Thursday, 6 April 2006

Madam SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing members that the Hon John Hill, Minister of Health for South Australia, is present in the gallery. I am sure members would wish to welcome him.

Business Statement

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 2 May, priority will be given to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Paid Parental Leave for Self-Employed Persons) Amendment Bill, the Education Amendment Bill, the Criminal Procedure Bill, the Coroners Bill, the Historic Places Amendment Bill, and the first readings of the Te Arawa Lakes Settlement Bill and the Law Reform (Epidemic Preparedness) Bill. Wednesday of the first week is, of course, a members’ day.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): If I am not mistaken, some of those bills are yet to be tabled—or will we have some days where we wait for those bills while dealing with other matters on the Order Paper? But, in any event, I notice that the Order Paper currently has some 22 Government items on it, but only three are advanced by current front-bench members. The rest are being advanced by Ministers who are currently further back in the rankings. Can the Leader of the House indicate whether that is an indication of bigger things to come for some of the fellows sitting further behind him?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House): No. It indicates that we are making good progress on the programme.

Questions for Oral Answer

Questions to Ministers

Question No. 1 to Minister

Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland): I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think we are all aware that the Prime Minister is temporarily delayed on matters of hospitality towards the Premier of China. It would seem to me to be appropriate that the first question is delayed until she can come to the Chamber, and I so seek leave.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Prime Minister—Investigations, David Parker

1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Prime Minister: Has she, the Prime Minister’s office or the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet received any written advice, briefing or opinion from the Companies Office or the Ministry of Economic Development in relation to the investigation into legal declarations by David Parker; if so, what were the dates and titles of all such communications?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The only document that the Prime Minister is aware of that could be so classified, although at a stretch, is a print-off of an email from the Minister of Commerce’s press secretary to her press secretary on 27 March this year indicating that the Registrar of Companies had not completed the investigation, and briefly outlining the process to be followed. This was in response to media inquiries based on the belief that the investigation has been completed.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister see the difficulty presented to the public when the Ministry of Economic Development is answering questions from the media—the same ministry that was chief adviser to David Parker in his capacity as Minister of Energy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. The Registrar of Companies operates independently within the ministry. As I said, the advice received was merely about process.

Hon Bill English: Has the Prime Minister seen any advice from the Companies Office, from her officials, or from Mr Parker arguing that Mr Parker may not be prosecuted because his partner Mr Hyslop lost his shareholder rights when he became bankrupt, and that a letter from the official assignee to Mr Parker led him to believe he could act in the way he did, and therefore he would not be prosecuted?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As the Prime Minister said yesterday, Mr Parker has kept her informed of matters.

Hon Bill English: If the Prime Minister has been kept aware of matters, has she seen a copy of a letter from the official assignee, sent to David Parker in 1997?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am not aware whether a particular letter of a particular date has been seen. I am aware that Mr Parker has kept the Prime Minister informed.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has Mr English, who is raising these questions today, provided the Prime Minister with any evidence in the form of letters, from whatever official body, to back up the questions he is putting today; if not, does he wonder why not?

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The “if not … why not” is clearly out of order, because the Minister cannot be asked why Bill English may have provided letters or material to the Prime Minister. That is completely out of order as a question.

Madam SPEAKER: Briefly, please, Mr Peters.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It has long been a tradition in this country that if members raise a question by way of supplementary question, they may not be required to produce evidence at the very start of those questions. But if the questions go on day in, day out, and they assert that documentary evidence—[Interruption] There are three people interrupting my point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: A point of order is being taken. Mr Hide was heard in silence, and Mr Peters will be heard in silence. I ask members to remember that. But I ask Mr Peters to please be brief, because I am ready to rule.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Madam Speaker, I do not want you to rule prematurely. It has been said in the past that if members wish to assert documentary evidence, they should produce it. This is about day seven of this argument—day two this week. I am asking the Minister whether Mr English has provided any documentary evidence to back up his line of questioning and, if not, whether he wonders why not.

Madam SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order, but not the second part.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would ask you to reflect very carefully on that. The member has asked Dr Cullen whether information has been provided to the Speaker to back up the question. Dr Cullen cannot possibly know that; nor is it appropriate that someone else answers for the Speaker in these matters.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, I had not heard it was to the Speaker; I thought it was actually to the Prime Minister. But if there is any confusion I am sure we can clarify that now. The first part of the question was in order, because an opinion can be sought. The second part of the question was not in order.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No evidence has been presented by Mr English to the Prime Minister on this matter.

Hon Bill English: Is the Prime Minister aware that a complaint about Mr Parker’s conduct as a lawyer has been laid with the Law Society, and that that complaint is sufficiently serious that if it were upheld Mr Parker could be struck off; and will she wait until that investigation is complete before considering whether Mr Parker should be restored to Cabinet?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister is aware of a complaint laid by Mr Hyslop against Mr Parker, in the same way that she is aware of complaints laid by her present Deputy Prime Minister against Mr Hyslop in the past, over his actions in failing to fulfil his obligations to people who had bought property off him.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: On that score, has the Prime Minister been provided with any evidence whatsoever to back up either Mr Hyslop’s claims or those being endorsed by Mr English in this House again today?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. No such evidence has been presented.

Hon Bill English: Will the Prime Minister answer the question I asked before, which was: will she wait until the Law Society complaint has been dealt with—because it is a serious complaint—before considering whether Mr Parker will be restored to Cabinet?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have no information on that particular matter. It would be desirable, I think, to have some indication from the Law Society of how long any such inquiry may take.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that the assertion by the questioner is that this is a serious complaint, has she seen any information or evidence from Mr English or Mr Hyslop to justify the description “a serious complaint”?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. I have seen no evidence to back up Mr Hyslop’s complaint, as reported initially in Investigate magazine.

Hon Bill English: Can the Prime Minister account for the fact that there now appears to be widespread knowledge of the Companies Office position in respect of Mr Parker’s declarations, as confirmed by the interview carried out by the Companies Office with Mr Hyslop yesterday?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I have no information on that matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister confirm that any information of the Companies Office is available to anybody who bothers to make an inquiry; so, that being the case, is she surprised that she has not received any evidence or correspondence to back up this line of questioning?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Companies Office information is normally available within the public arena. The fact of the matter is that so far no evidence has been presented at all on some significant matters, including particularly the accusations made by Mr English.

Air New Zealand—Services to London

2. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister of Transport: What advances in the UK - New Zealand Air Services Agreement have been made to allow Air New Zealand to secure a second daily service to London?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Acting Minister of Transport): Yesterday Air New Zealand announced plans to launch a second daily service between Auckland and London Heathrow Airport. That is as a direct result of the air services agreement and the market access opportunities secured by the New Zealand Government, following an agreement with the United Kingdom last year. It is very good news for New Zealanders, for our tourism industry, and for Air New Zealand.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House over what period the negotiations were conducted?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Constant efforts were made over 6 years, including efforts at ministerial level and in negotiations led by the New Zealand Ministry of Transport, until open access was achieved last year. Noting the welcome the House has just accorded my colleague Minister John Hill, I regret to advise that Australia has yet to achieve such open access.

Electricity—Supply

3. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister of Energy: Does he stand by the statement from the Government on 14 March: “I can assure you—no rolling blackouts this winter.”; if not, why not?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Acting Minister of Energy): Yes. Although no Minister could ever guarantee there will not be a power cut of some sort—for example, if a storm blew down a power line—I am confident, as I was the last time I was asked this question in the House, that, in the event of an electricity shortage, enough measures are in place to ensure that rolling blackouts will not happen.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How can he have confidence in the Electricity Commission when yesterday it admitted errors in both the minimum zone and the emergency zone of 15 percent, amounting to the equivalent of the entire storage of Lake Benmore, and making it far more likely that we will, in fact, have an electricity crisis this winter?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Taking that point, I think if the country were as pluvial as the member opposite, we would be a lot better off. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please address the question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, we have always been allowed to call people “wet”. That member is clearly wet. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Could you both be seated, please! Could we please just have questions asked, then addressed, without irrelevant comments. Please would the Minister address the question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I do have confidence. The fact the commission did not take into account a new, unplanned arrangement to take out a particular generator for a period of time is something that has been explained to my office. I do not think that was good enough, but I still have confidence in the organisation.

Maryan Street: What steps has the Government taken to minimise the impact of lower hydro lake levels?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: We are in a much better situation than in previous years. A supply of coal has been stockpiled—something that never happened under the National Government—so that if we do require it for coal-fired generators, it is there. The Government has commissioned the Whirinaki reserve generation plant—something opposed by the National Party, just as it has opposed the E3P station, which will provide considerable protection over the next 2 or 3 years. It will be running late this year or early next year. Again, the National Party said we should not do it.

Judy Turner: How does he foresee that superannuitants and others on fixed incomes will be able to pay their electricity bills if power spikes or rolling blackouts occur this winter, or is that not his problem?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It is my understanding that those power spikes—the price spikes—affect those people who are on spot prices. I do not know any pensioners who are.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What explanation has he sought from the Electricity Commission of how it managed to make an error of 220 gigawatt hours—the equivalent of the storage in Lake Benmore—and what action does he intend to take because the commission got such a critical issue for New Zealand so wrong?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am sure it will be the subject of a discussion at our next regular meeting.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree with the Government spokesperson on energy efficiency and conservation that taking sensible, zero-cost measures now—like switching off computer screens, lights, and heaters when not in use, and fixing leaky hot-water taps—can keep more water in the lakes, and give us an extra measure of security this winter?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Of course, although I would say that that is something we should be doing anyway.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Government 3 weeks ago back the view of the Electricity Commission in respect of the risk of a power crisis this winter over the view of Meridian Energy and Genesis Power, when, effectively, the Electricity Commission yesterday said that it had it wrong and that Genesis Power and Meridian Energy had it right?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I would point out that, of Genesis Power, Meridian Energy, and the Electricity Commission, none of them thinks we have hit the minimum zone.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question did not ask whether Genesis Power or Meridian Energy thought we had hit the minimum zone—which was the answer I got from the Minister. The Minister did not address the question, which was why the Government believed the Electricity Commission over those two companies 3 weeks ago.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: We have to take some action only when we hit the minimum zone. No one thinks we have. People thought 3 weeks ago that we were a different distance away from it. That has now been resolved.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Noting that this is the third year out of 5 that we are facing winter power shortages, will he accept that this Government’s planning for new infrastructure and new energy sources has been quite inadequate?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Absolutely not. That member voted for the Bradford reforms, which are the main cause of this problem, that member voted against E3P being built, and that member opposed the Whirinaki plant. Everything good that has been done has been done by this side of the House, and those members there did nothing.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What does it say about the decision to build the new Whirinaki power station in the Hawke’s Bay that, only 2 years after $150 million was spent on its construction, major players in the industry, including Transpower and Meridian Energy, say it was built in the wrong place?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: It was put there because at the time that was the easiest place for which to gain consent. The possibility of shifting it was always under consideration.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the Electricity Commission’s document on the minimum zone and emergency zone, which shows that it had to be changed by 220 gigawatt hours because of an error.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon David Benson-Pope: I seek leave to table media reports from the Dunedin City Council and the Otago Daily Times displaying the reaction of Dunedin citizens to the compulsory sale of the Waipori power scheme.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Rodney Hide: What responsibility will the Minister take, as Minister, if there are power blackouts this winter, or will it all be someone else’s fault, too?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think that if the member had listened very carefully, he would have heard me not blaming any other organisation.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—2005 Examinations

4. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has he received about the 2005 National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) exams?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education): This morning the New Zealand Qualifications Authority released the 2005 NCEA national statistics, which demonstrate the considerable advantages of the NCEA system. For example, the results show that more students than ever are gaining qualifications: 72.5 percent of students achieved level 1 literacy standard, and 78.8 percent achieved the numeracy standard, which is up from last year. The variability of standards—the key concern we had in 2004—has now been significantly reduced, ensuring that we have a sound platform to move forward this year.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: How will the NCEA national statistics be used?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: This information will be used to further improve our secondary education system. These statistics give the most comprehensive picture yet of students’ strengths and achievements. Secondary schools will use the NCEA data to evaluate their teaching programmes, set goals around their students’ achievements, and better meet their teachers’ professional development needs. Using this information will further raise standards and ensure our students have the best educational opportunities in front of them.

Hon Bill English: If, as the Minister says, these NCEA results are the most comprehensive ever, can he explain to the House why he will not make them available to parents through the SchoolSmart website, which would enable parents to compare the results for their school with those of other similar schools in a way that would give them the kind of information that the school and the teachers will readily get?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: To any parents who are listening, I just pass on to them the fact that they can get both the NCEA and SchoolSmart information from their local school, along with information about such important things as the environment that the school has, the kind of teaching programme the school has, and what actually happens in the classroom to benefit students.

Hon Bill English: Will the Minister answer the question I asked, which was why are this year’s NCEA results not available to parents through the website so that, in the comfort of their own homes and in the company of their own children, they can look at their own children’s results, and the results for the school compared with other schools; why will he not let that happen, but instead insist they make an appointment with the principal and watch him or her tap it out on the keyboard?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: As I have said a number of times, along with the New Zealand School Trustees Association, the Principals Association, the New Zealand Educational Institute, and the Post Primary Teachers Association—everybody that we possibly could talk to about these issues—

Hon Member: Except parents.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The School Trustees Association members are parents. That may be news to the National Party, but they were parents last time I looked. All of those organisations agree that the NCEA and SchoolSmart information is available to parents, and that the best way to get it is from a discussion with their local school. That is where they should go.

Australia and New Zealand—Single Economic Market

5. JOHN KEY (National—Helensville) to the Minister of Finance: Is he still committed to making progress on a single economic market with Australia?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): Yes.

John Key: Will he be attending the Australia New Zealand Leadership Forum in Auckland on 5 and 6 May with other senior Ministers from New Zealand and Australia, chairmen and chief executives of leading businesses, and heads of Government departments; if not, which New Zealand Ministers will be attending in his place?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Probably not, and neither will Peter Costello. I understand that my colleague Lianne Dalziel will be attending. I think Phil Goff is also attending.

Hon Phil Goff: Winston Peters is attending.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: —and Winston Peters.

John Key: What will he be doing with his time, instead of attending a forum that will discus topics including the harmonisation of business standards, financial markets, taxation, and common borders, all of which fall squarely in his portfolio and would clearly contribute towards a single economic market with Australia?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance, Minister for Tertiary Education, Leader of the House, and Attorney-General, I suspect I will have quite a bit to do.

John Key: Does the Minister recall that the Australian Treasurer, Peter Costello, attended the previous forum in Melbourne last year, which was one that he pointedly snubbed—a decision that brought on an editorial comment from the New Zealand Herald at the time, which stated: “Without any doubt, it is a disservice to transtasman relations.”; if so, does he think he should turn up to the forum?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Mr Costello and I discussed attendance at the forum, and he indicated that he did not intend to come across to it.

John Key: The process is falling apart completely, is it, so he cannot be bothered going?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, but unfortunately, last year it turned into a Wailing Wall of people pushing their own barrows, as opposed to addressing the wider relationship. As a consequence, significant changes are occurring in the leadership on both sides of the Tasman in business, and the politicians are actually getting on with the real business.

John Key: If the Minister is not going to the forum, will he try to spend some of the time to dream up spin about the Supplementary Stabilisation Instruments report, which was released today—a report that he had for a month and that was released without a Government press release, 30 minutes before a State lunch, and on the last day of Parliament before a 3-week adjournment—or has he reached the same conclusion as the National Party reached before the report was even written that it was futile and made no sense whatsoever, but was simply a jawboning experience from a desperate Minister of Finance?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The problem with that question, as with most of the member’s Tony Ryall imitations, is that it bears no relationship to the facts. The facts are that the report was prepared at the request of the Governor of the Reserve Bank and the Secretary to the Treasury. It is a report from them and to them, and what is more, it makes some very interesting suggestions. If, of course, the member does not want to think about any issues, and if he thinks from his vast knowledge as an international financial market speculator that he knows everything about central bank management, then he obviously should follow his leader, go to the central bank, and become the Reserve Bank governor, because he will never make a Minister of Finance.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that in fact it was under a Labour Government that the partnership forum was set up, after years of National having a disastrous relationship with Australia across the Tasman; and can he confirm that all the reports say that there has been unprecedented progress towards a single economic market—progress that was not made under the National Government in its last term in office?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: It is absolutely accurate to say that when we became the Government, the whole CER relationship had been going nowhere since about 1989, and the Australians were very pleased that we picked it up and started to run with it. We have signed a whole range of agreements recently. We are making progress on a range of issues. To listen to Mr Shewan yet again say that the only issue is franking credits is not, in fact, a good use of my time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am somewhat reluctant to raise this because it was my own colleague who made the comment, but it may require a considered comment from you. I would have thought that to suggest someone was doing Tony Ryall imitations would, in fact, be unparliamentary and should have been ruled out of order.

Madam SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

John Key: Is the reason the Hon Phil Goff will be attending the forum that it is part of his training wheels being attached, so that he will be ready to be Minister of Finance in the very near future?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have terrible news for the young pretender: the old incumbent will be here for a lot longer yet.

John Key: Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister whether he will be attending next year’s forum as the Minister of Finance, or is she still confused about exactly what he will be doing next year and who the Minister of Finance will be?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Two things are clear: Helen Clark will be the Prime Minister, and I will be the Minister of Finance. What is doubtful is whether, if we invite along any representation from the Opposition, Mr Key will come along as Leader of the Opposition, or as the Opposition spokesperson on small business by that point.

Immigration Act—Discussion Paper

6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Immigration: What reports, if any, has he received regarding yesterday’s release of the Immigration Act Review Discussion Paper?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Immigration): I have seen a number of positive reports, two of which were from Dr Lockwood Smith. After yesterday describing it as an “underwhelming document”, he said on Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report this morning that he was not objecting to it. A further report was from Dr Donald Brash. He issued a press release stating that the National Party was pleased that Labour is reviewing the Immigration Act. It is good to see such support from across the House on such an important matter.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen reports of Dr Brash saying that after 6 long years he is pleased that “Labour is waking up to immigration as an issue, after it was raised at Orewa this year.”; despite the inability to reconcile those two dates, does he think for a moment that the National Party has anything to do with this review at all?

Madam SPEAKER: The Minister can answer the first part of the question.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have seen such reports and note that the Ōrewa speech the member referred to postdates the start of the Immigration Act review process. The real driver for the review was the fact that New Zealand and its international environment have changed significantly since the previous Act was passed in 1987. Aussie Malcolm, a former Minister of Immigration for National, agrees, and says today that “the world has changed, and it was time to do a review”.

Lynne Pillay: What does this review aim to achieve?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It aims to ensure that immigration serves New Zealand’s national interests by helping to get New Zealand the skills we need, maintaining the security of our borders, and contributing to good settlement outcomes.

Judy Turner: Is it true that the National Party was excluded from yesterday’s briefing on the Immigration Act review; if so, what was the rationale behind that?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Yes, because National was not relevant to it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister seen this comment: “I doubt it’s a coincidence that I flagged National’s intention to review immigration policy this year at Orewa, and now Labour has announced restructuring today.”, and does he think that comment from Don Brash has any integrity or credibility whatsoever? [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is an opinion. Could the member repeat the question again because an opinion is sought, but you cannot actually ask for it on National Party policy.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I ask the Minister this? Has he seen this comment by Don Brash, the leader of the National Party: “I doubt it’s a coincidence that I flagged National’s intention to review immigration policy this year at Orewa, and now Labour has announced restructuring today.”, and was this comment, and prior work by the National Party, in any way related to the review that was agreed to between the Labour-led Government and New Zealand First after the last election?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I can confirm that that member’s party has played a constructive role in policy development and stands in complete contrast to the “Donny come lately” approach of the Opposition.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I simply ask whether you are going to allow that final statement to stand. The statement was, of course, made by the Minister who is proving himself to be the leash for Winston Peters, who is the poodle.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I think the question and answer were in order eventually.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I ask you to get Mr Brownlee to withdraw and apologise for that comment. For a start, it is an abuse of the Standing Orders to raise a point of order and then add that to it, as well as being insulting. I could call him “bovver boy”, or a whole lot of words, and I will, if he keeps it up. You will invite disorder in the House if he is allowed to get away with that.

Madam SPEAKER: The member has taken offence at a term and the convention is that the member who uttered the offence withdraws and apologises, so we can proceed with the business of the House. [Interruption] I have ruled on it, please. Let us settle this one. [Interruption] If we could all, please, just settle and concentrate. As I understand it, the Rt Hon Winston Peters took offence at a comment that was made about him. Therefore the convention of the House in those instances is that the member withdraws and apologises.

Gerry Brownlee: I withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: Now we have another point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry, you have to go in the queue. Is this a point of order?

Gerry Brownlee: You did not deal with it.

Madam SPEAKER: No the member was on his feet with a point of order. I will get around to you all with your points of order. [Interruption] No, I am sorry, I have ruled on that.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table a copy of a National Party press release in which Dr Don Brash stated he was pleased that Labour is addressing—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table a transcript of a press release by National Party immigration spokesman Lockwood Smith that describes it as fantastic—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table a transcript of an interview with Dr Lockwood Smith in which he says he has no objection at all to the document.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table a press release by the Rt Hon Winston Peters where he stated that he was not sure if National was coming or going on the issue.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Gerry Brownlee: Talking about coming and going, I seek leave to table a photograph of David Cunliffe wearing a wetsuit the wrong way round—

Madam SPEAKER: I assume that is not your point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: —however, that would be trifling with the House and I do not want to do that.

Madam SPEAKER: Would you please settle. Now, we will come to the point of order.

Gerry Brownlee: Notwithstanding the fact that I did not make a single comment that—[Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Just settle please, so that we can hear the member.

Gerry Brownlee: So, in my point of order they are allowed to stay if they interrupt?

Madam SPEAKER: No, everyone has been interrupting, so all members are on their final warning. We need to get through this question time with a modicum of order.

Gerry Brownlee: Notwithstanding the fact that I did offend Mr Peters and apologised for that, there was substance to the point of order I raised and I think you need to take some action in that regard.

Madam SPEAKER: Could you please repeat the point of order you raised.

Gerry Brownlee: The point of order was that Mr Cunliffe made an extremely unparliamentary and inappropriate comment at the end of his answer to that question for which he should withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: I am not sure I can remember what the comment was, actually. Did you make such an inappropriate comment, Mr Cunliffe? If you did, would you please withdraw and apologise so we can move on.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I withdraw and apologise. I seek leave to table a photograph of that member fitting into a wetsuit.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you very much. Well, I must say: “One-all”. Now Mr Hide has the next point of order. He has been on his feet. [Interruption] You can, after Mr Hide has made his point of order. Now please, silence.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I just ask you to reflect over the adjournment about people’s sensitivities and the nature of this House. We have had a situation this week where you ruled that it is out of order to laugh because laughter is an interjection. Now we have had a ruling from you that a member can take offence because he was called a poodle. I ask you to reflect on the fact that right through the last parliamentary term, I do not think a day went by when the Rt Hon Winston Peters did not accuse Peter Dunne and the United Future party of being poodles. He endlessly held up signs declaring “poodle power”, laughed all the way through United Future’s contribution to anything, and, now that he is actually showing what it is to be—

Madam SPEAKER: Please be succinct, Mr Hide.

Rodney Hide: —a small, diminished, inconsequential poodle, he decides to take umbrage—

Madam SPEAKER: This is a speech, not a point of order.

Rodney Hide: It is a point of order.

Madam SPEAKER: The Standing Orders requires that members give points of order succinctly.

Rodney Hide: I am asking you, Madam Speaker, to reflect on what will become of this Parliament if we cannot laugh because we might offend Mr Peters, and cannot use the name of any particular dog or any other animal because it might offend Mr Peters, and if, during debates in this Parliament, we all have to tiptoe around on eggshells, because the Rt Hon Winston Peters, who props up this ragtag Government, might be offended.

Madam SPEAKER: The member will be seated. I do not want to hear any more conversation on this. I am always happy to reflect on what members say.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: The member is coming close to trifling with the House. We need to move on with the business of the House.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: With respect, my point of order is this: I objected to a point of order being taken by Mr Brownlee, whereupon he added those words in. In the normal course of debate I would not have objected, but he cannot get away with it in a point of order. That is my point of order. The witless bloke over there does not understand that.

Madam SPEAKER: That matter has now been ruled on and settled.

Agent Orange—Joint Working-group

7. JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: Does he stand by his statement that: “This Government encouraged submissions to the Health Committee, and agreed to the joint working-group comprising representatives of the Ex-Vietnam Services Association, the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association, and officials from the office of the Ministry of Defence and Veterans Affairs New Zealand to address the concerns.”; if so, why?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs): In reply to question No. 12 on 23 March 2006, my answer as recorded in Hansard reads: “office of the Ministry of Defence and Veterans Affairs New Zealand”. It should have read: “offices of the Ministers of Defence and Veterans’ Affairs”. It was a minor correction. The answer to the question is yes, because this Labour-led Government has accepted for the first time that our service personnel were exposed to a toxic environment in Viet Nam, and have set up a joint working-group so that about 700 veterans can make submissions to it.

Judith Collins: Has he read all five pages of the briefing to the incoming Minister, written by Veterans Affairs, which states in respect of the joint working-group: “Veterans Affairs New Zealand is not involved in this group.”, and why is he now claiming it is?

Hon RICK BARKER: With that minor correction—either a slip of the tongue, or of recording, I would say the answer is accurate. What I would say is lamentable is that this is a very serious situation. We are attempting to undergo here a healing process, and it is very lamentable that Opposition politicians are trying to nitpick in a petty way over an issue when we should be treating it with a great deal of seriousness.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Minister received comment from Viet Nam veterans contrasting this Government’s acknowledgment of their exposure to Agent Orange with the literally decades of denial of that fact by a National Government that sent the veterans to Viet Nam, failed to acknowledge their service there, and refused to acknowledge the fact that they had been exposed to Agent Orange over years, over decades?

Hon RICK BARKER: I would like to put on the record of the House that the response to the joint working-group has been overwhelmingly positive. People have appreciated the opportunity to have their concerns aired directly. I would also echo the point made by the Hon Phil Goff that it will be to the everlasting shame of National that it entered into a misconceived war, and, worse still, sent our soldiers there, in harm’s way, inadequately equipped and inadequately clothed, and entered into decades of denial.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Seeing that Judith Collins has put the issue of political integrity into the arena here, does the Minister recall who cancelled the class action funding for Operation Grapple veterans, arranged in 1997 by New Zealand First and then changed in 1999? Which party in power went back on its word on that arrangement?

Judith Collins: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member who has just resumed his seat is a longstanding member. He understands, surely, that he is supposed to ask a question with a question word. Surely you should call him to account for this matter.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it would be preferable if all members did ask questions with a question word and refrained from prefacing their questions with other comments. But I will ask the Minister to address the substance of the question.

Hon RICK BARKER: In response to the Rt Hon Winston Peters, I can confirm that another layer of National’s shame is the back-down and refusal to fund what should have been done. It was, again, a U-turn. Those people are trying to politicise something on which we should be trying to engage in a process of healing.

Judith Collins: What assurances can he give the veterans, members of the joint working-group, that their report does not have to reflect Government concerns?

Hon RICK BARKER: The best surety I can give on that is the make-up of the joint working-group, which has representatives of the ex - Viet Nam veterans and the membership of the RSA. They are people of integrity and I will trust them to bring back a report. I would hope that the Opposition would stop trying to politicise a process that should be about healing.

Judith Collins: Does the Minister accept that the joint working-group was set up in response to the open letter to the Prime Minister signed by 724 veterans or their families, who are deeply disappointed with the Government’s pathetic response to the Health Committee’s report?

Hon RICK BARKER: What I can say is that this Government is the first Government to recognise that our Viet Nam veterans were in a toxic environment—an acceptance that the National Government denied over and over again. I can confirm that this is the first Government in decades that has seriously addressed the concerns of Viet Nam veterans. National should be deeply ashamed of its record of decades of denial, and apologise to this Parliament and to every Viet Nam veteran.

Dr Don Brash: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My colleague Judith Collins asked a very straightforward question. The Minister in no sense addressed that question. I think you should direct him to do so.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the member is right. Would the Minister please try to address the specific question that related to the veterans’ concerns, as I remember it.

Hon RICK BARKER: I can confirm that, as a process of resolving this issue, the Government accepted the report of the Health Committee and followed it up with setting up a joint working-group in response to the concerns of Viet Nam veterans over decades, which is decades of denial by National.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that in joint meetings we had with the veterans, they were very pleased that the Government had responded positively in the way it did, and what the veterans really despised was the party political point-scoring by those who were originally responsible for sending them to Viet Nam, but who never acknowledged their service?

Hon RICK BARKER: I can, indeed, confirm that. The Viet Nam veterans are indeed very appreciative of the opportunity for their stories to be told. It is, I can confirm, lamentable that the National Party is trying to politicise a process that should be one of healing. Judith Collins should be deeply ashamed of her petty politics.

Judith Collins: Will he now guarantee to Viet Nam veterans and their families that the joint working-group’s report will be released to the public unedited by the Government?

Hon RICK BARKER: Yes.

Hone Harawira: Ka tautoko ia i ngā mōrehu o ngā pakanga i te pātai ki te Minita Whakapāoho, he aha ai i whakakāhoretia e ia te tono pūtea a Whakaata Māori ki te whakapāoho i te Hokowhitu-a-Tū, ā, ki te whakapāoho anō hoki i te rā whakamaumaharatanga mō rātou o Ahitereiria me Aotearoa, arā, te Rā o Anzac i te mea, he kaupapa nui, he kaupapa whakaharahara mō te katoa o Aotearoa ēnei kaupapa e rua?

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

[Will he on behalf of the veterans ask the Minister of Broadcasting for an explanation as to why a funding application from Māori Television to New Zealand On Air was declined to broadcast the Māori Battalion, and then another to broadcast Anzac Day commemorations, both of which programmes have huge significance for a nationwide audience?]

Madam SPEAKER: This Minister, unfortunately, has no responsibility for broadcasting, so it is not possible for him to answer that question.

Hone Harawira: The question was to ask this Minister whether he would be prepared to ask the Minister of Broadcasting.

Madam SPEAKER: I am trying to be helpful. However, the question does relate to Viet Nam veterans. That is the primary purpose of the question, and around that should be the supplementary questions. This is on a totally different tangent. Perhaps the member would like to change the question. I will allow one more go.

Hone Harawira: Could the Minister, having told us that all the Viet Nam veterans were so happy and overjoyed with the response of the Government and the joint working-group, tell the House why many, many Māori ex - Viet Nam veterans are disappointed that the joint working-group and the Government are not prepared to take this matter to any of the marae throughout the country?

Hon RICK BARKER: I tell the member that the veterans have expressed support for the process, but I would also have to say that for many the jury is still out until they hear what is in the report and the Government’s response to it. In terms of where the joint working-group met, that was over to the joint working-group. It is not my responsibility. The working-group is independent; it makes its own decisions on how it operates, and that is as it should be.

Deaf New Zealanders—Barriers to Information and Services

8. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister for Disability Issues: What action is the Government taking to reduce barriers to information and services currently faced by deaf New Zealanders?

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues): I am pleased to announce the third reading and expected passage of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill set down for this afternoon, confirming New Zealand Sign Language as an official language. This will represent a significant milestone for the Deaf community, which has spent 20 years lobbying for recognition of its language and culture.

Lynne Pillay: How will New Zealand Sign Language reduce the barriers to information and services for deaf New Zealanders?

Hon RUTH DYSON: The immediate practical effect of the bill, once passed, will be to provide people with the right to use and access New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings, including in court. The bill also sets out principles to guide Government departments in their use of New Zealand Sign Language.

Tertiary Education—Senior Citizens

9. PANSY WONG (National) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does he stand by his statement: “We have already made significant progress in improving quality and increasing participation in the tertiary education sector.” in regard to senior citizens; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister for Tertiary Education): I am not aware of any such statement made specifically in regard to senior citizens.

Pansy Wong: Is the Minister aware of the practice of some private training enterprises of offering cash-back rewards to migrant senior citizen students of as much as $3,000, as an incentive for them to draw down student loans to pay for fees of as much as $9,000, and is that what he meant by increasing participation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, and I fail to see what that has got to do specifically with senior citizens.

Pansy Wong: How does the Minister explain the doubling in the number of senior citizens with student loans enrolling in English language courses from 725 in 2004 to 1,564 in 2005, and is he concerned that the kind of cash-back enticement outlined in my previous question is leading our senior citizens to be burdened with debt that some have little prospect of repaying?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The answer to the first part of the question is immigration. The answer to the second part of the question is that one of the slightly stranger features of the student loan scheme is that once one reaches a certain age, in effect one does not have to pay the loan back.

Pansy Wong: Has the Minister’s attention been drawn to complaints made to StudyLink in Chinese and English about this issue, and the lack of response from StudyLink; if so, how can we be assured that Ministers and their departments take problems like this seriously?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, but if the member would care to take it up with me, I will certainly take it up with the appropriate agencies, as I have done with one or two other elements of obvious attempts to rort the student loan scheme.

Pansy Wong: Can the Minister assure us, now that he has been made aware of this problem and of the fact that 70 percent of senior citizens with student loans are learning English at tertiary institutes, that he will review alternative and more appropriate ways of providing English language lessons for senior citizens, to avoid their being burdened with hefty student loans?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have to say I now find the member’s questions rather confusing. On the one hand she is asking me to make these courses available free; on the other hand she is complaining that we are making loans available for them.

Pansy Wong: I seek leave to table a letter from the AIS St Helens institution to StudyLink that states it refused to refund to a student a portion of the student’s StudyLink fee as a cash reward for studying with the institution.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Pansy Wong: I seek leave to table the amount of student loans incurred by senior citizens—those aged 60 years and above—which has doubled from 2002 to 2005, with the total amount of student loans incurred by senior citizens being—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Pansy Wong: I seek leave to table the answer to a parliamentary written question showing that StudyLink dismissed complaints with regard to that issue, in respect of complaints made both in Chinese and in English, relating—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table information in respect of a chartered flight arrangement between Auckland and Shanghai arranged by someone very closely connected to someone in this House, where three planeloads of tourists were left in Shanghai and never received any compensation at all.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

China—Human Rights

10. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Prime Minister: What human rights issues, if any, has the Government raised with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao during his visit to New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The general matter of human rights was raised in the ministerial discussions this morning.

Keith Locke: What concerns has the Government expressed to the Chinese Premier during his visit regarding protection of the political, cultural, and religious rights of the Tibetan people?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: As I said, the general matter was traversed during discussions this morning. I am not aware—obviously, I have not had time to be briefed by the Prime Minister—of any private discussions so far today.

Keith Locke: Did the Government discuss the Iranian nuclear programme with the Chinese Premier, and did it agree with him that the best course is dialogue with Iran, not threats of sanctions or military actions as being pushed for by the United States?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: In the limited time available we traversed issues of more central importance to New Zealand.

Sue Kedgley: Why will the Government not come out publicly and call on the Chinese Government to engage in a political dialogue with the Dalai Lama to bring genuine democracy and autonomy for the Tibetan people; is it because this Government is not prepared to do anything—not even to raise our voice on behalf of the Tibetan people—that might ruffle the feathers of the Chinese Government and stand in the way of our craven pursuit of a free-trade deal with China; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Those matters in relation to Tibet have been raised many times with the Chinese Government by the Minister of Foreign of Affairs. We do note that some progress has been made by the Chinese in the civil rights area compared with, say, 25 years ago. We certainly do believe that a free-trade agreement with China would be in the interests of nearly all New Zealanders.

Disability Sector—Shortcomings of Care

11. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato) to the Minister of Health: Will he confirm that he has now committed to a full-scale inquiry into shortcomings of care within the disability sector, or will his inquiry be confined only to shortcomings of care from the disability provider Focus 2000?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Neither of the above.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why has he confined his formal inquiry just to Focus 2000, when the New Zealand Assembly of People with Disabilities says that currently systemic abandonment and neglect exist throughout the sector, and when over the last year there have been further allegations and evidence of poor care and sexual and physical abuse at other organisations, such as Spectrum Care?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I disagree with the diagnosis of the Assembly of People with Disabilities, but it is a matter of fact that the Ministry of Health at any one time has a number of investigations under way. At the moment it has a number of investigations into Focus 2000, and one or two into one or two other places, as well.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why has nothing effective been done to improve care at Spectrum Care, an organisation that received a damning audit in June 2005, which revealed only one out of 14 staff had completed the last sign-off page of the orientation induction manual and there was no documented evidence of employee medication competency?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have with me the audit the member has referred to. It shows that Spectrum Care failed on, I think, six out of 27 counts. It passed on 21 out of the 27. Indeed, there is a particular issue concerning a particular gentleman at Spectrum Care that is under close review by the ministry, by the Taikura Trust, and by the gentleman’s court-appointed welfare guardian today.

Dr Paul Hutchison: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister has not answered a very specific question, which asked why nothing effective has been done to improve the care at Spectrum Care.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the Minister did actually address the question. The Standing Orders do not require that a specific yes or no answer be given, or that there be specific answers to questions.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Does the Minister consider it high-quality and appropriate care to continue to have no medical or nursing professionals—in fact, no one with any formal training at all—looking after five non-verbal, intellectually disabled, high-complex needs men, as has been happening for years at 8 George Street, Papakura under Spectrum Care; if so, why?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The court-appointed welfare guardian for one of the people at that address is of the view that certain employees should be moved out of the George Street facility and others moved in. Those matters are under discussion with the Taikura Trust today and will be discussed with Spectrum Care on Monday.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What score would he give this Government’s mismanagement of the disability sector, given his score of 5½ for the health sector; how much less than 5½ would he give for his management of the disability sector?

Hon PETE HODGSON: A score way higher than I would give the member when he tried to be the Opposition spokesperson on health, which, frankly, is something he has not decided to give up on yet.

Ambulance Services—Provincial Areas

12. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Health: Does he have confidence that ambulance services in provincial areas are appropriately resourced to ensure community safety; if not, why not?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I do, and so does Mr Pennycock, the regional ambulance officer in Wanganui, who has said publicly that the city is adequately resourced and does not have gaping holes in services.

Chester Borrows: How can he have confidence, when last month in Wanganui the failure of a recently installed dispatch system meant that an ambulance was dispatched 20 minutes late, by which time a rest home resident had died from choking, and when conscientious paramedics had complained for 6 weeks that calls were being missed and nothing was done?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am not aware of that instance, but I can tell the member that the ambulance communication project for the country will be rolled out on 1 July this year. This will seriously, significantly improve communications with ambulances.

Darren Hughes: When did the issue of ambulance services in Wanganui first come to public attention?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Most recently about 4 months ago to the day, at which point Mr Borrows said he was going to take it up with me. Apart from a few parliamentary questions, I am still waiting.

Dr Pita Sharples: He aha i āta whakaaro ai ngā tohunga kaimahi me ngā āpiha pukumahi o te Rōpū Waka Tūroro ki Whanganui ki te kore rātou e haere ki te mahi, kia whakaatu ai ki te ao i ngā raruraru kua tau mai ki runga i a rātou me tō rātou hapori; ā, he aha he mahi māna, mā te Minita ki te whakatikatika i ō rātou āwangawanga?

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

[Why have the professional and dedicated officers of the local St John Ambulance in Wanganui seriously contemplated going on strike to highlight the vulnerability of their community and themselves; and what action will he, the Minister, take to address their concerns?]

Hon PETE HODGSON: The Government pays St John Ambulance and other ambulance providers money to provide contracted services, and how that money is distributed is substantially up to the provider. It is a matter of fact that the amount of money paid by this Government for ambulance services in New Zealand has risen by 17 percent over 3 years—not the sort of increase that one could come up with if one was in a party that had large tax cuts on its mind, as the National Party does. One can spend money around here but once. One spends it either on services or on tax cuts.

Dr Pita Sharples: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The question asked: what action will the Minister be taking on this matter?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Shall I say something more?

Madam SPEAKER: Yes. I thought you had addressed the question.

Hon PETE HODGSON: Let me explain to the member that the Government sets standards for ambulance services. It provides money to ambulance services to provide those services. How the money is distributed, one town to another, is up to the ambulance services involved.

Chester Borrows: Does the Minister believe that the people of Wanganui should be confident in the resourcing of their local ambulance services, when last month in Wanganui a single-crew ambulance officer was unable to manage a quadriplegic patient who was choking and turning blue, and who would have died if another vehicle had not been able to respond?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I am delighted another vehicle was able to respond.

Chester Borrows: Does the Minister still stand by his comment in the Manawatu Standard on 6 September 2005: “… there is no intention to double crew in all situations, only emergencies where more than one officer is necessary.”; or does he accept that an emergency service, such as an ambulance service, by definition is one where preparation should always be made for the best response to an emergency, or should people ring a taxi in the first instance?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The ambulance communication project, to be rolled out nationally from 1 July, will enable a degree of triaging, so that with some certainty we can send the right people in the right quantity to the right place at the right time.

Chester Borrows: I seek leave to table an article from the Manawatu Standard where the Minister of Health said, as the then Associate Minister of Health, that he had no intention to double-crew ambulances.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that article. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Privilege

Television New Zealand—Former Chief Executive

Consideration of Interim Report of Privileges Committee

SIMON POWER (Chairperson of the Privileges Committee): I move, That this House—

(1) resolves that the actions taken by Television New Zealand against Mr Ian Fraser following Mr Fraser’s appearance before the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 14 December 2005 constitute a contempt of the House,

(2) orders Television New Zealand to make a formal written apology to the House for those actions, and

(3) orders Television New Zealand to pay a fine of $1,000.

On the delivery of this, the second but first full report from the Privileges Committee in this Parliament, I take the opportunity to thank all members of that committee for their participation in this matter. The committee was required to meet at odd hours, and I am grateful to its members for their approach, and for the seriousness with which they dealt with this particular matter. The Privileges Committee has historically been a judicious and apolitical committee, and I can report to the House today that this position continues.

In respect of the report, I would like to begin with some general comments, then move to the specifics of the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) issue itself. This report is significant for three reasons. The first is that it sends an unequivocal message to State-owned enterprises and public organisations that Parliament will treat with the utmost seriousness any behaviour that impedes the proper process of accountability to the elected representatives of the people. That is a general warning. Secondly, this is the first time in 103 years that the Privileges Committee of the New Zealand House of Representatives is recommending that a fine be imposed. This reaffirms Parliament’s rights in this regard, and, although token in quantum, we note that future breaches of privilege may incur a higher fine. A line in the sand has now been drawn. State-owned enterprises and Crown agencies stand warned that Parliament will assert its rights, and future shortcomings by those organisations will come at a cost. The Privileges Committee has run out of wet bus tickets.

Thirdly, a further report of the committee will be forthcoming on the general question of protection of witnesses before select committees, and the Privileges Committee has made clear that a question remains as to whether it is realistic for the House or witnesses to assume that no consequences to relationships, at all, will arise from their giving evidence to a select committee. As the report states, the extent of protection afforded by the House requires further inquiry by the committee.

I turn now to the specific issues relating to TVNZ. Standing Order 400(w) provides as an example of contempt any “disadvantaging” of a witness before a committee of the House. On 7 December 2005 Mr Ian Fraser appeared before the Finance and Expenditure Committee for the financial review of Television New Zealand, as outgoing chief executive. On 14 December 2005 Mr Fraser appeared again as part of a Finance and Expenditure Committee inquiry. It was at that particular meeting that Mr Fraser made some comments that were critical of the board and its members. On 22 December, Mr Boyce, Chairman of TVNZ, wrote to Mr Fraser saying that his comments amounted to serious misconduct and that it would be inappropriate for him to continue to represent TVNZ for the balance of the notice period he was serving out since his resignation. The chairperson of TVNZ, after Mr Fraser wrote to the Finance and Expenditure Committee complaining about the board’s actions, withdrew the board’s comments about misconduct and apologised to the Finance and Expenditure Committee if it had “inadvertently” offended the committee as a result of its action.

It was at that point that you, Madam Speaker, referred the matter to the Privileges Committee for its consideration, and the Privileges Committee has found that the letter of 22 December does amount to a contempt, as it disadvantaged Mr Fraser on account of his evidence given to the Finance and Expenditure Committee during that inquiry. The report does note that poor legal advice is not an excuse for the breach of the Standing Orders.

I turn briefly to the wider issues relating to the protection of witnesses. This is a matter that I suspect will occupy some time for the committee in the near future. The committee intends to continue to examine this wider action, and the extent to which any action may be taken against somebody providing evidence at a select committee when action taken against that person as a result of that appearance creates a difficulty. The matter is not clear cut. There is a question of balance, and it may well be necessary for the House to develop some principles, some guidance, and possibly even some clarification around the Standing Orders on this matter.

We do consider this to be an issue of significance to anyone who appears before a select committee. With this in mind, in our final report on this issue that you, Madam Speaker, have referred to the committee, we will consider whether, or how far, this protection should extend, in particular to those witnesses who attempt to use privilege to their own advantage or to make allegations they cannot or will not substantiate.

The report, in concluding, makes very clear that the Privileges Committee of this Parliament is not prepared merely to repeat its past warnings to State-owned enterprises and Crown agencies regarding their obligations to this Parliament and to its committees. The words contained in the report best sum up the committee’s feelings, where it states: “We intend to leave those who serve on the boards or in management of such organisations in no doubt that Parliament will treat with the utmost seriousness any behaviour that impedes the proper process of accountability to the elected representatives of the people.”

While we note that Mr Boyce, as the Chairman of TVNZ, did tender an apology, the committee did not believe that this was sufficient to put an end to the matter. The Privileges Committee recommends that the contempt of TVNZ be punished by requiring from the board of TVNZ a formal written apology to this House and further be punished by imposing on the board of TVNZ a fine of $1,000.

MARYAN STREET (Labour): The Privileges Committee indeed found that a breach of privilege occurred on this occasion. We cannot allow any witness to come before a select committee, give evidence, and then be disadvantaged in any way by having done so. That is the import of Standing Order 400(w). That happened, and it is accordingly a breach of privilege. It needs to be noted as such, and that happens on page 6 of the interim report of the Privileges Committee.

As the previous speaker noted, the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) chairman has apologised to the committee for an inadvertent breach of privilege, indicating that it was never the company’s intention to undermine the workings of Parliament. Indeed, as the Privileges Committee went on to note in the report, we would not expect that it would have happened otherwise than inadvertently. It would not be our expectation that such a thing would ever be done on purpose, and to that extent we accept that it was inadvertent.

But a key point here is the extent to which it is reasonable to assume that board members will be familiar enough with the Standing Orders to factor that knowledge into their employment relations management. The committee’s findings require, however, that TVNZ, and indeed all Crown entities, ensure that they comply with Parliament’s requirements and, in particular, the requirements of the Standing Orders. That issue may go to future action and the future training of boards, and it is important that a lesson is learnt here.

I know from my own experience in governance positions, having been trained in the exercise of governance responsibilities and even in taking into account the responsibility of appearing before select committees—as I have had to do from time to time in governance roles—the relationship with a select committee is taken very seriously in that training. But the Standing Orders are never known as intimately by people outside of this House as by those within it. However, as the earlier speaker said, the failure of advice to people cannot be a complete exoneration. So these findings do raise issues of future awareness for State-owned enterprises, Crown entities, and others who may appear before select committees from time to time.

What these findings do not do is go to the heart of TVNZ’s success as a broadcaster. I think it is important to make that point, even though the point at issue here is the findings of the Privileges Committee. TVNZ is a successful broadcaster. It has the best ratings of any public broadcaster in the world, and, in fact, in recent times both a new chairman and a new chief executive officer have been appointed to TVNZ. We expect, in the light of this Privileges Committee report, that the board and the company will fulfil their roles responsibly, adhering at all times to the statutory requirements of a Crown entity company, including the requirements of Parliament and its committees. We hope that that will be the behaviour of all such Crown entities in the future, learning, as undoubtedly they will do, from the findings of the Privileges Committee. We look forward to the continued success of Television New Zealand as a broadcaster.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays): Madam Speaker, I first of all welcome the fact that you are in the Chair to hear this debate; you recognise the importance it has for Parliament and, in particular, the Privileges Committee, which is often referred to as being the most powerful committee of Parliament.

Dr Wayne Mapp: Usually with irony.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As Dr Mapp notes, that expression has been used with some irony in the past. I am pleased to see that the committee is on the road to showing that it expects a higher standard of behaviour from those who are obliged to report to the elected representatives of the owners of those sorts of businesses.

I thank the chairman of the committee, Mr Simon Power, not only for the clear exposition of the committee’s findings for the House today but also for the way in which the committee was chaired. It is no mean undertaking to get so many quite adventurous members of Parliament, who have their own views around a Privileges Committee table, to agree on a report of this nature. I commend him for the way in which he chaired the committee during those quite difficult hearings.

I welcome the report of the committee, because I am one who has for some time been engaged in pursuing the odd Crown entity or State-owned enterprise that has fallen short of its obligations to Parliament and to the select committees of Parliament. As the Privileges Committee report states, there has been a pattern of insufficient behaviour in the past—loose behaviour—that has required the committee to make a decision that is fundamentally about whether this place will ever take itself seriously in respect of the accountability of publicly owned businesses.

The decision that has been made to impose a fine, and to acknowledge the token nature of the fine—because it is the first time in 103 years that such a step has been taken—is the right, measured response to the circumstances in which we find ourselves. A step had to be taken. As Mr Power has said, a line had to been drawn in the sand. But we had to be careful to ensure that one organisation or one group of individuals was not being unduly penalised, because the Privileges Committee in the past has been inclined to extend some generosity to State enterprises, and simply to accept even a grudging apology as being an end to the matter.

So I think the Privileges Committee has got it right. There will be critics who say that $1,000 is not a significant fine for an entity the size of Television New Zealand (TVNZ), but I think that to go significantly further than that would have been to put TVNZ in the position of being, to some extent, a victim of the rather generous attitude that the Privileges Committee has shown in the past.

The report refers to the 2002 New Zealand Post case, which Mr Hide will remember with some interest, because he and I were involved as members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the time; indeed, we made the referral to the Speaker that brought the matter to the Privileges Committee. What had happened was the senior executives of New Zealand Post had told a barefaced lie to the select committee. The Privileges Committee was inclined to accept an apology. I am bound to say I thought its decision in that case was not only generous but extraordinarily light, and to some extent it has contributed to the sort of problem we have had in the ensuing 2 or 3-year period. But in that case the committee did, at least, lay down a warning. It did, at least, remind all State-owned enterprises and Crown companies of their obligations to report and account to the select committees of the House.

Faced with the clear warning that was contained in the 2002 New Zealand Post Privileges Committee report, the Privileges Committee in 2006 had no option but to take the next logical step to ensure that at least some authority was restored to this Parliament and to the committees that report to this Parliament.

The report of the committee makes it clear that this is not the only difficulty that has occurred in respect of TVNZ. Although the committee focused merely upon whether there had been a contempt or a breach in this particular case, it rightly recalled the previous difficulties with securing TVNZ’s cooperation in the supply of information to select committees. As someone who has sat frequently on the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and sometimes on the Commerce Committee—in an examination of TVNZ, in particular—I say that particular organisation has had a really bad attitude, which has led, inevitably, to the finding that is being reported to the House today.

In recent years, I am sad to say, it has been my experience that the very senior executives and the chair of TVNZ have had a grudging and minimalist attitude to complying with their obligations to supply information to the select committee that is supposed to mark with a tick or a cross its performance for the year under review. The TVNZ chairman, and some of those who have reported with him, have been disdainful of those obligations. That disdain, and that grudging and minimalist attitude to compliance, is what has got them into hot water on this occasion.

The committee, in making its findings, has drawn attention to the fact that ignorance is no excuse. It has made the further point that the company has a longstanding general counsel who is on a large salary specifically to advise the board and the senior management on their compliance with obligations to Parliament. That particular gentleman has been found to be seriously wanting on this occasion, and I am sad to say to the House that he has been at the root of many of the difficulties that this Parliament and its select committees have had with that organisation in recent years. The law firm Bell Gully is also singled out for mention in the appendices to the report—and it is rightly singled out for mention. Surely, it should have turned its mind to the question of privilege when giving advice on a matter that was before a select committee. Clearly, Bell Gully let its client down on this occasion.

I want to give a more general warning today to the major law firms that make very substantial profits out of doing work for State-owned enterprises and Crown companies. Those law firms need to be aware that if they are engaged in advising State-owned organisations on how they might avoid their obligations to account to Parliament or select committees, then the Privileges Committee will mention them in dispatches when it finds that their advice has led to bad conduct—indeed, in this case, to a very serious breach of the Standing Orders of Parliament. I say to the internal legal advisers of Crown entities and State-owned enterprises, as well as to the external law firms, that this particular report has a message for them. In future, I urge those organisations to take much more seriously their obligations not just to provide advice to their clients but to make sure their clients—those publicly owned bodies—are aware of their obligations to this place.

I join others in welcoming the report. I think it is a milestone in terms of Parliament’s ability to exert its authority over the bodies that are owned by the taxpayers of New Zealand. It is the next step forward in improving behaviour that has become loose and undisciplined in recent times. I welcome the fact that the Privileges Committee, which represents parties from across Parliament, has been able to bring a unanimous finding here. It is a finding that will benefit not just Parliament but also the public of New Zealand, which ultimately owns the businesses that are at issue.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): The Green Party strongly supports this report. I was able to participate in some of the Privileges Committee discussions on this issue, and I found them to be most illuminating. Some people are probably wondering what all the fuss is about, and why the New Zealand Parliament is so exercised about Ian Fraser’s row with Television New Zealand (TVNZ). The answer is that important issues about our Parliament and the way it operates are at stake here.

The most important of those issues, in the Green Party’s view, is the issue of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech in Parliament, including that right for submitters who appear before select committees, is a very ancient and important right at the heart of our democracy. Let us face it—without freedom of speech in our Parliament, we would not have a functioning democracy. So it is vital for the health of our democracy that we jealously protect freedom of speech in Parliament, in this House, and for all witnesses who appear before our select committees. That is why we have taken this issue so seriously. If witnesses appearing before Parliament are not able to express their views freely and without fear of punishment or retribution, Parliament ultimately would not be able to hold Government, and Government corporations and departments, to account.

In the Green Party’s view, TVNZ’s behaviour, in punishing a witness who gave evidence it did not like before a select committee inquiry, amounted not only to contempt of Parliament but also to an attack on freedom of speech. The fact is that if TVNZ took exception to Mr Fraser’s comments, which it obviously did, it could have used the natural justice provisions that exist in our Parliament, and it ought to have asked to make a further submission rebutting Mr Fraser’s issues, point by point. What it should not have done was turn to the employee and punish that employee for his remarks. I think that if we had allowed TVNZ’s behaviour in this instance to go unchecked, it would have had a chilling effect on freedom of speech, and on the behaviour or willingness of witnesses appearing before select committees to tell the truth. Basically, why would witnesses be prepared to appear before a select committee and give their honest opinions and views, if they felt they could be sacked or punished by their employer for doing so? I therefore think that it was very important the Privileges Committee took a strong stance on this view and found that TVNZ had committed contempt of the House.

The Green Party strongly supports the punishments. We do not think they are excessive. They send a message but they are not over-the-top. We hope that the Privileges Committee report on its actions will send a very, very clear message to witnesses appearing before select committees, and also to Government departments and organisations, that any attempt to intimidate, disadvantage, or hinder a witness from giving evidence, or to otherwise undermine their freedom of speech, will not be tolerated by this House.

It is great that the Privileges Committee has ruled unanimously on this matter, but I think there are other matters that we need to turn to in terms of our ability to hold Government to account. I was surprised to learn while on the Privileges Committee that our Parliament and select committees cannot request a Minister to appear before a select committee and answer questions we may have in relation to that committee. I think we need to look at the ability to hold Ministers and the Crown to account, as well as the ability to protect witnesses who appear before us. The Health Committee has asked a Minister to appear before it on a certain matter. So far the Minister has failed to do so, and I believe we need to look at that matter, along with our finding here today. It is a matter of being able to hold Government to account.

In conclusion, we believe we are upholding an extremely important issue—that of freedom of speech. That is why we have taken this issue so seriously, and why we have so strongly supported the unanimous committee report on the matter.

Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future): United Future strongly supports the Privileges Committee’s report. In our view, this is less a report about a contempt of Parliament committed by Television New Zealand (TVNZ) and much more a report about the supremacy of Parliament. What it really does, aside from dealing with the particular issues relating to Mr Fraser, is send a signal to all State-owned enterprises, Crown-owned companies, and the like that their ultimate accountability is to Parliament, that their ultimate authority derives from Parliament, and that they are responsible, in turn, to Parliament.

The practice that has developed over recent years—to which Mr McCully alluded—is one that I am familiar with, and in a number of the instances I was chairing the Finance and Expenditure Committee at the time. The first time we had trouble with TVNZ was in the late 1990s. Then along came the New Zealand Post case. Perhaps it was no coincidence that the chairman of both entities was the same person at that stage, who had what can only be described as contempt for Parliament.

But they were not the only instances. I recall a situation where one State-owned enterprise came to a select committee one day to have its annual financial review. Before the chairman sat down he asked the committee: “Is this going to take very long? I’ve got a plane in 45 minutes.” That contemptuous attitude now goes right across the spectrum.

This Privileges Committee hearing was as much about calling to account those cavalier and arrogant people for their behaviour as it was about the contempt committed by TVNZ in respect of its treatment of Mr Fraser. I welcome the fact that the committee has issued an interim report, and has signalled that it intends to do more work on the broader issue, because I think that is one of the key questions that we face as we move forward. Otherwise the process of accountability to Parliament by the enterprises that it has created will become even more perfunctory than it has been to date.

The second point I allude to is that the other group that was on trial through this process was the Privileges Committee itself. It is customary to talk about Parliament’s all-powerful Privileges Committee, but there have been too many instances in recent years where the Privileges Committee’s reports have been akin to the proverbial slap on the back of the hand with the wet bus ticket. Many agencies around this town and individuals who have had the experience of appearing before, and being upbraided by, the committee wear it as a badge of honour. They too were there; they too got slapped over the wrist. This issue was one where the committee needed to be determined, to take a stand, and to make it clear—as I think Mr McCully said, and as I certainly heard Mr Power say at times during the hearings—that it would not, on behalf of Parliament, be trifled with any longer. That brings us to the issue of the penalty that we are recommending be imposed.

As has been said, it is 103 years since Parliament imposed a fine on any individual or organisation. We briefly canvassed the idea of imprisonment, but were advised by the Clerk that in order to imprison someone we actually had to have a cell somewhere on the premises, and apparently we do not. Maybe that is something the Parliamentary Service Commission could look at providing in the future.

More seriously, why a fine of $1,000? I was the one who proposed that measure, my reason was simple, and I am pleased that the committee, in the main, adopted the viewpoint. This was not about punishment in any monetary or punitive sense. This was about sending a signal that we had reached the end of our tether in terms not only of the contemptible behaviour of this organisation, TVNZ, but of others, as well. We wanted to back up that signal with something more than just the customary strong rhetoric that could go away once the dust had settled.

I found it interesting, incidentally and in passing, that Bell Gully should write and say, basically, that it did not check the point through, but as that was not material to the case, could we please leave Bell Gully’s name out of it, because that will affect its reputation. That is an interesting commentary on the way in which the legal profession behaves. I know Mr Finlayson has reason to be aghast at that. Again, it is symptomatic, I think, of the view that a number of agencies have formed about this whole process: the matter is not that serious, they do not need to get too worked up about it, and, if Parliament is to take the matter seriously, they do not want their names brought into it because they might be embarrassed.

Maybe a few of those people have learnt a lesson arising out of this, but it is easy to see the issue in terms of being about just Mr Fraser and the board of TVNZ. I suspect the board was badly served by its internal and external legal advice. I suspect the board was operating in an environment where the proverbial old boy network had said that these things come and go and that the board did not need to get too steamed up about them. Maybe now there might be some recognition more broadly afield about the fact that Parliament is baring its teeth. Parliament is showing that it is master, not just of its own quaint destiny but of the destiny of those agencies as well, and the exercise of accountability takes place accordingly.

I want to applaud the role the chairman of the Privileges Committee took. I thought bringing the committee together in the way he did was a very skilful exercise of his function.

I also draw to the attention of the House some comments made by Mr John Key on the radio this morning, which I thought absolutely summed up the situation. People may postulate as to what the notion of parliamentary accountability is—who is Parliament that people should be accountable to? Mr Key made the point that every publicly listed company in New Zealand is accountable to its shareholders and goes through shareholders’ meetings, which can be quaint, anarchic, unpleasant experiences sometimes. But none the less directors of those companies have to go through those meetings—and wear the funny hat that Mr Shepherd wears at every meeting he seems to attend.

We did not do that in the Privileges Committee, but it is the same sort of notion. This is the annual accountability exercise of State-owned enterprises, and it has to be taken seriously. TVNZ is prime offender No. 1. We have had the instance with New Zealand Post. Over the years many other agencies have pleaded variations on commercial secrecy or of their having had other pressures on time as excuses for not giving answers to Parliament. I hope, as a result of this report, that the message will go forward that this behaviour will no longer be tolerated.

I conclude on this point. Mr Swain, who gave us the benefit of his experiences as Minister for State Owned Enterprises, made at some stage the telling comment that this sort of information about the relationship between State-owned enterprises and select committees and Parliament ought to be handed out in the regular meetings held between the chairs of those agencies and their board members in terms of their learning about the responsibility they undertake. I endorse that view. I hope it is picked up by the present Minister and that he will read the Riot Act to those directors. The only way we will change this culture, aside from the strong words and actions of this Parliament, is by changing the hearts and minds of those directors so that they recognise they have a responsibility, too.

This is an important debate. I am conscious that an even more important one is to follow and I do not want to tarry any longer, but it is necessary to put on the record the strength of feeling across Parliament about this incident. It is seen as an example of the contempt that is repeatedly being committed by many State agencies that think they know better than we do.

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I am very conscious that a lot of people have travelled a long way for the next item in front of the House, so I will be brief.

The ACT party fully endorses this report. I will make only four points, because most of the points I was going to make have been made already. Firstly, this report is no reflection on the staff of Television New Zealand. One thing that is clear to me is that when TVNZ is in the news because of the behaviour of its board and its advisers, the board does not seem to care. But, of course, all the hard-working, conscientious staff who care about their workplace do. I think we in this House should be clear that this is a criticism of the board and the governance of TVNZ, not of TVNZ as a whole.

Secondly, this is a very serious report. It is the first time that the Privileges Committee has recommended a fine in 103 years. The message should go out loud and clear that State-owned enterprises are accountable to the people of New Zealand. They are accountable to the people of New Zealand through this Parliament. That is the process that operates. In my time on the Finance and Expenditure Committee and other select committees, I have been staggered at the idea that State-owned enterprises are totally unaccountable to anyone. The Ministers are busy; they cannot keep up. The cavalier nature with which State-owned enterprises have treated the people of New Zealand in terms of any sense of the accountability they owe has truly shocked me. The Privileges Committee, with the support of the House, will send a very strong message to each and every State-owned enterprise that it is accountable to the people of New Zealand; it is accountable through Parliament.

My third point is about the legal advice that TVNZ gets. Attached to the Privileges Committee report is a letter from Mr Noel Vautier, who has been general counsel for TVNZ for 16 years. That letter highlights the problem. Mr Vautier wrote that he has worked for TVNZ for 16 years and has never really had anything much to do with the Standing Orders. If somebody is general counsel for an organisation, should he or she not have some regard for the rules that apply to the accountability of the organisation? The answer has to be yes. It is clear to me that the TVNZ board and its general counsel have never worried about it. They have treated the people of New Zealand and Parliament with contempt.

Mr Vautier made the point—and I want to pull up Mr Dunne on this—that maybe Ministers or Parliament could provide some material. Maybe they could, but the point is that a high-powered legal counsel does not sit there and say: “I don’t know the rules because no one posted them to me, or ran a seminar.” A legal counsel is paid the big bucks and given the big title to go and find out. We have members in this House who do not have the benefit of legal training, a university education, and those sorts of things. Some of us struggle, but we actually make sure we understand the rules under which we operate. Why can TVNZ’s general counsel not do that? What sort of accountability has been running that the general counsel could make such a statement to the Privileges Committee? It is disgraceful that the board and the general counsel of TVNZ could be so dismissive of any accountability that they would not bother even to acquaint themselves with the Standing Orders. And they actually seem quite proud of it!

Finally, my fourth point is that I acknowledge everyone on the Privileges Committee—well, not quite all, but most, and I think everyone knows what I am referring to here. I make special acknowledgment to the chairman, Mr Simon Power, because he did an outstanding job on a thorny issue. I think he needs to be acknowledged.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau): I rise to speak to this issue today as a member of the Privileges Committee, and also as the Māori Party spokesperson on broadcasting. The concept of privilege is an interesting one for the Māori Party. In fact, it is an interesting one for the whole House to consider, given the advice and the report of the United Nations special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people, and the issue of special privilege. I intend to return to that often during my speech today. The special rapporteur said that the idea that Māori have received undue privilege from Treaty settlements—an idea freely floated in the media and by some politicians—lacks any substance whatsoever.

Mr Ian Fraser’s actions, his subsequent reprimand, and the disciplinary action of the board have been widely reported and debated in the media, at the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and at the Privileges Committee. I do not plan to go into the detail of who said what to whom, but I do wish to speak to the idea that parliamentary privilege should protect those who have been called to appear before select committees. The Māori Party values independence, integrity, and the freedom to contribute to debate. The report from the Privileges Committee refers to the fundamental importance of protecting witnesses. It refers to participation without fear of intimidation or disadvantage, and it also questions whether the actions of Television New Zealand have amounted to “assaulting, threatening, or disadvantaging” Mr Fraser. Those are strong words, but they are not words we have not heard in the Māori community before, and they are not unlike words used by my colleague Mr Te Ururoa Flavell, who mentioned the following comment made by Ngāti Wai elder Hori Te Moanaroa Parata in relation to Crown consultation: “DOC and the Minister think they have been consulting with us. What they have been doing is insulting and almost assaulting us.” So the Māori Party is very aware of assaulting and threatening behaviour.

I remind the House again of the report of the special rapporteur who referred to the coercive relationships between the Crown and Treaty claimants. Threats, coercion, and insults were what Mr Fraser was subjected to, following his appearance before the select committee. Further actions were taken, which the Privileges Committee said amounted to contempt. I now learn that the fine imposed is the first fine to be handed down by the Privileges Committee in 103 years, but I wonder whether a $1,000 fine is not just like a slap with a wet bus ticket. I want to return to that notion of privilege, because I know what a $1,000 fine means to one of my whānau, who on the car-koi down to Parliament got fined 1,000 bucks for supposedly “driving in a manner likely to annoy other people”—not actually annoying anyone, but likely to annoy. I note that in the case of Television New Zealand (TVNZ), the broadcaster was not hauled up before the Privileges Committee because it was likely to be in contempt; it was called to account because it was in contempt.

It seems that there is a dual standard of justice in this country, as quite properly noted by the United Nations special rapporteur. I again remind this House that in a very insightful, intelligent, and factually accurate analysis of the state of Māori and its relationship to the Crown, the special rapporteur itemised the particular concerns he found with the media portrayal of Māori. They include portraying Māori unfairly as having benefits denied to others, referring incorrectly to the level of control Māori have over significant resources, portraying Māori as poor managers—in being either corrupt or financially incompetent—using denigrating and insulting comments about Māori, and highlighting bad news about Māori over good news. I wonder exactly what fine this House would impose on the media for the poor manner in which they have treated Māori issues. I would also ask this House what it would consider to be an appropriate fine for the decades of neglect, deceit, and abuse heaped upon Māori people by successive Governments, and properly recorded by the UN special rapporteur.

Today we try to alert the House to another breach of privilege—the denial of funding for Māori Television by NZ On Air, for programmes designed for a nationwide audience. Apparently, NZ On Air’s response was that it did not believe that a broadcast of commemorations and historical coverage of the war efforts of brave, courageous, and patriotic New Zealanders was worthy of support on Māori Television.

The Māori Party stands by the report of the Privileges Committee, and congratulates it on its ground-breaking decision to protect the right of workers to blow the whistle on bad employment practices, a matter we intend to speak on during debates on other legislation coming before this House. The Māori Party also asks this House whether, in seeking to discipline others for a breach of privilege, it perhaps accepts that the United Nations might be an independent arbiter of our own standards, the decisions our Governments make, and the impacts those decisions have on our own indigenous peoples.

GERRY BROWNLEE (Deputy Leader—National): I think that the previous speaker should be given a commendation for creative use of a speaking opportunity. This debate is about the report of the Privileges Committee. I do not want to prolong the debate, but I do want to make a couple of comments. Firstly, I endorse the comments made by colleagues about Simon Power’s chairmanship of the Privileges Committee.

The committee reached its interim determination very, very quickly, and we are able to move on the interim part of the report with this debate today. I stress that it is an interim report, because there is more work for the committee to do, and there will be more investigations for the committee to carry out. Others have said today that the work of the Privileges Committee essentially underpins the freedom we have in a democracy like ours to speak without constraint in certain circumstances. One of those circumstances is surely when one appears before a select committee of Parliament that is conducting an inquiry. Although we have heard today that various people have pleaded a defence that they did not know about the Standing Orders, others stated that that is no defence in these circumstances.

For anyone who might be sitting on a State board and worried about what this means, it can be best summed up by suggesting that if a person appearing before a select committee does not mislead that select committee, does treat that select committee with some respect, and does not engage in any activity that may undermine or impede the activity of that select committee, then that person will be fine. But if people engage in activities that do undermine and do mislead, and if they generally fail to show the appropriate respect that is due to a committee of Parliament—the representatives of the people—then they will be in trouble.

In that regard, I think I would want to turn one or two comments to the legal counsel for Television New Zealand (TVNZ). He was mentioned by name by Mr Rodney Hide as being Mr Noel Vautier, who has been in the job 16 years, apparently without ever understanding what accountabilities the organisation he offers legal advice to has under law. It seems extraordinary to me that he is still in the job.

I say very clearly that there will be further requests for information from TVNZ. This report is only an interim one, and it would be extremely unwise for TVNZ to fail to fully cooperate with the further requests that will be made of it. It cannot be stressed enough, and it has been stressed by all speakers so far, that the penalty brought down in this case is somewhat less than it might have been had it not been for the long gap between fines imposed by this committee. Also I think there is a consideration here of the fact that TVNZ is re-establishing the board. There is to be a new chairman and there will be new board members, so in that interim period it seemed that the penalties set down by the select committee are most appropriate. But no one in the State sector should underestimate the intention behind the message these penalties send.

I say again to the in-house counsel for TVNZ: “Do not frustrate further attempts to gain access to information that the select committee is rightfully entitled to.”

Dr WAYNE MAPP (National—North Shore): First, Madam Speaker, I acknowledge your presence in the Chamber. This is an important debate and it is right that the Speaker should be chairing it. I also acknowledge my colleagues on the select committee, including the chair. I think that every member of the select committee did their work very carefully and thoroughly and were mindful of the task we had in front of us. We intended to send a very clear signal to State enterprises.

I intend to deal with just two issues. Firstly, what was the breach here; and secondly, what does the punishment of Television New Zealand (TVNZ) mean for the future? The Privileges Committee was in no doubt that the TVNZ letter to Ian Fraser was a contempt. It was a contempt because it was intended to punish Mr Ian Fraser for the evidence he gave to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.

The simple facts are these. The Finance and Expenditure Committee had a specific inquiry into the resignation. Clearly, TVNZ expected full and frank questioning from members of that select committee as to the reasons for the resignation. TVNZ knew that that would be controversial. The whole country knew that it was controversial. The public had a right to know why that resignation had occurred. Members of Parliament expected full and frank answers from both TVNZ and Mr Fraser in relation to that issue. Actually, they got them. Mr Fraser was very full and frank, and so was TVNZ. TVNZ needs to reflect on the fact that being publicly owned, it was required to account in that inquiry and that its dirty linen would be washed in public. That is exactly why the inquiry was being held. So it could not whinge about the evidence after the fact. It certainly could not punish Mr Fraser for giving the evidence. But that is exactly what TVNZ did. What is more, it did that after it took legal advice—and, as colleagues have said, from a member of the general counsel, an in-house counsel who has had to work with select committees for 16 years. They certainly knew, or should have known, their obligations. So this is a very clear message to State-owned enterprises, not to try to cover up.

I now turn to the issue of the punishment—to both the apology and the fine. I for one—and I know that other members share this view—was extremely dissatisfied with the apology given by Mr Boyce in the presence of his legal counsel. It was qualified and half-hearted, and in fact, when it was given by Mr Boyce, his counsel was at pains to stress that it was only if a breach had, in fact, occurred. I say that that is not an apology. It is something we have heard in other cases: “I apologise if someone takes offence.” So rather more was required than that. Frankly, when anyone appears before the Privileges Committee to give an apology, we need to make sure that it is real, it is genuine, and it is unqualified.

I now turn to the fine. Yes, it is a small fine at this stage, and the reasons for that have been well canvassed. We were affirming a right to levy a fine for the first time in 103 years. But future breaches—and we have specifically noted this in the report—will result in much heavier fines. I put it this way. Take this fine as a shot across the bows, because on other occasions the punishments will be much more severe. The shots will strike home. In fact, I say in closing that this report is intended to be a deterrent to State-owned enterprises so that they will account, firstly, to the public, and to the Parliament for their use of public money. I say to the media that this should be a warning, or a statement perhaps, not to use in the future the ironic epithet of the “all-powerful” Privileges Committee, because we have now exercised our power.

Motion agreed to.

New Zealand Sign Language Bill

Third Reading

Hon RUTH DYSON (Minister for Disability Issues): I move, That the New Zealand Sign Language Bill be now read a third time. I would like to acknowledge the members of the Deaf community who have travelled from around New Zealand to be part of this important event. This is a historic day.

The parliamentary history of the bill began almost 2 years ago with its first reading on 22 June 2004. It was referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee, which reported back to the House on 18 July last year. The second reading of the bill took place on 23 February this year and the Committee stage on 23 March. Today we have the third and final reading of this bill.

The purpose of the bill is to promote and maintain the use of New Zealand Sign Language by declaring it to be an official language of New Zealand. It provides for the use of New Zealand Sign Language in legal proceedings and enables the making of regulations to set competency standards for interpretation in legal proceedings. It sets out principles to guide Government departments in the use of New Zealand Sign Language. It provides for a review of the operation of the Act 3 years after it comes into force.

This bill is necessary. A lack of recognition of New Zealand Sign Language leads to serious barriers to information and services for deaf people, which leads, therefore, to unacceptable injustices. The bill offers improved access to information and services that hearing people take for granted. It provides acknowledgment of Deaf people’s language and culture.

New Zealand Sign Language is part of our rich cultural diversity. Around 28,000 people, of whom 7,000 are deaf, use it. It is a language native to our country. It has a unique linguistic structure and includes signs that express concepts from Māori culture. Deaf people comprise a distinct and dynamic cultural group within our country. Their language is central to our culture. Language and culture go hand in hand, and by our recognition of New Zealand Sign Language, we give due recognition to Deaf culture.

The first school for deaf children was established in 1880 in Sumner in Christchurch. Sign language was forbidden, as it was at the later schools in Titirangi, Kelston, and Feilding. But the children were desperate to communicate and continued to use sign language, despite the penalty. For the next hundred years the language continued to be suppressed—but it continued to develop.

In the 1970s overseas research began to document the linguistic features of sign languages, and increasingly they were recognised as complete and natural languages in their own right. From the mid-1980s New Zealand Deaf people began to assert their own language on the political stage. Throughout the 1990s the Deaf Association and wider community lobbied hard to have their language recognised. The New Zealand Sign Language Tutors Association was established in 1992, and in 1995 the Auckland University of Technology established the diploma course in interpreting. In 1993, after more than 100 years of formal suppression, New Zealand Sign Language began to be used in our schools for the Deaf. In 1997 the first official dictionary was published.

The passing of the bill will mark a major reversal in the suppression of the Deaf community’s language and culture. It will be a substantial step towards achieving our vision of an inclusive society. The principles of the bill and the related work streams will remove language barriers for Deaf people in the education, health, public broadcasting, and justice sectors. The capacity of the interpreter workforce, beginning with competency standards, is being addressed. The review of the Act will provide an opportunity for us to ensure that it is achieving its stated purpose.

I am pleased that our parliamentary processes have been made accessible to the Deaf community throughout the passage of the bill. It is probably the most involved the Deaf community has ever been in any parliamentary and lawmaking process, and I want to see that participation continue. I wish to thank in particular all the interpreters for their excellent work.

The bill is a monumental milestone for the Deaf community. By declaring New Zealand Sign Language to be an official language of our country, our Parliament is acknowledging the Deaf community’s presence, its rights, and its equal value in our society.

In conclusion, I wish to pay tribute to the persistence and dedication of the Deaf community. Many Deaf people have shared personal stories of being forbidden to use their natural language, of having their hands tied behind their backs, and of being punished for signing. They have endured years of being told that their language is inferior to spoken languages. Yet despite that, New Zealand Sign Language has survived and continues to evolve. This language is about to be recognised as an official language of New Zealand.

Today is cause for celebration. To the Deaf community, I salute you. I commend the bill to the House.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Port Waikato): The National Party takes great pleasure in supporting the third reading of the historical New Zealand Sign Language Bill in the House. We congratulate and thank all those who have worked so hard to bring it about. This clearly is an example of where the majority of parties in Parliament can work together when they recognise a cause worthy of support. Although I was not personally in the Justice and Electoral Committee, I understand that all 293 submitters supported this bill. It is wonderful to have the gallery filled with representatives of the Deaf community who have come from right around New Zealand to celebrate the passing of this bill. I welcome them to Parliament and thank them for their efforts. It is also great to witness the very competent signer here in the House today.

The genesis of this landmark bill goes back a very long way, and it is a testament to the Deaf community in particular for the long, hard, and consistent work it has done for many years to ensure that New Zealand Sign Language is recognised as an official language here in New Zealand. I know that my parliamentary colleague Ruth Dyson has pushed very hard for this day to come about, and I acknowledge her for those efforts.

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

I am also concerned that this Labour Government is prone to come out with slightly high-sounding strategies—which include the disability strategy—but when it comes to the reality of service provision, people’s aspirations are frequently dashed. People such as Lorna Sullivan of the New Zealand Assembly of People with Disabilities have said that at present a systemic abandonment and neglect exists throughout the disability sector, and that has to be a significant reality check on the Labour Government. Only today I sent a further letter of request to the Minister of Health, asking for his support to ensure that a working woman who is deaf will be given a date for a cochlear implant. She has been profoundly impaired by deafness, which has limited her ability to continue working in the medical area. She has been waiting for over a year for the operation. Her hopes have risen when she has been told she is of high priority, but they have been dashed several times as the operation has been put off due to financial considerations. The Minister of Health says that the priority for cochlear implants is that they go first to children, and that is understandable. But this adult woman, although she is in the high-priority group, continues to wait anxiously to hear whether she will ever be given a definite date.

It is a worry that the Labour Government often does not support its rhetoric with tangible, practical dollars. I note that Britain uses a slightly different approach to this issue. For instance, within the health system in the United Kingdom the Government provides a budget for translators so they are paid for their work in proportion to the time they devote to it. I would like to hear Minister Dyson stating clearly that a definite budget is available to make this Act operable into the future.

I do thoroughly endorse clause 10A, which requires a review of the operation of the legislation as soon as practicable after 1 March 2009. This requires a report on the operation of the Act from its commencement and on whether any amendments to the scope and contents of it are necessary or desirable.

The Justice and Electoral Committee recommended the inclusion of an explicit statement to confirm that, aside from enforcing the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in any legal proceedings, the bill does not extend rights to the Deaf community beyond those already provided in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, and does not limit those rights in any way.

People have asked: “What is an official language?”. At present New Zealand has two official languages: English and Māori. Māori is official because it has been declared so by statute, and English is official by convention dating back to English law. So there are indeed some inherent assumptions there. It is important to acknowledge that New Zealand Sign Language is a wholly visual language with its own grammatical structure, different from that of English and Māori. It is distinct and differs from the sign language of other countries, such as Australia, America, Canada, and Britain. I am also told that a Deaf person fluent in Māori who has no English, and a Deaf person fluent in English who has no Māori, may equally learn and communicate with New Zealand Sign Language.

The modern history leading up to the third reading of this bill has been more rapid than the long history of obstacles that Deaf people in New Zealand have had to confront since the mid-1850s. As a fifth generation New Zealander myself, I find it hard to believe how far we have come over the last 150 years. I cannot imagine how many whales my great-great-grandfather Captain Daniel Doherty unwittingly lost because his chief harpoonist back in 1833 was partially deaf and sometimes did not hear the order to throw the harpoon.

Hone Harawira: He did it on purpose.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: That may be so, and some amongst us now might be very glad of that deaf harpoonist. Even worse, however, was the complete lack of access early pioneers of this country had to hearing facilities or aids. However, we are celebrating the fact that today, in modern New Zealand, New Zealand Sign Language will shortly become an official language.

Once again, I pay tribute to all those who have worked so hard and for so long for this to become a reality, and I particularly pay tribute to those in the Deaf community. It is with great pleasure that National congratulates the Deaf community and supports the third reading of this bill so that the New Zealand Sign Language becomes an official language in New Zealand.

TIM BARNETT (Labour—Christchurch Central): I rise with respect and pride to support the third reading of this excellent bill. I stand with respect for those people from the Deaf community who have fought through the years for the fundamental human rights of recognition, of communication, and of the ability to live in a world free of prejudice—in essence, the struggle for dignity. And I stand with pride that as a Labour member of Parliament I am in a party that, against the cynicism of the National Party and other parties, has promoted disability issues to be matters of ministerial responsibility, and that has generated real action to bring to life the vision of a barrier-free world.

I chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee that dealt with this bill for over a year. We made a few amendments to it, but, as a committee—which at that stage comprised members from six different political parties—we also went on a powerful journey in our personal understanding. We heard from people who had been banned from using sign language at school—one of a number of disturbing parallels with the Māori experience of much of the past century. We learnt that discussion of cochlear implants is important, but that it is not the same thing as giving legal rights and recognition to New Zealand Sign Language. We came to understand signers as being conduits, not as people speaking on behalf of others, and we came, with the bizarre exception of the ACT party, to recognise the importance of this legislation as a symbol, as a bottom-line guarantee, and as a lever for those with energy and vision to use in building the future. And, with the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, that is what we have here today.

This bill, as well as being a reasonably cautious foot in the door, also reaches out to the future. It includes the machinery for other areas of Government policy and Government services, as well as covering the justice issues to be delivered in the future in order to have services and policies designed to meet the needs of people who are deaf. The bill establishes a third official language. Incidentally, as we discovered in the select committee, it was an irony to realise that English is not actually recognised as an official language anywhere in New Zealand law—[Interruption] And some members of the house might actually welcome that! The bill does not set up a sign language commission to parallel the work of the Māori Language Commission, but I think that in time that will be seen as the natural next stage—to nurture, to guard, and to promote New Zealand Sign Language.

Over the past few years in this place I have been very much involved in law reform around fairly tricky issues, particularly prostitution and civil unions. Like this legislation, those reforms were to give a name, a character, and, yes, a recognition to something that had been out in the cold until that point. This legislation does the same. All three bills relating to those reforms have been marked by extraordinary scenes in the gallery of this Parliament.

As my two colleagues have already said, it is great to see people here today who have never been to see our democracy at work so close up. As well, helped by this legislation, surely the time is not far away when one of the 120 of us who occasionally, or regularly, sit down here after being elected to this Parliament, will be deaf, and when somebody sitting today in the gallery will instead be sitting down here in the Chamber, enjoying the benefit of this law, and being treated with dignity—being, indeed, an equal member of our society. I commend this bill.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Otago): I have been enjoying the sight of the people in the gallery this afternoon, and it has struck me that there is an awful lot of talking going on up there, the like of which we would never get away with down here. I also notice one of the marvellous things about signing, which is that it carries an awful lot further than the spoken voice. So not only are our guests chatting amongst themselves but they are chatting across the Chamber, as well.

I am very pleased to speak in favour of, and support, this third reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill as it passes into law. I also say, as a newly elected member to this House, that it is so nice to have the opportunity to speak on legislation that means so much to so many people—not only those people who will use New Zealand Sign Language but also the members of the Government who have brought this legislation to the House.

The purpose of this bill is to promote and maintain the use of New Zealand Sign Language, which, according to the 2001 census, is used by approximately 28,000 people. The Waitaki District in the South Island, which is where I come from, contains around 28,000 people, so, to me, that is an awful lot of people who use New Zealand Sign Language.

From my background as an actor of some 25 years, communication has always been a very important part of my work and of my life. As I have sat here in the House and listened to the debate on the New Zealand Sign Language Bill, it has caused me to reflect on what communication is and how important communication is in our lives.

Going back to Acting 101, we learnt that communication comprises 14 percent intonation, which is one’s verbal expression, the subtle nuances of tone that one might use, and inflection. All of that is limited or lost to people who are deaf. Six percent of communication comprises the words themselves—the text. Most people can read text, but I would suggest that is not communication.

Eighty percent of what comprises communication is body language. It is our facial expression and our hand gestures. It is our body language—our posture. Whether we mirror the person we are communicating with, or whether we cross our arms and dissociate ourselves from what we are saying, we are using our bodies to communicate. What our bodies do is what we say, and that is communication. Body language brings much to the process of communication, but add to that a recognised system of signing in the absence of words and expression, and one has so much more. That is why I support the New Zealand Sign Language Bill.

Some 20 years ago I worked with a young deaf person with no sign language. That person, who was a so-called failure through the school system, was withdrawn, anti, and angry. It was very difficult for me to communicate with that person, and it is true to say that, for most of the time, that young deaf person was forever playing catch-up—always just a wee bit behind the play and behind others in the team. Members may imagine what happened when that young person committed a stupid, minor crime. If one knows anything about court day, one knows that it is a bit like a factory, and for a young person it is a very scary place. I support the right of every New Zealander in those circumstances to have access to all the assistance that he or she can get. In this instance, the provision of a sign language interpreter would have been of huge benefit.

I support the New Zealand Sign Language Bill because a deaf person appearing before a judge will have a signer by right. I support the New Zealand Sign Language Bill because it removes the language barrier for deaf people. Through this legislation, we acknowledge, value, and make normal the Deaf community’s presence in our community. I stand to support the New Zealand Sign Language Bill.

BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First, it is with great pleasure that I rise to support the third reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. New Zealand First appreciates that today is an extremely important day for the Deaf community as New Zealand Sign Language is given official recognition. This means that members of the Deaf community will have the right to communicate in their own language in legal situations, in particular, when the need arises.

Approximately 28,000 people use New Zealand Sign Language, and an estimated 7,000 of these people are deaf—a huge number, indeed. Communication is essential for everyone in society, and this bill emphasises that fact.

New Zealand First pays tribute to the dedication, commitment, and leadership of all those involved in promoting and advancing this bill, and we must mention here Minister Dyson. This bill has been a huge step forward in achieving the vision of a fully inclusive New Zealand society. We are very mindful of the fact that there is still work to be done to ensure that New Zealand Sign Language is given equal status with spoken languages. Today is the beginning. From this beginning we want to see other developments. As we said, this bill is only the first step.

We want to see initiatives aimed at increasing the number of interpreters who are available throughout New Zealand, and the number of institutions in New Zealand that offer qualifications in sign language interpreting. Commitment to this is absolutely essential. There is a shortage of fully trained and competent interpreters in New Zealand, as there is worldwide, and it is a matter of urgency to attempt to correct this situation as much as possible.

Communication and access to information are key issues for the Deaf community. All too often, people are not able to participate fully in society because they cannot get the information they need in the form in which they need it. This bill does not determine competency in sign language. New Zealand First believes that competency is a basic requirement for interpreters, as information must be relayed correctly. We are very aware that a lack of competency in this area could have significant consequences for the Deaf, particularly in a health or legal environment. The Deaf community will no doubt monitor this situation carefully, as will other agencies, I am sure.

The recommended review of the Act after 3 years will provide a platform for monitoring the implementation of this bill. We do not want to wait a further 20 years—or even another 3 years—before the next step towards progress is made. New Zealand First is very aware that there are many resource challenges in this legislation that must be met, and we will await this review with great interest.

We encourage local body councils to follow the example of the Wellington City Council and offer a sign language interpreting service to improve communication between the Deaf community and the council. We commend Wellington City Council for that initiative.

In conclusion, we must acknowledge the interpreter in the House today, who is using New Zealand Sign Language. We appreciate her presence in this House. We must thank her too for interpreting our communication today and for sharing a small portion of this unique language with us. We also thank members of the Deaf community for coming to Parliament to support the passing of this legislation. Today is a cause for celebration, and New Zealand First wishes the Deaf community well for the future.

We want to see success with this legislation. It is with great pleasure that we support the third reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill.

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Well, this is a red-letter day in our Parliament—a day when the entire Parliament has come together and set aside all its usual political bickering to support, almost unanimously, this bill that will give formal recognition to New Zealand Sign Language for the first time in our history. There has been a long, long struggle to make this bill a reality, and I pay tribute to Ruth Dyson for spearheading that long struggle.

There is no doubt that this legislation marks a significant step forward in the history of how society treats deaf people, and other cultures and their history. In New Zealand, as in other parts of the world, there has been a long and difficult struggle to have sign language understood for what it is: a real and living language that is part of a culture with as much depth and validity as anyone else’s culture. In our country, as in other countries overseas, the mainstream hearing society has discouraged generations of deaf people from using sign language, in the misguided belief that the only way they could survive was by using English. That attitude and belief led to low literacy levels, misunderstanding between deaf and hearing people, and a cycle of disenfranchisement that is still with us today.

As the Deaf community has tried to tell the rest of us over and over again, sign language is a language that is just as real as Māori, English, or any other spoken language around the world. Just as there is a gap in understanding and cultural awareness between people who cannot comprehend or speak each other’s language, the same thing happens when our majority culture is unable to understand and communicate in sign language. As one person told the Justice and Electoral Committee—which I was not part of; my colleague Sue Bradford was—“Stop wanting to cure us; accept us as we are; deafness is part of our identity.” Sign language encapsulates and expresses that identity, and the notion is almost incomprehensible now that those of us who are not deaf have denied those who are deaf the right to the full use of their language.

Sign language is the native language of many deaf people and of their close family members and teachers. It not only helps to define the Deaf community; it allows members of that community better access to all parts of the education system and training—including the ability to learn other languages in schools—access to the justice system, and so forth. Not only will this legislation allow New Zealand Sign Language to become an officially recognised language, with people being able to use it in all court proceedings, but the legislation also lays the way for the setting of new standards to guide Government departments on the use they should make of sign language.

Like New Zealand First, the Green Party is also very interested in what the next steps will be after this bill becomes law, particularly in areas like broadcasting, education, and health. The Green Party believes that a lot more needs to be done to ensure that all deaf people gain the ability to participate fully in our society. The Green Party hopes that the passage of the bill will pave the way for much greater recognition of, and financial support for, the provision of New Zealand Sign Language training for deaf children, for deaf adults who are eager to study New Zealand Sign Language academically, for deaf people who want to learn it for the first time, and for teachers and other professionals who work with deaf children and adults. We hope that the mass media will become more responsible in the provision of translation and captioning, so that deaf adults and children can enjoy and benefit from a much wider range of movies and television programmes. We also hope that the profession of sign language interpreting becomes recognised, supported, and resourced to a much greater extent than at present.

The Green Party looks forward to the day when we see the first member of Parliament from the Deaf community being able to represent his or her sector to the rest of us in this House in sign language, with the same linguistic ease as speakers of Māori and English. At the last election, a member of the Deaf community was very high up on our list, and we hope that that person will become a member of our Parliament in the future.

In conclusion, I reiterate the Green Party’s support for this bill. We acknowledge it could go a lot further and that it will take much more than a simple Act of Parliament to bring about all the changes that are needed, but at least we are on the road to achieving official recognition. Indeed, we now have official recognition, and that is definitely something worthy of celebration.

Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Mai i te hinengaro ko te mahara, mai i te mahara ko te whakaaro, mai i te whakaaro ko te kōrero, ā, mā te kōrero ka whakatū ngā tikanga. From the mind comes the stimulation of memory. Memory stimulates thought. From thoughts come words. From words we construct customs. In this House today we are again recognising custom—the custom of ensuring that the language of the world of silence obtains its proper place in Aotearoa New Zealand.

The Māori Party is extremely proud to stand today to herald the arrival of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. The bill provides for the official recognition of New Zealand Sign Language, with the purpose of giving it proper status, and gives the Deaf access to interpreters for legal proceedings. We are delighted that the bill encompasses the capacity to interpret from Māori and/or English into New Zealand Sign Language.

We come to this bill recognising the vital significance of language as a means of accessing the world. In our world, te reo Māori is the cornerstone of all that is Māori. Accelerating the revival of te reo Māori is therefore an essential focus of the Māori Party. We try to promote and support te reo Māori in all that we do, including activities within this House. We believe that the expression of a people—of their uniqueness and beauty—is portrayed through their own language. It is with that thinking in mind that I was delighted to give the thumbs up to a group of Deaf friends whom I met earlier this week at the Lincoln Green Hotel in Waitakere. We embrace the opportunity for the language of this land to be broadened and enriched with the sounds of silence.

I draw on our association with te reo Māori deliberately, as I am aware that Deaf communities internationally have drawn on the experiences of other minority communities. I believe that the Māori Language Act in Aotearoa provides an excellent resource to assist the Deaf community in identifying possible pathways for mobilising and monitoring its agenda. I am hopeful that the progress we have made with te reo Māori, in terms of language transition and maintenance, will help to strengthen the Deaf community’s pathway forward as a community.

The bill provides that Government departments should go as far as reasonably practicable to consult with the Deaf community on matters affecting their language, and that New Zealand Sign Language should be used to promote Government services and to give information. It is literally about giving voice to the voiceless: kia whai reo te wahangū; to give language to the silent. For Māori Deaf, official recognition increases their likelihood of being able to use sign language at hui, marae, and tangi, and increases their access to te reo Māori, to customs, and to genealogy.

As past-chairman of Hoani Waititi Marae in west Auckland, I am proud of the very long and successful relationship we have enjoyed with the Kelston Deaf Education Centre, and we recognise Rūaumoko Marae as a valuable living part of that school. Indeed, we pioneered signing in te reo Māori on our marae, and at Rūaumoko, as we understood the vital importance of enabling access to cultural knowledge transmitted in te reo Māori. In mentioning Hoani Waititi, Kelston, and Rūaumoko, I want to highlight the significance of Deaf communities receiving the right support they need, to develop their own community initiatives.

I want to point out the crucial need for acknowledging the specific communities of Māori Deaf. The National Audiology Centre report shows that of those children who fit audiometric criteria, a staggering 49 percent are Māori. Audiometric criteria are defined as the criteria evidenced by children under the age of 18 with congenital hearing loss, or with any hearing loss not remediable by medical or surgical means and requiring hearing aids and/or surgical intervention. The acquisition and maintenance of those things for Māori Deaf adults and children and their whānau is therefore essential for their voices to be heard. If we are so overrepresented in the notifications, we must also be well represented by Māori teachers, signers, and interpreters for schools, television, marae, and courts—indeed, for our world. Māori Deaf need Māori signers.

In her speech on the bill’s first reading, my colleague Tariana Turia raised concerns the Māori Party has about the inability of the bill to adequately address the issue of trilingual interpreters, and to recognise trilingual interpretation—from Māori to sign to English. The debate at the first reading stage through to the Committee stage reiterated the concern of most parties in this Chamber about the demand for interpreters outstripping availability. It is a demand that is particularly urgent for Māori communities. There is a desperate need for competent and qualified trilingual interpreters to ensure access for Māori Deaf into Māori communities where te reo Māori is spoken.

This bill must be followed with follow-up actions for the urgent need to recruit, train, and retain Māori student interpreters. Although we fully support the right to use New Zealand Sign Language in court and legal proceedings with a competent and qualified interpreter, we want to see the same support provided for Māori to communicate in the world outside the courtroom. We want to ensure that New Zealand Sign Language is a part of our everyday experience. We know that organisations like Te Roopu Waiora and the Deaf Association, and the Māori Deaf community, will continue to advocate to ensure that Māori Deaf are able to receive that same support. The bill has not addressed the issue of access to services beyond courts, including kaupapa Māori services. Proper access to inclusive social, housing, and health services is critical for the deaf, and it is a huge factor in addressing chronic poverty levels. Let us not just stop at the courtroom—why not have access to the whole world?

There are occasions in this House when the Māori Party has risen to speak on a bill and has found that only one or two submissions has been received. We have questioned, quite logically, what the level of support should be to justify, with any reliability, the Government’s initiating such a change. In the case of this bill, however, a massive 195 submissions were received, and all—100 percent, the whole lot—were in support. Indeed, many thought the bill had not gone far enough.

Finally, the Māori Party wants to congratulate the Minister, the Hon Ruth Dyson, on taking up the challenge of fostering this bill through the House: tēnā koe te tuahine, e Ruth! As those of us in this House who look back fondly to the 1960s will know, Simon and Garfunkel conclude one of their most popular songs with the message:

The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls

And tenement halls

And whispered in the sounds of silence.

Today in this House the prophecies and the prayers of the Deaf community are coming through to fruition. We are proud to be part of this historic moment.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future): I rise on behalf of United Future to speak in support of the third reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. The passage of this bill is an opportunity to celebrate, and an opportunity for all Government departments and community organisation to embrace the challenge that this presents to them.

But first let us celebrate. Let us celebrate the new official status that is conferred on this language today. Let us celebrate the development to date of resources that promote, support, and teach this vibrant language. And let us celebrate the potential for new and improved opportunities for the Deaf to participate more fully in all that it means to be a New Zealand citizen.

A favourite book of mine is The Politics of Hope by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. At the beginning of the book, he summarises his motivation for writing it by saying: “A good society is one that offers its members equal access to hope.” In an early chapter entitled “Language and Violence”, he links together the relationship between negative social outcomes and the opportunity language offers us to reverse that. A second chapter is titled “Public Spaces”, and in this the author attempts to tease out what it is that binds us together in society and enables us to form lasting associations. Language is always the starting point. This bill therefore represents more than a step forward for the Deaf community; it is also a step forward for all New Zealanders.

The challenges that the passage of this bill raises are significant, and the buck stops fairly with this Government, and with successive Governments, to fund the capacity-building that must now happen to ensure that a workforce of competent interpreters is built in measurable ways. It is also true that all Government departments need to demonstrate a deliberateness to ensure they consult the Deaf community on issues of inclusiveness, and to ensure that services are developed. I suggest that services could be expanded beyond those outlined in this bill.

This bill is like the starter’s gun going off at the beginning of a race; it starts the journey, but there is a distance to be covered before we can ever claim to have run the race on this issue satisfactorily. However, those who helped get us to the starting-line are to be congratulated. I mention Minister Ruth Dyson in this regard, and all those in the Deaf community who have brought us to this point. The work and the preparation that have led to this moment are fantastic.

United Future members are therefore thrilled to support this third and final reading. We are thrilled to wish all the very best to all those gathered here in Wellington, and around the country, who plan some celebrations tonight. I find sign language wonderfully distracting. I have to say that I did try to second-guess someone who was calling out across the House. It was a young man who I think may have been saying: “I hope they hurry up so we can get something to eat and drink.” United Future is very pleased to support this bill.

HEATHER ROY (Deputy Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of ACT New Zealand to speak to this third reading of the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. As we all know, there are many people from the Deaf community in the gallery today who are here for this third reading. I welcome them.

As those people in the gallery know, it is not easy being a minority group. The ACT party is opposing this bill, and that makes us a minority group in this House today. I ask the Deaf community not to be offended, because we mean no offence. We applaud the intent of this bill, but we fear the wider-reaching implications of it.

After the second reading of this bill, and ACT’s opposition to it, we received several pieces of correspondence. ACT leader Rodney Hide visited the Deaf community in Auckland, and he was very impressed with what he saw. He outlined our position, and he felt that it was very well received.

As we know, the Opposition’s job is to raise concerns about legislation. My good conscience prevents me from voting in favour of this bill when the Government fails to address some very important issues that have been raised.

It does not always take legislation to allow good things to happen. I will explain that statement. The Government proposes to create rights for the Deaf to use New Zealand Sign Language, but has no plan in place to fund the provision of the services that would be necessary for those rights to be met. I ask those people who think that the money will be found to think again. The Government guards its surplus millions very closely. We are yet to see a commitment to the funding that this bill will require.

We have seen legislation like this many times before, with the establishment of rights on paper that do not exist in reality. The absence of any Treasury comment on this bill, or of any regulatory impact statement, implies that nobody in authority has even begun to think about how to pay for the provisions.

Good intentions alone do not automatically translate into good lawmaking. Making New Zealand Sign Language an official language will not in itself achieve very much without proper support and definite funding allocations. As I said, there has been no evidence of this.

One very positive thing that has resulted from this bill is that it has highlighted the issue of communication for the Deaf. The Minister Ruth Dyson may be surprised to hear me say this, but I congratulate her on raising the issue and on the hard work that has obviously gone into this bill. The discussion and debate that the bill has attracted have certainly heightened general awareness of the issue, and that in itself is extremely positive. That is why ACT supported this bill at its first reading, allowing it to progress to the select committee.

I have already said that the intention of the bill is very creditable. ACT members also agree that in legal processes it is essential that a deaf person, like any other New Zealander, be presented with information in a way that is readily understood by him or her. History has many examples of injustices suffered by the deaf because they could not follow proceedings. In this day and age, that is clearly unacceptable.

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

Of course, these obstacles are not confined to just the hospital setting; they also impinge on every facet of life. As the National Party member Dr Hutchison pointed out, perhaps a better approach, and one that is used in Britain, for example, is to provide a budget for translators so that they get paid for their work, and in proportion to the time they devote to it. It is a simple and relatively cheap practical measure that will help people get more accurate diagnosis and better treatment, and it will assist everybody involved.

In Australia, the Deaf community is recognised as a language group. What does this mean? It is now increasingly recognised that signing Deaf people constitute a group like any other English-speaking language group in Australia, with a distinct subculture that is recognised by a shared history, social life, and sense of identity, and united and symbolised by fluency in Auslan, which is the principal means of communication within the Australian Deaf community.

Another issue that should be mentioned is that sign languages differ from country to country. The international sign language, as those people in the gallery will know, is Gestuno. This is used at international conferences and meetings. Previously in this House, I have used the obvious comparison with the world of music. A musical score can be read by those with musical training no matter what their native language is, be it Spanish, Arabic, Cantonese, English, or any other language. To give New Zealand Sign Language official status, as the bill proposes, automatically disadvantages those signing in any other sign language.

We have just had the census, and it will not have escaped anybody’s notice that New Zealand Sign Language was one of the options in the “most commonly used language” category for New Zealanders. The most up-to-date figures we have at the moment are those from the 2001 New Zealand disability survey, which showed that 7,700 partially or completely deaf adults living in households used New Zealand Sign Language and/or signed English, and 51,000 New Zealanders were able to lip-read.

When this bill is passed, I predict that the necessary services to fulfil obligations of organisations will not be in place. Our current Government will then move slowly to fill the gap, hiring full-time translators who will then spend very little of their working day doing the job they were hired for.

One area where the Government could do better is in the treatment of deafness. Waiting lists are very long, and, in some cases, as I think has already been mentioned to this House, people will wait for a very long time and perhaps never receive treatments that could revolutionise their lives, such as cochlear implants. When researching this subject, I discovered that 21 percent of partially or completely deaf adults in households had an unmet need for some type of special equipment or service related to their disability. The most common reason for this unmet need was a financial one. It seems that if Government money is to be spent, then this might well be a very good place to start.

Politics is not confined to just this debating chamber. I am aware that some people in the Deaf community look on lip-reading as the poor relation. Yet it should not be forgotten that 51,000 hearing-impaired Kiwis lip-read.

To conclude, I tell members that the ACT party supports the aspiration of the Deaf community to integrate fully into society, and it accepts that this will quite rightly involve greater use of sign language. We have doubts about the wisdom of making New Zealand Sign Language an official language, and we feel that this bill as it stands will give the appearance of progress but possibly achieve very little—and that outcome would be a travesty.

I understand the excitement and the great sense of achievement after a lot of hard work that is being felt today in our public gallery. I hope, having expressed my fears, and opposing this bill on behalf of the ACT party, that I will be proven wrong.

DAVE HEREORA (Labour): Only ACT would oppose the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. I give the audience the assurance that every other party is supporting the bill—only ACT would oppose it. Mr Assistant Speaker, it is not often that I get the opportunity to attract a packed audience to hear me speak, and, through you, I want to acknowledge the presence of our audience. Kia ora tātau.

I take this opportunity to take a very short call in this third reading debate on the New Zealand Sign Language Bill. In doing so, I want to extend some acknowledgements. The first is to my colleague Minister Dyson for introducing the bill, which carries official recognition of the New Zealand Sign Language, and also for fostering the opportunity, the fairness, and, most important, I think, the participation of the culture of the Deaf community in a way that complements its role in our national identity.

I am sure that Justice and Electoral Committee members experienced a unique chance to learn of the many problems, obstacles, and frustrations that have been experienced by our Deaf community, and to learn some sign language. Those members also had the chance not only to realise the difficulties that the Deaf community faces but to appreciate how New Zealand Sign Language has survived and what it has taken for the Deaf community to get to this point. Having been associated with a language that has been suppressed, I, in some small way, understand the implications of that.

I believe that it is necessary to place on record our tribute to the persistence and dedication of the Deaf community. In doing so, I acknowledge the hurt and suffering it has felt. I wonder what the language would be like today, had it not been obstructed or suppressed. As we can all imagine, when a culture is permitted to grow, it manifests the very essence of our national identity.

The bill represents a significant turning point in our history for the Deaf community and for all New Zealanders. It marks a point of acceptance and inclusion, and I say it is about jolly time. Finally, I congratulate our Deaf community, and again thank our Minister and those members of the select committee.

A party vote was called for on the question, That the New Zealand Sign Language Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 119

New Zealand Labour 50; New Zealand National 48; New Zealand First 7; Green Party 6; Māori Party 4; United Future 3; Progressive 1.

Noes 2

ACT New Zealand 2.

Bill read a third time.

The House adjourned at 5.48 p.m.