NZ Youth Parliament Day 2

JOSEPH LILL (Otago): I am reporting from the select committee that reviewed the Ministry of Education. A key focus of concern in our review was the implementation of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA), and whether there are now adequate measures in place to recognise the problems of, and make necessary changes to, the assessment and evaluation procedures.

We consider that it is important that students are consulted in order to improve the viability of NCEA, so that any necessary adjustments are made with the full understanding and confidence of students, as well as of teachers. To this end we encourage the ministry to engage directly with students, in order to gain a fuller picture of the implementation process and to rectify any inconsistencies in terms of internal assessment.

We consider that there is a lack of clarity over the required standards for internal assessment. The ministry informed us that exemplars were developed by teachers during the early stages of NCEA in 1999, and assured us that they will be regularly updated and published. However, since the initial development of NCEA, the ongoing process of making exemplars more relevant has not, in our view, been actively encouraged by the ministry. We would like to see more effort by the ministry to encourage resource sharing between schools, particularly towards the goal of standardising internal assessments.

In relation to the encouragement of high performance, we have concerns that there appears to be a limit to the extent to which high-performing students have their achievements recognised by NCEA. We encourage the ministry to investigate options to open up levels of achievement within NCEA, in order that students are given adequate motivation to excel in their study.

We sought to clarify why there is no requirement to pass NCEA level 3 in order to gain entry to a tertiary institution. The ministry stated that the aim was to establish the NCEA equivalent to three grade Cs—the former requirement for entry into university—and that an outstanding performance would be required at level 2 to gain entry to university without level 3.

Regarding the New Zealand Scholarship Certificate, the ministry stated that the scholarship is of a different nature to achievement at level 3, and that it involves a more integrated approach across a whole subject area. We were interested in an admission by the Secretary of Education that a scholarship is not a very important factor with regard to admission to university. It was then clarified that a scholarship qualification is more likely to be of value to a student seeking access to second-year papers in his or her first year at university. We note that the implementation of the scholarship is a large task, and that transitional changes may be made.

Another point of focus was the inequalities in terms of Māori and Pacific Island students, and the reduction of disparities—in particular, the initiatives to lift Māori and Pacific people’s achievement that have been a continuing focus of the ministry. To combat the problem, the ministry is focusing on improving the quality of teaching. Research in the area has revealed that the quality of teaching and cultural background are key issues in determining how well a pupil adapts to his or her school environment. The ministry’s strategy now takes account of individual differences, and is working on teachers—changing their practices—to make teaching more relevant to different backgrounds.

Report tabled.

Inquiry—Increased tax on alcopops

Consideration of Report of Finance and Expenditure Committee

AROHA TUATINI (Te Tai Tonga): I am speaking on behalf of Finance and Expenditure Committee members, who held an inquiry into whether alcopops should be taxed more highly than other alcoholic beverages in order to reduce teenage drinking. Alcopops are also known as flavoured alcoholic beverages. They have an alcohol content of between 5 and 9 percent.

Alcohol is not necessarily harmful in itself, but excessive drinking can lead to various harmful effects. Heavy or binge drinking is more likely to lead to negative outcomes, so binge drinking is the problem that needs to be addressed both for teenagers and for adults.

Policy around alcohol should focus on addressing this problem rather than on those who drink in a responsible manner. However, the committee will need to lead any change in attitudes to drinking, as legislation and taxation cannot achieve a cultural shift.

Teenagers are more likely to be in harm-generating situations when drinking, because they are less experienced. People’s attitudes to drinking are shaped by culture. Economist Brian Easton stresses that a key consideration should be the process of socialisation in which young people can learn how to drink safely.

We are concerned that teenagers do not have access to sufficient unbiased information about the effects of alcohol. We would like to see improvements to education on this topic in schools, to enable teenagers to make better-informed drinking choices.

All the witnesses at the select committee agreed that if the tax on flavoured alcoholic beverages were increased, teenagers would simply shift to drinking other products. In that respect, flavoured alcoholic beverages are less harmful than drinks mixed by teenagers themselves, as the quantity of alcohol in each flavoured alcoholic beverage is clearly labelled. We have not heard any evidence that the harm from such beverages is any greater than harm from any other type of alcohol.

We also note that beer is more popular amongst teenagers than flavoured alcoholic beverages. Among 14 to 17-year-olds, beer is the most popular drink for 45 percent of those teenagers.

If flavoured alcoholic beverages were taxed to increase their price, that could cause harm by encouraging teenagers to mix their own drinks. It might also encourage an increase in home brew, where the drinks produced would be of unknown alcoholic content. We do not consider that increasing taxation on flavoured alcoholic beverages is the answer to teenage drinking. We would prefer to see an overall increase in the taxation on alcohol, with the additional funds raised being used to increase education about alcohol.

To make it clear, I report that the select committee has come to the agreement that alcopops should not be highly taxed in order to reduce teenage drinking, for several reasons. Teenagers will simply switch to other drinks with a stronger alcoholic content. They might commit crimes, such as using fake IDs to commit fraud, which would restrict their travel to other countries and restrict their job prospects. They might also commit theft, by starting to steal money and alcohol.

Report tabled.

REVIEW—MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE

Consideration of Report of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee

SIMON SCHOFIELD (List): On behalf of the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee, which held the inquiry into the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I will inform you of the select committee’s findings. Our examination covered a range of areas that the ministry has been involved in during the past year. With 650 people working for the ministry and 50 posts around the world, the ministry prides itself on its motto “Securing New Zealand’s place in the world”.

The main focus for the inquiry was looking at bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations with other countries. The main idea that came through the inquiry was that in order to progress as a developed nation, we need to enter into trade negotiations with other countries, rather than just sit back and watch. Some youth parliamentarians believe, however, that when entering into trade negotiations we need to be cautious with regard to both human rights, the histories of countries, and the fundamental interests of others involved.

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade is keen to develop and participate in multilateral trade negotiations at the World Trade Organization convention, held primarily in Geneva. The benefits of agreeing to multilateral trade negotiations are that many countries sign up to them at one time. The ministry told us that one of the items for consideration at the next World Trade Organization convention would be agriculture, which has a particular relevance to the New Zealand economy.

The Pacific region is unquestionably a key area of New Zealand’s foreign policy. The New Zealand Agency for International Development, which chaired the Pacific Islands Forum, is aiming for poverty elimination. Its 5-year strategic plan includes education, health, and conflict prevention for those who need it most. A major problem that is being addressed is HIV/AIDS. New Zealand aid has implemented a Pacific regional strategy plan to counteract this disease. It warns, however, that this problem needs to be won nationally. There is a need for greater political leadership and ownership of this problem. The Solomon Islands has been funded 22 percent of New Zealand aid’s budget for basic education. They are creating a new school curriculum to encourage more students to attend school. At present, only 30 percent of pupils finish primary school. We recognise the advantages of working with the Solomon Islands, for the mutual benefit of both countries.

The New Zealand Government is in the process of establishing new overseas posts, the most significant of which is a new embassy in Warsaw. Warsaw is the centre of the European Union states, and Poland has a strong agricultural economy. The ministry aims to build and develop relationships between both countries. Another new post will be established in Cairo. The reasons given for this new post are that New Zealand needs to have direct involvement in the Middle East, given its growing importance in world affairs.

We are interested in additional consular services and in how the ministry works in countries where it has no formal presence, in particular Israel. In countries where the New Zealand ministry does not have direct representation, honorary counsel take some representation duties. New Zealand aid is monitoring the level of overseas development assistance. Our current level of contributions is 0.2 to 0.4 percent.

Report tabled.

REVIEW—MINISTRY OF YOUTH DEVELOPMENT

Consideration of Report of Government Administration Committee

REBECCA MODLIK (Rimutaka): The Government Administration Committee conducted a review of the Ministry of Youth Development. The ministry told us that its role is to contribute to the social, educational, and cultural development of young people aged 12 to 24 years. We closely examined how the ministry goes about this, and, in particular, what strategies it employs to ensure that it communicates effectively with youth. Our concern is whether the ministry has adopted sufficiently effective strategies to reach youth. For example, good programmes are being sponsored or organised through the ministry. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that it is not clear whether youth are aware that these programmes are available. Further, we are concerned that there is not yet enough evidence of active two-way feedback between the ministry and youth.

We encourage the ministry to build on the success of its involvement with the stage challenge concept. While we accept that such events have a commercial aspect and are a chance for the ministry to enhance its credibility with businesses, the ministry should also be looking at using the events to improve its credibility with youth. Some of us are concerned about whether some strategies, particularly the student representatives scheme, are meeting the needs of those who really need to be supported. We note that there are different aspects to this problem. Some of us consider that there should be a more structural approach to the election process of student representatives. Others of us consider that it is the way in which the representatives share information with each other and the ministry that is problematic. Others of us support the idea that larger schools ought to have more than two representatives.

The incidence of youth suicide in New Zealand is well documented. The ministry leads the implementation of New Zealand’s youth suicide prevention strategy and works with both Government and non-governmental agencies to ensure a coordinated work programme is in place to give effect to the strategy. We note that the ministry does not treat suicide as a youth-related problem only, and statistics and strategies are combined. We are pleased to hear that since 1998 the numbers of suicides have trended downward. We acknowledge that the issue of suicide is complex and that no one solution will address the problem.

The Ministry of Youth Development is a small ministry with some 32 staff. It sits within the overall ambit of the Ministry of Social Development. We questioned the ministry as to whether its current appropriations will allow it to deliver to its full potential. Because of the ministry’s small size, it works within a modest budget. The ministry acknowledged that its size necessarily restricts its activities in this respect and that its relationship with youth is a work in progress.

We raised a number of other general matters with the ministry. I will briefly explain. We discussed with the ministry the extent to which it uses overseas experience to guide its policy development. We encouraged the ministry to continue to look closely at other jurisdictions to see what lessons can be learnt, but it should remain mindful of the unique composition of New Zealand youth. The ministry should continue to lead by example.

We are strongly supportive of the ministry and we encourage it to continue with its important advocacy role for youth. We expect the ministry to work hard to ensure that the initiatives it organises or sponsors are widely known by the youth community.

Report tabled.

inquiry—republicanism

Consideration of Report of Justice and Electoral Committee

EMILY QUESTED (Ilam): The Justice and Electoral Committee has conducted an inquiry into whether New Zealand should become a republic and recommends that the Youth Parliament take note of its report.

Republicanism has not been a major political issue in New Zealand. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, New Zealand has enjoyed stable government under its present system, thus there has been no crisis event that has led its people or its Governments to raise and seriously debate the possibility of New Zealand becoming a republic. In colloquial terms: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

Secondly, where matters of concern have arisen when things do seem “broke”, New Zealand Governments have approached the issues and addressed them in practical ways. Such moves have resulted in the replacement of the British honours system, changes to oaths of allegiance, and the abolition of appeals to the Privy Council and consequent establishment of a New Zealand Supreme Court. This has again deferred the need for New Zealand to debate the issue seriously.

Most of us believe that New Zealand should become a republic. However, most of us also believe that New Zealand should continue to move towards this reality in a measured, practical, and informed way. New Zealand has been described as “following a path of republicanism by stealth”, and that means, in effect, New Zealand is already a de facto republic. This has occurred as a result of New Zealand desiring and embracing the positive aspects of republicanism—our independence and the establishment of our own unique identity—without yet finding it necessary or desirable to make the significant final leap of replacing the British monarchy as our head of State.

Most of us are comfortable with New Zealand continuing down this path, addressing issues as they arise and dealing with them. Matters of identity such as whether we should change our flag are, in a way, simple, as they are relatively plain and easily debatable. When the New Zealand public is ready and willing to make such a change, the process is likely to be quick, straightforward, and achievable in relative isolation from the greater republican debate.

Other issues, such as the place and status of the Treaty of Waitangi or the powers of the head of State in a new republic or constitution, are far more difficult and will take greater consideration before the options and implications can be assessed. It is right, therefore, that we continue to make changes where and when there is a clear public will, and when the issues have been given due consideration.

Most of us believe that the Treaty of Waitangi has a place in any new constitution. Establishing what that place should be is beyond the scope of this inquiry. However, we would like to note that the treaty’s place in authority in New Zealand has changed dramatically in its 160-year history, that it continues to evolve, and that it will be some time yet before the treaty settlement process is completed, and society’s understanding and view of the treaty has matured and coalesced.

Some of us feel that the completion of treaty settlements is an essential step towards becoming a republic. The treaty will become a major issue and stumbling block in any discussion of the nature of a New Zealand republic, and until New Zealand society’s opinion of the treaty has coalesced significantly, such a debate will be divisive.

Most of us believe that a major reform of New Zealand’s unwritten constitution and system of Government is unnecessary. We are concerned about the nature of the role and the appointment process of any replacement to the office of Governor-General, and are uncertain as to whether an alteration of this office is possible without a significant impact on our constitution and system of Government. We note that this issue has been a major factor in the rejection of republicanism in Australia.

Report tabled.

INQUIRY—UNIVERSAL IDENTITY CARDS

Consideration of Report of Law and Order Committee

CHRIS NEELS (Pakuranga): I am here on behalf of the Law and Order Committee to report on its inquiry into whether people should be required to have a universal identity card. The committee conducted an inquiry into whether people should be required to have a universal identity card and recommends that Youth Parliament 2004 take note of its report.

The majority of us support the idea of people being required to have a universal identity card. Two of us see no problem with universal identity cards being introduced now, without any constraints being put in place.

Hon Member: Big Brother!

CHRIS NEELS: Aha! Six of us support, in principle, the idea of people being required to have a universal identity card. However, first, we would like to see the Government undertake significant policy work to determine the parameters of a universal identity card system. Three of us do not support the idea, in principle, unless the suggested policy work is undertaken, and three of us oppose any requirement whatsoever.

The majority of people on the committee support the idea of a universal identity card. As I said before, two people support the idea that we require a universal identity card, without qualification. Their view is that if a person has nothing to hide, what would he or she have to fear from having such a system? The majority of us, noting that other countries have adopted the universal card system and being supportive in principle, are mindful of the concerns raised by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights Commission. We are keen to ensure that privacy concerns and fundamental human rights and freedoms are not unduly breached but are balanced against the needs of the State.

Many of us found the ideas proposed by the Children’s Commissioner compelling. We heard that having a universal identity card could enhance children and young people’s safety by allowing children’s movements to be tracked, thus preventing them from falling through the cracks. Such a card could also be employed in the same way as the blue card system adopted in Australia by the Queensland Government this year. The card is designed to safeguard children from sexual predators by establishing a screening system for adults who work with children. We see a merit in using identity cards in that way.

Most of us are of the view that the Government should undertake significant policy development work to determine the best and most effective way to introduce the universal identity card system. The recommendations we have put forward are as follows. We recommend that the Government undertakes policy work to determine: first, the level of public support for the introduction of the universal identity card; secondly, whether, following a privacy impact assessment report, it is found that a universal identity card system would be an undue breach of any privacy or human rights issues; thirdly, the parameters of the card’s functionality, as well as the cost of the cards; fourthly, who would be authorised to access the information recorded on the cards, whether access should be limited in any way, and what measures would be put in place to prevent the abuse of the system; fifthly, the merits of using the universal identity card; and, sixthly, the penalties arising from a refusal to obtain, carry, or misuse the identity card.

People oppose the identity cards because they say that they are a gross invasion of privacy, that they are most likely against common law and traditions, that they will create a system liable to abuse and fraud and greater insecurity, that they will be subject to strong religious and cultural objections, and that they will result in function creep.

Overall, the majority agreed that the universal card should be looked into in some way.

Report tabled.

INQUIRY—user-pays system for freshwater use

Consideration of Report of Local Government and Environment Committee

BONNIE MAGER (Invercargill): I speak for the Local Government and Environment Committee. We investigated whether New Zealanders should pay for the use of water. The committee’s report makes the recommendation that the Government undertake a full consultation process to investigate the implications of potential legislation that would introduce a user-pays system for freshwater use.

The total amount of water harnessed each year in New Zealand for electricity production, crop and livestock production, industrial use, and normal household activities has been estimated at almost 102,000 million cubic metres. Water in New Zealand is currently a public resource, and, under the Resource Management Act, regional councils are responsible for controlling water use to make sure this resource is sustained and managed.

We consider that the Government should commence a full consultation process, led by the Ministry for the Environment, to investigate the issues discussed subsequently in this report. We consider that that consultation process should take place with the view to introducing legislation to provide for a user-pays system for urban freshwater use, and we recommend that it should take place over at least 1 year.

The current perception that the urban water supply is a free resource is wrong—“free resource” is a misnomer. City and district councils have traditionally built the cost of supplying water into property rates, rather than separate out the actual quantity of water supplied.

We consider that the fundamental issue to be considered in relation to urban water supply is one of social equity: it is imperative that households have access to sufficient water, regardless of their ability to pay for the resource. Water is a life necessity and it is needed in order to maintain hygiene and ensure good public health. The current system of incorporating the charge for that water should continue, with payment through rates. However, rather than have the amount paid for water supply based solely on the value of the property, it should be adjusted to account for the number of people in the household.

We acknowledge that households will use more than the guaranteed maximum amount of water, so we consider that any water used above that level should be accounted for by compulsory water metering of all properties. We consider that a charge for excess water use would encourage people to think more about the value of water when making decisions, which could lead to more efficient use and less wastage of water. Two of us, however, consider that that is not a fair process, due to many factors. We wish to retain the rates-based system used currently.

We consider that commercial water users should not be subject to the guaranteed maximum amounts allocated to residential households. We recommend compulsory fitting of water meters in commercial businesses, and their cost being the same as for residential users.

Under the Resource Management Act, a resource consent must be obtained from the regional council for the use of water for irrigation purposes. We agree that through that investment in infrastructure—by paying for access to infrastructure or by purchasing a consent to use water—the agricultural sector is already paying for the use of water. Most of us consider that that payment is enough for people in the agricultural sector, although some of us think that farmers should pay more, because farming is a business. Others think they should pay nothing at all.

We encourage the Government to investigate the issue of water ownership further. With regard to possible ownership, we suggest that water should be listed as public domain, and that local governments should hold distribution rights. Saltwater should stay free.

Report tabled.

Review—Ministry of Māori Development

Consideration of Report of Māori Affairs Committee

JAMIE TURNER (North Shore): I was part of the Māori Affairs Committee that investigated the Ministry of Māori Development, Te Puni Kōkiri. I would like to say that, considering I have absolutely no Māori heritage whatsoever, it was an interesting experience to be part of that committee. I thank the members of the committee, the majority of whom were Māori. I was interested to hear their views, and it was an excellent opportunity to do so.

We need first to establish exactly what Te Puni Kōkiri is. The ministry’s vision, as outlined in its statement of intent, is to help Māori succeed as Māori. The question we asked ourselves in the committee was: “Are they doing this—is this happening at the moment?” So the vision was to create an open-ended concept whereby these opportunities and aspirations are created for Māori, framed so that we can work in partnership with Māori to create a better New Zealand, and, to do this, we need to move forward together. The committee recognises that, as a department, Te Puni Kōkiri is doing that, but we want New Zealand to move forward in a way that is appropriate for the future. At the moment, Te Puni Kōkiri has some good points and some bad points. Overall, it is doing an OK job, but we want to improve this both for the benefit of Māori and of New Zealanders.

I want to cover six issues in my speech: firstly, Māori education; secondly, the concept of Māori succeeding as Māori; thirdly, the foreshore and seabed issue; fourthly, the Treaty of Waitangi Information Programme; fifthly, resourcing; and, sixthly, the magazine, Te Hono. I will have to speak quite quickly or I will not have time.

The first issue the committee discussed was Māori education. The committee thinks that Te Puni Kōkiri is not having a big enough influence on Māori education because, quite simply, Te Puni Kōkiri does not have enough influence over the Ministry of Education itself. Māori boarding schools, such as St Stephens School and Queen Victoria School, have been closed by the Ministry of Education, with Te Puni Kōkiri having no input whatsoever. We have to ask ourselves whether that was in the best interests of Māori, and whether the parties were working together for the future benefit of Māori. If we want Māori to succeed, we have to allow Te Puni Kōkiri to have a good input into the Ministry of Education. That is the only way to help Māori move forward. Effectively, what we would really like is a representative from Te Puni Kōkiri—one who has to be listened to—in the Ministry of Education, and we would like the board to make sure that that is done.

That brings me to my second issue: Māori succeeding as Māori. Basically, that concept is undefined. We do not know what “Māori succeeding as Māori” means. One problem with Te Puni Kōkiri is that it has not outlined the concept in its statement of intent. The committee has defined the concept itself. It defined “success” as the accomplishment of an aim or as a favourable outcome. Te Puni Kōkiri officials told the committee that the ministry wants to see Māori succeeding wherever, and in whatever area, they choose, and that all New Zealand would benefit economically from Māori success. That would ensure the development of a strong society, with a distinct but valued point of difference. The ministry said that that is how it will value Māori in the future, and that is how it will help them succeed. At the moment Te Puni Kōkiri is not doing that appropriately, because it has no yardstick with which to measure “success”. The committee thinks that if Te Puni Kōkiri wants to do a better job, then it needs to bring in the facts and work out what standards it has to meet and what criteria it has to achieve to ensure that Māori succeed as Māori.

The third issue I will speak about is that of the foreshore and seabed. We can see from the huge dissatisfaction among Māori that, effectively, they are not happy with the foreshore and seabed legislation. One of Te Puni Kōkiri’s duties is to make sure that policy is in the best interests of Māori, and it refers to the Minister to ensure that. If Te Puni Kōkiri were doing a good job, that would keep Māori people happy. If Te Puni Kōkiri were cooperating properly and feeding ministerial correspondence appropriately and in time to the ministry, it would come up with a foreshore and seabed policy that is much more in the interests of Māori. At the moment we have a dissatisfied Māori population. There was a hīkoi march from Auckland. There is a shortfall in the foresight of Te Puni Kōkiri.

I will wind up by saying that Te Puni Kōkiri is doing a good job, but we need to work to ensure that it does a better job in the future.

Report tabled.

REVIEW—MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT

Consideration of Report of Transport and Industrial Relations Committee

ALEXANDER OSBORN (Tamaki): I bring the recommendations of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee from the inquiry into the penalties for breaching the graduated driver’s licence conditions. Following our inquiry, we recommend that the Government undertake a review into penalties for breaching the graduated driver’s licence conditions, to establish whether current penalties provide effective deterrents. We recommend that the Government implement progressively harsher penalties for breaches of the graduated licence system conditions, and establish a nationwide campaign, such as the drink-driving campaign, to improve attitudes towards complying with the driver’s licence conditions.

I will give a little background on the introduction of the driver’s licence system. In July 1985 the Ministry of Transport released a paper entitled A Graduated Driver Licensing System. This paper suggested a new system of licensing drivers, in order to ease young drivers into the driving population by restricting their driving situations until they gain more experience.

Hon Member: How much is this going to cost?

Hon ALEXANDER OSBORN: I fail to see what that has to do with breaking the conditions of the system. A three-stage graduated driver-licensing system was introduced in August 1987, following consultation and an inquiry by the Communications and Road Safety Committee. A review of driver-licensing policies was initiated in 1994. This resulted in several changes to the licensing system in May 1999. The system now applies to all learner drivers, not just those aged 15 to 24 years. The learner licence must now be held for a minimum period of 6 months, and for drivers aged 15 to 24 years the restricted licence period is 18 months.

I will just run over the current conditions of the licence system. A learner driver is required to be accompanied by a supervisor who has held a full car licence for 2 years and is currently licensed. The restricted licence includes three main driving restrictions: a night-time driving curfew from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m., unless accompanied by a supervisor; no carrying of passengers aged under than 20, unless accompanied by a supervisor; and a blood alcohol limit of 0.03 milligrams a litre if under 20 years of age, or otherwise a limit of 0.08 milligrams a litre.

As a consequence of the review, a new penalty regime was introduced in May 1999. Breaches of a condition of either the learner or restricted licence now incur 25 demerit points and a $400 infringement fee. We consider that the current penalty regime does not effectively deter drivers from breaching graduated driver’s licence system conditions. We consider that as the first review of the graduated driver-licensing system was initiated in 1994 and the subsequent changes implemented in 1999, it would be highly valuable to undertake a second review. In particular, we recommend reviewing the conditions for the restricted licence, as we consider them too onerous. We consider that the conditions should be more lenient in the event of an emergency requiring a driver with a restricted licence to drive passengers while unsupervised.

The Land Transport Safety Authority told us that the following are elements of an effective deterrent penalty: certainty, severity, and swiftness. We were also told by the authority that the most effective deterrent for traffic offending is the threat of loss of licence. We consider that a progressively staged penalty system should be introduced, with harsher penalties for subsequent offending, and that a nationwide campaign should be introduced to educate the youth of New Zealand about breaking the conditions and the dangers involved with that.

Report tabled.

Speaker’s Statements

Business and Parliament Trust—Scholarships

Mr SPEAKER: I would like to congratulate those committees that met. There must have been some really good discussions going on in them, and some that were very lively. I want to make some observations before we adjourn for lunch.

First, I want to repeat the message about the Business and Parliament Trust essays. We have actually upped the awards, just slightly, on what you might have in your folder. So I say again, there is one prize of $2,000 and two prizes of $1,000 each, for an essay of 800 words. Let me emphasise that I will be one of the judges, and if there are more than 10 or 15 words over the 800, the essay will not be considered, as otherwise it would be unfair. So if you are asked to do 800 words, you can do up to 800 words and 20 or 30 beyond that. But other than that, then obviously you are doing a longer essay and can put more into it, but that has to be a discipline for yourselves. A guide is that 800 words is about two sides of A4 paper with reasonable handwriting.

Voting

Mr SPEAKER: The second point I want to emphasise is that after lunch we are going to vote. I emphasise that when we call a vote, a bell goes for 1 minute, and when the bell stops the doors are locked. The reason for that goes back to the three resolutions of 1629, when Charles I was having his row with the House of Commons. The then-Speaker of the House of Commons ordered the doors to be locked so that those inside had to vote, and they could not escape from doing so. Once you are inside and the doors are locked, you have to cast a vote: yes, no, or abstain. But if you are outside and the doors are locked, you cannot get in. So you have to be back on time after lunch.

Sitting suspended from 11.56 a.m. to 1 p.m.

AGE OF MAJORITY AMENDMENT BILL

LAND TRANSPORT AMENDMENT BILL

SALE OF LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL

Third Readings

Debate resumed from 16 August.

JOHN DARROCH (List): Alcohol is a popular mainstream drug. It is ever-present at most social gatherings, and we are bombarded by advertisements through television, print, and billboards, as well as sponsorship of popular events and sports teams. Alcohol is a widely available and socially acceptable drug. Advertising presents drinking as cool, sexy, and desirable. It is plain to see that the vast majority of liquor advertising is targeted directly and openly towards getting people to drink more at a younger age.

Open promotion of a dangerous drug helps to reaffirm the idea that drinking is a socially acceptable form of drug taking, and it fosters dangerous attitudes towards drinking. This message, combined with woefully inadequate policing of current laws and a lack of any substantial education on the many negative effects of drinking, has created a society in which youth drinking is widespread and carried out to dangerous levels.

This legislation is not about stopping under-18s from drinking. It is about creating a class of tens of thousands of responsible adults who will break the law on a regular basis. This bill is about 18 and 19-year-olds being unable to make informed decisions about their health. In conclusion, a complete ban on alcohol advertising would help to combat negative views on drinking, and raising the drinking age would create a large class of people with no respect for the law—similar to the cannabis debate.

CATHERINE MACKMURDIE (List): One of the parts of this legislative proposal is the issue of the age of majority being lowered from 20 years of age to 18. I strongly support this, as the current law goes against other Acts of Parliament and the prevalent attitudes of today’s society. Section 3 of the Electoral Act defines an adult as someone over 18 years of age, yet the Age of Majority Act defines an adult as someone over 20. This means that under New Zealand law a person has the right to vote at age 18, yet still does not have the complete rights of an adult. Does this mean New Zealand is letting children vote?

Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that “child” means every human being below the age of 18 unless majority is attained earlier. New Zealand is a signatory of this charter, so anyone between the ages of 18 and 20 does not have the rights of a child, nor the full rights of an adult as things currently stand.

The second area is the minimum driving age. I believe that New Zealand should keep it at the current age of 15. Otherwise, public transport will need to be greatly improved, especially in rural areas where there are very few transport options available other than private vehicles. For a teenager living in a rural area a car is often the only means of transport. Raising the age of the learner licence is the wrong strategy and will not stop the fatalities of young drivers. The better option would be to increase the time period of the learner licence and its restrictions. At the same time we should get rid of the defensive driving course. This course wipes 6 months off the restricted licence and contains absolutely no practical elements. The student works completely from a work book, which does not provide practical experience, and nothing can increase driver safety like supervised practical experience.

For the third part, it has been mooted that the age to purchase alcohol be raised from 18 to 20. I do not agree with this. As you have already been told, at 15 you can drive, and at 16 you can consent to sex—with the possibility of parenthood—get married with parental consent, and have an abortion, plastic surgery, or any other medical procedure without it. At 18 you can buy cigarettes, bet on horse races, and join the armed forces. You are also expected to vote and to perform jury duty—two very important functions of a democratic society. Yet despite all these rights and responsibilities, it is proposed that you not be allowed to buy alcohol. Where is the continuity? I acknowledge there are problems with teen drinking, but there are problems with adult drinking, as well. New Zealand needs to change its attitude towards alcohol and strive for a more mature society, rather than legislate unfairly and inconsistently on all these issues.

JUDY LEE (List): Should we increase the minimum driving age from 15 to 16? Many 15-year-olds are immature—many, not all—and irresponsible, and that causes high crash and accident risks. Statistics clearly state that young drivers between the ages of 15 and 24 are overrepresented in motor accidents. By increasing the minimum driving age to 16, these problems can be solved—

Hon Member: Ha, ha!

JUDY LEE: I hear you loud and clear—that is not true.

When I turned 16, I looked 15, I certainly acted like a 15-year-old, and I thought like one—that is, when I had just turned 16. It was not like: “Hey, I’m 16; I’m now mature and responsible.” My point is that there really is not much difference between a 15 and a 16-year-old, so increasing the minimum age is not going to have much effect on the problems that young drivers are supposedly causing. Increasing the minimum age is not going to make those problems just disappear.

We know from figures that the younger the driver, the higher the relative crash risk, because, according to the Land Transport Safety Authority, we as young drivers have limited life experience. That means we do not evaluate the consequences of our actions. The crash stats show that young drivers are overly-represented because of inexperience, especially when we begin to drive unsupervised.

The current licensing system states that the youngest age at which a person can drive unsupervised is 15½, which means that you spend a minimum of half a year with a learner’s licence. In the states of New South Wales and Queensland in Australia, the earliest time at which unsupervised driving can occur begins 1 year after supervised driving. That is also the same in Ontario and the Northwest Territories of Canada, because one of the main causes of accidents occurring is inexperience. It does not really matter at what age you begin to drive, because all beginners have literally no experience at all.

I propose that we extend the period of time that drivers must have a learner’s licence to a year. The problem of inexperience on the road is solved when we give drivers the opportunity to have more experience by extending the period of supervised driving. It means that it will take longer to reach a full licence, so keeping the minimum age at 15 is actually quite ideal.

If you are not convinced, I suggest that another way to reduce driving inexperience is to implement a specific number of supervised hours each driver must have, before he or she can receive a restricted licence. Either way, increasing the minimum driving age to 16 is not going to have any effect at all unless we really want to target the reasons why accidents and crashes occur in the first place.

TANIA LANGLANDS (Taranaki-King Country): The part of the legislation that I wish to speak to you about is the amendment to the Land Transport Act. The amendment to this Act increases the minimum age for a person to hold a licence from 15 to 16 years.

Statistics show that 15-year-old drivers are involved in fewer crashes resulting in injury and death than 16 and 17-year-olds. But the statistics for 15-year-olds involved in fatal crashes per 100 million kilometres driven are much higher. We have to take into consideration that fewer young people are driving at 15 years than at 16 and 17, and that 15-year-old drivers drive shorter distances, under more restricted conditions.

If the minimum driving age were increased, then what would happen about transport for the 15-year-olds? It would be OK if you live in a city or town, as you can catch a bus, taxi, etc. But what about the rural youth? As New Zealand Federated Farmers have pointed out, public transport is often not available in rural areas. The youth who get to their destinations by the use of cars would be less mobile and less able to participate in community events—as many of you may well do.

In 1998 a select committee considered a proposal to raise the driving age from 15 to 16. This proposal was rejected by the committee—get that! The committee was concerned about the impact on such things as access to employment, and social and recreational activities. The committee considered that the road safety benefits of such a move were not sufficient to outweigh the costs.

I come from Piopio, where there is no public transport. [Interruption] “Where is that?”, you ask. The nearest place is Te Kūiti, which has a train, but the trains run only to the main towns, like Wellington and Auckland. The buses stop in Te Kūiti and Piopio, but to get to the buses we still have to take our cars, so how do we get there?

Hon Members: Walk!

TANIA LANGLANDS: I live 20 minutes out of Piopio. Hamilton is our nearest town, so if the driving age were to be increased, how would the youth of Piopio and Te Kūiti get from place to place? How would they travel to work if they have left school, or to sport or community events?

When the minimum driving age was set in 1994, New Zealand had a predominantly rural economy. Now that is not so much the case, but rural youth still need to be taken into consideration. New Zealand 15-year-olds have high crash statistics, and New Zealand’s population continues to grow, but are the road safety benefits of increasing the age sufficient to outweigh the costs? That is what we need to consider.

MEGAN McCREA (List): It is my opinion that lowering the age of majority from 20 to 18 is a great proposal. At 18, you are ready to attain the status of full age. At 18, being responsible for yourself just comes naturally. This legislation was passed in 1970—oh, the 1970s! Just saying that indicates how dated this bill is. I view an 18-year-old as an adult, and this view is backed up by the maturity displayed by the majority of 18-year-olds. If full age or adult status were to be given to 18-year-olds, I think that society would benefit from the change and from the maturity and conscientiousness of this age group. Lowering the age of majority from 20 to 18, I believe, would be a positive step for New Zealand.

Regarding the Land Transport Act, the proposal is to increase the age at which a person is able to hold a driver’s licence, from 15 to 16. This is ridiculous. Driving is a freedom that many youth benefit from. To rely on parents or caregivers for an extra year, in comparison with what is accepted now, is a strain not only on parents and caregivers but on us as youth. At the age of 15, we are no longer visiting only our friends who live next door, we are visiting our friends who live across town; nor do we spend our weekends just at home. Teenagers are the epitome of socialisation. Transport is essential. Being able to drive at 15 provides youth with life skills and responsibility.

Lastly, I turn to raising the minimum age at which one is able to purchase alcohol. I have heard all the points made, but I say that this is ridiculous. Raising the minimum age at which one is able to purchase alcohol, from 18 to 20, is another ridiculous proposal. After sharing my view that the age of majority should be lowered to 18, the same values apply to this. After leaving school at 18 it is absurd to be placed in the position of having to rely on parents and others to purchase alcohol for your own consumption. At 18 I believe you are able to take responsibility for your own choices and decisions. Buying alcohol falls into this category. New Zealand’s economy would not benefit from this change at all, because 18 to 20-year-olds spend considerable amounts of money at bars and alcohol outlets in New Zealand. The nightlife of New Zealand, as we know it, would not exist. Statistics published by the Ministry of Justice provide proof of my generalisations. At the age of 18 you can vote, be conscripted, and marry, so why take away a minor privilege?

KIRSTI RAWSTRON (List): I would dearly like to begin my speech in an ordinary fashion by addressing the first part of the Minimum Ages Bill, and then following on to the second and third parts. However, this is rather difficult as the Ministry of Youth Development has not seen fit to supply Ministers with any information on what the effect of lowering the age of majority would be. I would research it myself but I have 13-hour school days. For the record, I agree that this age should be lowered to 18. As many of my fellow youth MPs have said, we have most of the rights of adults at that age anyway.

However, when it comes to the driving age, I feel that this legislation should be thrown out. In spite of the fact that New Zealanders have one of the lowest driving ages in the world, we also have one of the worst driving reputations in the world. Why is this? Because New Zealanders cannot drive. Increasing the age at which we are able to gain our driver’s licence will not raise our driving reputation. The only thing that will change this is a better driver education system. I have sat the course that the Land Transport Safety Authority has approved, to cut 6 months off my restricted licence. I sat there for four nights and ate jellybeans. I have also taken part in a Pro Drive Trust practical driving course. Guess which was more useful? For those members who have the brainpower of senior Land Transport Safety Authority officials, the practical Pro Drive course—not registered by the authority—was the most beneficial. I call for more funding for driver education. I also call for harsher driving tests and compulsory sitting of the learner licence exam by any foreign visitors wishing to drive in New Zealand.

What I am going to say on the drinking age will be short, as many members seem to have focused on this. What amuses me is the fact that most members wish the drinking age to be raised. However, I feel that this will merely encourage the negative externalities of alcohol consumption. Madam Speaker, I will not bore you with all the so-called positive reasons for raising the drinking age; my colleagues have already done that. Instead, I call for the abolishment of the drinking age altogether. I come from a household of European origin, and, as a child, a glass of wine was seen as a treat to have with dinner—just like fizzy drinks. Now that I am nearing the end of my second decade of alcohol consumption, I find that alcohol is not mysterious. In fact, all it does is give me a headache the next day. I agree with my fellow youth MPs who have called for us not to change the law on alcohol, but rather, society’s attitude to it.

To end, I would like to sum up my speech with a quote of our age by Midnight Blue, which I think affects us all: “Being old enough is bull. There are only two things that determine whether you’re old enough to do something; whether you ‘understand’ what the hell you’re getting yourself into, and whether you’re willing to accept ‘responsibility’ for it if it blows up in your face. How many years you’ve been alive is ultimately meaningless, except inasmuch as it gives parents a general sort of idea as to whether their child is likely to understand what they are getting themselves into.”

JOSH DENNIS (List): In debating the Minimum Ages Bill I would like to address the very problem at issue—this country’s drinking habits. I start by stating that New Zealanders have developed a somewhat immature view on the drinking of alcohol. It is seen as a rite of passage, from which the exorbitant consumption of intoxicating liquids leads to a night of incoherency, Bohemian dancing, unpredictable urinations, and the explosive expulsion of one’s stomach contents before finally passing out. To many under-18-year-olds this can be colloquially quoted as “a great night on the turps”.

These, in my opinion, are frightening words—for two reasons. The first is that regular binge drinking has seriously severe and physically damaging effects on the body, which I will not go into at the moment. The second cause of concern about the mentioned quote is the young age of the people who are using such expressions, and therefore experiencing such activities. Yes, according to the Ministry of Justice report, some youths as young as 13 and 14 are drinking far more frequently and in much greater volume than they used to. The numbers of 13 and 14-year-olds who admit to binge drinking have increased each year since the lowering of the drinking age. Therefore, it would be clear that the lowering of the drinking age has made it easier for youths, barely into their teens, to get hold of large amounts of alcohol. It has made it easier for younger people to do long-term damage to themselves.

It may seem a logical conclusion to raise the drinking age back to what it was previously, but would that actually fix anything in the long run? Young people today treat alcohol as a magical potion that will transform them into adults. Many Kiwi teens have the attitude that the mass consumption of alcohol is the best way to have fun and socialise. Many young Kiwis eagerly anticipate wrapping their lips around the opening of a spirit bottle for the first time.

It does not matter how old the drinking age is, young and keen teens will find their way to get alcohol. This speaks to me of a frail and false public attitude towards alcohol that has been passed down by parents and older members of the public to very suggestible young teens. It is not an out-and-out age problem, but more a cultural deficiency that requires concentrated Government attention and the reshaping of the public’s culture. Adults need to show youth that alcohol is to be used in moderation. Changing the age is not going to be a long-term answer. I would support the raising of the age only if it were to be used as a temporary measure while cultural change is made. Let us make a great night out on the turps just a great night out.

JENNA HANSEN (List): New Zealand has a unique social youth culture. To many international exchange students, school could not be better—very few subjects, little stress, and a fantastic social life. It is the New Zealand Government’s responsibility to promote the necessary amendments to the Minimum Ages Bill to change the social climate in order to generate a healthier economy and a healthier population. The bill affects three Acts. Let us analyse them one by one.

The bill proposes that the Age of Majority Act of 1970 be amended to decrease the age at which a person attains full age, from 20 to 18 years. This seems a sensible move, as many significant activities in youth culture have been legislated to 18. For example, an 18-year-old can bet at a race club, and, if registered as an elector, be both liable and qualified to serve on a jury. The bill would not affect the guardianship of a child, so its effect would be to only two situations: first, an 18-year-old will be able to marry without parental consent; and, secondly, 18-year-olds will no longer be protected from those who might take advantage of young, inexperienced persons in a court situation.

It seems only realistic that the full age is decreased to 18 years, as the Act stands for very little. New Zealand requires a law that is strong and meaningful, without exception. The Land Transport Act of 1998 proposes to increase the minimum age for a person to hold a driver’s licence, from 15 to 16 years. It is important to note that the legislation was implemented in 1924. I cannot stress enough the change in our youth since that time—fashion, values, education. And who would have thought that the picking up of rubbish would gain one a secondary qualification in 2004?

The statistics imply that we are naive not to take action. In 2002 many young drivers have affected their lives. Drivers aged 15 to 19 years of age were involved in 2,300 crashes. In the area of the economy, young drivers, aged 15 to 24 years, were at fault for $850 million of the taxpayers’ money. New Zealand is asking for accidents on our roads, because we have the lowest minimum driving age on the globe. We are jeopardising our citizens’ lives. The increase in age of transport licensing is a start to allowing proud Kiwis their lives.

It is proposed to amend the Sale of Liquor Act by increasing the age at which liquor can be bought, from 18 to 20 years. There has been a 100 percent increase in the number of 18-year-old drunk drivers over the last 9 years. That is a heavy increase of drunk drivers on our roads. It is necessary to change the aggressive and life-threatening culture of drink-driving. It is essential to understand the chain effects that will result from the passing of the Minimum Ages Bill, and the positive influence it will have on New Zealand’s youth culture.

PAMELA MILLS (Mt Roskill): Drinking, driving, and being an adult—apparently these are the biggest issues facing the youth of today. That is what we have chosen to debate this week, and last in line is my view from Phil Goff’s electorate of Mt Roskill.

Jonathan Wiseman: It’s a good, credible source.

PAMELA MILLS: Yes. As this appears to be the most controversial issue, I am basing my argument on the legal age for purchasing alcohol. Am I the only one here who thinks that our Government is beating around the bush with its bills? Time and time again we have referred to New Zealand’s waffly legal drinking age. Fellow MPs, we have no concrete drinking age in this country—we have a purchasing age. Under-18-year-olds can, and do, get around this. This is a huge flaw in New Zealand’s legal system.

Lukas Schroeter: No, it isn’t.

PAMELA MILLS: Yes, it is. I believe this is a reflection of the Government’s reluctance to stop young people drinking, but it cannot openly admit it.

Next—and it is my belief that the majority of the Youth Parliament, with one exception, agrees with me—the legal purchasing age should not be raised. I know you have heard this at least a hundred times this week. Do you know why it should not be raised? Because today’s law is neither followed nor enforced. Tangata whenua of New Zealand, do not look at law and legislation; look around you. Statistics have only given us a very primitive view of the effects of teenage binge drinking, which, I might say, is only following trends that were already in place before 1999.

We come from all parts of New Zealand and, as young people, we have direct access to the real statistics. Some young people drink—we break the law. How can we change a law that we cannot even get right today? To solve this problem we first need to establish why and how young people drink—why New Zealand has a drinking culture. Legislation on a mere piece of paper cannot change that. It goes against the culture of our very community. Tell me, what do the billboards outside say? “Good on ya mate.” Beer advertising and rugby players—our sports role models are sponsored by alcohol companies. It sends a clear message to the youth of today that drinking is OK. Why do young people drink? Why not? Apart from going to things like Youth Parliament, there is not much else provided for the safe social interaction of youth. Like Megan McCrea said, teenagers are the epitome of socialisation. There are no good dance clubs for under-18-year-olds in New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time is up. [Interruption] When I am on my feet, no one else may comment—if they want to vote. There are three issues at stake. We will put them individually. I will put a question. If I say, as I usually do, “The Ayes have it?”, only one member has to say “The Noes have it.”, and that is sufficient to call a division.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Age of Majority Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 104

Abernethy	Henderson	Meadowcroft	Singh
Al-Tiay	Higbee	Middleton	Slaven
Beath	Hinds	Mills	Smith A
Bosch	Homan	Modlik	Smith R
Bridge	Horopapera	Moller	Smith T
Bulk	Hunt	Morton	Stanley
Carpenter	James	Muirhead	Stayt
Chau	Joseph	Nathan	Stensness
Claasen	Kidd	Neels	Thompson
Collins	King	Nicol	Thorn
Cooper	Kuperus	Olsen	Tuatini
Cope	Kururangi	Osborn	Turner
Crutcher	Langlands	Owen	Tyler
Darroch	Lawrence	Pomare	Vyas
Dennis	Lewer	Pou	West
Dodunski	Lewis	Poulter	Whalley
Edwards	Lill	Pronk	Wikitera
Feau	Lilley	Purton	Williams I
Forgie	McCarthy	Quested	Williams J
Forrest	McCormick	Rawstron	Wiseman
George	McCrea	Reihana	Young
Gorrie	McKechnie	Reyners	Zwaan
Grant	Mackmurdie	Rolfe
Grindley	Manhire-Heath	Ruru
Hansen	Mason	Rutland
Harrison	Mathewson	Schroeter	Teller:
Hay	Max	Searle	Berry

Noes 14

Khawaja	Nikolao	Schofield	Wharakura
Lee I	Parkinson	Stuart
Lee J	Paurini	Tapaleao	Teller:
Mager	Reeves	Walmsley	Keeling

Abstentions 2

Brown

Loughnan

Bill read a third time.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 44

Al-Tiay	Hinds	Nathan	Tuatini
Berry	Homan	Nikolao	Turner
Brown	James	Owen	Vyas
Collins	Joseph	Parkinson	Walmsley
Cooper	Kururangi	Paurini	Whalley
Cope	Lawrence	Pou	Williams J
Feau	Lee I	Pronk	Young
Forgie	Lee J	Reeves
Forrest	Lewis	Searle
Grant	Mager	Stanley
Hansen	Mason	Stuart	Teller:
Hay	Muirhead	Tapaleao	Middleton

Noes 73

Abernethy	Hunt	Meadowcroft	Schroeter
Beath	Keeling	Mills	Singh
Bosch	Khawaja	Modlik	Slaven
Bridge	Kidd	Moller	Smith A
Bulk	King	Morton	Smith R
Carpenter	Kuperus	Neels	Smith T
Chau	Langlands	Nicol	Stayt
Claasen	Lewer	Olsen	Stensness
Crutcher	Lill	Osborn	Thompson
Darroch	Lilley	Pomare	Thorn
Dennis	Loughnan	Poulter	Tyler
Dodunski	McCarthy	Purton	West
Edwards	McCormick	Quested	Wikitera
George	McCrea	Rawstron
Gorrie	McKechnie	Reyners	Wiseman
Grindley	Mackmurdie	Rolfe	Zwaan
Harrison	Manhire-Heath	Ruru
Henderson	Mathewson	Rutland	Teller:
Higbee	Max	Schofield	Wharakura

Abstentions 3

Horopapera

Reihana

Williams I

Motion not agreed to.

Mr SPEAKER: As a matter of interest, if members were not in the lobby before the doors were locked, and they did not vote, they would be guilty of what is called a breach of privilege, which could mean that they could be dealt with by the House—suspended or something like that. That has not happened, to my knowledge, in New Zealand Parliaments. It has happened rarely overseas.

A personal vote was called for on the question, That the Sale of Liquor Amendment Bill be now read a third time.

Ayes 29

Beath	Khawaja	Pomare	Vyas
Chau	Kuperus	Pronk	Walmsley
Forrest	Kururangi	Reeves	Williams J
Gorrie	Lee I	Schofield	Young
Hay	Mager	Smith A
Horopapera	Mason	Stuart
James	Muirhead	Tapaleao	Teller:
Joseph	Nikolao	Turner	Hunt

Noes 86

Abernethy	Henderson	Max	Rutland
Al-Tiay	Higbee	Meadowcroft	Schroeter
Berry	Hinds	Middleton	Searle
Bosch	Homan	Mills	Singh
Bridge	Keeling	Modlik	Slaven
Brown	Kidd	Moller	Smith T
Bulk	King	Nathan	Stanley
Carpenter	Langlands	Neels	Stayt
Collins	Lawrence	Nicol	Stensness
Cooper	Lee J	Olsen	Thorn
Cope	Lewer	Osborn	Tuatini
Crutcher	Lewis	Owen	Tyler
Darroch	Lill	Parkinson	West
Dodunski	Lilley	Paurini	Whalley
Edwards	Loughnan	Pou	Wharakura
Feau	McCarthy	Poulter	Wikitera
Forgie	McCormick	Purton	Williams I
George	McCrea	Quested	Wiseman
Grant	McKechnie	Rawstron	Zwaan
Grindley	Mackmurdie	Reyners
Hansen	Manhire-Heath	Rolfe	Teller:
Harrison	Mathewson	Ruru	Smith R

Abstentions 5

Claason	Dennis	Morton	Reihana
Thompson

Motion not agreed to.

General Debates

HEMI PAURINI (Te Tai Hauauru): I move, That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I wish to speak in respect of the interface of Māori youth, now and beyond. I am a Māori youth and it has become apparent to me that there are some obstacles in the way of Māori youth, such as failing the National Certificate of Educational Achievement, bad health, and also the depletion of the Māori language. It has been made apparent that the way the Government has been trying to deal with it is by attacking it. I believe that that is not the way to deal with a situation. It is only a way to make the situation more severe.

I would like to introduce that these obstacles be dealt with in a more traditional Māori way, through hapū and whānau. Introducing courses that could coincide with the tūhonohono already in place will help Māori youth of today to expand and grow. As someone said yesterday, in the year 2034 one in four people in New Zealand will be Māori, so should not one in four New Zealanders be speaking Māori, and be healthy? I think that should be a goal for Māori in the future. I believe it is a step that we can move towards as a nation, and also as a people. Māori language is a gift—a taonga—and I believe it should be cherished, along with Māori health and education. Kia ora.

GEORGIA LAWRENCE (List): I want to see the citizens of New Zealand educated in the history, culture, and origins of our country. This year I have chosen to study the history of New Zealand. I have gained knowledge of my heritage and my country’s history, insight into Māori culture, and a greater understanding as to why certain issues are surfacing within our country. Consequently, my views on race relations and surrounding issues have been reversed.

Race relations in this country have become hugely controversial. On issues such as the Treaty of Waitangi, the New Zealand wars, and issues adjacent, the average New Zealander’s education is minimal. Yet these events are the cause of national controversy so many partake in, yet so few understand.

A large number of New Zealanders are apathetic towards race-based issues. This apathy, I believe, stems from a lack of understanding. It appears that constituents and, occasionally, the Government are forming opinions that are not based on fact, but rather on word of mouth and on a hugely influential and manipulative media portrayal of events and issues, both of which lead to ill-informed and uneducated decisions.

As part of the youth of New Zealand, I am continually bombarded with statements such as: “The youth of today are the leaders of tomorrow.” That worries me, as the majority of my generation has never been properly educated in New Zealand history, and has a lack of understanding as to how many of today’s issues result from this history. I do not want my generation to be leading the country with biased opinions, many of which have been influenced by parents and other supposed role models. I want my country to be run by those who have been educated in New Zealand history and culture, who have an understanding of how that applies in present society, and who are able to make decisions that benefit all New Zealand citizens.

It does not take a huge amount of time to gain an insight into New Zealand history. I propose that the study of our country be introduced into our secondary education curriculum at senior level as a compulsory subject. As a result, the generations that pass through the schooling system will gain a broader historical understanding, and we will become a more culturally aware nation.

Soon I will be applying for a position at one of New Zealand’s tertiary institutions. Hand in hand with that come applications for a student loan, a student allowance, or a scholarship. Which course should I take? Where should I take it, and for what duration? All those factors will contribute to the student debt I will be repaying for a considerable period of my life.

Shackled with debt, graduates cannot buy houses, cannot get married, and cannot start families. They simply cannot afford to. For many years our country has supported those who are uneducated and unemployed, many of whom are happy to remain in that status simply because it requires no exertion on their part. Yet those who are willing to learn will be in debt for many years.

JACOB DODUNSKI (List): Looking around New Zealand, one has to wonder whether young people are truly reaching their potential. We are a fantastically vibrant nation. Although small in size politically and socially, we are mighty in stature. Still, like most developing nations, we face our problems and issues. Meeting these problems head-on with vigour and determination is one of the hardest things imaginable. So is taking a stand.

It is time to take a stand. Our parents are the role models we look towards for guidance and direction. With their unconditional love and support, we can become successful. When that works, it works well.

However, there are incidents, even in our small country, of mistreatment and abuse that do not sit well in any First World nation. We should be ashamed. I say to the adults of today’s society: “It is your fault that some of us are growing up in a world of violence. As a result, we are picking up many of your bad habits.” At times, it seems that wisdom and age are mutually exclusive.

Abuse cannot be tolerated in any form. That commitment must come from on high. Our politicians must resolve to work cooperatively and to help find a solution to what seems to be a growing problem. We cannot continue living in a country that has one of the highest teen birth rates in the world, with some of those births resulting in abuse and violence.

I want briefly to outline my concerns about the Civil Union Bill currently before the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is said that it takes a village to raise a child—a quote that outlines the importance of family for young people. Does this bill work for or against the concept of a stable family relationship and the youth of today?

I also believe that we can learn from Christianity. We must respect each other’s right to life, and work actively to preserve it and not threaten it. We must remain truthful and honest in all our dealings, to set an example that New Zealanders deserve. We must remain proactive and involved. Parents must be committed to the healthy development of their children. The Government must be committed to ensuring that happens.

I want to end by thanking John Tamihere for his help and his passion as an advocate for young Kiwis. This is a fantastic opportunity, and in part fulfils my earlier call for us to take a stand.

CAMERON STUART (Epsom): I am the last of a generation to have sat School Certificate, Combined Schools, Sixth Form Certificate, University Bursary, and Cambridge exams, and also to have endured under the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) system. I have sat over 130 examinations in my time at school—perchance, I could be the most examined member in this Chamber. I have been involved in so many assessments, I know I am probably the most qualified person to speak on New Zealand’s present and past education system. I can assure you now that I have very little praise to give to one system, and very little criticism to give to the other.

The title of my speech is “The Failure of Excellence”. I will be focusing on how the present education system—NCEA—fails to promote excellence in secondary schools. I believe that all students should aim for excellence and be encouraged to achieve the best that they can. Regrettably, NCEA does not provide the opportunity, or create the motivation, for any student to excel. It seems to me that the ministry is limiting the ability of our country’s academic elite to reach for the stars, rather than lifting the results of present underachieving students.

John Morris, Headmaster of Auckland Grammar School, explains: “Any qualification that allows students to accumulate and amalgamate credits from the study of academic subjects, leisure activities, and vocational pursuits into one single overarching qualification will struggle to gain international or even national credibility.”

A student can be marked down an entire grade over a trivial technicality, which in a traditional exam would cost the candidate only half a mark. The marking schedules for NCEA exams are scandalous. For instance, a student who correctly answers over half the achievement questions and just over half the merit questions, will get a Merit pass. Another student who gets under half the achievement questions correct and then gets all the merit questions and all the excellence questions correct, gets Not Achieved. This is nonsensical. Under any normal system, the merit student would get 50 percent and the failed student would actually get over 80 percent. This demonstrates the clear dumbing down and failure to recognise true excellence where it is due. This is the failure of excellence.

NCEA fails students who do not deserve to fail, and passes students who do not deserve to pass. How can such a system exist? Why should we settle for mediocrity? It is extremely disappointing that the present Government refuses to accept that the NCEA education scheme has fatal flaws both in its edifice and its implementation. It has caused significant controversy among our country’s top educational leaders. Where is all this going to take us? Is the next step going to be the dumbing down of the universities? What will happen to our scientists of the future? I will tell you. Our scientists of the future will not be splitting atoms. Under NCEA, the only thing our scientists will be doing is splitting hamburger buns at McDonald’s.

ISAAC WILLIAMS (Hamilton East): Why—I repeat, why—are Māori and Pacific Island students at the bottom of the education system? Recognised schooling consists of cultural processes that are not always compatible with different or minority cultures. The interactions between teachers and students in those cultural situations do not always benefit Māori and Pacific Island students. However, positive relationships between Pacific Island students and their teachers give students the motivation to succeed. It is based on a willingness to do their best for their teacher, so the learning environment becomes one in which academic achievement will improve.

Pacific Island and Māori students are an overlooked group, with barriers to learning that include low socio-economic backgrounds, poverty, health problems, church, and different social predicaments. From this way of thinking, it appears that Pacific Island students are victims of the system—a notion that has spread through much of the education system in New Zealand. That notion needs to be dispelled if Pacific Island students are to achieve. An awareness of the fundamental values and beliefs that underpin the ideological foundations on which Pacific Island culture is based is necessary for teachers given that individual rights, inquiry, and criticism are central to the Western education system.

The identity of Pacific Island and Māori students is based on village, social, and political affiliations that are complex and multiple, with cultural and historical variations, and on moral rules and social institutions whereby respect and obedience are absolute. Recognition of the importance of identity and the validation of Pacific Islanders’ backgrounds would make for better relationships with teachers, so that encouragement for students to work harder would be present.

The recommendation of this youth member would be to have professional development for teachers with regard to Māori and Pacific Island students, in small manageable steps so that the practical application would relate to everyday life. Also, better communication between parents and schools would make schools appear more approachable. In those ways the gap between the cultures of school and home would be narrowed, so that mismatches would be fewer.

To conclude my speech, I end with a little waiata to show what Māori and Pacific Island students can do when given the chance: “We all make choices for the future, for our families, for you and me. If we think about this, that is succeeding; you’ll find others will see the higher ones are you and me.” Peace!

Mr SPEAKER: What a pleasure to hear somebody actually singing in tune!

SHALLYN REEVES (List): I stand before members today as a youth MP, but, more so, as a young woman of New Zealand. I was deeply concerned at the successful passing of the Prostitution Reform Act of 2003, and call on all members to consider repealing that legislation.

The purpose of that Act was to decriminalise prostitution while not endorsing or morally sanctioning its use. What is the use of having laws if they are not built on moral values? Prostitution degrades women—as the majority of prostitutes are women. It is now recognised that women can use their bodies, just like machines, to produce goods and services that consumers, mainly men, can buy to satisfy their wants and needs. The privacy of a woman’s virtue—her personal property—is being exploited, whether or not that was the intention of the Act.

The reason the majority of women go into that line of work is financial need. If women are being forced into that line of work, then there needs to be a review of the effectiveness of Government agencies that are meant to help women who are in financial difficulty.

Competition in the prostitution industry could ignite unwanted conflict between gangs, brothel-owners, and prostitution rackets that could spread into the community and affect our children. Prostitution attracts no one but predators and slum criminals. My biggest fear is that the community most affected is the Māori community. Have we not been working hard towards improving Māori development?

There is now a higher risk that the Māori crime rate will increase, and that more Māori women will be targeted and recruited into gang-run prostitution businesses. How can we fight against the bad when we have legalised an Act that gives pimps, prostitution rackets, and flesh merchants the opportunity to run loose? What about youth? On top of all the things we have to deal with, prostitution has been added to our already heavy burden.

There was no reasonable excuse for this Act to be passed. Prostitution exists, and will always exist. There is no reason for this Act. Murder exists, and continues to exist, but that does not mean we should legalise it.

In conclusion, let me emphasise this point: what is the use of laws if they are not built on moral values? We as humans do not agree with anything unless our moral standards allow it. Prostitution is morally wrong, and because it is wrong it reflects on other social areas. In the Bible, Proverbs 31:10 and 31:11 state: “Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.”

RUCHI VYAS (New Lynn): Information technology and technology are two of the greatest contributors to a country’s economy. These industries are all about innovation and working smarter. They are present in every aspect of life, right from a simple interface of electronics, such as programming language in our house alarms, to complex medical instruments designed to incubate neonatal babies. We as humans are so hopelessly dependent on technology that, without it, it is impossible even to imagine our existence.

My speech today aims to highlight the key role that technology and information technology industries play in contributing to our country’s economy, growth, and advancement, and what the Government, and we, as youth and as the future generation of New Zealanders, can do to support and enhance those industries. For the preparation of my speech I visited leading companies in these industries, such as EDS (New Zealand) Ltd, New Zealand’s largest information technology provider, Navman, global leader in Global Positioning System and marine technology, and Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, world leader in the design and manufacture of medical instruments.

The most creditable aspect of the technology in the information technology industry is its growth. Companies are making 15 to 25 percent growth per year, and up to 96 percent growth in 6 years. Their revenues range from $200 million to $2 billion. Yet the limiting factor to the further inflow and to the shortage is the shortage of capital fund ventures. It is grievous to see that in spite of the industries’ proven growth, high-earning capacity, and low-risk rates enough capital funds are not being invested in them.

The only solution to this limitation is to allow our small, specialised companies to convert into multinationals by being taken over by large foreign companies in the industry. That would provide them with extensive funding and also allow them to access the world’s most difficult markets, since the majority of them carry out large amounts of sales off shore. This would be quite a blow to New Zealand’s economy, but it is the only way to strengthen our economy further. A further concern for these industries is the fluctuation of exchange rates. The technology industry does not incur high manufacturing costs. Therefore, its net profit percentage is much greater in comparison with other industries. Hence, market fluctuations are also posing an increasing threat to the revenue inflow.

The question that must be crossing your minds is: “Yes, that’s all well and good. The Government can look after all of that, but how can we help?”. One fact that stood out prominently in my research was that New Zealand was very low on resource availability. There is an increasing skill shortage in this country. For example, one company created 200 positions for New Zealand individuals, but only about 70 could be found from local talent. The rest were recruited from 38 countries.

So the message I would like to give at the Youth Parliament today to our youth nationwide is that we can greatly contribute to those industries by selecting technology as our choice of career.

ELIZABETH POU (List): I stand before you today, alive, well, and healthy. However, 2 days, 4 hours, and exactly 35 minutes ago I thought my stand may have been absent today. At that very time my car was travelling at 100 kilometres an hour on a northern road. A sharp bend made me chop down to 80 kilometres an hour—15 minutes used of my departure—and as I turned that sharp corner my car came into overdrive. The weight of the car pushed me to the left hand side, until I could feel myself lose control. My car had slid down a cliff 10 metres from where I first turned. I was breathless. It was so fast. I thought I was going to die.

Dudes and dudesses, listen to me for I have something to say. Ko te pūtake o te kōrero, ko tēnei.

[The essence of the statement is this.]

I refer to novice drivers and crashes. New Zealand has the seventh-highest record of crashes in the world. We have only 4 million people—how many more do we want to lose? Car crashes can happen anywhere, anytime, and anyhow. I will not tell you the statistics, for you may already have them, but I want the Parliament of today to understand.

So how will we solve it? If you think that we should raise the minimum licensing age, then well done. But no, you are not even close. Although experience and maturity play a role in driving, practice makes perfect no matter at what age. Just use your common sense. I propose a pro-driving course—a standard that one goes through to acquire a licence. This will provide drivers with first-hand experience of controlling a car in sudden instances, and hopefully will enhance their knowledge. It is time that we as a nation did something about it.

ELIZABETH LEWER (List): Special-needs units and facilities within our public schools should be supported and sustained by our Ministry of Education, instead of being shut down. Saying that public schools will simply absorb these units is short-sighted and, quite frankly, stupid. Our public schools are already underfunded, yet you expect them to absorb a special-needs unit? Come on!

Can this Government afford to support the families of children who have to go to private schools that are beyond the family’s means? What about the families where a parent must leave the workforce to home-school a child who cannot be mainstreamed, or whom the family cannot afford to send to a private school? Can this Government afford to support the teacher-aides who will lose their jobs after the closure of these units, and do not have the necessary piece of paper—also known as a university degree—to get another job? Where will they work? How will their families survive? I am sure our money would be much better spent on maintaining our special-needs units, rather than adding more people to our domestic purposes benefit list. Although the economic impacts would be great, greater social impacts would be seen.

Children with minor disabilities—such as attention deficit disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and even mild schizophrenia—need specific help. I know because both my brothers suffer from this, and neither can be mainstreamed. Without specific help these children find it hard to communicate and assimilate with our society. Without the help of these units many of these children would simply not be able to function within our society as adults.

Does this Government, presuming it stays in power, feel it can create adult rehabilitation units for the people left behind, when these school units have disappeared, in an effort to clean up the mess that this would make? Or what about a new prison to house the adults who missed out on specialist help and who have turned to crime, out of frustration at society or simply to survive? Presently the closure of these units will throw special-needs children, who are unable to function in mainstream classrooms, back into mainstream classrooms. This can create adverse effects, not only for the special children, but for the other children in the classrooms. These normal children are unable to communicate and work with the special-needs children. This can lead to overall lower productivity, slower learning, and the ostracism of our special children.

The other person to think of in this situation is the teacher. Teachers would suffer immense stress and increased work levels, just to create a harmonious classroom environment. Come on! Why is this Government trying to ditch a system that already works?

The debate having concluded, the motion lapsed.

Motions

Youth Parliament—Participation

STEPHANIE CRUTCHER (Whangarei): I move, That the next Youth Parliament continue to emphasise the importance of young people understanding and participating in decision-making processes, and that each of us return to our schools, jobs, universities, and organisations with a commitment to being more active citizens.

Motion agreed to.

Youth Parliament 2004—Vote of Thanks

RAMON OLSEN (List): I move, That the Ministry of Youth Development, members of the House of Representatives, Office of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, and Parliamentary Service be thanked for the effort they have put in facilitating Youth Parliament 2004.

Motion agreed to.

Mr SPEAKER: This will be the last time I have the opportunity to chair a Youth Parliament. I have been to all the Youth Parliaments that have been conducted so far. The standard of debate this year has been easily the best I have observed, and there have been some very good and very serious issues that have been well debated.

I make only one plea to people—the one thing I have observed in my time as Speaker is a tendency for members not to listen to what other people have to say when members think those people disagree with them. Sometimes members might be surprised, because sometimes people put an issue in a different way, and they have to think about it again. I know that I changed my mind about whether to support MMP, having seen it in action. I opposed it; now I support it because I can see what it does. I think one has to have the ability, whether one is 15 or 65, as I am, to be able to change one’s mind and remain flexible.

I have every confidence that at least a few members sitting here before me today will end up in the House, and that will improve our Parliament in the future.

EBONY HINDS (Dunedin North): On behalf of the members of Youth Parliament, I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for your contribution to this event. We have enjoyed everything that these proceedings have entailed. I sincerely wish to say that your presence here has been of great help to us, and that we respect your knowledge of Parliament and the effort it has taken to find time to be here during the last few days. I ask all members to rise and show their appreciation. [Applause]

The House adjourned at 2.27 p.m.