want to put a bit of context around this bill in this second reading. We have heard from the Minister of Revenue that more than half a million New Zealanders have a student loan. Half a million—that is a huge number. On the one side it is fantastic that there has been that amount of uptake; obviously the number of people in tertiary education is high in this country, and we need it to be. But one of the difficulties when as many New Zealanders as that have a student loan is that the scheme has a significant impact on our economy. I remind members on the other side of the House that hard-working New Zealanders who pay tax fund the student loan scheme. There are not just poor students with student loans; poor, hard-working New Zealanders pay tax from their income to support the student loan scheme. That is another important context that I want to put across. For some people, the Government’s money grows on trees and everyone gets to write fat cheques with it. No, it is hard-working New Zealanders who fund the student loan scheme.

When National came into Government, it was concerned that under Labour there had been no incentives whatsoever for people to repay their loans earlier than they had to. That meant that loan holders were likely to be in debt for longer than was necessary, which we know is not good for anyone. That has implications and flow-on effects for other areas of former students’ lives: delaying choices about whether to have a family, when to have a family, and whether to buy a house. National has fulfilled its election commitment to keep interest-free student loans for tertiary students. Part of that was also a commitment to build in a strong incentive for students to pay off their debts faster. That is great behaviour for us to reward, because we believe that education is the cornerstone of economic growth.

In effect, there are three areas in this bill that I want to touch on. The first area relates to interest-free loans for the realm countries. This is particularly important to me as there is a large Pacific Island population in the electorate of Taupō, so I am very keen to support the development of education for those people, as well. The second area relates to the overseas study provisions, and I want to talk about a case that I have had in my Cambridge office of a constituent who wanted to study overseas. The third area is the minor and technical amendments, which, for some reason, members on the other side of the House seem to think are unimportant or boring, but there are very important technical changes included in this bill.

Let us look at the first area, the interest-free loans for residents of realm countries. Many of the speakers today have talked about the importance of our support for Pacific countries. This means that borrowers in realm countries will be exempt from the requirement to be present in New Zealand in order to qualify for an interest-free loan. That is fair; it makes a lot of sense. It recognises the special relationship that we have with the realm countries. If we go back a step and look at the situation when interest-free loans were introduced in 2006, we see the scheme encouraged borrowers to remain in, or come back to, New Zealand. That was part of its intention. Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau have a special relationship with New Zealand that gives their citizens the automatic right to reside and work here. So we wanted to extend the interest-free loans to borrowers who reside in these countries in order to recognise that special relationship. That is the first area of the bill—interest-free loans for residents in realm countries.

The second area relates to overseas study, and there was some very interesting discussion in the Education and Science Committee around this particular measure in the bill. One of the issues is that when people want to study overseas, the situation generally is not that they want to study overseas but that they want to extend their existing study, and sometimes the course that they are interested in is not available in New Zealand because of its speciality or because they want to pursue a very technical field. I have had a case of that very kind in my electorate. A constituent came to see me because her daughter wanted to study in a very specialised field, and the course was not available in New Zealand. We do not want to be in the position where we restrict students’ choice by limiting their study options, so this bill introduces an extension of the interest-free loan entitlement to students who are studying overseas full-time where the New Zealand Government has a formal exchange programme in place with the education provider. It means that students who want to pursue further studies in very specialised fields have that option available to them. In a case in my electorate of Taupō, that was a very relevant consideration, and this particular clause will be helpful for that student.

The third aspect of the bill is the minor, technical amendments. Members on the other side of the House may say that this is the not very exciting bit. Well, I totally disagree with that. I think that the minor, technical amendments are a critical part of this bill. Several matters are dealt with in this area of the bill. The Green member Catherine Delahunty spoke about hardship, and it is fair to say that many New Zealanders are experiencing hardship at the moment. This particular measure looks at students who are repaying their loans and makes some minor changes. Currently, the availability of relief is limited to the year that immediately precedes the current tax year. We, as a Government, want to make sure that students know about their obligations in terms of their debt. We have provided incentives for them to repay debts earlier. With regard to these changes, there will be some students who, unfortunately, fail to have the correct deductions made or who need to pay amounts that are due, so a change has been made in the deduction rate. There are also changes in some other areas relating to the early repayment of a loan and the grace period.

This is important legislation, and I am proud to support it in its second reading.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I thank Louise Upston, the previous speaker from National, for her reminders on various matters during her speech. Members on this side of the House, however, were a bit disappointed that Maurice Williamson did not take that call, because earlier in the debate we heard the great quote—probably the quote of the year, actually—from Mr Williamson: “Slash and burn never hurt anyone.”

Chris Hipkins: A bit of slash and burn.

GRANT ROBERTSON: “A bit of slash and burn never hurt anyone.” If only Mr Williamson had taken a call, then we could have heard a little bit more about what he meant when he said that a little bit of slash and burn never hurt anyone, because that is really National’s agenda when it comes to tertiary education. I have respect for Mr Williamson; he says what he thinks. He says what the National Government really thinks—that a little bit of slash and burn never hurt anyone. Well, we have certainly seen a little bit of slash and burn in the tertiary education sector, and I think we will see a little more to come.

The Labour Party supports this Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill, because it is largely a technical bill, although I admit, as the previous speaker said, that there are some important elements in the bill in terms of the exemptions, particularly relating to the idea of people who are studying overseas on exchanges or scholarships. I think this is a good thing. It will allow people to continue their education in a way that New Zealand will benefit from. We will come back in the Committee stage to some of the technical amendments, particularly the one relating to the changes to penalties. I understand the Green Party’s position on it, and I would like to raise a few questions with the Minister of Revenue about how information will be communicated to borrowers so that they know about the increased penalty rates. That has been one of the major issues for people when they have been going overseas—not always understanding what requirements they have as borrowers. I think it will be very important, if we are to take a more punitive stance, that our borrowers know what they will be doing.

Also, with regard to the hardship grounds, I think that, potentially, quite a good thing is being done there, but we need to understand fully how that will work, as well. Another one of the technical amendments is very technical. It is shifting the setting of the interest rate from regulations to the Student Loan Scheme Act. This seems like a minor amendment, but there are some questions to be raised about that, particularly in light of what happened this year with the setting of the interest rate. We just want to make sure that we are clear on how that will work. These technical matters tidy up some elements of the Act and the working of the scheme, and we are pleased to support that.

But it is difficult for us to stand here and be completely comfortable when it comes to talking about student loans and this Government, because what we have heard in recent weeks, with the appointment of Steven Joyce as the Minister for Tertiary Education, is an absolute acknowledgment that National has never had a commitment to the interest-free student loan scheme. Steven Joyce said in the Press last Saturday that it was a “political call” to take on the interest-free student loan scheme. Those of us who were around when Labour brought in the interest-free student loan scheme are not surprised to hear that, because at the time it was introduced, John Key, who was then, I think, the finance spokesperson for the National Party, said that he would oppose interest-free student loans with every bone in his body. He said that with every bone in his body he would oppose them.

Chris Hipkins: Can’t have many.

GRANT ROBERTSON: Well, there cannot be many bones at all—

Hon Member: Spineless!

GRANT ROBERTSON: —spineless some might say, but not many bones at all. He told this very House that he would oppose interest-free student loans with every bone in his body, but a political call came along, and National adopted it.

But we know that there is no commitment to the scheme, because both Mr Key and Mr Joyce in recent weeks have said that things need to be looked at with regard to the student loan scheme and that there need to be changes. In the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament, Mr Key made it clear that he wanted to tighten up the rules for access to student loans. He talked in particular about people who may not be passing their courses, and there was another very worrying phrase about people who were not moving into work quickly enough. We on this side of the House want to know what that means, because it sounds like a huge restriction on the ability of people to undertake multiple courses or to perhaps change tack part-way through a course. Not everybody arrives at tertiary study instantly ready and knowing what they want to do for the rest of their lives. We need to invest in education and allow people to develop their skills, and any tightening of the student loan scheme, any limiting of people’s access to students loans—which is what the Prime Minister was talking about in his statement to Parliament—will be detrimental to New Zealand’s future. The Government really needs to explain where it is heading with student loans.

Steven Joyce is a man whom I respect. He clearly has a good and quick understanding of how politics works and he has come into Parliament as a senior Minister, but he has said some things that I think belie the fact that he understands the student loan scheme properly. He said in the Press last weekend: “The simple point is, if you don’t pay interest on any loan—forget student loans for a second—then there is less incentive to pay it back than if you do pay interest.” The thing that Mr Joyce leaves out is that student loans are automatically deducted from one’s salary once one earns more than $19,000 a year, at 10 percent. That is the incentive. The law gives the incentive. What appears to be happening is that Steven Joyce, in taking on this role, is looking to wind back elements of the interest-free student loan scheme before, I predict, in the future National attempts to wind back the whole scheme. We have heard phrases coming out of the National Government about the generosity of taxpayers. That phrase was used by John Key in his speech to Parliament. Louise Upston used it before. This is the beginning of the Government trying to say that students do not deserve interest-free student loans.

We know, and it is actually implicit in this bill, that the purpose of interest-free student loans in large part is to encourage people to stay in New Zealand. That is completely understood by this bill, because we are extending the loans to people from other territories, from Niue, the Cook Islands, and Tokelau, and to anyone in the Ross Dependency, as well. We are acknowledging that interest-free student loans are good in terms of the policy objective of keeping people in New Zealand and encouraging them to stay and contribute to our economy. National rejected that as a reason for interest-free student loans when they were first brought in, but this bill recognises that that is an important part of developing our economy and making sure that people stay here and contribute to our economy. That will be undermined if the National Government goes ahead with starting to restrict access to student loans and winding back the interest-free policy, which those members have never been committed to. Supporting it was a political call. It was a policy they would oppose with every bone in their body, but they were forced into supporting it for electoral reasons. They look to slowly but surely undermine that policy, and we on this side of the House will not stand for that.

We have had some comments from members on the other side of the House about the importance of education and about National’s understanding of the importance of investing in tertiary education. But if we look at National’s record on tertiary education, we see that there is no sign of that. Mr Nash has already spoken about the removal of the training incentive allowance. The last Budget took $60 million out of our polytechs, at the very time that they were necessary and important in terms of giving people skills during the recession. If we look across the Tasman, something that I know that National is very fond of doing, we will see that Australia in response to the recession invested in skills and technology; it made sure that people had free access to the equivalent of polytechnics if they lost their jobs. That was a bold move to ensure that people kept up their skills in a recession, and were able to contribute to the economy when the recession lessened.

What we have from National is no investment in the tertiary sector. Where is the plan to say that because tertiary institutions are bursting at the seams, which they are, we will lift the cap, because circumstances dictate that we want people to be training so that they can contribute to the economy? We have seen nothing of that; we have simply seen a consistent undermining of the tertiary sector, the taking away of community roles on polytechnic councils, and a lack of investment in the future of New Zealand. Although we support this bill, because it includes some important technical changes, we are very wary of the direction of the National Government on student loans and very wary that it will undermine interest-free student loans, a policy that is important to our economy and important to our future.

JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) : I rise to speak on the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill, and I note that this opportunity has been used for political statements, so I intend to make a couple of my own.

The first thing I want to say, having been on the Education and Science Committee that examined this bill, is that I am left with no illusions: the student loan scheme is extremely important to New Zealand, and it is important that it is working appropriately and managed in an efficient and consistent manner. That is what this bill is all about. It is not about revisiting whether we should have student loans. It is not about trying to scare the horses, which we have been listening to members from Opposition benches doing. This bill is about making sure that the student loan scheme works in an efficient and consistent manner.

At the same time, I take this opportunity to say that we need to send the right messages to our students. We need them to understand that the student loan scheme is important to them but also to New Zealand, and that its value of $10.3 billion represents a significant asset to the Crown. We need them to be under no illusion that we see them also—the students of New Zealand—as a very, very valuable asset, and that is why they have the opportunity to take student loans. I am right in the midst of this at the moment, with three daughters at university, the last of whom headed off to university just a couple of days ago. One delivers one’s children to university and hopes like hang that they use that opportunity and understand the responsibility that they have to make wise decisions for their future.

Of course, the students who are going to university will be making decisions about whether they take out a student loan and whether they have a holiday job, and about their future and what courses they will take. Some of them will make the wrong decisions, and will revisit those decisions. But they will have in place a student loan scheme that National is committed to having in place, and a student loan scheme that is balanced but at the same time puts in place incentives for those young people to pay their loan more quickly.

One in four New Zealand graduates heads off overseas, and that is really regrettable because we want those young people to stay here in this country. It is not just the correct settings on the student loan scheme that will enable that; we have to put a whole lot of settings in place. I note that yesterday there was an announcement by the Government to extend voluntary bonding to my own district health board of South Canterbury. I understand that that is yet another way that we can keep students and medical graduates in New Zealand by putting in place the right incentives. That is exactly what this National Government is doing—looking at all incentives to keep those valuable young people here. Who wants to think of their children being in another country—having a good job, perhaps—and having to go and visit them and their grandchildren? This is something that is certainly coming home to roost to me. I really hope that our daughters will find good jobs in New Zealand.

More than half a million New Zealanders have a student loan. Many have made long-term financial decisions on the basis of the current interest-free student loan policy, and we want to assure them that they can plan with certainty. National, however, was concerned that under Labour there was no incentive for students to repay their loans earlier. That seemed pretty crazy to us. That meant that loanholders were likely to have their debt for longer, of course, which has implications for other areas of their lives—as well as implications for the Crown—such as when they are buying a house or starting a family.

National has fulfilled its commitment to keep interest-free student loans for tertiary students. Back in September 2009 we passed legislation that provided for a 10 percent bonus for both New Zealand borrowers and overseas-based borrowers who make voluntary repayments on their student loans of $500 or more in a tax year, which gives those students the opportunity to reap the rewards of saving and paying off their student loans earlier.

This bill introduces mainly technical changes—and I will probably go into more detail about those changes in the Committee stage or third reading. It extends the grace period, removes the hardship criteria, and allows students who return to New Zealand 6 months of interest-free loan, to fulfil our commitment to a balanced scheme that takes into account these more difficult economic times. I make no apology for making my share of political statements in my speech this morning. However, we really need to get back to the reason for this bill. It is about managing the student loan Crown asset, which is what it is, in an efficient and consistent manner, and I commend the bill to the House.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : It is a slightly strange feeling for me to be standing to speak in favour of a Government bill; it is something we do not get to do very often on this side of the House. It is nice to be able to support one of the initiatives that the Government has in place. The interest-free student loan scheme is one that I am particularly proud of, and one that the previous Labour Government is particularly proud of. It is good to see that National has come round to supporting the interest-free student loan scheme, albeit probably temporarily. We hope that it continues to support the scheme. We also think that there is actually a compelling case for passing this Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Amendment Bill in a bit of a hurry because of the looming deadlines involved in this legislation, unlike some of the other bills that have gone through the House under this current, somewhat shambolic, urgency session.

I am pleased that the Minister of Revenue managed to get to the Chamber in time to make his second reading speech—

Hon Member: Just.

CHRIS HIPKINS: —only just—because we nearly missed the opportunity to debate it altogether. I am pleased that he made it here. He probably was not expecting the Government to completely mess up the procedural motions on the previous bill, and he would have thought he had a little bit more time to get down here, but he had to rush down to the Chamber instead. On behalf of the House, I thank him for getting here in time so that we can debate this bill today as part of this urgency motion.

I mentioned before that I was pleased that the Government seemed to have come around to the idea of interest-free student loans. In fact, it seems to have come round to the idea of interest-free loans in general. Interest-free loans for Ministers who use ministerial credit cards appear to be the order of the day at the moment. I understand that the Government is a man down on the other side of the House today. The only real question is whether that member will pay interest on the money he is paying back. As the Government wants to make students who leave the country pay interest on their student loans, I ask whether Phil Heatley will have to pay interest on the credit card money that he is paying back.

I find it ironic that we are here talking about the interest-free student loan scheme at a time when the Government has already announced that it will be relooking at all of the issues relating to student support. The question that is on the minds of all students at the moment is what that means. Does that mean interest-free student loans are for the chop? Does it mean that their allowances are for the chop? Does it mean that the fees will go up? The students do not know, because the statements coming from John Key and Steven Joyce are sufficiently vague that students have no idea what is looming round the corner. I am concerned that the Government is starting to soften up the ground in order to do away with interest-free student loans. I am pretty confident that it will not do it in this term of Parliament, but I do not have any confidence that it would not do so in the next term of Parliament.

When we look at the comments John Key made when the interest-free student loan scheme was introduced in the first place, it is pretty clear to us that he was fundamentally opposed to the idea. What did he say? He said: “What a cost … What an unaffordable and irresponsible cost to the country!”. That was what John Key said when the policy was first announced. He called it “rushed and reckless,”. He said: “Our caucus would never have signed off a zero percent interest rate because the economics are just so bad. It has never for us, because we have standards.”

Well, I am not sure that the Government really wants to be talking about standards in education at the moment—not today. I am not sure that Government members will want to talk about standards in many areas today, although at least we are having question time today at 2 o’clock—hopefully. I think the Government can expect a few more questions on standards in education during question time today.

As my colleague Grant Robertson said, John Key said that he would fight the interest-free student loan scheme with every bone in his body.

Grant Robertson: We’re still looking for the bones.

CHRIS HIPKINS: We are still looking for the bones, because in this Parliament we have a bill that actually extends some of the provisions of the interest-free student loan scheme. They are sensible provisions. They are provisions that the Labour Party has supported and will continue to support, such as extending interest-free student loans to borrowers in Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, and the Ross Dependency. The bill also extends interest-free student loans to students who are enrolled with a New Zealand education provider and are engaged in full-time study overseas, under either a formal exchange programme approved by the Government or a formal agreement between a New Zealand tertiary provider and an overseas tertiary provider.

I will flag one issue for the Minister for Revenue, and he might like some advance warning that I will raise it during the Committee stage. I understand that although the interest-free student loan scheme will be extended to those studying overseas, at the moment it covers diplomats living overseas on a posting but not their partners. Diplomats’ partners who move overseas on a posting are not eligible for an interest-free student loan but the diplomats are. It is possibly an anomaly in the scheme that the Government may want to think about correcting, because ultimately the partner is on a posting as part of a Government contingent as well, and I am not sure that there should be a distinction whereby diplomats’ partners do not get an interest-free loan when the diplomats do. I have not had time to check that out thoroughly, but I am pretty confident that it is currently the case, and I think it is something that the Government might like to look at. It seems to me to be quite consistent with the goals of this bill for that matter to be addressed during the Committee stage. We want to make sure that all New Zealanders who meet the criteria for interest-free student loans are able to get them and are not disqualified based on a technicality.

I come back to the Prime Minister’s statement earlier in the year. John Key said he would “take a careful look at the policy settings around student support”. As I said, everybody wants to know what that means and where that leaves the interest-free student loans policy. A lot of students will have heard the things that the National Government has said about interest-free student loans in the past, and they will want to know whether they mean that interest is on the way back or whether other changes to the tertiary education system that will leave them worse off are likely. National’s track record on tertiary education is not actually all that flash, and its track record on keeping its promises on tertiary education is not all that flash.

I was not a tertiary education student in the 1990s, but I can remember back that far. I remember when Lockwood Smith travelled the length and breadth of the country signing pledges that he would resign if student fees were not abolished altogether. Over the next 9 years that National was in Government, student tuition fees increased massively, and National introduced the student loan scheme as the way to pay for them. So not only did National weasel out of the promise it made to students but also it then found another way to impose more and more costs on students. That was how the student loan scheme came about. The whole student loan scheme is the result of a broken National Party election promise.

When people hear National members saying they will not change the interest-free student loan scheme, I do not think they will have much confidence in that when they also hear John Key saying things like the Government will take a careful look at the policy settings around student support, all of which points to the fact that National is looking at the issue. Last year, when Bill English and Anne Tolley were challenged by the Opposition over whether they had asked Treasury to look at the cost of abolishing the interest-free student loan scheme or at the potential revenue they would gain from abolishing the scheme, they did not deny that they had done so. To this day National has not denied that it asked Treasury to put together the costings and the projections involved in removing the interest-free student loan scheme. That is something that students up and down the country will be worried about.

The interest-free student loan scheme, as I said at the beginning, is a policy that we on this side of the House are very proud of. It allows students to repay their loans much, much faster they would have done under the previous regime, when interest continued to mount to the point where some students were struggling to even make the interest payments let alone to pay back the principal. Of course, under the National Government that existed prior to 1999, students were charged interest even while they were studying. Although they had no ability to earn any income to pay back the loan, they were still being charged interest, and their loan at the time of graduation was significantly more than they had been required to borrow to pay for their fees or their living costs. There was cumulative interest over the 3 years, or 5 years in some cases, that they had been studying. Labour thought that was unfair, and it was one of the first things the previous Labour Government did away with.

We are pleased that this National Government has so far kept the interest-free student loans policy. We are worried that National appears to want to take that away, and that all the things it is doing are preparing the ground for the reintroduction of interest on student loans, and for the imposition of further cost on tertiary students, which can act only as a barrier to our lifting the wage rates, the productivity, and the economic standing of New Zealand. An educated workforce is the way that we increase those things, and interest-free student loans are an important part of the policy mechanism by which we encourage people into tertiary study.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I do not intend to take up much of the House’s time on this bill. I want to make a contribution about a point that my colleague, Louise Upston, touched on, which is something I have not heard discussed so far in this debate. I come back to the fact that this bill is a revenue bill; it is in the name of the Minister of Revenue, Peter Dunne. I just want to make a contribution wearing my Finance and Expenditure Committee hat, I guess, even though that committee did not consider this bill.

One of the issues that the Finance and Expenditure Committee has been very much engaged in is the management of tax debt, and I think that in looking at student loans we cannot overlook the fact that they are a $10 billion chunk of the Government’s books. They are a serious and significant part of the Government’s accounts, and steps such as those in this bill will help manage that tax debt. We know that that debt is spiralling out of all control, and Opposition members agree with us on that. We have to get a handle on tax debt.

The part of this bill that introduces the ability of the Inland Revenue Department to put up compulsory payments from 10 percent to 15 percent when borrowers have been in default, in terms of having the correct deductions made, is an important part. It is important for managing our tax debt. The other thing it is important for is legislating consequences for borrowers who fail to live up to their obligations, and that is something I fundamentally agree with. If borrowers do not ensure that correct deductions are made, there should be a legislative consequence for that action. If that means moving to 15 percent until the indebtedness is cleared, and if that encourages borrowers to be more compliant, to be more aware, and to take more responsibility for their obligations, then that can be only a good thing. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : I am very happy to stand and take a call on the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. I may be one of the few young members of Parliament who currently still have a student loan and are still paying it off. I am nearly there. It has taken me 9 years, but I am nearly there. So I do have a heart for our students out there who are taking out student loans with the best intentions: trying to get ahead in this world, and trying to do good things for themselves and their families.

The Labour members are supporting this bill. I will talk first about aspects of the bill that we support. One of those is the fact that the bill extends interest-free student loans to borrowers who are resident in Niue, the Cook Islands, Tokelau, or the Ross Dependency. I think that is a good idea. One of the things that we came across on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee trip to Niue last year was the fact that Niue is suffering from depopulation. If we can encourage Niueans to go back and work and contribute to their economy there—and it is the same with the Cook Islands and other countries—then that is a good thing that New Zealand can do. Those countries talk about the fact that their Pacific people are contributing here in New Zealand, so I think it is important that we allow them the opportunity to go back and contribute to their countries, especially given that we have something like 22,000 Niueans in this country and there are only 1,000 in their homeland.

Some of the concerns that have been raised in respect of this bill are about the National Government’s future plans for students loans. This kind of bill makes alarm bells go off in our heads. We are concerned about some of the comments that have been made on student loans recently by both the Prime Minister and the new Minister for Tertiary Education, Steven Joyce. The fact is that the Prime Minister has recently said the Government will take a careful look at the policy settings around student support. The concern is that—and we do not trust the Government to take this scheme seriously—National members have talked many times about the number of students who are rorting the system, apparently. Apparently, we have heard from Government members and from the media, students are doing things like taking out student loans then saving the money because it is interest-free. That is very much a small, small minority of the students who access student loans. The vast majority are people who need the student loan scheme in order to have the opportunity to take up tertiary study in the same way that those who have money do.

So it is concerning to hear the National members talk about student loans and changing the policy around them, because we do not know how far down the track National will go. Of the something like 13 years that I spent living in Auckland, I spent 11 years working at the University of Auckland or studying there. I have worked with a large number of students—Māori, Pacific, single parents—who rely on the fact that they can access student loans. If there are to be any changes down the track that jeopardise the accessibility of student loans, then this country will be in huge trouble.

Mr Key referred to the fact that some students do not take their study seriously or do not get a job quickly after qualifying. One thing that we need to recognise is that research shows that, unfortunately, Māori and Pacific students often take longer than other students to complete their degrees. The reason for that is not anything to do with their having lesser intelligence or anything like that; unfortunately, what we see is that many of the Māori and Pacific students are still the first person from their family to go on to high-level tertiary education. The culture of the environment at universities is very foreign, compared with what they have ever experienced in their lives. When they go into that environment, many of them struggle to come to terms with being in it. It is completely strange and foreign, compared with what they have ever experienced before. So if the Government does go down the track of putting limitations on student loans, it will be those Māori and Pacific students, and also—I will talk more about this shortly—solo parents, who will suffer more than anyone else because of that.

One of my colleagues has already talked about the fact that the training incentive allowance was cut. We have been receiving emails since that was announced in the May Budget from women who do not know how they will be able to cope with tertiary-level study, with degree-level study, if they do not have that tertiary incentive allowance. If we put limitations on student loans, that will only further serve to marginalise that group. Those are aspects that we are concerned about. It is important that we alert members on the Government side of the House to those concerns so that when they are looking at the policy, and when they are looking at further legislation, they will take those considerations seriously.

The Greens brought up their concern about increasing the amount that students who are in arrears will have taken from their earnings under this legislation. The increase will be from 10c in the dollar to 15c in the dollar. The Greens have raised a valid concern. But as my colleague the Hon Maryan Street referred to before, we have to make sure that people are using the correct tax codes and are not trying to rort the system in any way. Again, the thing that we need to be cautious about, and that the Government needs to watch very carefully, is that it is not certain groups that are affected by the introduction of this clause. We know that Māori, Pacific people, and women will earn less once they get out into the workforce after completing their tertiary studies. If they are solo parents with children to raise, then increasing the amount from 10c in the dollar to 15c in the dollar may affect their ability to look after their families. Those are some of the things that the Government will need to watch very carefully. We do not want to push through legislation that may marginalise particular groups. That was one of the Green Party’s valid concerns.

As I said before, the direction that the Government seems to be taking with regard to student loans is concerning. As my colleague Chris Hipkins pointed out earlier, the National Government does not have a good track record with regard to tertiary education—it does not have a good track record on tertiary education. Fundamentally, underneath all the rhetoric National did not, and it does not, support access to student loans. As I yelled out before to one of the National Party MPs, the chances are that the daughter she spoke of did not have to access a student loan. The chances are that anyone who is working here can afford to pay the fees for his or her child. Not everyone has access to that kind of support, so we need to make sure as a country that we support those who do not have access to that type of money to go on to tertiary-level education. That is one of the things that we do not trust this Government to do. We do not trust this Government to make sure that every New Zealander has an equal opportunity to access tertiary education. That issue has come up in the past. National voted against policies that the Labour Government put forward in its 9 years. Those policies and legislation were conducive to ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to tertiary education. As we head into the future we are aware of the fact that, if given the opportunity, the National Government would make changes that would be detrimental to some of the more marginalised groups in New Zealand.

I also say the Government needs to take aspects of the student loan scheme seriously. I saw many students come into my office, over the years while I was working at the university, who had been put back or affected negatively by some of the operational matters of student loans: some of the timeliness issues, and things like that. When students have to wait for 6 weeks to receive money in the first semester of the year, they are severely put back in terms of their ability to go to classes—sometimes they are actually shut out—and their ability to obtain their course outlines and everything else. That can have a detrimental effect on their success in that first semester, or even in that first year. So there are other matters related to the student loan scheme that this Government needs to take very seriously and look at in order to make sure that the scheme works successfully and efficiently for students who need to access student loans.

We have pointed out that, at the end of the day, if further changes are made to the student loan scheme and accessibility to it is affected by the Government’s ideology on whether student loans should be interest-free or on how accessible they should be, it will be Māori, Pacific, and, I think, women students, as well, who will be most affected by any possible changes that the Government may go down the track of making. We are concerned about that. We have discussed it very broadly amongst our caucus. We are keeping our eye very closely on the situation, to ensure that the groups that I have discussed are not affected negatively by the Government’s future policy on tertiary education and the student loan scheme.

DAVID GARRETT (ACT) : The Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill is a good bill but not a great bill, and ACT supports it.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : I will continue with my speech on Part 2 of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. I was saying that Part 2 basically makes sure that there is consistency with regard to what is in Part 1. We were discussing the importance of student loans for particular groups in our society, and the need to ensure, moving forward, that those groups have access to student loans, because of the fact that unfortunately not every member of this society has parents who can afford to pay for their tertiary studies. We need to make sure that particular groups in society have equal opportunity to access quality tertiary educational opportunities. That is what we were touching on.

Forgive me, Mr Chairperson, if I cannot do this, but I want to check whether I can put something from Part 1 to the Minister. You are shaking your head; OK, then, I will not go there.

We talked earlier about our own experiences with student loans at university, and I talked about the fact that not only did I spend 11 years at the University of Auckland but I spent it working and studying there, so I have had a lot of experience with Māori and Pacific students, and also with students who are sole parents. We discussed the fact that for many of those students, their time at university does not necessarily fit in the 3-year or 4-year degree time frame, or whatever time their programme was meant to take. In fact, I think that when I was at the University of Auckland, there was some research done on the fact that quite often not just Māori and Pacific students but students in general struggled to finish their degrees within the time periods that were set. There are good reasons for that. I alluded to the fact that for some students the tertiary environment, and the university environment in particular, can be quite foreign, given that some students come from families where they are the first to go on to study at a university. It is important that we take that into consideration.

I heard one member from the other side of the Chamber in a speech about 2 years ago talk about his own experience at university. He went on to do a PhD, but he said that it took him longer than 3 years to complete the initial BA. If he had taken out a student loan—even though I know that during his time he did not need to access a loan, because in his day he was actually paid to attend university—then that would not have been a waste of money, because that particular member, although taking, I think, 5 years to complete a 3-year BA degree, did go on to do a master’s degree and later a PhD. So, moving forward, we need to make sure that the Government does not narrow the criteria with regard to student loans, and it needs to make sure that it does not limit access to the opportunities that tertiary education has to offer.

When Labour was in Government for the previous 9 years it placed a concerted effort on making sure that it lifted the tertiary participation rate of particular groups—on making sure that it improved the numbers of Māori going through to higher level tertiary education, and on doubling the number of Pacific people who were achieving bachelor degree qualifications. That is something that we on this side of the Chamber hope that the Government will continue to support. We hope that it continues to invest in tertiary education, and continues to support the participation of groups that have been under-represented in higher-level tertiary education in the past.

Unfortunately, we have not seen any signals from the Government with regard to that. Not only has it slashed the important funding that went to adult and community education but it has refused over the last year and a half to lift the caps on the numbers of people being able to access universities and polytechnics at a time when we know that employment is scarce. So when there are all these young people—I think there is something like a 30.8 percent youth unemployment rate for Māori, and a 29.8 percent youth unemployment rate for Pacific people—out there searching for opportunities to upskill and train, this Government has shut things down for them. I think that is actually abhorrent. Not only do they not have opportunities for employment but also this Government is not supporting them with opportunities for going on to training or upskilling. At the end of the day that will be detrimental not only for those individuals but also for their communities. In the future, in the long term, it will be quite detrimental to this country, because we know that future estimates of the demographics show us that down the track a large proportion of the population will be Māori and Pacific. Ageing Pākehā will be reliant on a young Māori and Pacific working base being able to support them.

Those are just some of the issues that have come up in respect of this bill and of what the Government is proposing. It is not just the bill in front of us that concerns us; it is the wider discussions that are taking place. It is the public statements that the Prime Minister and the tertiary education Minister are out there making. Those statements are of concern for members on this side of the Chamber, because we are concerned about heading down a track where the Government will make tertiary education less accessible for some groups—the groups for whom we have supported an increase in the numbers participating in tertiary education. We are very concerned that the Government will be, basically, cutting them off.

• Part 2 agreed to.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) : I will speak to clauses 1 and 2 in particular. There are things I want to say about the fact that the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill is being progressed under urgency. I do not lay the blame for that at the door of the Minister in charge of the bill, the Hon Peter Dunne. It is clear in clause 2 that the commencement date of some clauses is 1 April 2010, so it is important that the legislation is passed before that date.

The House is sitting under urgency on Tuesday, 23 February, although it is actually 25 February outside this Chamber. Under urgency, of course, time stops on the day that urgency is accorded. The point about urgency is that it should be used sparingly, for matters that really require it, and for matters that are, in fact, urgent. There is time between now and 1 April to address this issue, and to see this bill through to its conclusion, but, no, the Government has chosen to put it through in urgency. This bill was presented to the House for the first time in August last year, and the second time was in November last year. Now we are in the Committee stage of the bill at the end of February—under urgency. It is completely plain to everybody that it has simply been a subterfuge for the Government to excuse itself from at least one question time this week. So urgency was not essential, and it has been applied.

This is one of the few bills that has, in clause 2, a reference to a date that I perfectly understand as being an essential date for the application, particularly, of taxation legislation—1 April 2010. But it could have been managed differently. That is not the fault of the Minister in charge of the bill, but it is directly the fault of the Leader of the House, who determines the agenda of the House at any one time. This is a sign, again, of a deal of incompetence that we have seen coming from the Government in even managing a simple bill, which the Minister introduced to the House in perfectly good time. It was properly considered by the Education and Science Committee and was reported back in November of last year. Since then the Leader of the House has been unable to bring it through in a reasonable and measured way, in time for it to be implemented by 1 April. This is a notice to all Ministers in Cabinet that they need to take the Leader of the House aside and say that they will not be made fools of in this way. They need to weigh up whether being protected from question time is worth being made fools of, in terms of parliamentary procedure. Clause 2, the commencement clause, is apposite, and it is entirely reasonable to make some comment upon the progress and process surrounding this bill in this way.

I want to talk about the title of the bill. When it is enacted, it will be the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Act 2009. It should perhaps be named the “Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions For Now) Amendment Act 2009.” It is not entirely clear whether this legislation will survive subsequent legislation that the Government may have in mind to narrow, restrict, shut down, and make less accessible student loans and allowances. That is what we heard signalled by the Prime Minister in his Prime Minister’s statement at the beginning of this parliamentary year. It is what we have had underscored since then by the new Minister for Tertiary Education, the Hon Steven Joyce. Steven Joyce is a man who does what he says he will do, and he is a man who clearly has plans for his portfolios.

Hon David Cunliffe: Except for telecommunications, where he has no plans.

Hon MARYAN STREET: With the now glaring exception, my colleague reminds us, of telecommunications and the roll-out of broadband. However, let us assume that the Minister does have a plan for student loans, and let us hope that this bill does not run foul of that. Let us hope that what endures after the Minister Steven Joyce has finished with student loans and allowances is access to those loans and allowances still extended to Tokelau, still extended to the Cook Islands, still extended to citizens of Niue, and still extended to those who might one day live on the Ross Dependency—where in the meantime the penguins currently inhabit that part of the realm of New Zealand. Although it says it is a Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Act, I would suggest it is in fact an Act for now only.

GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) : I want to talk a little about the title clause of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. We were advised earlier on by Louise Upston, I think when she was speaking in the second reading, that we were not focusing enough on the importance of some of the provisions in this bill. Putting some of them under the title “Miscellaneous Provisions” probably does not adequately reflect the importance of what we are doing here. In particular, I think the clause that increases the deduction rate from 10c in the dollar to 15c in the dollar is potentially a very serious thing for the people who will end up having to pay that additional rate. I would not necessarily see that as a miscellaneous provision.

I think it would be better for us to look at the reality of the bill, and then work out what it should be called, especially given the present environment, which we have already discussed recently. Steven Joyce has come in as the Minister for Tertiary Education, and we know that Mr Joyce has already told us that the support for the interest-free student loan scheme by the National Government is a political call. It has nothing to do with principle, nothing to do with what National thinks is good for education in New Zealand, and nothing to do with what it thinks is right for the economy of New Zealand in ensuring that our graduates stay here and contribute to the economy rather than go overseas—there is nothing about that. He said it was a straight-out political call.

Therefore I think this bill could aptly be renamed the “Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Political Call Bill”. That is what is going on here. The National Party members do not want us to really focus on the fact that Steven Joyce has taken over the tertiary education portfolio with a clear instruction from John Key to look at it and look at tightening up the eligibility for student support. That is what Mr Key said in his Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament in early February this year. He said the Government would look at the issue of those people who spent too long in tertiary study and at whether there should be restrictions on their eligibility for student support. He said perhaps there would be something introduced around people having to pass their courses sufficiently quickly.

On this side of the Chamber we are concerned about those potential developments. We see a bill in front of us now that makes some reasonably important but minor changes, and they are useful. But at the same time we face a situation where the Government is hanging on to its belief in interest-free student loans only because it is a political call, not because it thinks they are a good idea and they are delivering for New Zealand. Therefore I think the bill could easily be retitled in that way.

Perhaps another title, though, that would pick up the overall essence of the Government’s policy around interest-free student loans would be the “Student Loan Scheme (Missing Bones) Bill”. This may be confusing for some people who have not been following the story so far. But when Labour introduced interest-free student loans in 2005, John Key was the finance spokesperson for the National Party, and he stood in this Chamber and said the interest-free student loan policy that Labour was bringing in was ridiculous. He said it would be opposed by the National Party members with every bone in their bodies. Well, here we are in 2010, and following on from the 2008 election, when the political call that Steven Joyce mentioned was made, we do not see much in the way of every bone being used. In fact, the bones are missing. There is no attempt by National to turn this scheme round, because politically it knows it cannot. But National is not committed to the scheme. In the long term, we know that National would rather roll back the interest-free student loan scheme. The introduction of Steven Joyce as the Minister for Tertiary Education is a clear sign that National wants to get at interest-free student loans. It wants to restrict the number of people who can take out student loans and restrict the ability of people to take them out over a period of time.

We believe that is a very dangerous path to go down. There is nothing more important, as we come out of the recession, than to have people increase their skills so that they can contribute to the economy. Earlier in the debate I mentioned the fact that the Australian Government responded to the recession by moving quickly to ensure that people who lost their jobs had access to training and tertiary study. It made sure that there were incentives for them to be able to do that, so that they could contribute to the economy when Australia came out of recession. In New Zealand we saw none of that. We saw a continuation of the cap that sees tertiary institutions turning people away, particularly at the polytechnic level, where polytechnics face budget cuts from the National Government. Therefore, we do not see New Zealanders being trained and upskilled to be able to contribute to the economy as we come out of the recession. That is a great shame. This bill and the activity of the National Government around tertiary education could be so much more than they are. We could be sitting here today to work out how to increase the skill level of New Zealanders, but unfortunately we are not doing that. This bill is misnamed; it is actually about National wishing us to look elsewhere.

MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I am happy to take a call on these clauses, and I, too, have some suggestions for alternative names for this legislation. This legislation, which Labour will be supporting, is, of course, part of a much bigger picture around interest-free student loans. The title could be “Student Loan Scheme (I’m Glad the First Piece of Legislation We’ve Had Come to the House Isn’t Very Bad, But I Worry About the Next Ones) Amendment Bill”. We know, as my colleague Maryan Street has said, that the interest-free student loan scheme is in trouble. We know that National does not like interest-free student loans, because it rallied vociferously against them when the previous Labour Government introduced them. We were told that the interest-free loans were corrupt. In fact, John Key said they were corrupt—

Lynne Pillay: “Irresponsible”.

MOANA MACKEY: —“irresponsible”. They were a bribe, says the man who, I bet, never had a student loan. That brings me to my second suggestion for a title: “Student Loan Scheme (Why Don’t You Actually Ask Students Who Have a Loan About What It’s Like to Have a Student Loan) Amendment Bill”. One of the things that concern me is that even in this debate we have been lectured, at length, by people from the Government who have never had a student loan. I have had a student loan. I had it at the worst time to have a student loan, in the 1990s. I had it when I was paying interest while I was studying. It was daily compounding interest. I was working 20 hours a week. I say to Government members that if they are concerned about people who are failing their courses, look at how many hours that students have to work to support themselves, which should be hours spent studying, but they are working long hours to support themselves. I worked 20 hours a week while I was at university, and it was to the detriment of my studies. I did not fail but I could have done an awful lot better if I had been able to focus solely on my studies and not have to worry about how the rent would be paid or how we would be able to afford to pay the power bill that week.

The title “Student Loan Scheme (Why Don’t You Actually Ask Students Who Have a Loan About What’s It’s Like to Have a Student Loan) Amendment Bill” might be a good way to go. We have heard some pretty patronising speeches about how I should just be grateful that I had a student loan. Well, I was not grateful for it. I was grateful that I got to go to university but I was not grateful for the fact that I worked 20 hours a week to keep my loan down. I was at university for 4 years, and I left university with a loan of about $15,000 or $16,000. By the time I had graduated, the loan was already into the $20,000s and I had not even started working yet. I was not grateful for that aspect of the student loan scheme.

I notice that all the members opposite who are chipping away had free university education, and I ask them again why they do not actually talk to people who went through the scheme. If members do not understand the incentives around repayment, then how can they put that into place in the policy? If they do not understand what it is like to have a student loan, what it is like to think that one will never pay it off—

Hon Georgina te Heuheu: She thinks that some of us have never had offspring with student loans. Some of us have.

MOANA MACKEY: I say to Minister Te Heuheu that people can think they will never be able to pay it off, because when they graduate the 10 percent that comes out of their income automatically is actually less than the interest for that period, so they are repaying their loan and it is going up and up. So people think they will never be able to repay it. Those members opposite who have never had that experience should talk to people who have, and they will tell them what they need to do—

Hon Paula Bennett: Get the facts.

MOANA MACKEY: Paula Bennett, who had the training incentive allowance to help her get off the domestic purposes benefit, and then cut it for every other domestic purposes benefit mother who wanted to get off the benefit, should probably—

Hon Paula Bennett: Look at the facts.

MOANA MACKEY: How did the Minister get to university?

Hon Paula Bennett: I had a student loan, actually.

MOANA MACKEY: How did the Minister get a student loan to go to university? That Minister cut the tertiary training incentive allowance to every other domestic purposes benefit mother who wanted to get off the benefit. She pulled the ladder up behind her, after that scheme helped her to get off the domestic purposes benefit. Good on her for doing that, but I think it is mildly repugnant when the scheme that that Minister benefited from was cut so that no other domestic purposes benefit mother could climb that same ladder.

But I come back to the bill and suggest the title “Student Loan Scheme (Save Our Interest-free Student Loan) Amendment Bill”. The interest-free student loan scheme is at risk. We can see from the reaction of those on the other side how much they do not like having to listen to us explain about the value of the interest-free student loan scheme. I am proud about Labour’s record in this area. I am proud that the first thing we did when we became the Government was to remove the interest from loans while students were studying, because that was horribly unfair.

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) : I start my speech by congratulating Moana Mackey. It is really good to hear from a relatively young person, and I must say that Moana Mackey is celebrating a birthday very soon. Moana Mackey is very aware of the costs of being a student and the advantages of what happened with the interest-free student loan scheme. The introduction of interest-free loans was one of the proudest moments in Labour’s term in office. Students were absolutely delighted at having some hope of cutting into the principal of the debt they had incurred while they were studying.

As other speakers have said—and I say it again—the previous Labour Government’s interest-free loan scheme was labelled by then National Opposition as “irresponsible”, as “buying votes”, and all sorts of other things. National members were absolutely opposed to it. They said it was the worst thing that the Government could ever do. So I guess the name of this bill could be the “Student Loan Scheme (We Didn’t Actually Get Rid of the Interest Free Student Loan Scheme: We Will Make Some Technical Amendments; There Are Other Ways to Fleece Students in This Country) Amendment Bill”

What would those other ways be? I see Paul Quinn wondering what they could be. Certainly, it would be the ability of students in this environment to pay back their loans. The reality for most students is that they study during the year. They have part-time jobs so they do not have to take on so much of a loan. Maybe they work during their holiday period so they are able to pay off some of the principal of their loan. Well, that cannot happen under this Government. Has this Government done anything to assist in providing jobs and opportunities? Has it done anything to assist our industries to get through these tough times? No, it has not; it has done quite the opposite. Again, students are on the wrong side of that, but they will go out and look for jobs.

I know that many members opposite denigrate students, but we know that students work very hard. They work hard in their studies, and then they try to secure employment to assist them during their study time so they can get rid of some of the principal on their loan. I have spoken to so many students who have said that it just is not possible to get jobs, despite the Minister standing in the Chamber and talking about all the opportunities that the Government will give young people. We know, in the substance of it, that there no jobs or opportunities out there.

This bill is technical, but we also look at what else is on the Government’s agenda. This bill does no harm to students, but what could be on the agenda for students in the future? We know there is a veiled threat, because we heard the Prime Minister talk about lifting the cap on fees’ institutions. So what do we know will happen? When Labour was in Government we took some very responsible moves, which were not supported by the National Opposition at the time, to ensure that student fees did not escalate way out of control as they had done under the previous National Government.

Mr Key has referred to an “inflexible and bureaucratic funding and policy framework”. What does that mean? It means a framework that ensures that student costs do not romp away—that there is a cap on the fees that institutions are able to pay. So Mr Key’s comment tells me that tertiary education will soon move into the National Government’s market approach to things.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) : Yesterday I was listening to a discussion about language on that great national icon, Radio New Zealand. It was stated that the great American writer Mark Twain was known for his precision in language. He was very critical of adverbs and adjectives, and he wrote in short sentences. Members may be wondering what the relevance of this discussion is to the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. I have been here for a little while avidly listening to some very strong arguments being advanced from members on the other side of the Committee about how the bill could be retitled. I have mulled over in my mind some suggestions from various members. I say to Moana Mackey that she fails the Mark Twain test. Her suggested amendments were far too long.

Hon Maryan Street: I passed.

Hon PETER DUNNE: I will come to Maryan Street in a minute. Lynne Pillay’s amendment seemed to never end. The problem I have in trying to apply the Mark Twain test to this is—

Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s why they couldn’t circumcise Muldoon, isn’t it?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I do not know what he had to do with Mark Twain, but that may be another story.

The point I am making is that this bill’s title is an accurate description of what the bill contains. It might not be the most exciting title, but it is certainly the most accurate and it passes the Mark Twain test. That is why, having heard the arguments put forward from members opposite, I am not persuaded that a change is in order.

I heard the Hon Maryan Street make reference to the timing of this bill in the context of the current urgency. I was grateful for her that I was excluded from her excoriating criticism. However, I am concerned that this bill be passed as soon as possible and I will tell members why. In one of the earlier parts of this bill, we passed some very important provisions relating to students being able to study overseas and access a student loan. Members will be aware that that provision is backdated to 2007. A lot of students have been waiting for this provision to pass because they will now be able to access it and they have been uneasy—I know this from the correspondence I have received from many of them, and in particular from their parents—at the uncertainty that has prevailed.

I am very keen to see the bill passed. I would have loved to see it passed last year, but other circumstances got in the way. I am very pleased that it now will pass and those people will get the benefit. From the bottom of my heart, I thank those members of the Opposition who have taken such a constructive interest in the grammar and construction of the title. I have listened to what they have said, but I think on balance the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill captures it all, really.

CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) : I have some ideas for what we could rename the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill, but I will get on to that shortly. I refer to something that Moana Mackey talked about. She said that while she was studying during the 1990s, even though she was not working full time—she was studying part time—every time she got that statement from the Inland Revenue Department she saw that interest had been added on to her student loan. That is something that I saw, that Grant Robertson saw, and that a number of us saw.

We were very thankful when the Labour Government introduced interest-free student loans in 2005, despite opposition from the National Party at that time. National thought that it was corrupt and irresponsible of the Labour Government—

Chris Hipkins: A hoax, they called it.

CARMEL SEPULONI: National called it a hoax and thought it was irresponsible of the Labour Government to bring in a provision that ensured all New Zealanders had the opportunity to have equal access to tertiary education. We know that one of the biggest barriers to participation in tertiary education is the finances. As a person who went through tertiary study during the very, very bad 1990s, all I can say is that I appreciated the fact that, in 2005, student loans were made interest free.

Across the course of this debate we have had a few interjections and comments from the floor. I want to clarify something for Mr Garrett, who interjected earlier and asked whether I had even graduated. That is typical of the attitude from Mr Garrett. I will clarify for him that, yes, I did graduate. I graduated three different times with three different qualifications, so I thank him very much for that query.

If we look at the title of the bill, we see it is the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. I think that when thinking of different titles for this bill, we need to look at the broader picture with regard to the public comments that have been made by National members of Parliament, including the Prime Minister, and some of the actions that National has taken on tertiary education during its term in Government. One possible alternative title for the bill could be the “Student Loan Scheme (Does Not Really Make Up for Paula Bennett’s Training Incentive Allowance Cuts, But Anyway) Amendment Bill”. That goes back to what I was saying before with regard to some of the actions that have been taken with tertiary education and the fact that the National Government does not take seriously the need for a range of different people, particularly those who are marginalised or underrepresented in tertiary education, to have equal access to tertiary education.

Another possible title I think we could add to the mix might be the “Student Loan Scheme (We Will Tutū With It Now But Make the Drastic Changes Later) Amendment Bill”, because that is basically what the Prime Minister and the Minister for Tertiary Education have indicated to the public they will be doing by their recent comments that they will be taking a serious look at the student loan scheme. The Prime Minister has alluded to the fact that some students have taken advantage of the scheme, or he believes that they have been mucking around and not taking it seriously. All of those things indicate that down the track, National will be looking to make drastic changes.

As has been mentioned in this Chamber today, the ones who will be affected by the changes that we anticipate the Government will make down the track are those from lower-income families, Māori and Pasifika, and also, as I mentioned before, women. Already we have received a number of letters and emails from women stating that it would be very difficult for them to study this year, knowing that the training incentive allowance will not be available for them. The Minister for Social Development and Employment said that she would put in a provision so that they could have an extra $500 on their student loan, but, for a student, $500 on a student loan is nothing compared with the $3,800 that was cut from the training incentive allowance. That money was a cut for women who are looking after children by themselves and who are already struggling with things like childcare and even transport with regard to getting to their tertiary institution. Many of them have come out of sometimes tumultuous relationships, and we have this Minister for Social Development and Employment deciding to cut something from them.

CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) : I will take a very brief call; this time I will be reasonably brief on this final point. We are debating the title and commencement clause of the Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill. I do not intend to suggest a whole raft of alternative titles to the bill, as some of my colleagues have. However, I acknowledge the contribution of the Minister in the chair, the Hon Peter Dunne, in this debate. I have been in the Chamber for most of the Committee stage on this bill, as I know the Minister of Revenue has been, although a little earlier in the day than we might have initially anticipated. I thank him for engaging with the debate. We on this side of the Chamber are not used to having the opportunity to put questions to a Minister in the Committee stage and have the Minister stand up, answer them, and engage in that kind of interaction. That is what the Committee stage of a debate should be all about; I can see the Chair is agreeing with me on that. It is unusual but it is very welcome.

I think the Minister has answered a number of the questions we put forward. I put forward questions to him earlier on about diplomats and about the thresholds. He has engaged with us on those issues and I think that provides some reassurance to people who are listening in on this debate that even though this bill does not necessarily address all of the issues or the technical concerns that exist with the current interest-free student loans scheme, the Government has at least taken on board some of those issues. I was also very pleased to hear the Minister acknowledge the concern around diplomats, and he gave us a commitment that he would look further into that issue. I am more than happy to talk to him about that issue further at any point if he wishes to do so. I am happy to give him some examples of people who have been captured by that particular problem.

That was all I wanted to say on this particular part of the bill. I just wanted to acknowledge the contribution the Minister has made and to thank him for it.

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chair. I will take a very short call. I would like to start by saying that urgency does not always bring out the best in us. It sometimes leads to flogging a dead horse or working out just how many ways one can say the same thing as someone else without using or stealing his or her precise words. I do not want to do that. But I would like to disagree with the Minister of Revenue about the title of the bill. I feel that the title, although it has a certain musical ring, is somewhat disingenuous.

“Miscellaneous” is a beautiful word. It is a marvellous, colourful word, but it suggests very, very small random issues, and it is not accurate in terms of the way the Green Party sees this bill. I have also learnt in my brief time in this Chamber that we take on words like “miscellaneous” at face value at our peril. In this place it is essential to read the fine print, and not only to read the fine print but also to get 12 other people to read it and then consult widely, and exhaustively, and extremely—as a result of urgency—with at least the groups who are most affected by the bill, and then after all of that assume the worst.

I like Mark Twain’s idea of brevity and I would like to suggest some brief titles that would satisfy the Green Party. One is “Give With One Hand, Punish with the Other”; the other is “Fifteen Cents in the Dollar or Else”. Kia ora.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) : The Student Loan Scheme (Exemptions and Miscellaneous Provisions) Amendment Bill is a relatively—

Hon Member: Was it a good book?

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS: Do not get me sidetracked! This bill is a relatively simple one. I think it is fair to say that the title of the bill reflects the purpose and intent of the bill. I think it is time that members stop wasting the time of this House.

COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) : The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is a very appropriate bill to be considering, because as a nation we have a huge number of animals. In actual fact, sometimes it is a bit of a joke that New Zealand is known worldwide for having far more animals than humans. We are quite pleased about that, however, because as a nation we have a primary sector economy, and that primary sector economy contributes to a first-class economy. So this bill is indeed timely.

Sadly, there is from time to time outrageous behaviour that does not do anything for New Zealand’s image, and we need, then, to have a structured process of penalties in place for people who mistreat animals. That is what the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill refers to. It brings in a new regime of punishment for people who commit crimes of cruelty against animals. It is worth noting that previously the ultimate crime against an animal was wilful ill-treatment, but there were very, very few occasions when there was a guilty verdict in those cases. That was largely because it was very difficult to show that wilfulness. This bill introduces another category, of reckless ill-treatment. I think that that is very sensible, because reckless behaviour is something that can be quite predictable, and a normal person will understand it.

The bill effectively has two parts to it. There is the regime that sorts out the behaviour of reckless ill-treatment, and there is the aspect that deals with how long a person who is judged to have committed cruelty against an animal is disqualified from owning an animal. The bill also talks about the contravention of a court order that prevents somebody from having an animal.

This bill will attract a significant number of submissions, and we in the Primary Production Committee will welcome them. The committee, I believe, is ideally situated to consider the submissions. We will certainly welcome them, but we encourage those people who submit to do so within the context of the bill. I say that because we have quite a structured process within New Zealand of managing best practice. We have the common-sense behaviour of looking after pets in cities, which is looked after by the SPCA, or the Royal New Zealand Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Then we have the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, which rules and adjudges on what is considered best practice with regard to domesticated animals, like sheep, cattle, chooks, pigs, and so on. So when those submissions come in and we consider them, they will need to be in the context and the scope of the bill.

On the bill’s first reading, the Minister stood up and said that he would like to see it reported back to the House in a timely fashion. That report back will be on 20 April. We need to consider that once we finish this session—tonight or tomorrow, or whenever it is; we are still in urgency—there is a 2-week adjournment. On that basis we will have to be pretty quick in getting those submissions in, because there will be, I am sure, a large public interest in this bill.

The regime of fines has been doubled, effectively. It might be a fair point to make that doubling a fine does not actually remedy a situation. However, I think that it does clearly lay out to the community, and to society as a whole, the value that we put on our loyal, faithful pets, and on those animals that we extract a living from. Effectively, the penalty regime is raised from $125,000 for a body corporate up to $250,000. It sounds like a lot of money, but the point that is of interest to me is that an individual can actually get a prison sentence, but a corporate body just gets a larger fine. Nobody actually comes up for trial for cruelty in the latter case.

There will be a lot of interest, as I have said, in this bill. I trust that those who are submitting on it will do so in the context of the bill, because we are looking at a regime or structure of penalties for cruelty, and on that basis alone I imagine that we will not try to get into a field where we say we should be able to do something or we should not. The debate will be about the aspects of a workable solution, because judges have been criticised for not implementing the law; I have to say that until this bill came along it was virtually impossible for them to do so, because it was so difficult to prove the wilful aspect of ill-treatment. So the introduction of a reckless ill-treatment category will greatly aid the whole process, and I am sure we will see a lot more convictions for those people who should be treated as criminals. Thank you.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) : It is my pleasure to speak in support of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I first acknowledge Simon Bridges, who initially introduced this bill, which has now been adopted by the Government, to the House. I am delighted to support this bill, after all the horror stories that we have seen on television and heard about, like the killing of 33 dogs, and the kittens fed to pit bulls and filmed—those terrible things that happened to pets.

I say at the outset that Labour members do not accept animal cruelty at all. We are totally against cruelty, not only to pets but also, as I will discuss a little later, to farm animals. As human values and perceptions of pets and their welfare change over time, we need to think about farm animals as well. In 2008, 11,000 complaints were received by the SPCA about animal cruelty. Out of those, only 110 resulted in any charges being laid. Out of those 110 cases, only 58 people were convicted. That shows either that judges or courts do not take the issue of cruelty to animals very seriously, or our values do not cause us to take the issue very seriously.

This bill essentially raises fines from $50,000 to $100,000 and the term of imprisonment from 3 year to 5 years. As the previous speaker, Colin King, said, increasing the penalties will not make a heck of a lot of difference by itself. What really has to happen is for us to put some resources into the issues. For example, 20 years ago one-third of animal welfare cases were dealt with by the police, one-third by the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, and one-third by the SPCA. Now the SPCA deals with 90 percent of animal cruelty cases. The SPCA needs further resources to make sure that those cases are dealt with properly, and the Government needs to make sure that it supports the SPCA to deal with such cases. The most important thing is to put more resources into dealing with this issue—for example, prosecuting those cases costs thousands of dollars. So there is a need for further resources to make sure that animal welfare is looked after.

The thing that I am really concerned about is not only cruelty to pet animals; as the area of legal practices changes around the world, and the perception about animal cruelty and the treatment of animals changes around the world, we also have to think about farm animals. As I alluded to before, in recent times there has been a lot of talk about cubicle farming and also a debate about 1080, possums, and sow crates. Of course, we have been raising around the world the issue of whaling, and the public is becoming aware of all those issues. Years ago, many moons ago, when I first came to this country—

Hon Darren Hughes: Many, many moons.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: —many moons ago—thousands of lambs died in the snow in wintertime, and I wondered about the way we do farming, when thousands of young animals of 1 and 2 days old were dying in the cold. The issue was whether we were treating our animals the way they should be treated. There is some controversy about cubicle farming in Canterbury.

In one generation the perceptions about animal welfare and cruelty issues have come into our consciousness. We are always now thinking about how we treat these animals—and how we raise farm animals and how they should be treated. I think this is very important as pressure comes on us, particularly from overseas markets where we send our live animals. There has been an issue about live animals going for the haj. There has been an issue about that, and about the likelihood of cruelty to some of these sheep that are sent overseas.

In my view we need to make sure that in the future we have a more comprehensive bill for animal welfare. This amendment bill, in my view, is just part of an ongoing issue rather than a solution. There is a lot of concern from the various animal welfare movements, particularly from the countries that import our live animals. We export meat to some of those markets. The perception is changing. We have to make sure that, over time—soon, I hope—the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Justice, or whoever, brings forward a more comprehensive animal welfare bill, which will make sure that not only our pet animals but also our farm animals are properly treated, and that we fulfil the expectations that are out in the markets to which we export our animals.

As even Government members accept, this bill by itself, by raising imprisonment to 5 years, will not solve the problem. I honestly say, and I am sure that my colleagues on the Primary Production Committee will agree, that this is an interim arrangement. In the longer term we need a comprehensive animal welfare bill so that we can—

Sandra Goudie: There’s nothing “interim” about a law change.

Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY: Well, I know it is an important issue, but I think we have to go to the next step. We have to look at other issues that deal particularly with our farm animals, because as the perceptions change in the markets, importing countries will have stringent requirements. As we know, people are now tracing where our meat comes from. Some of these green movements and other similar movements require stronger animal welfare laws and regulations, so we have to follow those.

In a nutshell, I say that I support this bill wholeheartedly, and I agree with the Government and all of the parties that are supporting the bill that it is a useful interim arrangement. But in the long term we have to make sure we have a fully fledged animal welfare bill that can look into the issues concerning farm animals, as well. With those few words, I say thank you and I thank my colleagues.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I am delighted to speak on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I applaud my colleague the Hon David Carter, the Minister of Agriculture, for bringing this bill to the House. It is in support of an initiative of Simon Bridges, the excellent member of Parliament for Tauranga. He is an outstanding young man, who has a fantastic future ahead of him.

This bill has been roundly applauded throughout New Zealand. I will mention some of the key people who have supported it. Bob Kerridge said that “It is time to recognise that cruelty to animals is a social sickness that is as heinous as any act of violence inflicted on fellow humans, and the two are inextricably linked.” That is what Bob Kerridge said. He is the Auckland RSPCA executive officer, he is well known, and he represents the views of many people throughout New Zealand. The next person I will mention is David Jones QC. He said that “This [bill] would add to the effectiveness of animal welfare legislation and bring home to the public that animal cruelty is not acceptable.” This bill is by no means an interim measure. The third key person who has made a comment on this bill is Dr Wayne Ricketts from the Veterinary Association. What did he say? He said that he “backs increasing the maximum penalty for the wilful ill-treatment of animals.” He also said that “Light sentences send the wrong message to society about the responsibility of humans for the welfare of animals.” This bill has been roundly endorsed by a number of people, but many more people support those very same views. The bill was also applauded by Robyn Kippenberger, who is the National Chief Executive of the RSPCA. She said that “the move was long overdue, especially as animal cruelty cases were increasing in number and severity.”

I will outline a couple of these cases. They are very offensive incidents. This is not a very nice story, but I will share it with members, because if this type of person can do this to a kitten, one has to wonder what level of cruelty he might inflict on family and friends around him. Last month in Auckland, a man twisted off the head of a kitten in front of his young children. There was also the case of the man who fed live kittens to his pit bull dog, and the case of the 33 dogs that were shot in a very inhumane way. There was the incident of the dog that was found drowned in Tītahi Bay with a 10 kg weight tied round its neck. These are all heinous crimes against animals. These are serious cases of animal cruelty. By increasing the sentences, we are sending a very clear message, which should in turn help to deter people from acting in this way.

Although we have had a lot of support for the introduction of this bill, the Greens and Labour have been able to find some reason to be dissatisfied. Those members have said that there was no point in increasing the penalties for animal cruelty if no one would enforce them.

Well, of course the penalties will be enforced, but those members say there is no point in increasing the penalties. [Interruption] That is what they said. They are aware that extra funding will be put in and that there are people there to enforce the penalties. If those members were aware of what was going on, they would know that lawyers are working pro bono to bring animal cruelty cases to court for conviction. I applaud those lawyers. I think it is a fantastic step in the right direction. I understand that other lawyers are looking to take up the challenge of doing pro bono work on animal cruelty cases so that people who commit the kinds of offences I have described—twisting off the head of a kitten in front of children—will be charged, taken to court, and be convicted. Under this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill those offenders will receive the sentences they rightly deserve, which are more stringent than the sentences currently in place. This bill will send a very, very strong message.

The purpose of the bill is to increase the sentences for these horrifying incidents. In relation to wilful ill-treatment, it raises the penalties for animal cruelty and neglect offences, and it changes the way in which some offences are described. The offence of wilful ill-treatment of animals covers the most serious welfare offences. Under the Act as it stands, it must be proved that a person intended to cause harm, and the animal must be permanently disabled, die, or be destroyed to prevent further suffering. This bill expands the threshold for this offence to include cases where an animal is seriously injured or impaired. That will enable more cases of extreme cruelty to be prosecuted under this offence. An animal is seriously injured or impaired if the injury or impairment involves prolonged pain and suffering, substantial risk of death, loss of a body part, or permanent or prolonged loss of a bodily function, or requires treatment by, or under the supervision of, a veterinarian.

The maximum penalty for wilful ill-treatment of animals will increase to 5 years’ imprisonment. The maximum will be 5 years, and if that is not a deterrent to people who inflict cruelty upon animals, I do not know what is. There is also a fine, and the maximum will double to $100,000 for an individual and $500,000 for a body corporate. If that does not send a very strong message that good, caring, solid Kiwi New Zealanders who have animals in their care and look after them properly expect others to do the same, then I do not know what will. Animals need to be cared for in a robust way. They need to be housed, fed, and watered. Dogs need to be taken for walks. We expect all of those sorts of things to occur. Every animal requires a different type of care, but we except animals to receive the optimal care available.

This bill creates a new offence of reckless ill-treatment of animals. This new offence will apply where it can be proved that a person knew or appreciated that serious harm to an animal could occur, and unreasonably ran the risk of that happening. It is expected that cases would be prosecuted under this new offence when they otherwise failed to meet the threshold for wilful ill-treatment. Until now there has been no choice but to prosecute these cases under a lesser ill-treatment charge, which resulted in inappropriate sentencing and the wrong message being sent to offenders that animal welfare offending is not serious. That is the great thing about this bill; we are sending a very clear message, and it has been roundly endorsed throughout New Zealand. The penalties for this offence will be a maximum of 3 years’ imprisonment, and fines may be imposed of up to $75,000 for an individual or $350,000 for a body corporate.

There are other offences. The court may disqualify a person from having custody of animals, and may order the forfeiture of animals.

Those are some of the key points of this bill. Most New Zealanders expect people to care for the animals in their charge. They want them to be healthy, comfortable, and properly fed, and to have a reasonable standard of care and humane treatment. They expect that they will not suffer unnecessarily. This bill is a great step forward. It is not an interim measure. It will provide outcomes and will act as a strong deterrent to anyone ill-treating animals.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) : I, too, rise to speak in support of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the contribution of Simon Bridges to bringing this bill to the House, although it has now become a Government bill that is supported by all parties.

The timing of this bill has probably been forced along as a result of the huge public outcry following some high-profile animal abuse cases. It is fair to say that most New Zealanders treat animals humanely, whether in a farming context or a domestic context, but animal abuse cases are still too common, and they are not isolated. I happened to be looking at some of my local community newspapers, and I am holding up an example I found headed: “Family pet may have been thrown off bridge”. These sorts of things are sickening. I will not recite a big litany of cases; I, too, have seen the SPCA’s list of terrible cases. I think that when most of us hear of these cases we are sickened and disgusted by the sort of treatment that is meted out to animals, both domestic pets and farming animals. As we all know in this House, those animals cannot defend themselves and cannot speak on their own behalf, so it is up to us to do so.

I will not read out the main provisions of the bill, as the previous speaker, Sandra Goudie, has done that. The basic points in the bill are, first of all, to increase penalties for some existing offences, such as for wilful and reckless ill treatment and other ill treatment offences, while putting in place a new offence of reckless ill treatment. There are two provisions in the bill that I think are very important and very useful. One is the strengthening of the provision disqualifying a person from having custody of animals, and the other is the strengthening of the provision relating to the forfeiture of animals. Those provisions are very useful contributions to the tool box of things that we can do in response to the abuse of animals. I certainly think it is important that we are sending a message to New Zealanders about the view of this Parliament, which is that we need to be tough on people who abuse animals.

The relationship between animals and people is really important; I will talk a little about it. Other speakers—Jim Anderton, Damien O’Connor, Sue Kedgley, and others—have spoken about the economic importance of animals to this country and about the importance of ensuring that we treat those animals appropriately because we should, but also because there is a requirement that animals be treated humanely in order for us to be able to trade with other countries and to meet the consumer demand.

Animals are very important to this country economically but also socially; I will talk a little about that. Clearly, there is the domestic pet scenario. I am sure most people in this House either have or previously have had animals in their life as domestic pets or companions. Certainly my cat, Sage, who is 14 years old, has been a very important part of my life. Animals also have a role socially in terms of therapy, and I will talk about some of those roles because I do not think they have been mentioned yet in the House. We have not yet talked about some of the really important ways that having animals with people makes a difference. Animals are used in therapeutic care in the Maungakiekie electorate, where I work. I am aware of the use of animals in schools, such as dogs in schools programmes, which teach children about looking after animals properly and also about the different responses of animals to different situations. I know that in one of the local churches in Onehunga animals are used in grief counselling with children. That is very important. Pets are increasingly being allowed in rest homes because it makes a difference to the quality of life of the residents.

Animals are also used therapeutically in terms of treating people who are ill and are hospitalised. Again, interestingly enough, I have just gone through the local community papers and found a story in the East and Bays Courier of 12 February about Ella’s special place. It has been recently opened and is a particular corner of Starship Children’s Health in Auckland where children can have their pets. It has been named after a young girl, Ella, who was 5 when she died in 2003 of an inoperable brain tumour, and it is a memorial to that young girl, recognising the importance of the comfort people get from being around animals. I think it is really important to recognise the relationship between people and animals.

I will go on to look at the abuse of animals as a crime of violence. It is actually a crime of violence. We have a sickening record in this country of violent crime and I particularly want to put on record, in speaking to this bill, the sickening record of violence against children in New Zealand. The reason I am raising this record in the context of violent crime against animals is that I think these things are not unrelated. I believe violent crime—whether it is against another adult, against children, or against animals—has certain common factors. One of the issues I have about this bill is that it deals with one end of the spectrum—dealing with crime—and I want to talk about the other end. I want to talk about the prevention of crime. What are the causes of crime? What leads to people being violent, whether it is against children, animals, or other adults? What are the causes of crime? We need to do more in that area. We need to look at the culture of violence in this country that makes it acceptable for people to behave in a violent manner and that can, in fact, glorify violence.

There is a lot of research and information around the issue of empathy. People get the skills and the neurological links in their brain to be empathetic at a very, very young age—as babies. The relationship between babies and their mothers, in particular, is very important. Where there is a lack of empathy in a very young child, it can flow on to violent crime. There is a whole lot of important work in support of what we need to be doing around parenting to support young mothers. There are issues around how we learn to respect and care for each other and for animals. I have always had pets in my life; with my parents, caring for our animals was a very important message. We need to look at all those areas in terms of preventing violent crime.

There is certainly plenty of evidence about the links between animal abuse and other violent crimes. In preparing to make this speech I looked at some of the research. Certainly a lot more work is now being done about cross-reporting—that is, when people hear about animal abuse they are also looking to see whether domestic violence and cruelty to children is going on in the same home. There was a very interesting report in the Bay of Plenty Times about the fact that the SPCA routinely investigates complaints of cruelty to animals and finds other forms of offending as well. I will not go through all of the detail, but there is clear information around the links between violence against animals and violence against humans. Often it is a starting point, and people go on to become violent against people.

We have to look at the very important issue of enforcement. One of the things that worried me, as well as the need to perhaps do more in the prevention area, is that we can put in place tough penalties but we need to be able to find out about the crime, we need to be able to police it, and we need to be able to monitor it and respond. As others have said, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has five inspectors and seven contractors for the entire country to look at what is going on, mainly in terms of our farming animals. The SPCA does the absolute lion’s share of the work. It is a voluntary organisation; it does not receive Government funding. I place on record my acknowledgement of the work it does. I am sure everybody in this House would agree with me. But too few people work for the SPCA, so if we are serious about doing this we need to look at ensuring that it is resourced to do the job. Certainly one of the things that American states have found in toughening up against abuse cases is the need for evidence to support prosecution.

In winding up I concur with the point that Jim Anderton made that if we do not put resource into this issue, then this bill will be simply window dressing. Thank you.

Dr CAM CALDER (National) : It gives me enormous pleasure to rise and speak briefly on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. I compliment my colleague across the House Carol Beaumont for an extremely well-considered and succinct address, covering off most of the key points in this debate. I also at this stage acknowledge Simon Bridges, who not only is the second-sexiest male politician in New Zealand but also had the wit and concern to address himself to a very serious issue in New Zealand—namely, cruelty to animals. As we know, the Government has adopted Simon Bridges’ bill and tweaked it in a number of areas. Many speakers have gone to great pains to outline the details of the bill, which is a comprehensive and significant improvement upon the current legislation.

This bill sends a strong message. Miss Beaumont indicated that it makes it very clear that violence is not OK. We know it is not OK against children, we know it is not OK between adults, and it is certainly not OK against animals. This Government is all about creating a brighter future for New Zealand and improving our performance in all sectors. This bill is our attempt and our initiative to address an area where we see a great need. I take this opportunity to commend this bill to the House.

• Bill read a first time.

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: I move, That the Primary Production Committee consider the Animal Welfare Bill, that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 April 2010, and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting (except during questions for oral answer), and during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c).

• Motion agreed to.