Volume 711 Week 42 - Thursday 3 March 2016Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 711 Week 42 - Thursday 3 March 2016[Sitting date: 03 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9367. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 3 March 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): Much as there may have been some excitement in the Opposition ranks about there being no House business there is. When the House resumes on Tuesday 8 March the Government will look to make progress on the Employment Standards Legislation Bill the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill and the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Amendment Bill.Questions to MinistersHealth System—Funding1.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: What was core Crown health expenditure as a percentage of GDP in 2010-11 and what is it in 2015-16?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): The 2015 Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand state that in 2010-11 core Crown health expenditure was 6.7 percent of GDP and in 2015-16 it is forecast to be 6.4 percent of GDP. This Government has increased health spending by $4 billion while increasing access to services for all New Zealanders.Hon Annette King: In light of that answer does a 0.38 percent decrease in Crown health expenditure—Hon Steven Joyce: Oh you’re going to say it’s a decrease. Oh good on you Annette.Hon Annette King: —as a percentage of GDP Mr Joyce—between the 2010-11 and the 2015-16 years equate to $930 million less going into health if the spending level had stayed the same; if so when will he acknowledge that health expenditure has been cut?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What a silly question. It quite clearly has not been cut because it has gone up by $4 billion over the term of this Government. You had better go and talk to your question writer.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table—[Interruption] This is a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: And I want to hear it please.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a Parliamentary Library document dated 3 March 2016 compiled from data from Treasury that shows exactly what I outlined in terms of core Crown health expenditure.Mr SPEAKER: It may be useful to members. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that information from the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Simon O’Connor: What reports has the Minister seen about the levels of core Crown health expenditure as a percentage of GDP?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have seen advice that from 2000 to 2008 the average percentage of GDP spent on core Crown health expenditure was 5.7 percent. That is lower than the average of 6.5 percent during the term of this Government. In fact between 2000 and 2008 core Crown health expenditure as a percentage of GDP never rose above 6 percent. That is what you call an own goal Mrs King. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wishes to raise a supplementary question—[Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! Mr Joyce that is your final warning for today.Hon Annette King: If there is a real increase in Crown health expenditure as he claims every week why have district health board deficits increased to an unplanned $61.5 million year to date 31 December 2015?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is a big improvement on the $150 million - plus they were running at under Labour.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the Ministry of Health paper entitled DHB Sector Financial Performance: Year to Date 31st December 2015 setting out the—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No we do not need any more. I just need to know whether the document is publicly available.Hon Annette King: No it is not.Mr SPEAKER: On that basis I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table it. [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! The Hon Annette King that is your final warning. The level of interjection and the complaints I am getting because of the interjections particularly between the two front benches mean I have to deal with it. I have given a warning on this side. I have now given the equivalent warning to this member particularly when I am on my feet. I will act on those warnings if I sadly have to. I need to put the leave for those papers. Leave is sought to table those particular papers as described by the Hon Annette King. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Paula Bennett: I am wondering whether the Minister has seen any reports on who might have actually written this primary question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is not a question that is in order. It is not even described as a question.Hon Annette King: What is his response to the fact that five district health boards have reported that they do not have the funding to cover their vital nursing staff wage increase negotiated recently in the New Zealand Nurses Organisation’s multi-employer collective agreement an increase crucial to retaining their workforce?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Vote Health went up by $400 million last year. All district health boards assured me—because they planned well ahead—that they would be able to fund that very excellent pay increase for nurses and they will be. So do not worry about it.Hon Annette King: What impact on patients will Waikato District Health Board’s decision to cut its almost $9 million deficit and growing by not filling over 69 vacancies which includes medical personnel nursing personnel and allied health personnel have?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not worried about Waikato’s performance because it has delivered an extra 5500 operations during the term of this Government and an extra 6600 first specialist appointments. It has had an extra $44 million in Budget 2015 an extra quarter of a billion dollars over the term of this Government and actually it is delivering great services. That member should actually back the staff there not constantly try to undermine their morale.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request provided by the Waikato District Health Board dated 10 February 2016 setting out their vacancies.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act request provided by Waikato District Health Board. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: Was he alarmed when he read the Ministry of Health report received by him on 4 February which states that Hutt Valley District Health Board is going to control its growing $5 million deficit through staffing control and at this stage has 22 vacancies: 10 for nurses two for medical and five for allied health?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am actually very pleased with the new chief executive my former medical school classmate Dr Bloomfield and the fiscal discipline that he is bringing to Hutt Valley District Health Board. He is going to make good use of that extra $76 million that the district health board has received over the last 7 years and he is actually making the types of decisions that mean that we can focus on getting more services delivered to the people of the Hutt Valley. So he is doing a great job.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act request from the Hutt Valley District Health Board dated 4 February 2016 setting out their vacancies.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus2.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to move its books from an $18 billion deficit in 2011 back to surplus?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has taken a lot of steps because before this Government’s first Budget in 2009 Treasury was forecasting never-ending deficits and net debt blowing out to over 60 percent of GDP over twice the level that it currently is. This was because of a combination of a financial crisis and the huge spending built in by the previous Labour Government which included no consideration—Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. I have a point of order from Grant Robertson.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have ruled several times in this House that Government questions from its own members to Ministers should not be used to attack the Opposition. That was a primary question being used for that purpose.Mr SPEAKER: I do not agree at all that the primary question was set down for that purpose. It was to inform members of this House. It was a legitimate question that was accepted. There was a huge amount of interjection coming from two particular members and if the Minister then takes the opportunity to respond to that interjection that is legitimate as well.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Just to finish off the answer in the last seven Budgets of this Government the annual cost of new initiatives has averaged around $600 million. In the seven Budgets up to 2009 the average cost of new initiatives was around $3 billion per year.Jacqui Dean: What are the Government’s fiscal priorities now that it has delivered on its election promise and made a surplus in 2014-15?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The focus now is on paying down debt. Governments have previously been able to get on top of debt because they relied on tax revenue windfalls helped by 4 to 5 percent inflation as occurred in the first decade after 2000. With inflation now at 0.1 percent we cannot rely on fast-growing tax revenue to achieve debt reduction. So we have to continue with tight management of our spending. We are doing this by better management of the Government’s huge asset base of $250 billion and also addressing the long-term drivers of our biggest area of spending and that is in social services health education welfare and justice through our programme of social investment.Grant Robertson: In light of his answer that his priority is paying down debt is it correct that he will not begin to pay down a single cent of debt until the 2020-21 financial year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The measure of debt that we use as previous Governments have is debt as a percentage of GDP. That is peaking about now but certainly paying off nominal debt will require quite strict fiscal discipline because we cannot rely on high inflation to deliver big bursts of tax revenue. We have actually got to do what every household and business in New Zealand does and that is work to the real income that we can earn.David Seymour: Has the Minister identified a level of surplus at which he will cut taxes?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Not a particular level of surplus—this Government has done a tax switch in 2010 actually when we had a deficit because we were able to cover the cost of income tax reductions with increases in GST and property taxes. The Government is committed to moderate tax cuts over the next few years if fiscal conditions allow and we have yet to see whether fiscal conditions will allow it.Jacqui Dean: What benefits will paying down Government debt bring to New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Holding and paying down debt will allow New Zealand to be resilient particularly to changes in the global economy that might have a negative effect on us. To do that we need to keep a tight rein on ineffective spending. If we can pay down debt we will also be in a better position to deal with long-term spending pressures such as superannuation. Our current public pension costs around 5 percent of GDP; by 2050 the cost will increase to 8 percent of GDP. But to keep that in perspective in the last 4 years we have managed to reduce Government spending as a proportion of GDP from 34 to 30 percent. So the reduction in Government spending as a proportion of GDP in the last few years has been greater than the projected increase in national superannuation through to 2050.Jacqui Dean: What implications does a focus on paying down debt have on the way the Government manages its books?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Now that the Budget is broadly in balance and there is a stronger focus on debt we are not so concerned about small positive or negative fluctuations in the Budget balance. This is particularly true for the monthly Crown accounts the next of which will be released tomorrow because month to month the accounts can fluctuate depending on timing effects. The Government manages the books by getting better results from our spending. That is we are willing to spend more where we can get results but if we cannot get results then we are not willing to spend money—for instance on large-scale new tertiary education entitlements because there is no evidence that that will make any difference to anybody.Housing Rental—Warrant of Fitness3.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 1 in the House yesterday?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): Yes particularly my answer pointing out how the Government’s insulation and smoke alarm requirements will save 21 lives a year and the fact that our Government has invested $500 million in making our homes warmer drier and safer—16 times what the previous Government spent.Metiria Turei: Is it not a fact that he misled the House yesterday when he claimed that 18 lives would be saved through the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill when in fact the evidence is those lives would be saved by a much higher standard of insulation and a range of other safety measures including a heating device?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I stand by the numbers yesterday. They are provided in an economic analysis research report in which it said “The health-related benefits arise primarily from the retrofitting of insulation … A reduction in mortality was the largest benefit—preventing 18 deaths per year …”. That is a report that was commissioned independently from my ministry and I stand by it.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table two reports that show the connection between the 18 deaths and a higher standard of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We need just the title of the reports and the dates.Metiria Turei: The first of those reports is the Cost Benefit Analysis for a Minimum Standard for Rental Housingfrom November 2014.Mr SPEAKER: And the second?Metiria Turei: The second report is The Impact of Retrofitted Insulation and New Heaters on Health Services Utilisation and Costs Pharmaceutical Costs and Mortality from October 2011.Mr SPEAKER: And I just want confirmation that they are not readily available for members if they want them.Metiria Turei: I found them on the internet; they could be publicly available.Mr SPEAKER: If they are publicly available then members can source them for themselves.Dr Parmjeet Parmar: Why does the Government not support the housing warrant of fitness bill proposed by the member?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is not supporting the bill because it goes too far; it is impractical. It would make it an unlawful act to rent or use a property that does not have glass visibility strips and security stays on all windows. I know my own private home in Nelson does not comply; I suspect the houses of most members of this House would not comply. I do find it ironic that the Greens would compel glass visibility strips on the windows of all other people’s buildings but actually do not even have them in Bowen House. It is that classic policy from the Greens—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need that part to the answer.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to have a photo of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not—[Interruption]Order! The Minister will resume his seat if he wishes to stay to answer the balance of the questions. I remind Dr Nick Smith that when I rise to my feet and call for order that is the time for him to resume his seat. I do not want to have to remind him of that again.Metiria Turei: Is the Minister saying that it is silly and petty to have glass visibility strips on windows and doors in rental homes when ACC reports that 133 children are injured by either falling through a closed glass window or out of a window every week in this country; more than 500 children a month injured?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If that member truly believed that glass visibility strips should be on all windows I simply challenge her why she does not have them in her own office? If the member really believed that was a practical requirement to impose on every building owner in New Zealand she could start by setting a good example.Metiria Turei: Will the Minister apologise to this House for misleading New Zealanders by claiming that 18 lives would be saved by his bill when all of the evidence that he has referred to and has been tabled in the House shows that those 18 lives would be saved only by a much higher standard of insulation and a clean-heating device than what is required in his bill?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No because the member is wrong. I can quote directly from the analysis. It says: “The health-related benefits arise primarily from the retrofitting of insulation …”. It goes on to quote the reduction in mortality that would occur the benefits of hospitalisation and the reduction in pharmaceutical costs. They are exactly the things the Government is doing. What we are not going to do is to have a pedantic warrant of fitness that will impose costs of administration alone of over $100 million and which actually most members of this Parliament’s own private homes would not comply with.Metiria Turei: Does his advice not go on to say that the research on those 18 lives is based on an insulation standard as at 2008—a much higher standard than the miserable 1978 standard in his bill? Why will he not tell the whole story?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because the member misunderstands both the bill and the regulations that the Government has put forward. New Zealand did not require insulation in homes that were newly constructed until 1978. What our bill and regulations require is that if a home has no insulation you will be required to install insulation as per the current standards.Metiria Turei: 1978.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No the current standards—that is very clear in the regulations. What the Government is not going to do is to have someone who put insulation in their house in 2010 now having to rip it out and put stuff in that meets the current standard. It is exactly the sort of approach that we would take in for instance an area with earthquake-prone buildings where there is a different standard for those buildings that are new but that does not necessarily mean it makes sense to require absolutely every building in New Zealand to meet new building standards.Metiria Turei: Is it not also the case that the Grimes report the Minister tabled on Tuesday said that with a higher standard of insulation and a heating device older New Zealanders with respiratory illness would gain an additional 4 years of life through those two measures—neither of which are in his bill?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would firstly draw the member’s attention to the existing housing regulations that make reference to the requirements around heating devices. The second is simply this—Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did specifically refer to the Grimes report—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question. What we need to do is allow the Minister the courtesy to respond to the question. If the Minister then does not answer the question let us have a look at the matter then but at least allow the Minister to get more than 10 or 12 words out before we can address whether he has addressed the question or not.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: And the bit the member does not seem to understand is that if we imposed a requirement on every landlord in New Zealand to provide a new heat pump today that is a cost that you impose on the sector that would ultimately be passed on in rents. There are not free goods when you have a regulatory cost that is passed on and that is the part that the member seems to be ignorant of.Metiria Turei: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just going to invite the member to repeat the question because I know what the point of order will be. Would the member please repeat the question for the benefit of the Minister.Metiria Turei: Is it not true that the Grimes report which the Minister tabled in the House on Tuesday said that with a higher standard of insulation and a heating device older New Zealanders with respiratory illness would gain an additional 4 years of life based on those measures—neither of which are in his bill?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: First the member is mistaken. The report that I tabled from Mr Arthur Grimes earlier in the week was solely on the issue of home insulation not on the issue of heating and in that respect the member is incorrect.Metiria Turei: Why is the Minister making up numbers and misrepresenting the research to show his bill does better than it will when all he needs to do is improve the standard of insulation in the bill to make sure that New Zealanders’ lives will genuinely be saved through this measure?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The confusion of the member is confirmed by that very question in that the bill does not set the level of regulation that is in the bill. That is set in the regulations and the regulations make plain that for new insulation being installed it needs to meet the modern standard but that it would be unreasonable for someone who has an insulation standard that was built in the 1990s to have to rip that out to meet some sort of pedantic requirement for which the Greens unreasonably would impose costs on the sector. Those costs are ultimately passed on in rents and hurt the very people whom we were attempting to help.Tourism—Economic Contribution4.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Tourism: What reports has he received about the contribution tourism is making to the economy?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Tourism) on behalf of theMinister of Tourism: I have more good news for tourism. The latest International Visitors Survey shows that international tourist spending has increased by an outstanding 31 percent to $9.7 billion in the year to December 2015. This confirms that the tourism sector’s focus on increasing both value and volume is working. Tourism is now worth $10.6 billion—or nearly 5 percent of GDP—and is our second-largest export.Scott Simpson: How has the Government’s investment in tourism promotion helped grow the sector?Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government’s unprecedented $700 million investment in tourism and tourism promotion is working to attract tourists from our key markets. So total spending by visitors from China is up 63 percent to $1.6 billion and from the United States is up 40 percent to $1 billion. Tourism New Zealand has put together some very innovative and highly targeted campaigns and social media campaigns. Australian model Megan Gale is the face of the new social media campaign to promote the New Zealand cycle trails in Australia our largest tourism market.Scott Simpson: What role is increased airline capacity playing in getting more visitors to come to New Zealand?Hon PAULA BENNETT: It may surprise you that that means more visitors coming to New Zealand because we have more flights—who would have thought! Just today Air New Zealand—[Interruption] Thank you. Just today Air New Zealand has announced it was resuming seasonal flights between Osaka and Auckland with Japan being our fifth-largest tourism market. This comes on top of our new routes to the US and Argentina. There are also now direct Emirates flights between Auckland and Dubai making it easier to get here from Europe. New flights between New Zealand and China Indonesia and Malaysia have also been announced this year. On the regional front of course Jetstar is making a huge difference in our domestic market. The good news around tourism both domestically and internationally is outstanding for our country and its economy.KiwiSaver—Employer Contributions5.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Revenue: Does he stand by all of his answers to Oral Question No. 4 yesterday?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Revenue): Yes with one small correction. When I said as evidence of my concern to ensure all contributions were passed on to KiwiSaver accounts that there was a 99.994 percent collection rate I should have said a 99.94 percent collection rate.Grant Robertson: When he said yesterday that he had been unable to verify media reports that 46154 people had not had their employer contributions paid to their KiwiSaver accounts did he realise that information came directly from his department?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes I was aware of those reports as having originated from the Inland Revenue Department (IRD). I am now advised that the 46000 number provided by IRD does not represent the number of employees who have not had KiwiSaver employer contributions passed on. It represents the number of KiwiSaver employees of those employers who may not have passed on all of the contribution. So it is a rather nuanced difference—the number of actual people affected by that is less than that and in the time available IRD has not been able to provide the exact number. That should not detract from the fact that IRD and I remain very concerned to ensure high levels of compliance.Grant Robertson: To assist the Minister in the House I seek leave of the House to table information released by the Inland Revenue Department earlier this year—Mr SPEAKER: Is it available on their website?Grant Robertson: No as far as I am aware it is not. It includes a table of the total number of employees who have not had employer contributions deducted from their account.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Order! There is objection—there is objection. Order! I put the leave there was objection. That is the end of the matter. If the member now wishes to continue his supplementary questions I invite him to do so.Grant Robertson: How does the Inland Revenue Department identify those companies that are failing to pass on employer contributions to KiwiSaver accounts currently numbering 2210 companies and what intervention measures does it take?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The first sign of any non-payment is usually with the employer schedules that transfer payments like PAYE ACC levies and KiwiSaver contributions. When that occurs the Inland Revenue Department has a range of interventions that start with follow-up calls and conversations about whether or not there are cash-flow issues or technical difficulties that prevented the physical payment. As a consequence of that the overwhelming majority of those payments are remedied in a short period of time.Grant Robertson: Is he therefore satisfied that the Inland Revenue Department is performing that role correctly when there are still 46000 New Zealanders who have not got in their KiwiSaver account what they are entitled to?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Putting aside any dispute about whether or not the 46000 number represents that yes I am. The best evidence of that is the fact that although the Inland Revenue Department reported $10.68 million of unpaid employer contributions as at 30 June 2015 by 31 December 2015 that number had fallen to $8 million—a more than 25 percent reduction which I think is a very good measure of its diligence.Limited Service Volunteer Programme—Changes6.DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes when taken in context.Darroch Ball: In regard to the Limited Service Volunteers scheme why did she say she cut funding because “we were having difficulty filling the … number of places” when she knew that only 27 out of the 1500 places in 2014 were not filled?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member misrepresents what I have said consistently in this House when he has asked about the reduced numbers for the Limited Service Volunteers. What I have said is that we have seen an almost 24 percent reduction in 18 to 24-year-olds on the main benefit we are seeing the lowest “neets” numbers for 15 to 19-year-olds since records began and as a result of that we have reduced the numbers from where they were increased to at the time of the global financial crisis.Darroch Ball: Why did she say there was a reduced demand for the course as benefit numbers dropped when there was information available to her and her officials stating that the Burnham Wellington and Auckland courses had been “full” and “oversubscribed”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Because as I have explained in the House before this is a targeted intervention with young people. We have a whole range of targeted interventions with them not the least being the very successful Youth Service. So there has been a reduction in the number of young people who are receiving a main benefit and there is a considerable reduction in the “neets” numbers and therefore we have reduced the numbers for the Limited Service Volunteers scheme confirmed funding for it over the next 4 years and will continue to fund this very successful programme.Darroch Ball: Why did she give as a reason to cut funding to the course that the number of suitable clients for the course was dropping when there was information available to her and her officials stating that there was a wait-list to get on the course in both Wellington and Burnham due to overflow of numbers?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not believe that I have said that. What I have talked about is first of all a reduction in numbers on the benefit. I have talked about the young people who are suitable to go on this course because not all of them who want to go on are actually suitable. And I have talked about the fact that there was a global financial crisis which was when we increased the numbers to 1500. We have now taken those numbers back to 800 and we are continuing to fill the places. It is a very successful course.Darroch Ball: Why did she cut funding to the course based on the reduction of demand for the course when she and her officials had information that noted an increase in referrals from Youth Courts an increase in overall applications for under-18-year-olds and an increase in the number of female referrals for the course?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am happy to repeat it for the third time but I do believe that I have addressed this question on a number of occasions just today.Darroch Ball: How can she announce yesterday that two new community pilots will help steer young people away from gang life when she has already cut funding to a highly successful course that had full numbers and had an increase in referrals from Youth Courts?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The pilots that were announced yesterday are not focused just on youth; they are focused on working with the families of gang members which includes women youth and children. However this Government has a number of interventions put in place in order to work with young people to make sure that they can live successful lives. We will continue to trial different methods and evaluate them and as the Minister of Finance said earlier invest more money where we know it is going to get results.Darroch Ball: Did her advisers inform her that the Hobsonville Limited Service Volunteers lease was terminated only as a result of a business case from the Hobsonville Land Co.’s board of directors which is concerned that extending the lease beyond June 2015 would “impact on the infrastructure costs” and compromise the “net present-value target” of the Hobsonville Point housing development?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Actually my responsibility as the Minister for Social Development is to contract the Ministry of Defence for a number of places. I think the member will find that that was long before my time but we are very happy with the discussions and negotiations that we are having with the Ministry of Defence around providing this very successful course for 800 young New Zealanders.Darroch Ball: Is it not true that Auckland Limited Service Volunteers lost capability from 750 to just 300 places per year not because of the numbers of unemployed or the lack of demand for the course but everything to do with the Hobsonville Land Co. and decisions made by the Minister of Finance the Minister for Building and Housing and the Minister of Defence?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Absolutely no.Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table all operational group meeting notes for Limited Service Volunteers from January 2014 through to October 2015 obtained through the Official Information Act.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that significant pile of documents being tabled? There is none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Trans-Pacific Partnership—New Zealand Law Foundation Analysis7.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Trade: Why does he continue to support the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement in light of the analyses in the Expert Paper Series supported by the New Zealand Law Foundation?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of theMinister of Trade: The Government supports the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as it will be overwhelmingly positive for New Zealand in supporting more trade and investment jobs and incomes. The only comprehensive analysis of what the TPP means for New Zealand that I am aware of is the national interest analysis that was released publicly in January. This is the only analysis that looks at the agreement as a whole and indeed addresses issues raised in the papers that the member across the House refers to. It concludes that the overall TPP will deliver net benefits for New Zealand including an additional $2.7 billion to our economy by 2030. Not being in TPP by contrast would put the New Zealand economy and our businesses at a competitive disadvantage compared with other countries.Dr Kennedy Graham: What is his view of the conclusion in Expert Paper No. 4 of the comprehensive and independent series of analyses which asserts that the text “contains provisions that would facilitate increased emissions exacerbating climate change”?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I do not necessarily agree with that characterisation.Dr Kennedy Graham: What is his response to the conclusion in Expert Paper No. 5 of the comprehensive and independent analyses that the TPP agreement is favourable to multinational businesses and “may exacerbate the disadvantages of New Zealand’s size and remoteness”?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I do not agree with that characterisation either. I think that when we look at the big picture there may be some challenges for New Zealand coming out of this but overall the costs are minimal compared with the opportunities that we have in order to create jobs and growth for New Zealanders and on balance we are very much in favour of this agreement.Dr Kennedy Graham: Will the Minister assure the House that he respects the views of the New Zealand public such as those we heard in the select committee this morning and that he will give serious consideration to their submissions?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Yes.Schools—Fees for Out-of-zone Ballot Entries8.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that “schools have never been more well-funded than under this Government”; if so why are some schools charging parents a fee to participate in out-of-zone ballots and income from parental donations has increased by 45 percent since 2008?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development)on behalf of theMinister of Education: The Minister stands by her statement. Under this Government overall funding for education has increased by 23 percent. The proportion of schools’ funding coming from Government since 2011 is approximately 88 percent. This is compared with 86 percent between 2005 and 2007. The proportion of funding coming from donations has remained steady at 1.8 percent throughout this time. Individual schools are responsible for managing their finances and the Ministry of Education has made it clear that charging for ballot places is not allowed under the Education Act.Chris Hipkins: How many schools are currently subject to an enrolment scheme and how many have been asking for a fee or donation in order to enter the ballot?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have that information in front of me but I am sure if the member puts it down in writing the Minister can get it for him.Chris Hipkins: Has she asked the Ministry of Education to establish how many schools are asking for a fee or donation to enter an out-of-zone ballot; if not why not?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am not sure but I do know that the Minister has asked the ministry to be in touch with those schools that are charging to explain to them that that does not comply with the requirements of the Education Act.Chris Hipkins: Has she seen reports in the New Zealand Herald over the weekend where one principal claimed schools were justified charging parents to enter their child into an enrolment ballot because of the costs involved in collecting data via testing; if so how many schools are testing prospective students before entering children into what are supposed to be random ballots?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have that information. The member should actually ask the principal who made that allegation.Chris Hipkins: What action has she taken in light of revelations that schools are charging fees for entering students into an enrolment ballot to ensure that they stop doing so given that after being warned by the Ministry of Education they indicated publicly they intended to continue doing so; and why is the Government not making them comply with the law?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said earlier the ministry is in touch with those schools and will continue to be in touch with those schools to make sure that they comply with the Education Act.Electricity Market—Competition9.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What recent reports has he received on competition in the electricity market?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): The Electricity Authority’s Electricity Market Performance 2015 report released this week—a year in review of all parts of the electricity market—shows clearly that the Government’s focus on competition in the market is really benefiting consumers. There were nearly 419000 consumer switches in 2015—the highest level ever seen in New Zealand—with consumers saving on average $162 per switch. There have been more than 1.8 million consumer switches since 2011 with total estimated savings valued at $207 million. This Government believes that competition is the best way to keep downward pressure on power prices and strong retail market competition successfully constrained price increases in 2015.Alastair Scott: What other indications of a competitive electricity market were apparent in the Electricity Authority’s review of 2015?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The rapid growth of small and medium retailers continued in 2015 with new entrants successfully entering the market and expanding their customer base. Consumers are benefiting from a record high number of retailers—more than 20—and retail brands more than 30. Competition is also enabling and encouraging innovation giving consumers greater choices to meet their energy needs and use energy more efficiently. For example 1.3 million smart meters are now deployed representing 66 percent of all meters in New Zealand and retailers continue to jostle in the competitive market with increasingly innovative offerings and services.Trans-Pacific Partnership—Overseas Ownership of New Zealand Properties10.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Trade: Does New Zealand’s exception for residential property under the Investment Chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement allow a future Government to implement a ban on non-resident foreign speculators buying any existing residential house flat or apartment?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of theMinister of Trade: No the New Zealand - specific exemption that has been included in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) preserves the right for a future Government to restrict the purchase of residential property by non-resident foreigners by imposing a discriminatory tax. This I might add was one of Labour’s bottom lines.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a straight question; he answered it immediately. As per last time—Mr SPEAKER: So what is the point of order?Dr David Clark: —on notice he is using that to attack Labour—misrepresenting—Mr SPEAKER: Order![Interruption] Order! It was a legitimate question; it was answered immediately but by a long tradition in this House we allow the Minister to then give some explanation of that answer. That is what he did.Dr David Clark: Did he direct his officials to ensure the right of future Governments to ban non-resident foreign speculators from our housing market like Australia Singapore and others; if not why not?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No we did not direct negotiators because the Government has no policy to outright ban foreigners investing in New Zealand. We have got no desire to build a great big trade wall to keep foreigners out.Dr David Clark: Does he accept that Viet Nam could adopt “any measure relating to land ownership” and why is this so much stronger than the position his Government has taken?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I am not responsible for the Viet Namese Government negotiations but what I would say is that this Government has negotiated quite clearly the ability for any future Government to restrict the purchase of residential property and we think that is appropriate. The member opposite is really just trying to justify the unjustifiable which is his failure to support—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The continuation along those lines certainly will not help the order of the House.Dr David Clark: Does the Minister accept that preserving the right to ban foreign speculators is a matter of principle not a matter of price?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: I am puzzled because one of the five Labour Party bottom lines that he referred to as a principle was to restrict the sale of land to foreign owners not to ban it.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder what remedy is available to me if he continues to misrepresent the Labour Party position which has been published in the media—Mr SPEAKER: Order![Interruption] Order! It is very easily solved—he picks up his Standing Orders and looks at Standing Order 359. He will understand and can follow that remedy if he feels it is important enough.Hon Paul Goldsmith: I seek leave to table a document dated 23 July 2015—Mr SPEAKER: What is the document?Hon Paul Goldsmith: It is a Labour Party press release.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need that. I do not need that.Dr David Clark: Is it not the truth that having negotiated a deal in secret with 605 corporate advisers whilst trading away our sovereignty he is intent on ramming the Trans-Pacific Partnership process through without giving members of the public sufficient time to have their voices heard?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: No that is not true. I do have every sympathy for that member because he is the first trade spokesman of that party not to support free trade. Mr Phil Goff will be turning in his—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need any more.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table my letter dated 29 February 2016 requesting that the deadline for submissions to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee be extended.Mr SPEAKER: If it has been presented to a select committee then it is available. [Interruption] Order! It is available to all members if it has been presented.Dr David Clark: It hasn’t come back to the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The purpose of tabling a document is not to get it into the public arena. It is to further inform members. If the letter has been presented to a select committee then it is available to all members of this House by going on to the e-committee system. So it is available. If the member wants to—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear from the member.Dr David Clark: My understanding is that it is restricted on the system to the members who are on that committee until such time as it is tabled in the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not. It is available to all members immediately. There was a change made in the Standing Orders at the end of the last Parliament. It is now available to all members.Trans-Pacific Partnership—Consultation11.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to the Minister of Trade: What consultation has the Government undertaken throughout the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and what further consultation will occur?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs) on behalf of theMinister of Trade: The consultation process for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has been amongst the most extensive that a New Zealand Government has undertaken for any trade negotiation with hundreds of meetings taking place across the negotiating process as well as public submissions. The Government has made available a large amount of documentation including the full text of the agreement detailed fact sheets and the national interest analysis. For all of this year the TPP will receive extensive parliamentary and public scrutiny. The legislation will be considered by the select committee for the full 6 months allowing a significant amount of time for the public to have their say on the TPP. Only when these steps have been completed and other countries have completed their own domestic approval procedures will the TPP be able to enter into force.Mark Mitchell: What opportunities will businesses and the wider public have in order to seek information on the TPP?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Starting next Monday the Government is running a series of nationwide roadshows on the TPP. The roadshows are for interested members of the public to learn more about this important trade agreement and to assist businesses to identify and plan for the new export opportunities when the TPP comes into force. Roadshows are being held in Auckland Christchurch Dunedin Wellington Hamilton Napier Nelson New Plymouth Palmerston North Tauranga and Whangarei. There will also be a number of hui to discuss with iwi and Māori businesses the outcome of the TPP negotiations as well as the huge opportunities for Māori to benefit from the TPP.Mark Mitchell: How will the TPP create significant new trade opportunities for New Zealand companies?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: The TPP is New Zealand’s biggest-ever trade deal providing access to our exporters to more than 800 million consumers across 11 countries. These countries account for 36 percent of the global economy and include the largest and the third-largest economies in the world: the United States and Japan. Tariffs will be eliminated on 95 percent of New Zealand’s trade with its new free-trade agreement partners once the TPP is fully phased in. In total the TPP will ultimately represent $274 million a year in tariff savings which is around twice the savings initially forecast for the China free-trade agreement. The TPP supports our exporters to grow and create new jobs and to diversify their business overseas. Not being in the TPP would put the New Zealand economy and our businesses at a competitor’s disadvantage.Primary Industries Associate Minister—Forestry12.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he have confidence in his Associate Minister for Primary Industries?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of theMinister for Primary Industries: Yes.Hon Damien O’Connor: How could the Associate Minister yesterday claim progress in the forestry sector when since 2008 there has been no effective growth in the export of sawn timber there has been no growth in the export of value-added products but there has been 400 percent growth in the export of logs from this country eliminating job opportunities for thousands of provincial New Zealanders?Hon JO GOODHEW: If I recall correctly the Associate Minister yesterday noted that domestic processing of logs has been increasing—therefore more jobs. In 2014 the share of the total harvest was 49 percent. Now it is 51.2 percent. The member is simply incorrect.Hon Damien O’Connor: Is the Minister for Primary Industries satisfied with the way the Associate Minister has handled the situation whereby foreign forest owners are refusing to guarantee logs to domestic saw millers even though these saw millers are prepared to pay export-equivalent log prices?Hon JO GOODHEW: What I do understand is that this is a business arrangement between the owners of the product—Hon Damien O’Connor: What about Kiwis?Hon JO GOODHEW: Although it may pain the member that this is not working out for New Zealand businesses this Government does not get in the middle of commercial arrangements.Hon Damien O’Connor: Is it not the truth that Minister Goodhew does not understand what is going on in her own portfolio more logs are going offshore than ever before and her Government does not care about job losses in the provinces?Hon JO GOODHEW: What the Minister has been told by Minister Goodhew is that there are many good examples of progress in this space and I will use one in particular. When Minister Goodhew became the Associate Minister she told the Minister that Carter Holt Harvey was concerned that it was not getting enough access to local product for its pulp. Now with Lumbercube’s new cube approach it is getting access to plenty of product. That has happened under this Government and Minister Goodhew has certainly made theMinister aware of it.Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) BillFirst ReadingHon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I move That the Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time.A party vote was called for on the question That the Appropriation (2014/15 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a first time.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a first time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 63 Noes 57.Radiation Safety BillThird ReadingDebate resumed from 1 March.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I have to say that when I completed the first part of my speech the other night we were thoroughly enjoying this debate except for the Minister who had gone to sleep while giving his speech. But for the rest of us and those on the Health Committee we had really enjoyed this debate and enjoyed this bill because it had been one where there had been considerable cooperation to amend an old Act that is 50 years old and was in desperate need of overhaul—something that started with a review a long time ago when I was the Minister of Health. That was 11 years ago although you would think it was just yesterday. So it was time to review and update the Act.When I was last speaking I had just started a little explanation as to why we needed to change the name of the bill from the Radiation Safety Bill to one that really did tell you what this bill was about. I wanted to change it so that it was the “Ionising Radiation Safety Bill” because at the select committee there was no doubt that there was some confusion between what was ionising radiation and what was non-ionising radiation. The members of the committee were very fortunate that we were well served by some superb officials from the Ministry of Health who were able to lead us through the explanation as to what the differences were—although I must give credit to Kevin Hague who probably understood a little better than most.We were led through the differences and understood what we were doing but my concern and why I wanted the Government to change the name so that it was more clear was that I do not believe that many of the public know what in fact we are legislating for. This would have made it very very obvious. What we were not passing legislation to regulate was non-ionising radiation and this is things like your cellphone towers your Wi-Fi and your microwave ovens and ultraviolent tanning machines—although I have to say that that is another debate we will have at a later date and why we are not regulating them out of existence I do not know but they are not included in this bill. It does not include your power lines although some people think that they are included.So it was a great disappointment that the Government did not accept a name change and I know that the members of the Health Committee including my colleagues in the National Party would not have minded that change because they knew that there was confusion in the public’s mind about this. But you know in the way that this place works it did not happen and so we now have a Radiation Safety Act coming into place. It is going to update our legislation as I said. It is going to bring us into high-level compliance with international best standards and also with our commitments to international treaties. That is pretty important and long overdue.So Labour supports this bill. We are pleased to see it come to its conclusion 50 years after it was first passed and after many many years of it being reviewed and looked at. I want to say that I think that the members of the select committee worked extremely hard on this bill. We came back to this House with a bill that I think is fit for purpose—maybe not for the next 50 years because as has been pointed out a lot of technology has changed in that time. There are some members on our select committee who can remember when there was not television but there was also—Hon Member: Only that member.Hon ANNETTE KING: Well I will not name them but there are some who can remember it.Chris Bishop: Don’t name yourself.Hon ANNETTE KING: Mr Bishop of course would not remember it because he in fact remembers hardly any of the modern appliances. So—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I just love this but unfortunately the member’s time has expired.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): It is becoming quite a habit to follow after the Hon Annette King. I am particularly pleased that Labour and I believe all parties are supporting this bill in the House.The Radiation Safety Bill today in its third reading is a relatively simply piece of legislation by its nature but complex in its details. I say it is relatively simple because as a piece of legislation it really is here to do two things. One is just to update the domestic regulations structures and operations—the logistical elements if you will—of how we deal with radiation and we will come to the whole ionising and non-ionising element in a moment. There is the domestic side that the bill seeks to update and then there is the international side.Just to touch on the international side quickly and briefly. New Zealand in so many ways has chosen to oblige itself with a variety of international agreements on a whole lot of things. One of them is around the likes of radiation and the management of radiation. As has been pointed out by other speakers in this debate and in the past the current radiation safety Act—or as it is actually known the Radiation Protection Act—was passed in 1965. The treaties that were about and other things have changed since then and so this bill brings us into line with international agreements. It is something that we as a Parliament are required to do if you will if we are going to maintain those relationships. Importantly too it means that we will accord ourselves with the various principles of the agencies. Some of them are monitored through the UN. So that is quite important.I will just state for the record that this bill does not affect the nuclear-free legislation of New Zealand or any of the disarmament Acts. That sometimes gets raised with me and others but this bill is dealing with ionising radiation and what we are talking about—think of the likes of magnetic resonance imaging and think of X-rays. That is the sort of area that we are talking about.We are also talking a lot of things medical. Most radiation sources in New Zealand are down two sides or two camps. One is research. If you go into any of the universities of New Zealand there will be radiation sources often used in the science departments and the medical departments. The second area where you will find a lot of devices and I think there are about 4500 licences—in other words 4500 instances where radiation sources are able to be used. The other big player bar research is medical. So obviously there are the scanning technologies and often technologies for the treatment of various cancers. Brachytherapy comes to mind and ionised or radiated metal balls that are used in order to destroy cancers. You have ionised iodine often used for the likes of thyroid cancers and so forth. So that is what we are talking about there.There has been plenty of debate and some part of me—a very small part of me—will miss the constant discussions in the Health Committee about ionising and non-ionising radiation. None of us are nuclear physicists but I have to say after all those discussions I feel far more comfortable about the distinction now—but it is only somewhat tongue-in-cheek when I say that I will miss those ongoing discussions. Look I am not going to get into the science of it but needless to say with the advice that we are given and which I and I think all members understand the distinction is very very clear between things and also in the nature of the examples that are given. We heard it from the previous speaker Annette King. You know the likes of non-ionising radiation—we are talking about the likes of sunbeds and Wi-Fi and power poles and so forth OK? It is quite a distinct difference between that and the irradiating of metal objects as in brachytherapy and so on.So we understand why and I think it is important for people out there to understand as well that just because this bill does not cover the likes of power lines and Wi-Fi and the like does not mean that there are not regulations and guidance around it. There is plenty of that through other legislative measures. That is quite positive in and of itself.The select committee itself was very constructive. I think we realised very early on that we were at one level out of our depth here in the scientific knowledge. But one of the great things about select committees is that we actually have two ears two eyes and one mouth and we used those I think exceedingly well to listen see and speak to the officials. So once again I want to acknowledge their work and advice and speaking personally acknowledge them for actually taking sometimes very complex ideas and breaking them down in a way that I could understand. I think that helped us as a committee move forward. I think what we have done was very collegial and as previous speakers have indicated has brought a very good bill back to this House.In concluding because we have spoken on this many many times I just want to touch on a few of the changes that the select committee brought forward. One really important one is particularly for users in medical fields dental and otherwise. We put in a new clause to say that basically if someone has a licence they can have someone else work under their supervision. OK there are a few nuances around that but basically if I were to read it an unlicensed user can use a radiation source while they are under the direct supervision of someone else. So again licences must be given to someone who is going to use the radiation source. Ionised iodine and brachytherapy treatments—as long as the source user and the holder of the licence has given permission then someone else is able to be guided through that process.For those who are military minded be absolutely assured that the legislation as proposed here at the third reading does not prejudice the rights of national security or therefore of our defence forces. There are other rules that assist there. Also importantly initially in the bill we just talked about enforcement officers. We did go through that quite carefully to make sure that people understood that the likes of the police chief fire officers and others can have some jurisdiction in this space if something was to go wrong.Finally the importance of codes of practices has been written into the bill and that links me back to where I started which is around the whole thing of how this is updating our international obligations. In doing so we were able to tap into international best practice which informs our codes of practice. So this is a good bill. It has been worked on very well by the Health Committee. I think we can be very happy with the progress of this bill and I commend it to the House title and all.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It is my turn to take a call on the Radiation Safety Bill. As the previous speakers have discussed one of the key discussions really has been around the ionising and non-ionising radiation. Unfortunately I did not have the privilege of sitting on the Health Committee at the time when the discussion happened so I actually took the opportunity to inform myself about the difference between ionising and non-ionising radiation. And I looked to the World Health Organization for a definition. The definition that it provides is “Ionizing radiation is radiation with enough energy so that during an interaction with an atom it can remove tightly bound electrons from the orbit of an atom causing the atom to become charged or ionized.”It has been a long time since science class so I have done some further exploration of that and it is really around electromagnetic radiation. The impact of ionising radiation when it binds with electrons in the orbit of an atom is that it actually causes the structure to change which is the ionisation of it. There is a continuum I guess—a spectrum around the energy where you have low-frequency use at one end and high-frequency use at the other end. So at the low-frequency end we are talking about things like radio waves microwaves infrared and visible light. At the higher end we are talking about X-rays and gamma rays. For the purposes of this bill we really are specifically talking about X-rays and gamma rays. So that is what I understand is the context within the Radiation Safety Bill—that is the nub of the issue so to speak. Not all electromagnetic radiation is ionising as I say. It is generally just the X-ray and gamma-ray end of the spectrum.One of the examples that I think it would be useful for the House to think about is when you are having X-rays at the dentist before you are having treatment. The dentist will ensure that they are well protected in the use of the X-ray machines. As I understand it there was a discussion around who was licensed or authorised to use the piece of equipment that has the radiation source within it. Generally speaking in a dental practice it will be the lead dentist who will have the licence and they may under supervision allow other members of their staff to use the equipment but it would be with some specific criteria around that use. That is as I understand it and I think that has been confirmed by the members of the select committee who did hear the evidence from the officials. It would have been an interesting discussion for those who are scientifically minded because I understand that from schedule 2 for example there would have been a really lively discussion around concentration levels and the activity and the source and if you are anything like me the periodic table is back there in the mists of time. So I really acknowledge that. In relation to the technical ability for this bill there would have been some real opportunity for the officials to support the select committee members in their understanding of this particular topic.The legislation itself does some other things. It allows New Zealand to become compliant with the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the protection of nuclear material I guess in practical terms is the example that I quoted around the dentist. It also covers the transportation disposal and use of that material. And I want to pay particular reference to cobalt-60 which is used in irradiation of food—particularly of materials that come through our borders that might have pests or other material on them that could pose a biohazard to New Zealand and have an impact on our agriculture and our export of products.It also allows for international inspectors to be appointed and to undertake activities in New Zealand through the International Atomic Energy Agency. It provides a regime for the authorisation of individuals and organisations using radiation materials. So here again I am referring to for example dentists who may use X-ray machines in the course of their treatments and those people whom they supervise to use those pieces of equipment. It provides within the bill the penalties for contravening these authorities. For an individual that fine could be up to $100000 and for an organisation it could be up to $500000.The director is appointed by the Minister of Health who then administers a register of those contracted sources—those who are using the radiation in their equipment. The director will also appoint inspectors who can seize a radiation source to prevent or mitigate any risk. I referred to cobalt-60 previously. That I understand caused some discussion particularly around the radiation of food products and there was some discussion that was held at the select committee about that. I refer to schedule 2 “List of radioactive material and acceptable activity concentration levels and activity levels” and also schedule 3 “Dose limits for ionising radiation” whether that be through occupational exposure or through public exposure.As I said I did not have the privilege of being on the Health Committee at the time that the bill was under discussion. I think I would have enjoyed the opportunity to do some scientific work; I did not have the opportunity to do that. I know that the committee is well considered and I acknowledge the hard work that it has done on this. I commend the bill to the House.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): It is a pleasure to speak on the third reading of the Radiation Safety Bill and I would like to begin by congratulating Poto Williams the previous speaker because she obviously did not have the opportunity that we had to listen to the wonderful explanations that the officials gave us but I thought she gave a wonderful account. So I say thank you very much to the previous speaker.The Radiation Safety Bill is about establishing a modernised framework to protect the health and safety of people and the environment from harmful effectsaround radiation. As other speakers have said it will bring New Zealand into line with international best practice. It is modernising an Act that is 50 years old. I have very vivid memories of being a new member of Parliament walking into my office and my executive assistant saying to me “Today Barbara you’ve got to speak for 10 minutes on radiation.” and I thought: “Oh OK.” So the first thing I did was I went to Wikipedia but it did not make any more sense to me after that. Of course we have had a lot of discussion since then about ionising and non-ionising radiation but at that stage it did not make any sense at all.The thing that really struck me about this bill at the time—and I remember the aspect that I took from it was the fact that the Act was 50 years old. It was interesting to me to note at the time that that was when The Sound of Music was released and it was also about when the Beatles released their song “Yesterday” and I know we have had previous speakers talking today about the introduction of television. Well I cannot remember the introduction of television as such but I can remember the introduction of colour television which was a very exciting time.I remember when we first started debating this bill in the House we were having conversations about mince pies microwaves and all sorts of things in an effort to understand this whole picture of radiation. Then I have to say it was fantastic because when the officials came in we were presented with some excellent information and some excellent clear graphs and charts that made the process of working through this piece of legislation much much clearer. Even though I did a little bit of biology chemistry and physics at school the presentations we had—although they have not made me a scientist—have given me a much clearer understanding of the process of ionising and non-ionising radiation.But I think it is important to remember as we as members of Parliament enact some of these pieces of legislation that our primary role in this is to ensure that the piece of legislation is going to achieve what it sets out to achieve and our role is to assess the situation to see whether it really is going to protect our people from the harmful effects of radiation. We all know that in the last 50 years we have come a long way. We are all carrying around devices. We have got things in our homes: the technology the internet—the things we never ever dreamt about have come such a long long way and so has radiation. So it is important to realise that these changes will help us in providing better and more modern health services. So as was mentioned before X-rays and the like are a big part of this there is also quite an element of this involved in dentistry and these changes are going to help us do this more safely and will protect our public.It will also protect the environment because when we have people in hospitals who are having X-rays it is not only the person who has the X-ray who is exposed but it is the people who stand in the room or in the corridor just making sure that we have got the right standards in place so that not only the patient is safe but all of those people around them are very safe. I have to say that we have made great advances with cancer treatment in the last few years and cancer radiation and chemotherapy waiting times are now at world gold standard. So it is really important to realise that not only are people getting a better quicker service but now this legislation will be protecting them even further than it did before.It is also important that the select committee has asked to insert a new clause which is clause 92A and that requires the Director of Radiation Safety to review each code of practice once every 5 years. So I think for me looking at a piece of legislation that has been on the table for 50 years it is really important that with the advances in technology we are making now those things are looked at and the Director of Radiation Safety will actually be active over each 5-year period to make sure that this does not drag on.So it is a real pleasure to be speaking on this bill today. I do want to commend the officials again and I also want to say it is wonderful to be working as part of the Health Committee under the chairmanship of Simon O’Connor and with the members whom we have in this group. We have worked extremely well together over time and it is a pleasure to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): I rise to give what will be my final contribution on this bill and actually the Greens’ only contribution in this debate today. As several other speakers have commented I think that the officials from the ministry did a really terrific job of working with the Health Committee on this pretty technical subject and they were praised highly in the debate on the second reading but they deserve praise in this debate also.Simon O’Connor in his contribution remarked on the fact that this bill effectively has two purposes: first to bring New Zealand into line with our international obligations under the International Atomic Energy Agency and secondly to modernise. Barbara Kuriger has just referred to the fact that this is legislation that is 50 years old. I guess there is nothing like legislation that touches on science to expose fairly brutally how legislation can become out of date. Certainly the legislation that we are replacing is obsolete legislation. I wonder sometimes whether there may be some value in having some sort of systematic review of old legislation so that other Acts—like for example the Adoption Act 1955 which is also well past its use-by date—could also be reviewed by this House.I think the debates in the House on this matter and at the select committee have focused to quite a considerable degree on this business of whether or not the bill should cover not only ionising radiation but also non-ionising. Several speakers in this debate have referred to that. The original recommendation from officials was that the bill should cover both—that all forms of radiation should be regulated through this particular statute. There is certainly some sense to that. Poto Williams in her contribution—even though she did not participate in the debate in the select committee—I think had it right when she talked about there being a continuum of energy that radiation could potentially possess and the difference between the amount of energy that something needs to ionise and that which would not be enough to ionise it. The boundary is just a hair’s breadth. There actually is a continuum but in practical terms there is more of a difference.Officials told us first of all that for non-ionising radiation we have regulation that has been kept more up to date. As new devices become available regulation has been put in place that has in fact protected the public from potential harms although I think Annette King is completely right to draw the House’s attention to a bill that we have yet to finish debating that really covers an area—namely sunbeds and solaria—where a source of non-ionising radiation is able to produce the kinds of serious harms that are perhaps more worthy of the kind of strong regulation that this bill provides for.The regulation of non-ionising radiation has been kept more up to date than the statute on which we rely for the safety of ionising radiation. I guess too that the qualitative effects are significantly different. Perhaps with the exception of the sunbeds and solaria example non-ionising radiation is typically stopped and absorbed within the skin and it is within the skin that any adverse effects are likely to be felt whereas ionising radiation will typically penetrate the skin and cause havoc within the body by ionising cells within it. Those particles that are produced by that ionisation process will go on to damage DNA causing either direct harm or potentially mutation that will cause harm down the track. Both practically and in terms of effects there are distinctions that can be reflected in different types of regulation.There are none the less some odd effects that come about from having different regimes for dealing with the two types of radiation. I have referred in earlier contributions in the House to the fact that in a hospital for example—and other speakers have quite rightly referred to the fact that it is in health care settings that many of these forms of radiation crop up—literally within the same radiology department one will have a magnetic resonance imaging suite and technology that uses a form of non-ionising radiation that is regulated in a different way from what may be in the next room and the X-ray machine in the next room will be regulated by this bill. There is an administrative inefficiency that is created by having different regimes for dealing with the two. It is a difficult balancing act I guess to get this right.Although at the beginning of this process I felt that both forms of radiation should probably be regulated by this bill on balance I think that it is reasonable to have separated the two. None the less the level of confusion among the public that exists around the distinction between these two forms of radiation and the subtlety of the difference I think would have justified support for the change to the name of the bill proposed by Annette King. I believe that the bill we are passing into law today ought to have been called the “Ionising Radiation Safety Bill”.I close by making reference to something that I think is probably always worthy of note when the House is debating a bill that has scientific implications and that is the matter of scientific literacy. The submissions that the committee received were small in number and mostly from people with expertise in the field. Some of those submissions were extremely useful but one or two of the submissions reflected a misunderstanding of the science and I know that in some of the more general comments that existed in the community about this bill such misunderstanding of the science was also present.I worry that the internet—one of those technical apparatus shall we say that has come into existence in the 50 years since the original Act was passed—has meant that people have access to an extraordinary amount of information and that information varies very widely in its quality from very helpful and authoritative information at one end through to information that is misleading and unhelpful at the other. That has created a situation where New Zealanders perhaps more than ever before need to be able to discern the difference between the two—to know when we look at something that is on Wikipedia for example or that is found on some other website whether the information there actually has scientific validity. If we do not possess that science literacy then we will draw conclusions that are invalid and the contribution that we can then make to the debate about scientific matters in this country is compromised.I close by supporting the bill but also supporting the House’s doing what it can to improve scientific literacy. Thank you.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I am very pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First in the third reading of the Radiation Safety Bill. I was very pleased to be a part of the Health Committee as we reviewed the submissions and talked with the officials who made sure that our knowledge was far greater than it was when we first started looking at this bill. None of us are medical physicists and we needed that particular help.I was very interested in Kevin Hague’s speech—we can always learn in this particular area. I would like to say a big thankyou to the officials for their patience particularly as we all came up to speed.We support this bill. We know that it is for the safe use of ionising radiation. This bill will repeal and replace a very outdated Act the Radiation Protection Act. It is long overdue. There have been a lot of scientific developments in the 50 years since this bill was first introduced and it is important that our legislation keeps up to date with the latest technology particularly in this age. On this occasion we believe that the New Zealand public will be reassured that the bill will bring our legislation into line with international best practice and the principles of radiation safety. We are also satisfied too that the dose limits for radiation exposure are consistent with international standards and there have been a number of standards which were read out by previous speakers that we needed to bring our legislation in line with.We were pleased to hear that there is now a legislative provision for the registration of radiation sources. Previously only licence holders were required to be registered. This bill ensures that we now have provisions that are required by the International Atomic Energy Agency code of conduct. As other people have already pointed out it is good to see that the penalty for offences against the legislation are going to be increased. We definitely need deterrents in this part. For this bill it definitely successfully balances the benefits of ionising radiation with the health and safety of people and the environment.All of us on the select committee were very aware of the concerns that were voiced to us regarding non-ionising radiation. We are very satisfied that these two regulations should remain separate from this bill hence our desire to see the title changed. It is far easier to identify what legislation one is looking at when we have “Ionising Radiation” or “Non-Ionising Radiation” in the title. We are quite satisfied now that we are at this point.Although the bill proposed that it will be voluntary for applicants for a source licence to submit a radiation safety plan we believe it should be compulsory for every applicant for a source licence to submit a radiation safety plan for safety security and emergencies. That plan should identify how the individual or organisation is going to comply with the requirements of the bill. We believe that this is essential to ensure that the Act is actually complied with. One of the areas that we have some concerns about is that we want to hear how the Government is planning on supporting operators so that they themselves are fully prepared for the changes that have been made to this legislation.In conclusion we believe it is a very necessary bill which ensures our regulations are aligned with international best practice and the principles of radiation safety. Therefore New Zealand First is very happy to support this bill in its final reading and we will follow its implementation closely. Thank you.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am happy to also with other members around the House endorse the Radiation Safety Bill in its third reading and note that this is another piece of legislation that is being brought up to date to reflect current medical applications—not only for medical uses but also for uses in veterinary medicine industry and research. This is a bill on which the House has worked cooperatively—the Health Committee has worked cooperatively.I do note the suggestion that this bill could have had a different name. However this is the Radiation Safety Bill and if we remember the purpose of this bill it is indeed to reflect modern practice and modern safety levels with the use of radiation in its many applications which are mostly to the betterment of people in our excellent health system. With those few words I commend the bill to the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Well here we are—finally we get to the third reading of the Radiation Safety Bill. I have had the privilege I think of speaking on every single reading of this bill despite the fact that I was not on the Health Committee and was not able to hear any of the—Scott Simpson: The member was robbed.SUE MORONEY: Robbed of being on the select committee. You are quite right—it was a select committee that I had been on in another term of Parliament but not during this one. So I did not get the benefit of the advice from the officials but I take the members’ word for it that the officials should be thanked for the very good information they provided during the deliberation on this important bill because it does bring us up to speed.I have had it suggested to me that the reason I have been on the speaking list every time on this bill is that my own children have broken enough bones to have enough X-rays that I should know enough to speak on the bill on this matter. I just want to dispel that myth to start off with. Yes there has been the odd time that my boys have been robustly playing their chosen game that they are passionate about—basketball—and they may have ended up having X-rays. But the problem has not necessarily been the issues associated with this bill but this: could the Government please bring a bill before the House that would stop bones being broken on statutory holidays? That is the problem I have had—every single bone that has been broken in our household seems to happen on a statutory holiday and that is when you have to pay the most to actually get the bone X-rayed. So if you can fix that please I would very happy.But that is not what this bill attempts to do and neither should it. It is actually a bill that brings New Zealand’s practice up to speed with international best practice. I do want to support what the Green member Kevin Hague raised in his contribution. It would be good to think that we had a process in place so that when Acts become out of date when technology and our scientific knowledge has moved on to the extent that we know about dangers that we once did not know about there would be some automatic scrutiny of Acts that ensured we did not just have to wait for some Minister’s office to notice that the Act had become horribly out of date or for something to go badly wrong before we realised that such an Act had become out of date.The last time this Act had attention was 50 years ago. I think in one of my previous contributions to this debate I may have said that it has been as long in the making as I have been on this earth-ish because I never declare my actual age but I am sure people can go and look that up for themselves. I mention this because the technological advances and the scientific knowledge that we have made over the course of my lifetime explains to me the reason why I am a little worried that it took so long before we reviewed this Act again and perhaps we should have processes in place to ensure that we do that in a more timely fashion. None the less we are here now.This bill does repeal and replace the Radiation Protection Act 1965. So in fact the Act is a little younger than I am—a little younger. One purpose of the bill is to enable New Zealand to meet its international obligations under a range of international treaties relating to radiation protection radiation safety and security and nuclear non-proliferation. That is important because New Zealand has—not always—on many occasions led on non-proliferation of nuclear issues and so it is rather surprising that we have taken so long to update this legislation.Labour does acknowledge the necessity of updating legislation such as this in order to keep pace with the technological advances and changes. Annette King tried to amend this bill to change the title of it so that it was more correct because the legislation that we are debating does not cover all forms of radiation. In fact it covers only the ionising radiation form. So those are the ones that we are familiar with when X-rays are taken.I guess alongside accompanying my children for X-rays from time to time—not too regularly—that the other time that I come across X-rays and the use of them is when I go to the dentist. Is that not a bit disconcerting when you are having an X-ray taken at the dentist and everyone else in the room bolts while you sit there and have the X-ray? I often do sit there and think: “Gosh should I be bolting as well? Is the harm that can be omitted that bad that all of the other people in the room are dashing before they go somewhere and push the button remotely?”. In times gone by people such as the dentist and the dental technician would have stayed there and they would have been in the same environment. But of course what we now know is that regular exposure—not the irregular exposure of me having an X-ray once in a blue moon but the regular exposure—of those workers in their workplace to that health and safety hazard is no longer acceptable and so we have these new systems in place to deal with this.So on the one hand our health and safety legislation in the workplace has kept apace of these changes but this Act which we are amending today when we are debating the Radiation Safety Bill has not kept apace in the same way. We do support having a high level of compliance with international best standards and we do support our commitments to international treaties.The bill does cover not only the use of ionising radiation but the transportation and the disposal of ionising radiation both man-made and naturally occurring in quantities above stated levels. The fundamental requirements stipulate that radiation use occurs only where the expected benefit outweighs the risks that exposures must be kept as low as reasonably achievable and that prescribed dose limits must not be exceeded. So these are important factors when we think about the fact that it is our children who are exposed to this ionising radiation and that it is older people who are frequently exposed to these because probably they are the two groups who are most exposed to X-rays over the course of their lives. So it is very important that they are protected with that statement.The enactment of the bill will complete New Zealand’s domestic implementation of the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism and the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. It allows for the International Atomic Energy Agency international inspectors to be appointed by the director to undertake activities in New Zealand and international inspectors must be accompanied by an enforcement officer appointed by the director under clause 39 of the bill. So it introduces a new regime of authorisations for individuals or organisations using radiation materials. [Bell rung] I was anticipating this being a split call but no other member wants to share the call with me so I think at this stage I will just simply reaffirm that Labour supports this bill and commend it to the House.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Before making some very brief comments on this third reading of this bill I seek the indulgence of the House just to make a passing comment on the sad death today of Martin Crowe one of New Zealand’s truly great sportspeople—a man who has contributed enormously to this country on the sporting field and off it. I had the good fortune to attend Auckland Grammar School at the same time as Martin Crowe and his obvious talent even as a young member of the cricketing first XI during those years was immediately obvious to all. Not only was his skill obvious to all but so too was his natural joy and love for the game. He epitomised true sportsmanship and our country is the sadder for his loss. Condolences to his family his friends and his teammates. Per angusta ad augusta.The Radiation Safety Bill is a technical bill. It has received a lot of acknowledgment in debates across the Chamber from parties across the House and I think we are all in agreement that it is a necessary bill. It brings up to date legislation that was passed in the 1960s that is now completely out of date and it is needed to bring us into line with international best practice. The Health Committee members all I think learnt lots as we went through this process and I want to join with others who have already acknowledged the very good and effective work of the officials who were advising us for making what was quite technical and dry information meaningful relevant and understandable to us as mere committee members.This bill replaces an existing piece of legislation that as I said dates back to the 1960s. It is appropriate that we pass it and I am delighted and pleased that across the House there seems to be unanimity on it. I commend it to the House.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare. I too would like to acknowledge the passing of Martin Crowe—an amazing New Zealander an incredible sportsperson and somebody who I think was one of the critical factors in inspiring New Zealand’s performance at the Cricket World Cup. So I think we all collectively mourn his passing and pass on our condolences to his whānau.It is my pleasure to speak in this third reading of the Radiation Safety Bill as a previous member of the Health Committee. I think we are 51 years from this law reform coming to fruition today as it replaces the Radiation Protection Act of 1965. I do want to state for the record that if we had our way this would be the “Ionising Radiation Safety Bill” because it applies only to ionising radiation and not non-ionising radiation but that is really all I will say about that.This law reform actually completes New Zealand’s domestic implementation of firstly the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. We actually signed that convention on 14 September 2005 so today we will actually join 101 other nations to now ratify this convention in our domestic legislation. It also completes our commitment to the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material which was adopted on 8 July 2005 and again that ensures that our domestic legislation now puts us in that group of countries that have taken the convention seriously and our domestic legislation now reflects that commitment.This law reform enables us to meet our international obligations relating to radiation protection radiation safety and security and non-nuclear proliferation. So rather than google about ionising and non-ionising radiation what I have been doing here is googling about the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material which was actually adopted on 26 October 1979 in Vienna. The convention is actually held with the International Atomic Energy Agency which was established on 29 July 1957. That agency’s mandate is to promote peaceful use of nuclear energy to stop the production of nuclear weapons and I guess I have been trying to look at the interface between the whole nuclear energy focus and the relationship with radiation which is what this bill is all about. Nuclear radiation is energy rays given off from a radioactive element such as uranium—which this bill will apply to—as it decays. So the whole reason it all traces back to that particular convention is that I guess there is universal acceptance that radiation causes harm.In our particular bill what we have said is that radiation use occurs and should occur only where the expected benefits outweigh the risks that exposure must be kept as low as reasonably possible to achieve the results that are wanted and that the doses must not exceed the limits. This piece of legislation really is about the safe use of ionising radiation in New Zealand and I think we have ensured that this is a best-practice piece of legislation.I want to take the time to thank the 14 submitters on this piece of legislation and three of them made oral submissions. The Regulations Review Committee also helped clarify the separate roles that codes of practice and regulations will play under this piece of legislation and I too want to highlight that the codes of practice now written into this legislation will ensure that these are reviewed at least once every 5 years. So we can be reassured that there will be a regular update in terms of the regulations that are relevant to this piece of legislation.I would like to take the opportunity to thank the officials. I think they were incredibly helpful and patient with some of the members of the select committee during the passage of this legislation who were fixated at times on this whole issue of ionising and non-ionising radiation so that we actually understood the relevance of the focus on ionising radiation. As I have tried to explain the background and the context have been about this focus on nuclear energy non-proliferation and actually the protection of the world against the drastic consequences when nuclear energy is used as a weapon of destruction.I would also like to take the time to congratulate the Health Committee on the way that it always works. I think it is the most collaborative select committee. I have been on a few and I am on another one now but I think there is something really special about the Health Committee because of the subject area. Our job is to protect the health and safety of New Zealanders and I think that as a committee we are all incredibly committed to that task. So I just want to commend the select committee on that work and as always I am really willing to take a call on any bills that are before the Health Committee.Just finally we support this bill. The passage of this bill actually is about time and so I commend the bill to the House. Kia ora tātou.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): I rise with the final call on this bill to support the Radiation Safety Bill which provides a modern framework for the use of this dangerous but very important form of energy. We heard in the Health Committee that this bill will have most application to the medical profession where it will have applications in the diagnostic space and in the therapeutic space particularly in the therapeutic space around cancers where ionising radiation has that ability to differentially target rapidly dividing cells. That makes it different from chemotherapy—it means you can isolate it to an area and do less damage less harm.The structure of the bill is to rely on codes of practice which addresses the underlying fundamentals that are described in the bill. There are five of these: safety of people in the environment safety of radiation sources security of the radiation source safe disposal and safe transport. The bill is actually quite wide because it also helps us meet our very important international obligations including the Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material and the International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism. We should note that although this bill amends these there is no effect on the other nuclear legislation for New Zealand: the New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone Disarmament and Arms Control Act the Nuclear-Test-Ban Act and the Atomic Energy Act. There has been some discussion around expanding the scope of this bill to possibly include non-ionising radiation. I think that the hazards of ionising radiation are so great including its ability to be used in terrorism that I think these are separate pieces of work and are rightly kept apart.Finally as I looked around the House today I suspect there were two members who have actually given radiation to people: probably the Hon Annette King in her dental role and me with the privilege of working as an after-hours doctor at Rāwene hospital about 25 years ago where there was an expectation that you would give after-hours X-rays. I think if for no other reason this bill is a good thing because it means clearly that Annette and I will not be irradiating the general public and that is a good public safety measure believe you me.That aside this bill is a good bill. It is a good framework it brings us up to date and I think we should make it law. Thank you.Bill read a third time.Employment Standards Legislation BillSecond ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move That the Employment Standards Legislation Bill be now read a second time. I thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and its chair Jonathan Young for their hard work and consideration of the bill. I want to also add my thanks to the hard-working officials providing support both to the committee and to me behind the scenes. I think they have done an excellent job. I also want to thank all those who made submissions on the bill. The bill has come back from select committee in very good shape. The select committee has recommended that the bill proceed with some amendments which I am in support of.Although much of the public discourse on the bill has been about zero-hour provisions this bill does much more than address that issue and I want to touch on those matters first. There are very important changes to paid parental leave included in this bill which deliver on my party’s 2014 election promise to modernise and extend paid parental leave.Part 1 of the bill remains largely as it was at introduction although the committee has made some useful changes that will improve the clarity of the bill. The definition of “primary carer” has been tightened to ensure there is no misinterpretation. A primary carer if not the biological mother or her spouse or partner is a person who takes permanent primary responsibility for the care development and upbringing of a child who is under the age of 6 years. The outlined provision in Part 1 has also been revised in response to feedback from some submitters about the complexity of the bill.I also requested that the committee consider the proposal to extend the parental leave payments for parents of pre-term babies following discussion with ACT leader David Seymour. The proposal reflects the extra and unexpected time the parents spend in the hospital with the baby and away from work and the delay in establishing bonding and settling the baby into the home environment. The committee agreed that eligible persons should receive an additional week’s parental leave payment for each week of prematurity from 37 weeks and additional keeping-in-touch hours the extra paid parental leave up to an additional 13 weeks. I want to thank Mr Seymour for his contribution to this very important amendment.Part 2 of the bill amends the Employment Relations Act. The changes introduce broad new accountability provisions around knowingly and intentionally committing breaches of employment standards measures improving record-keeping requirements and the overturning of the statutory obligation on the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court to send employment standards cases to mediation. No substantive changes have been made to Part 2 of the bill but again the committee’s consideration of submitters’ comments has led to minor improvements in their clarity and workability. Legislative guidance has been added to clarify how to meet the new requirement to have a record of both the hours worked each day and the pay for these hours. This requirement is necessary for the correct calculation of and demonstration of compliance with minimum employment entitlements. Some other minor changes have been made to the provisions overturning the statutory obligation on the Employment Relations Authority to send employment standards cases to mediation.I want to turn now to the provisions to address what are known as zero-hour contracts. These attracted the most comment from submitters. Most submitters opposed the proposals particularly relating to availability provisions on the grounds that they believed they legitimised the very practices the bill attempts to stop. This is quite wrong in my view. It does however underscore the difficulty that arises when there is no clear definition or shared understanding about what zero-hour means. Zero-hour is a type of employment that requires the employee to be ready willing and available for work when work is offered. Sometimes this obligation is paired with an exclusivity clause that also prevents the employee from working for others even when the employer has little or no work to offer. It is the equivalent of being on call all the time without being paid anything to recognise the demands that poses.This is distinct from casual employment where there is neither obligation on the employer to offer work nor obligation on the employee to accept it. Casual agreements have been a part of the employment relations landscape in this country for a long time. Some in this House may be concerned at the increasing casualisation of the workforce but these changes are not aimed at eliminating casual agreements which I believe have a place in our employment relations landscape.A number of the submissions highlighted a range of ways we could better achieve these objectives. In my view the committee has taken a sensible and pragmatic approach to the concerns raised by submitters and the bill is in better shape for it. Under the amendments employers must have a genuine reason based on reasonable grounds to include an availability provision—that is a provision requiring an employee to be available for work. It must be in the employment agreement and must provide reasonable compensation for that availability. The bill provides guidance to employers and employees on both of these requirements. Compensation for shift cancellation will also have to be reasonable and the bill provides guidance on this as well. The committee has also clarified the provisions relating to wage deductions by adding that if an employment agreement contains a general consent to a wage deductions clause the employer must consult with the employee when the employer wants to make a specific deduction. Finally to give employers more time to make the necessary changes to the employment agreements particularly those employers with large workforces the original 6-month transitional period to amend existing individual employment agreements is extended to 12 months.After the committee reported back to Parliament there was a strong backlash from some who claimed that rather than eliminate zero-hour provisions the bill had entrenched them. I absolutely disagree with that assessment but felt that for all the hyperbole the gap between where we were and those views was not as large as the drum-beating would suggest. So after discussion with the Council of Trade Unions and others I am prepared to make further minor changes to the clauses around availability and the definition of reasonable notice to close that gap. I acknowledge the input of the Council of Trade Unions and also that of Iain Lees-Galloway and note that Labour has publicly indicated that with those changes it can support the bill through its remaining stages. The changes made to the bill—Sue Moroney: That’s a stretch.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: —I am quoting the press release—both recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and in the upcoming Committee stage reflect a careful consideration of submitters’ comments and a shared desire to improve support for new parents strengthen sanctions on non-complying employers and eliminate zero-hour clauses. They make the bill clearer and more workable. With those changes I commend the bill to the House.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Let me be absolutely clear. Labour does not support this bill in its current form. As it was reported back from the select committee we felt that far from eliminating zero-hour contracts from the law it in fact entrenches them in the law. That was our view at first reading. We were prepared to take the bill to the select committee to try to work through that. Despite our best efforts and despite the fantastic submissions that we received from a variety of submitters representing both workers and employers we were not able to get the National Party MPs on the select committee to support our amendments that would eliminate zero-hour contracts rather than entrench them in the law. When the bill was reported back from the select committee we announced publicly that we were withdrawing our support for it. We do not believe that it gets rid of zero-hour contracts. In fact we believe it entrenches zero-hour contracts. Nothing has changed so far.What has changed is that the Minister has reached out to us—I suspect because he needs to make sure he has the numbers to pass this bill. The minor parties certainly were alert to the issues that we had raised around the legislation. I would like to thank Marama Fox in particular for the open line of communication that she allowed between myself and the Māori Party. I would like to thank Peter Dunne for noticing when we came out so hard against the bill when it was reported back from the select committee. We have been in discussions with the Minister and I thank the Minister for approaching us and being prepared to discuss the issues that we have with this legislation.So in good faith—because we on this side of the House believe in negotiating in good faith—we will support the second reading of the bill. Nobody should interpret that as Labour intending to support the bill through its remaining stages until we have seen the proposals. We have not yet seen the final proposals. We have certainly seen some indication about where the Minister wants to go. We are happy with the direction that the Minister has indicated he wants to go but we have not seen the final proposals. So until we see the final proposals we cannot commit to supporting this bill through its final stages.We will not support a bill that entrenches zero-hour contracts in the law. We will support a bill that eliminates zero-hour contracts completely and for good. Unfortunately as the Minister says we do not have a clause in the Employment Relations Act that says: “This is what a zero-hour contract is:”. Zero-hour contracts are the result of employers using a variety of loopholes in our legislation so what we need to do is close down those loopholes. I know it sounds unlikely to many people that a bill that we say currently entrenches zero-hour contracts could with some changes in fact eliminate zero-hour contracts but that is what we are dealing with. This bill with changes can eliminate zero-hour contracts and if we make those changes and those changes meet our satisfaction for the test of eliminating zero-hour contracts only then can we support the legislation.So what do we need to see? We want to remove the ability for employers to put people on contracts where they are on call with no permanent hours. Being on call can be fine in some contexts where being on call is in addition to regular hours at work. But sitting at home on call waiting for work and being required to come to work when that phone call comes and therefore not being able to get on with your life not being able to engage in other activities like joining a sports club or going and seeing your kids play at school or indeed picking up other work for another employer—that is a zero-hour contract and that is the situation that the legislation as currently drafted allows for.Secondly employers should not be able to cancel shifts at the last minute. The idea that employers can simply cancel shifts when they like should not be normalised in the legislation. We are concerned right now that the legislation is not strong enough on this matter. It does allow for last-minute cancellations and in fact if anything it suggests that cancellation of shifts should be normalised and that cancellation clauses should go into every employment agreement and we do not agree with that. We need that to be changed. Thirdly where practicable hours of work should be included in an employment agreement so that people can plan their lives and have income security.Those are our bottom lines; this is not a matter for compromise. Those are the changes we need to see in order to continue supporting this legislation. No halfway houses no watering down—we get those changes or our support for this legislation ceases. Zero-hour contracts are amongst the most exploitative forms of employment agreement in New Zealand right now and our law allows for them. What we should not be doing is entrenching them in the law. We should be getting rid of them. We should be giving people the opportunity to have a steady income where they know how many hours of work they are going to have from one week to the next. We should be giving people the opportunity to have a life outside of work—to join a sports team to join a cultural club to volunteer for their favourite charity to go and see their kids play sport to be in a play or to go along to their kids’ assembly. Those are the things that New Zealanders take for granted as being part of living in New Zealand. It is part of being a New Zealander. It is part of the freedoms that we ought to enjoy.But for too many people that is not real life because life is dictated by work. They are literally sitting at home waiting for the phone call and when the phone call comes they have no choice. They have got to go to work. That is what a zero-hour contract is and that is why we want to get rid of them. It is not necessarily to do with having a perfectly constructed law. It is about people being able to lead a decent life with a reasonable income and the ability to do the things that we all ought to be able to take for granted.We could on this side of the House simply say “Sorry National we’re not going to deal with you. Your record on workers’ rights is appalling.”—and sorry chaps and ladies but it is. But we are prepared to get this right for working people. We owe it to working New Zealanders to take this opportunity to get rid of zero-hour contracts. Yes it has come about because of the MMP Parliament that we have. This Parliament is finely balanced and yes we do work with the Māori Party and yes we do reach out to Peter Dunne and with a strong foundation of Labour the Greens and New Zealand First taking a firm position against zero-hour contracts we were able to build the coalition on this. That is how we are doing this—with hard work behind the scenes to ensure that this Parliament by majority wishes to eliminate zero-hour contracts. The Government has realised it needs to be on board with that and we welcome that.So today we will vote for this bill. Next week we will propose changes and I have no doubt that the Government will propose changes. If the mixture of the changes that are adopted by this House are sufficient to meet our bottom lines we will support this bill. If they are not we will not and if they are not sufficient to meet our bottom lines I implore the Government’s support parties not to cave in not to accept something that is watered down and not to accept a compromise but to support our view and that is this: it is time to eliminate zero-hour contracts from New Zealand. We support this bill at this stage. We look forward to the hard work next week and we look forward to being able to celebrate on behalf of working people next week that zero-hour contracts are gone for good.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): It is a delight to stand in support of this bill. I am very pleased to hear the Labour Opposition also supporting this bill at this stage. The definition of zero-hour contracts and I will focus on that part of the bill—often we are talking at cross-purposes because no one wants to have a zero-hour contract where someone sits by the phone is not compensated has to wait around all day with the potential of getting zero hours and is not able to work anywhere else. That is an unacceptable situation.This bill does not allow that. This bill is a bill that supports in all its parts the employee whether it is to do with flexibility around paid parental leave—it recognises the changing nature of the workplace and the demands and the desirability of connecting the newborn baby with the mother. It recognises the tougher penalties and strengthens the enforcement of the labour laws and it also compels employers to keep better records so that they can be audited and penalties increased if they are not kept to the appropriate standard.But let me come back to the zero-hour contract. I would rather call it—or well I do call it—a contract where one person is on call for another. Of course if one is on call—whether one is a medical practitioner or a coffee grinder it does not matter—this bill insists and ensures that there is compensation for making oneself available to the employer. So that is a fundamental change in the law. The other fundamental difference is that there is compensation again to the employee where there is a cancellation in the shift. That is of course fair enough. There also must be a good reason for a restriction on the employee to not be able to work in another employer’s business or in other employment situations.I accept that what is reasonable notice and what is reasonable compensation is difficult to understand. Mr Lees-Galloway has already talked about the need for clarification on what is reasonable. As the Minister and Mr Lees-Galloway have alluded to there are lots of things that must be considered and part of the consideration is of course perhaps the type of business that one is involved with—whether it is a very specialist business or whether it is of a general nature. Perhaps a consideration as to what is reasonable might be the degree to which the employer can foresee or control the need to cancel the shifts. So if it is foreseeable and then it is cancelled then one should be paying more than if it were not. The nature of the employee’s work and the likely effect of a cancellation on the employee—so again supporting the employee in the situation—should be considered when determining what is reasonable. Perhaps the nature of the employee’s work and employment arrangements including where the guaranteed hours of work might be should be considered.So there are lots of things that need to be considered when one considers what is reasonable notice and what is reasonable compensation and I look forward to seeing the Supplementary Order Papers come through and debating that in Committee stage. I commend this bill to the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Employment Standards Legislation Bill finding ourselves at this stage supporting the bill—at this point and Iain Lees-Galloway has stressed that. We have got some discussions to go. But it is interesting to note that in this piece of legislation I think the Government almost got too clever for itself. At the outset it put paid parental leave—positive changes to paid parental leave—in this bill and some changes that it knew that the Labour Party would find difficult to support which actually continued to have zero-hour contracts in our landscape. The Government put them together thinking: “Hah! That’ll corner the Labour Party won’t it?”. Well actually what has ended up happening is it has ended up being a real problem for the Government because it has now got paid parental leave changes that it wants to get in before 1 April this year and suddenly it found itself without the numbers to be able to do that because—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Not true.SUE MORONEY: —of the shambles that it has created over zero-hour contracts. So I think Mr Woodhouse that is what is called being too clever for yourself and being hoist with one’s own petard. I think that is one of the things that has occurred during this process.I do want to briefly speak about the zero-hour contracts issue because it is important that we get that right. If we do not get that right then people’s lives suffer. Their family lives suffer; their ability to be involved with their community suffers; even their ability to be able to get a loan or a mortgage or anything of that nature suffers if they cannot show that they have constant work and what the value of that work is and therefore they are not even able to take out a mortgage.I particularly want to thank the excellent submissions that we had on this particular issue around zero-hour contracts because I think it was the submitters—and I think the fine work from the Labour Party as well—who really showed the stupidity of the way that the law was drafted as it had been put into the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There were many many submitters who came in on this issue and the ones who really stick in my mind were the employers—the employers who one would have imagined were the ones who probably wanted zero-hour contracts so those operating in the home-care sector for example where sometimes the scheduling of work can be a little problematic. It can be a little difficult to anticipate who is going to need home care when and who is going to go to hospital and maybe not need someone to come to their home—those sorts of issues.But it was those very employers who actually told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that they did not need or want zero-hour contracts. And that had the National Party looking pretty grim I have got to say because its reason for keeping some ability to have zero-hour contracts in the law was slipping away before its eyes at the select committee. But still it refused to believe it. Employer group after employer group after employer group came in and under questioning from the Labour Party told the committee that all they needed for flexibility in the sort of labour market they needed to deliver the goods and services that they were involved in was a permanent part-time workforce who they knew were there on particular days of the week; they needed the ability to have fixed-term contracts which are in the law already—the ability to bring people in on fixed-term contracts for when they had particular projects on that were unusual or particularly high demands for their product or services—and the only other thing they needed was a genuine ability to employ people on a casual basis. They did not need zero-hour contracts. And so it was the employers and the employees who came along and told us that this is a nonsense it is creating havoc on people’s lives and employers did not need it.It was right there and then that National should have addressed this but it did not. It got all the way through the select committee and the bill has been reported back still with zero-hour contract provisions in there. And if it had listened to the Labour Party from the outset we would have had a bill that made sense that actually improved people’s lives and that took people out of that vulnerable situation sitting in front of this House right here right now. We do not and I think that is very sad because National had every opportunity to fix it at an earlier opportunity.I now want to move on to the paid parental leave provisions of this bill because this is the part that Labour can almost wholeheartedly support without any amendments although we do have one to propose and I will talk to that a little later. But the provisions of the paid parental leave are generally very good in this bill. It importantly extends paid parental leave to seasonal and casual workers and that has not been available to them before. That provision will be available from 1 April. That will make a big difference to the lives of young children born into probably some of our most vulnerable working families where the income is not regular and where the needs are generally quite high.So I applaud the Government for that. But I do want to put on record the real story behind what I think is one of the best achievements of this bill which I am personally very proud of and that is the extension of additional paid parental leave to the families who have prematurely born babies. I want to place on record the real story behind that because the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety thanked David Seymour and yes David Seymour does deserve a little bit of thanking over that but the Minister should really have been thanking Donnelle Belanger-Taylor. And if he was not so churlish he might have even thanked my good self for my role in this because here is the story about how this evolved.My bill to extend paid parental leave to 26 weeks was in danger of not progressing any further just after the last election. In an attempt to salvage that and to do the best that I could and that the Labour Party could for families I amended the bill in the hopes that the Government members might find some compassion in their souls to support it. And I amended it in the following way. I amended it so that the 26 weeks’ paid parental leave would apply to families who had a baby born with a disability who had a baby born prematurely or who had the joy of a multiple birth in their family. Those seemed to me if I was going to amend the bill at all the most pressing needs and so I did that. That miserable Government still did not support that; it still did not support even those families having extended paid parental leave.However I decided that I needed just one more vote to get that through. I could not look those families in the eye and say that I had not done every single thing possible to try to help their situations if I did not go and talk to every member of Parliament I could about securing that one vote. The person who listened to that plea was David Seymour so thank you Mr Seymour. You listened with an open mind about those amendments. You told me that you would support the bill Mr Seymour and I was delighted about that. However I believe that when Mr Seymour went and talked to his coalition partner the Government it threw its arms up in horror and said: “Whatever you do do not support her bill. You cannot support the Labour Party bill.” But it promised instead that it would do exactly those amendments in a bill in the Government’s own name. So it seemed like in a round about way we were going to get what we had asked for anyway.However that is not the end of the story because when the bill was brought forward—the Employment Standards Legislation Bill—it did not have that change in it at all. So in the first reading of this bill there was no additional measure for pre-term babies babies born with disabilities or babies born in multiple births. So I had another conversation with David Seymour he had another conversation with the Government and during the select committee process one of those measures was brought forward. It is an important measure but I do want to say to the Government that you reneged on your promise to Mr Seymour to bring in those three measures. This measure however will be very well received by those families—that babies born before the end of the 36th week of gestation will have additional paid parental leave and I feel very proud of that achievement. That will make a big different to those families.But I particularly want to say thank you to Donnelle Belanger-Taylor. It was her submission on my bill that kept me awake at night thinking about the circumstances of families when the birth had been different to what they had expected and the pressures on their families. That is an example of where someone actually brings a submission forward to Parliament and it makes a big difference. In this case Donnelle you are a hero for all those families who will benefit from this change.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): It is a pleasure to be talking on the Employment Standards Legislation Bill. I just want to cover some of the key elements of it and it has been a very interesting process that we have been through in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. In essence what this bill is about is seeking to make the workplace fairer and more productive not only for the employer but also for the employee. As the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety said earlier it really has three key areas that it focuses on: firstly parental leave and payments; secondly enhancing the enforcement of employment standards; and thirdly prohibiting certain unfair employment practices. I think everyone across the House is agreed that there is a need to refine and improve the situation and it is good to hear and to see people working collaboratively on that.Just in terms of the paid parental leave obligations as everyone knows we have increased the paid parental leave from 16 weeks to 18 weeks and that is coming into force next year but what this bill provides for is that recognition around pre-term babies. This is a really important concept. Basically it means that for anyone who has a baby before the full term of 37 weeks there is an additional adjustment made. So for instance if someone was to have a baby at 28 weeks they would get 9 weeks of paid parental leave in addition to the existing 16 weeks at the moment which will be increasing to 18 weeks. Secondly we have refined the keeping-in-touch provisions for mothers who go off to look after their babies and we have clarified the rules around that. Thirdly we have extended the definition of “primary carer”. This is a very important fact because what it means is it now recognises that it might be not only just the biological parents who are involved in the full-time care of a child but grandparents or other family members. So what that means is that these people can now also benefit from similar provisions.The second area is around stopping unfair employment practices and it really addresses the unfair practices by prohibiting certain practices that undermine the mutuality of obligations. In particular it requires employers to now specify the hours of work in the employment contract with the employee and it prohibits employers requiring employees to be available for hours in excess of those specified hours unless the employee has the absolute right to refuse that work with no subsequent penalties or whatever or certainly compensation is paid. There is also a requirement to specify in the employment contract what the required sufficient notice period is if you are going to cancel a shift. It is an issue that was very vexing to the committee and we considered it very appropriately and now there is a requirement for appropriate compensation to be payable to the employee in a situation where a shift is cancelled. It also prohibits employers from forcing employees not to work for other employers. Sometimes this is appropriate if there is intellectual property and other such matters and so there must be genuine grounds for it but the genuine grounds must be set out in the employment agreement between the employer and the employee.Finally in terms of the enforcement of minimum employment standards there are three key areas that this bill addresses. First of all there is now a specific requirement to keep sufficient details of hours of work. We were concerned that in certain circumstances people were working much longer than their stated hours of work. What this bill makes clear is the requirement on employees to keep a record of it because in effect you can work out what the hourly rate is on the basis of the actual hours worked. Secondly and related to that we have strengthened the provision for labour inspectors to go into workplaces and enforce these provisions. Thirdly we have imposed tougher sanctions on employers who are wanting to breach these employment standards. Just by way of note for individuals that fine or penalty has been increased to $50000 and for corporates it has been increased to $100000 or three times the gain that they may have got from doing inappropriate practices.So I think this is a very composite bill. It is a difficult area. There are many different types of employers and different types of roles. Some people are very happy to work in a casual situation; others are not. What we sought to do was draw a balance between those arrangements taking into account the myriad of employment arrangements across New Zealand. So I commend the bill to the House.DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take the first call for the Greens on this the second reading of the Employment Standards Legislation Bill. The bill as it has been reported back to the House is quite a different beast to the one that was introduced to the House in its first reading and by the time we get to the third reading it may well be a different beast again. As I understand from previous speakers from Labour and from the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety there are discussions under way to strengthen the bill particularly in the area of zero-hour contracts.At this stage the Greens will be voting against the bill in the second reading because the devil is always in the detail. Although we have had some communication with the Minister’s office our caucus maintains a strong and unwavering opposition to legislation that enables the exploitation of ordinary working New Zealanders and this bill as it is reported back risks enshrining zero-hour contracts in the law. If during the Committee stage during the passage of this bill the Minister does introduce amendments through Supplementary Order Papers that outlaw zero-hour contracts then we will of course support the bill through to the third reading but as I said we have to see the detail first. Although I note that some Supplementary Order Papers are being developed we have not seen one from the Minister.I am going to just talk a bit about the submission process because this was a very complicated omnibus bill. There were over 12000—12200—written submissions the vast majority of them from ordinary working New Zealanders: union members on the whole who were concerned about the potential to enable zero-hour contracts. I want to congratulate those people particularly those who are union members on participating in the democratic process and adding their voice to this issue. I have no doubt that it is the deep unpopularity of the provisions in the bill that is triggering the change of heart in the Minister which just goes to show that people power does work.We also heard from employers and from peak bodies of employers. We heard a significant amount of comment about rostering and part-time workers. I have to say that there was no real appetite to liberalise employment law to enable zero-hour contracts as many employers can already manage the peaks and flows of their businesses with part-time fixed-term casual and permanent staff. We acknowledge that the bill as reported back has tried to address some of the issues around zero-hour contracts like availability clauses and cancellation of shifts.These were issues that I had developed solutions to in a member’s bill that I launched over a year ago. But I pulled it when the Minister announced that he was going to act on the issue because I thought that we would get to a place where we would end these unfair employment practices. But this bill as reported back requires reasonable notice of shift cancellation and reasonable compensation if employees have to be available which is much better than what the first iteration of the bill was. Having said that it also includes tests about what reasonable is which are really guidelines to the Employment Court to take into consideration when deciding what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.I have a difficulty with making laws that need to be tested after a problem with the exploitation of a worker when we should be making laws that prevent exploitation in the first place. These days it is basically left to a handful of brave workers and their unions to take legal cases to test our industrial relations law. In the casual workforce accessing legal remedies is basically left up to labour inspectors. I have heard anecdotally that unless there are lots of workers who are impacted there is not a lot of likelihood of labour inspectors being able to get out there and actually do the enforcement. You would need a huge army of them to have a look at every single one. Really we should be looking at the ability of workers to understand and to be able to speak up for their rights. As an individual though—as an individual waiting at the end of the phone for a call for some hours of work—it is not likely you are going to stand up for them. By the time a casual employee who is waiting at the end of the phone for a call on a zero-hour contract takes any type of legal action to test the parameters of the availability or cancellation of shifts the employment relationship is basically over.We have heard ways in which we could end zero-hour contracts from some submitters. Some of them are just as simple as ensuring that there is a guarantee of minimum hours to be worked in every employment agreement. That would be a very good start. Incentivising permanent and regular employment is another way and we can do that by adding a casual loading to those who are employed on an on-call basis. That is the basis of Supplementary Order Paper 150 that Clayton Mitchell from New Zealand First is putting forward. His Supplementary Order Paper essentially will load about 19 percent on to the hourly rate which is similar to what happens in Australia. That is to cover the fact that casual employees do not get access to some of the other rights that workers have like holidays bereavement leave and sick leave.Although we do actually support some aspects of the bill that deal with the enforcement of labour standards—we think that the increase in fines is great—we are still concerned with the lack of resourcing for the agency charged with doing that enforcement. The labour inspectorate does a great job but it is under-resourced and one just has to look at the lack of compliance with some of the basic employment standards like time and wage records in the dairy farming sector which has been widely reported in the media to get an idea of the scope of the problems that they have to deal with.We oppose the provisions in the bill as reported back around time and wage records for salaried workers. Yes we need good strong laws around keeping time and wage records but we are concerned that—with the way it is reported back—salaried workers will lose protection. We think there is an ill-thought-out recommended change that came through from the select committee and we did not see that there was any reason to have this dangerous provision in there. I will be putting up a Supplementary Order Paper to address that issue when it comes to the Committee of the whole House.There are certain parts of this omnibus bill that we support wholeheartedly. Extending paid parental leave is one of them and extending paid parental leave to the carers after the birth of a pre-term baby is also supported. I want to recognise the work that Sue Moroney has done in this area. The Greens believe that we should be making laws that support the most vulnerable in our society. In this case those who are vulnerable are those with no guarantee of basic working hours who are desperate for paid work and who are on the losing side of the power imbalance inherent in the employment relationship and that power imbalance is outlined in the Employment Relations Act preamble. On these grounds we will not be supporting the bill at this reading but we will consider it later down the track.DARROCH BALL (NZ First): It is a pleasure to rise on behalf of New Zealand First and my colleague Clayton Mitchell to speak on the Employment Standards Legislation Bill in the second reading. Although I have not been involved personally with the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee or with all the other stages of this bill I would like to take this opportunity to ensure that this House and the National Government understand our position on this bill and why although we do support separate parts of this bill we will still be opposing it overall. Although the Minister has mentioned that during conversations with the Labour Party they have come to some sort of agreement about discussions and future changes we obviously have not seen that and as the bill itself stands we will still be opposing it.The aim of the billis as Andrew Bayly actually mentioned as well to make a number of improvements to the employment relations and employment standards legislation for the benefit of all Kiwi workers. But that is actually a little bit—well not just a little bit—quite greatly juxtaposed to the actual reality for New Zealand workers who are exposed to the zero-hour work contracts. One of the issues that I have picked up—and like I said I have not been involved with the process thus far—is that this is an omnibus bill and there are parts through here that the entire Opposition actually agrees with but the sticking point seems to be the zero-hour contracts part. I do not know whether it was mentioned or discussed previously in the first reading or during the committee’s considerations whether it would be a logical step to actually discuss this bill in separate parts. But unfortunately as it is—although like I said there are parts that we do strongly support—we cannot support this bill overall because of the zero-hour contracts.A couple of the parts that New Zealand First does support include the extension of paid parental leave from 16 to 18 weeks. It allows mothers with premature babies 40 hours of keeping-in-touch hours with their jobs which is obviously quite important and it allows primary caregivers to be someone other than the birth mother—and that can be determined by the parents. It also introduces a premature baby allowance. That is one of the vitally important periods of a baby’s life but also of the parents’ life as well and New Zealand First supports any improvement to that. We also support the stronger and more effective enforcement of the employment standards. This is quite a separate issue obviously to the paid parental leave part but we do support and understand that that is an essential part of any employment contract.But then we get to the zero-hour contracts. I know that they are not labelled as zero-hour contracts within the legislation but that is what they are in essence. Although I do acknowledge that the Minister has said there will be changes to the legislation moving forward in the current form of the bill that is exactly what this legislation actually entrenches. What it has got there is that it has actually included employment agreements that do not provide any guaranteed hours of work and that is a zero-hour contract. In fact it actually creates the availability of provisions that mean staff can be required to be available for work at times without any guarantee of minimum hours or even minimum income and effectively that is allowing zero-hour contracts. When that translates into reality for Kiwi workers who are actually on zero-hour contracts that means they have got no ability to budget day to day week to week or even year to year. That includes organising their lives and their children’s lives in regard to day care and in regard to school. New Zealand First totally opposes zero-hour contracts. I note that during the select committee process employers submitted to the committee—some employers are saying that they do not actually need the zero-hour contracts. There were over 12000 submissions and all bar one did not support the zero-hour contracts.It is important to note that New Zealand First understands that casual contracts are an important part of the labour market and that is why my colleague Clayton Mitchell has submitted Supplementary Order Paper 150. That Supplementary Order Paper is intended to create a loading on any casual employee giving benefit to the worker and an incentive to the employer to move the employee on to a part-time or full-time contract. It works both ways for both the employer and for the employee. Casual loadings are not a new concept but return to the situation that applied for nearly 100 years before the Employment Contracts Act 1991 when protections were given to our casual workers. Many of these protections have actually been maintained in Australia. The current situation where employers are only to pay for liable annual leave means that there is a systemic bias towards the employment of casual workers as it is. The Supplementary Order Paper proposals are intended to create a loading on any casual employee giving benefit to the worker and an incentive to the employer to move the employee on to a part-time or full-time contract. The current situation where employers are only liable to pay for annual leave means that there is a system bias towards the employment of casual workers.There is no requirement to load for public holidays sick leave bereavement leave health and safety representative training leave employment relations leave jury duty notice periods or payment in lieu of notice. Casual workers also have no access to personal grievance protections for unfair dismissal and effectively these are cost transfers from the employer to the worker. The purpose of the Supplementary Order Paper that Clayton Mitchell has submitted is to pay all casual employees a loading of 19 percent on the average hourly rate of a full-time employee doing the same or similar job as the casual worker. The 19 percent is broken down as follows: 1.6 percent loading for sick and bereavement leave 4.4 percent loading for statutory holidays 8 percent loading for standard holiday pay and 5 percent casual loading. The employer will have the ability to move workers off a casual employment agreement and on to a part-time or full-time contract without paying any of the loading. There will be no penalty payments for employers who make part-time or full-time work available for casual employees.I know that my colleague Clayton Mitchell will go into depth with the Supplementary Order Paper on his return but what I would like to say is that like I have stated although New Zealand First does support parts of this bill we do not support the bill overall specifically because of the issues with the zero-hour contracts.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call between National and the Māori Party. Dr Parmjeet Parmar—5 minutes.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): I am very pleased to stand and take this call to support the Employment Standards Legislation Bill on its second reading. As a member on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I want to acknowledge and thank all submitters for their contributions which are highly valued. I also want to acknowledge the select committee chair Jonathan Young and also the Minister the Hon Michael Woodhouse for the work that he has done on this bill.This bill is a very timely bill as it addresses various issues arising due to diversification of employee and employer relationships changing work environments and changing family needs. As we have already heard this bill attracted a huge number of submissions. A big chunk of those submissions were actually form submissions. If I just exclude form submissions unique submissions were still quite high. We received 1920—or close to that—unique submissions on this bill. This bill has been closely examined and as a result the select committee has made some very practical recommendations.This bill is necessary because there are things that cannot be left to good-faith relationships between employees and employers. But both groups—employees and employers—want growth; they want to see legislation that supports growth. This bill is about supporting growth while promoting flexibility and fairness at workplaces again for both groups—employers and employees.From my own experience being an employee and an employer in the past I understand the importance of retaining flexibility and I also understand the importance of having the ability to have mutual agreements. Yes I want to acknowledge that I understand that there are some unfair elements in so-called zero-hour contracts and that is why we need this bill. This bill is to address those unfair components in so-called zero-hour contracts. But this bill is not just about zero-hour contracts; this bill is also about making paid parental leave more flexible and practical and it is also about supporting the enforcement of minimum entitlements.I believe in fairer workplaces and a flexible labour market that support productivity and are also about providing enhanced protection to employers and employees. It is not about focusing on just one group employers or employers; we need both groups. Employers need employees to run their businesses and employees need employers because they create employment. It is about retaining flexibility but also providing certainty to both groups employers and employees.This bill is also about supporting the enforcement of minimum entitlements for which employers will be required to keep a record of various things related to employment so that they can demonstrate compliance to minimum entitlement provisions. Also the recording of various things related to employment like wages leave holidays etc. will be made consistent in other employment legislation so that it is easy to establish compliance.This part of the bill is mainly for businesses that are not compliant. We want to see that those businesses comply and if they do not comply there will be financial penalties and the seriousness of the breach will be reflected in those penalties. I can fully understand that feeling of power imbalance between employers and employees that has come through quite a lot. That is why this bill is also about having two-way communication between employers and employees. Things that are agreed to will be in the agreement like the number of hours—if they are agreed they should be in the agreement. Also an availability provision should be in the agreement.I quickly want to touch on paid parental leave because this bill is also about paid parental leave. It is making it more flexible and practical. The bill is also about extending the parental leave entitlement to a wider group than biological parents and formal adoptive parents. The other great thing about this bill is the keeping-in-touch hours for employees on paid parental leave. Overall it is a great bill. I support this bill and commend it to the House. Thank you.MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Neither of the Māori Party’s two members in the House were able to sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee during the passage of this bill and so we have relied on the collective workings of the parties involved and their efforts to ensure that workers’ rights are being upheld—something that we were gravely concerned about.Pita Paraone: Particularly Māori workers.MARAMA FOX: Particularly Māori workers—actually all workers. So when the bill came out of the select committee we continued to have some concerns that the issues had not all been addressed to our satisfaction. Hence we began a dialogue between ourselves and the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety to raise those concerns. We sought some good-faith bargaining—I guess you could call it that. We sought some advice from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and we worked with other people to ensure—Hon Simon Bridges: Hey who started this great bill?MARAMA FOX: That is right. We started to ensure that we were taking workers’ rights into consideration and to make sure that we could do what we could to help move things along.There are a couple of things like the zero-hour contracts that everybody has been talking about. I had a couple of sons work under zero-hour contracts and they did quite well under those zero-hour contracts. They were casual contracts with no guaranteed hours but their holiday pay was seen in it. They negotiated those contracts themselves and when the time came when they had proven their worth one of the sons took a fixed-term contract and the other stayed on a zero-hour contract because he got more money. That is wonderful and that is lovely but I also have a number of nephews and nieces in the Wairarapa who also worked to zero-hour contracts who did not have the same security in their jobs so we raised the issues with the Minister.We come to the second reading and the Supplementary Order Papers that we have seen which propose some changes are not where we wanted them to be. However we have now sought assurances from the Minister that the issues we have raised have been addressed and that through the Committee stage that Supplementary Order Paper will come with the support of Labour in the work that it has been doing. So I would like to acknowledge that here because I think that is important.Given that and given the good faith bargaining that we have been talking through with the Minister we are happy to take him at his word that these things are being addressed. We have seen the draft of the Supplementary Order Paper and though it is not here today in this reading based on that and the notion that our issues will be addressed through the Committee of the whole House—is that what you say?Grant Robertson: Yep.Iain Lees-Galloway: You’re right.MARAMA FOX: That is right. That is the one. Given that they will be addressed at that stage we are happy to support this bill at its second reading and we look forward to seeing that Supplementary Order Paper come to the House.On that we also just want to mention the paid parental leave. Previous to this bill paid parental leave was only for parents and formally adoptive parents and paid parental leave has now been increased to recognise whāngai parents. Parents who in a Māori way are able to whāngai a child without a formal adoption process—that has now been recognised under this bill and we want to acknowledge the Minister and the select committee for ensuring that that has been there.This has been difficult and people have received flak over the zero-hour contracts and the rights of workers. What we want to make sure is that people who may not have the capacity to negotiate a contract with an employer are able to get support able to get some guaranteed hours and are able to ensure that they are adequately compensated if those hours fall over and they cannot get work.I come from a family of shearers. We know what it is like to be rung up at 4 a.m. and told: “No work today.” If you do not work you do not get paid. We understand what that is like and it is very difficult. It does not offer security to a family who has children and dependants to feed if they do not know how much income they are going to get in the week.We are happy that the Minister has sought to address those issues. We acknowledge the work of the select committee and the parties involved to get it across the line and we look forward to the Supplementary Order Paper coming to the House and offer our support to the bill thus far.JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on this the Employment Standards Legislation Bill on its second reading.As stated previously by my colleague Denise Roche we are unable to support this bill at this stage because the bill that is in front of us which has come out of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee does not do what we were told it was going to do. I do understand that negotiations are happening at the moment behind closed doors and there is the possibility that something will come to the Committee of the whole House. It is disappointing that the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety and the Government were not able to hear the submissions made by the 10000 submitters and to see the reason at that point of the process to return a bill to this House based on that evidence and that there has to be a process behind closed doors—which means we cannot support this bill at this stage.At the heart of our position is the fact that the Minister when this bill was introduced told us that this bill would prohibit zero-hour contracts. In actual fact what it does is etch zero-hour contracts into our legal and social landscape. There is at the moment a question over the legality of zero-hour contracts and this bill will establish them as valid in our laws.I do want to point out in this context that the Government is currently a really large part of the zero-hours problem because it allows those non-jobs to be listed through Work and Income and it has not ruled out cutting somebody’s benefit if they refuse to take a zero-hour contract. When welfare legislation was going through this House last year and submitters raised concerns about sole parents with young children being forced into these insecure zero-hour jobs the Government said and the advice back was that “Well we’re not going to rule those jobs out and say that they’re unsuitable in this legislation because that’s going to be dealt with through today’s piece of legislation.” And then what comes back to the House is something that actually enshrines that.So that has a cascade effect right throughout the system and these contracts are a disaster for most people. They mean that people go from week to week not knowing how much will be in their pay cheque. If you imagine trying to budget—to pay your rent to be able to put food on the table and to make sure your kids have got what they need to get to school and be at school—and not knowing how much money you have coming in I think you can understand why so many people are passionate about this issue and want to make sure that our law clearly prohibits these zero-hour contracts as promised by the Minister when it was introduced.This situation is particularly bad for sole parents and people with mental health issues who are trying to get back into work. So when the Government is saying that its main response to poverty in this country is to get people off welfare and into work this kind of legislation becomes critically important because actually their welfare and the meaning of work hinge on the quality of the work. Work does not provide benefit if it is that insecure; it actually causes harm.It was interesting—I got to sit in on some of the submissions on this bill and heard from some security guards who are currently working outside Work and Income offices contracted by Armourguard—to hear that their hours are deeply casualised to the point that they may get only 3 hours of work one week and then potentially they are working full-time another week. Their employer Armourguard is on record as saying that was due to the “unpredictable nature of workflows.” Work and Income offices are open for set hours; there is nothing unpredictable about that. But that is the balance of power in our employment situation at the moment.It is workers and families who are paying the real cost of this. We need legislation that makes it absolutely clear that that is unacceptable. At the moment this legislation will require those workers to take a case to court. That is not good enough and we cannot support it at the moment.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): I rise on behalf of the ACT Party in support of this bill and I want to address my comments largely towards the paid parental leave part—a part that I am particularly proud of—but I also want to make a few comments about employment law and some of the speeches that we have heard more generally.My first job was working at TDC Sawmills in Whangarei 60 hours a week—40 hours during the daytime and 20 hours at night for $7.50 an hour pulling 12-inch by 2-inch boards six metres long. I doubt that many of the members on the other side of the House have ever worked that hard particularly those who attended King’s College. One of the interesting things I learnt from talking to my colleagues there was that the only thing that improves the condition of the working man or woman is not this House making statutes to ban a particular arrangement and take away their options. The only thing that helps is the offer of a better job somewhere else—that is employers competing to offer higher-productivity jobs to people with growing amounts of skill.In the time I worked there I saw a number of people move on and take exactly those options. Sadly from the tone of the rhetoric that we have heard in this House this afternoon and throughout this debate what we have discovered is that this House puts in place many many restrictions on the contracts that people can be entering into. And make no mistake those restrictions do not make the working person any better off because every time we put a restriction on the contracts into which people can enter under employment law all we do is make people ever more cautious about being willing to enter into those contracts in the first place.The people who want more and more restrictions on employment law contracts—well typically they themselves have never gone out into the market place and tried to hire good people. They have never stayed up at night doing their compliance trying to find enough money to pay the wages bill paying their workers and then paying themselves—only if there is enough left over for the employer. That is the reality for many New Zealanders particularly in small businesses which has not been heard tonight. As this House once again moves to tighten up employment law it does no favours for the employer and ultimately no favours for the employee because you cannot legislate better jobs you can only ban certain employment arrangements.I want to turn to a particular clause in this bill that as we heard from Sue Moroney I have had something to do with which is paid parental leave. I believe very strongly that the role of the State as a provider of social insurance is extremely important but it should be offering insurance against unexpected outcomes. For the overwhelming majority of us having children is not an unexpected outcome. Having a baby born pre-term—that is an unexpected outcome and that is something that I believe the State should offer compensation for to help people through that time.The provisions that I have helped negotiate in this bill as we heard earlier from Sue Moroney say that if you have a pre-term baby you will be able to receive additional paid parental leave to the extent that that baby is born earlier than the expected 36 weeks. That is a compassionate welfare State addressing truly unexpected outcomes which I support. I do not support the relentless extension of paid parental leave which amounts to a massive wealth transfer for mainly political purposes.None the less I am proud of what the ACT Party has done to improve this bill. I would like to thank the honourable Minister Woodhouse for the role he has played and also Sue Moroney for her passionate advocacy throughout the process of forming this bill to date.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Normally I am quite in agreement with the last speaker David Seymour but I have to differ on a few little points about the importance of this House and setting some context around employment relations. I think there are some important things that this Parliament can do to safeguard the rights of workers and I think that is an important part of any Parliament. The members of the Labour Party over there are trying to trivialise the situation of work and we know that they are still trying to work out what work actually is in their environment. It is great to see the members over there in such a good mood when they are coming to the end of a week.This bill does deal with some important issues that have been in the work environment for a number of years now especially around the paid parental leave scheme which is something that there has been a lot of debate around.David Seymour: The member hasn’t disagreed with me yet.DAVID BENNETT: Ha ha! You do not want me to go back and disagree. The paid parental leave scheme has been something that both sides of the House have debated over a number of years. During that process a number of arrangements and extensions to that scheme have actually come into place and this bill builds on that and develops and provides more opportunities for the paid parental leave scheme to be extended—not only extension in its obligations but also in the protections that it gives to parents. I think that is something that all members of this House see as very important for the future of our country going forward.The main provisions in this bill around paid parental leave have been canvassed quite strongly by all members of the House. There are some important parts in relation to caregivers and the 12-months and the 6-months changes and also as some have talked about the pre-term babies—they are important changes there and something that we do agree on with that member—but also the eligibility for certain occupations and self-employment and employee status. So that is an important part of this bill.There are also other changes to the Employment Relations Act. Members on the other side may disagree with those changes but those changes are very important especially some of the changes around the Employment Court which I am sure those members will be very interested in going through.Then there are further charges in regard to the Wages Protection Act which is part of the legislation as well. That is around the zero-hour contracts which many members have spoken about in regard to paid parental leave. It has been an issue for some years in our system. All members of this Parliament I am sure would want to see a result that is in the best interests of employees in regard to zero-hour contracts without taking away the need and the ability for casual contracts and casual work arrangements as well.This bill covers a number of areas in the workplace. It is about providing more opportunities for employees to get more protection. It is doing that in a balanced way that enables employers to come along with it. It is something that this House can do to make a real difference in people’s working lives. It builds stronger families and communities. It is something that we encourage to go through the House. Thank you.PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Can I echo the sentiments and condolences to Martin Crowe’s family at this point in time. It is a sad passing of a true legend.Whenever the ACT Party and in particular that member talks about employment contracts—he clearly sold himself short at his job at TDC Sawmills. My family got there negotiated their own contracts and I can tell you they got paid a heck of a lot more than that member right there did. So any time he is involved in these types of pieces of legislation we are really really concerned. However I do want to commend his working alongside the member Sue Moroney in extending paid parental leave and as the member Marama Fox mentioned making sure that things like matua whāngai—those custodians those caregivers of our babies—are recognised and that they certainly have the time to develop and grow our young people. All the research and statistics say that when you put that effort in at the beginning it pays dividends at the end. I was fortunate enough to sit alongside Sue Moroney in Rotorua where she garnered a heck of a lot of public support for her paid parental leave bill. It is nice to see some of the collaboration across the House and it is evident in this particular bill here.I want to commend the workers and some of the good employers out there because there are a lot of good employers out there. We certainly on this side of the House are not accusing all employers of poor employment practices. We want to highlight many of the ones that do actually pay well. They give workers hard-working Kiwis guaranteed hours. They pay them well. They look after them and their families knowing full well that when that worker is happy that worker is satisfied the job goes well and productivity goes up. We want to congratulate all of those good employers out there and all of those hard-working employees wherever they may be.We have heard about the zero-hour contracts. I want to pick up the point made by Andrew Bayly the member for Hunua who talked about the exclusivity clause. He said that it is important to protect intellectual property rights. Yes for the most part it is. But when we consider zero-hour contracts can I reassure the member for Hunua that the 11 herbs and spices secret is very much safe. Zero-hour contracts are primarily employed in the fast-food industry. Although I acknowledge that you want to protect intellectual property let me just reassure him that when he tucks into the KFC this weekend the secret will be safe.Zero-hour contracts—the stance by the Labour Party is that we will support the bill at this stage. We will support the bill at this stage in the hope that—as the member for the Green Party mentioned when this bill first came into the House it was very different from the bill that is in front of us today—it will change again as it progresses. We want to make sure that zero-hour contracts are eliminated. We want to make sure that people can have financial security and job security. We want to make sure that all of the workers out there are recognised for the hard work that they do.Once again to reiterate the position of the Labour Party we will be supporting the bill at this particular point in time. We can assure all of the hard-working Kiwis out there that we will continue to work hard to make sure that they get a fair go in the employment relations legislation. Tēnā koe.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): Thank you for this call on the Employment Standards Legislation Bill. First of all I would like to also pay my respects to Professor Ranginui Walker. I have to say that he was one of the professors who taught me at the University of Auckland and he was by far one of my favourite professors. I pay my respects to his family.Labour does not support this bill in its current form. Labour is supporting this bill at its second reading but only at this stage and only because we are negotiating in good faith with the current Government. The Minister the Hon Michael Woodhouse and the National Government promised that it would get rid of zero-hour contracts. We would like this bill to actually do just that. However the conditional support that the Labour Party is giving this bill at this stage is only because we are hoping that at the third reading the Government will definitely get rid of zero-hour contracts.Supporting this bill at its second reading comes with three bottom lines from the Labour Party. First we would like the ability for employers to be able to put people on contracts when they are on call with no permanent hours. Being on call is fine in some respects but being on call all of the time when there is no security and no guarantee of regular hours cannot be acceptable especially when people are sitting at the other end of the phone waiting to be called. But in many of these cases people are not actually called to come in to work. That cannot be acceptable in New Zealand.Secondly we would be supportive of this legislation if employers are not able to cancel shifts at any particular point. Right now we are not comfortable that what is currently proposed by the Government would allow employers to just cancel shifts whenever they like. We are not comfortable that the current Government should normalise this and put it into legislation.Thirdly the Labour Party would like where practical for hours of work to be included in the employment agreement so that people can plan their lives with some security. We get lots of constituents in our office in South Auckland. Many of these people work in low-income jobs. Many of these people are cleaners. Many of them work in the fast-food industry. And when they come in to seek our advice and ask for assistance many of them tell us that they do work and they do have an employment contract. But many of them do not have guaranteed hours.Zero-hour contracts are amongst the worst form of worker exploitation in New Zealand today. Zero-hour contracts must be eliminated and we in the Labour Party will do everything we can to ensure that this occurs. Labour has not moved an inch on zero-hour contracts. It is absolutely essential to abolish zero-hour contracts in this country. We should not in New Zealand allow by law for workers to sit around and wait at the other end of the line to be called hopefully to come in for work. New Zealanders have a right to the protection of the law and they also have a right to expect their elected representatives—those of us in this House—to treat their rights as workers with care. They should not be placed at the mercy of legislation that would make their exploitation as workers legal. New Zealanders have a right to work and their conditions of work should be equitable and fair.The Labour Party gives conditional support at this point to this legislation. Thank you very much.CHRIS BISHOP (National): At the start of my short call this afternoon I just want to pay tribute to Martin Crowe and note his loss. I think it is a real loss for New Zealand cricket and New Zealand society really. He was a childhood hero of mine and I know that there will be many New Zealanders around the country feeling this loss very keenly. I just want to pay tribute to his enormous role in the 1992 Cricket World Cup but also his ongoing role particularly in the development of Cricket Max which was the precursor to Twenty20. He was an innovator and a visionary and not the least of which a fantastic batsman.I just want to mention briefly what I think is the biggest advance in this bill and that is the changes that it makes around pre-term babies. We have already heard a reference to this by David Seymour in his contribution to the debate and it is really an example I think of MMP at its best in some ways—of Parliament through the process of negotiation and mediation acting on something that is important. And everyone agrees I think that it should be dealt with.So what this bill does is provide extra assistance for parents who have pre-term babies. It entitles them to a longer period of parental leave than the standard 18 weeks if the baby is born prior to 37 weeks of gestation which is of course considered full term. It provides for extra weekly payments and I think as David Seymour made reference to in his remarks that that is what a socially just society does. It is what a society does when it enjoys the prosperity that allows it to provide assistance like that to children who through no fault of their own and to families who through no fault of their own—the birth lottery—are going to be placed into difficult circumstances. That is what a society that has the prosperity to spend money on that does and that is what this Parliament is doing and I think that that is very important.The other thing that I want to mention which I think is a real advance for New Zealanders is the bill introducing the keeping-in-touch provisions. These allow employees to work up to 40 hours a week during the period of receiving parental leave payments. The bill has some safeguards around that. It provides for employees and employers to consent to that work. What I think that will do is allow people to transition back into the workforce and that is going to be a real advance for working mums out there and for families.We know that we have a high female labour force participation rate but we also know that we need to maintain that. We need to make sure that people who want to work can work but also as this bill does—and it strengthens that assistance—provide assistance for mothers and fathers to take time off to look after their children. That is a real advance I think—those keeping-in-touch hours provisions. This is a good bill.I have not addressed any of my remarks to the negotiations or the ongoing discussion around zero-hour contracts. My personal view is that it is a bit of a shame that the public debate has become fixated on that too. I think the public debate has become a little bit confused about what we mean by a zero-hour contract and the differences between that and casual contracts. But I think that we are getting to a position in Parliament where we are legislating in quite a consensual way—or I hope that we will eventually legislate in quite a consensual way—to eliminate the punitive elements of contracts to which various speakers over the last hour or so have made reference. I think that will be a step forward for employment legislation in Parliament. I acknowledge the hard work of Iain Lees-Galloway on this issue. He has been a very strong and forthright proponent of his point of view on this and he has done a good job in that regard.This is a step forward for employment legislation in New Zealand. I believe it contains a lot of useful provisions and I commend the bill to the House.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee by majority be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the question be agreed to.Ayes 94New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 25Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Question agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Employment Standards Legislation Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 94New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 31; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 25Green Party 13; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a second time.New Zealand Business Number BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 16 February.RIA BOND (NZ First): I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First for the second reading of the New Zealand Business Number Bill. I want to thank the officials who worked well with the Commerce Committee. They showed their patience and their commitment to work through the hooks and the snags that this bill had in order to get it back into the House tonight. The select committee received 14 written submissions and we listened to five submitters. There was only one sole trader and there were no small businesses that came forward individually and that actually really surprised me. It really amazed me because we all know that small businesses are the backbone of New Zealand’s economy and they have also made a significant contribution to our economy. The New Zealand Business Number Bill will definitely affect them and I will speak about that shortly.My fellow member Fletcher Tabuteau outlined at the first reading of the New Zealand Business Number Bill that New Zealand First could nearly—nearly—support this bill and he went on to outline the Government’s laudable goals. The New Zealand Business Number Bill is one of the initiatives aimed at the Better for Business – Result 9 commitment to reduce costs for businesses dealing with Government agencies through a reduction in effort of 25 percent by the year 2017. We have all heard in the House that this bill aims to reduce the time and money that eligible entities spend on interacting with Government departments by allowing eligible New Zealand entities to obtain or to be allocated a New Zealand Business Number. Thisis simply a unique identifier and it is to be used for all interactions with Government departments.New Zealand First thinks that cost savings for New Zealand businesses is a positive direction for any Government with good common sense to take and we have supported the intent of this bill in its first reading with the reservations spoken by Fletcher Tabuteau. However actual reductions in cost savings for sole traders and small to medium sized businesses have failed to materialise and in fact this will actually cause costs to sole traders and small to medium sized businesses in the short term. New Zealand First really does want to support this bill to its third reading—we really do. However this is a bill that has put the horse before the cart.The idea of a single business number is not new. It has been around for years and it is not the first time that this Government has attempted to sort it out either. I suggest the reason that this Government has failed to successfully do this is that it has not actually done its homework and it has failed. Added to that is the inadequate resources from the Budget to ensure that this bill becomes successful and with that in mind it can only fail. All companies registered with the New Zealand Companies Office were allocated a New Zealand Business Number in December 2013. This seems workable and to the best knowledge of the Commerce Committee it is working well but now this allocation is extended out to all businesses. However currently there is no single point of contact for the departments that have agreed to use the business number system. So my question is: how does that help those companies now?New Zealand First is very concerned that the success and efficiency of the bill relies solely on Government departments committing to it. As it is there are only a limited number of Government departments that have said that they will actually take this up and roll out the New Zealand Business Number. The concern is that there is no time line put in place for all Government departments to come into line and ensure that they collectively come together and work on this and pick this up. Without this it seems quite natural to me that the outcome will be that this will become another business overhead to businesses and instead of being part of the Government’s key goal to cut back red tape where possible the Government will in fact end up increasing business overheads rather than minimising them. Again to me that is putting the horse before the cart.I want to say that I actually get it. I get that big businesses have been advocating for some time for a more streamlined approach to connecting businesses to the Government and for the implementation of this unique identifier which effectively—for those at home who are not sure what that is—is a 13-digit barcode. There is a similar system working in other developed countries and I understand that it is intended that key businesses and the data about each business will be attached to this number and some of it will be accessed by the public. I have looked into what other developed countries such as Denmark have used. They have a personal identification number and that is used when they are dealing with public agencies. It is also used as a personal number in banking business and insurance companies and it works really well. The reason that it works really well is that it has had the correct infrastructure from the get-go. Another country I looked at was Singapore. It has a Unique Entity Number and that is used for all entities—for business for companies for societies—that operate in Singapore. It is also used for filing corporate tax returns and it is also used when you want to apply for an export or import permit. And again I will say that it has worked really well from the get-go because it had the right infrastructure to go with it.This bill also provides the statutory powers to establish and maintain a register. This bill defines an entity’s eligibility to attain a New Zealand Business Number. It sets a limit on access to information it protects the security and confidentiality of information and it protects the privacy of individuals in business. The privacy sensitivities had been a huge concern to New Zealand First and we are actually quite thankful that the Privacy Commissioner has made a submission on the bill’s privacy provision. Along with the Government Chief Privacy Officer the commissioner has worked on this provision and it adds some comfort to New Zealand First that there are now adequate privacy safeguards in place.Businesses have—and it is no secret—become quite frustrated with the current complicated system and there is no denying that. My question is: will the New Zealand Business Number Bill in fact alleviate that or will it add to the frustrations further with the addition of yet just another number? Let us remember it is also currently supported by only a small number of Government departments so until the other Government departments come on board it will not solve the problem. It has been stated that this New Zealand Business Number Bill will phase out the need for the many existing numbers that are currently being used. My question to the Minister for Economic Development is: how is the Government intending to allocate appropriate resources to ensure that this does in fact happen? I hope the Minister will provide an answer to my question.I acknowledge that the New Zealand Business Number Bill intends to help reduce compliance costs in dealing with the Government with the aim of improving productivity of business and the potential for economic growth. However New Zealand First believes that utilising the New Zealand Business Number Bill in the current form will not be a cost-effective exercise for businesses. This bill also fails to provide sufficient evidence that the Business Number will enhance a smooth interaction between businesses and Government departments. And as I pointed out earlier delivering these outcomes is solely dependent on the broad acceptance of the New Zealand Business Number—that is by the users. The success of the bill relies heavily on Government departments committing to it and the business sector adopting the New Zealand Business Number. New Zealand First thinks that in time this can be possible but that time is not right now.In closing I reiterate that New Zealand First would really like to be able to support this bill because we generally agree with its broad aims. But at this time this bill appears to be somewhat incomplete and we urge the Government to address the gaps before enacting yet another piece of legislation that is inadequate. When that happens New Zealand First will certainly look favourably on supporting what is as I have said a bill that is good in its intent but that falls short in its mechanics. We would like to see the Government look again at examples from countries around the world that have similar systems look at what works and what does not work and fine-tune those examples to make sure they are fit for the New Zealand environment. All Government departments should be required to buy in to the scheme. There is no point in having a single point of contact with all Government agencies if all Government agencies are not part of it. We would like to see small businesses provided for. That sole traders—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The member’s time has expired.MAUREEN PUGH (National): It is a privilege for me to stand here in support of the New Zealand Business Number Bill in its second reading. This bill is sponsored by the Minister for Economic Development Steven Joyce and he has done a fantastic job in initiating this and getting it to this point. If there is one thing that business in this country looks forward to it is an ease of dealing with Government departments.Between 50 and 60 percent of business details are replicated on over 250 Government forms. For business that is a huge commitment in time and cost. So I believe that those in the business community will welcome this new Business Number bill and the implications it has for them in providing better service for their companies and for small business trusts and trustees.This bill is part of the Government’s Better Public Services agenda and it takes us one step closer to providing better services across this country. There are eight key Government agencies that collectively provide over 700 different services to New Zealand businesses and around 30 million interactions occur between public sector agencies and small to medium sized business enterprises every year. If there is anything that we can do for these businesses it is to streamline the processes they have in dealing with central government.It is my pleasure to commend this bill to the House.DAVID CLENDON (Green): Could I begin by acknowledging the comments made by our New Zealand First colleague Ria Bond. Many of the reservations she expressed about this bill we share—the fact that it is well intentioned and a potentially useful piece of legislation but it will require a rapid implementation. We take a slightly more optimistic view perhaps that this Government may be capable of quickly implementing the good intention of this plan. That optimism may be a triumph of hope over experience but time will tell.Chris Bishop: No no—that is good. Very good.DAVID CLENDON: We shall see. The challenge is on Mr Bishop and his colleagues to prove us right in this instance which I am sure he will enjoy doing.The notion of a unique identifier is a fundamentally good idea. Anything that facilitates the painless interaction between business and Government is to be supported. In an ideal world I think each business would have a single point of contact with an agency of Government. Behind that agency would sit the multitude of other Government agencies—ACC the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment health and safety organisations and all the rest of them. I think that would be an ideal outcome. That would be something we can aspire to in time I think—particularly for small and medium sized enterprises which as we have heard are the backbone of New Zealand business. There are over 460000-odd small and medium sized enterprises in New Zealand which contribute something like 30 percent of GDP. They are seldom praised or celebrated and I think they ought to be.One of the implications of this unique identifier if properly implemented is that it would allow for the gathering of metadata about business business trends what business is doing and how it is achieving it and that would potentially be a very useful body of knowledge and information to inform further policy development. Alongside that of course come privacy concerns—quite legitimate privacy concerns. This Government and dare I say it previous Governments have not had a particularly good record in terms of protecting large databases or protecting people’s privacy—be they individuals or businesses—but in this instance we are aware that the Privacy Commissioner was involved in the debate and made some contribution to it and I think the framework of this bill will allow for good privacy protection. Again it is a matter of implementation and a matter of actually making sure that it is done well and done appropriately.We share the concern of our Labour colleagues as expressed in the minority report and indeed by Ria Bond recently that it does seem that the Government has got ahead of itself with this legislation. It is putting in place the legislation before the necessary infrastructure exists. Nothing will undermine this legislation more quickly than if it simply becomes another number another form of bureaucracy that businesses are burdened with. It is incumbent on this Government to ensure that this legislation does succeed because it could and it ought to and if it does it will make a positive contribution to the business community—freeing it up to do what it does well: to be productive to make a useful economic and social contribution. So it really lies in the hands of this Government to actually make sure that it does work.The Government talks a lot about a whole-of-Government approach. It is talked about more than it is evident I would have to say. Integration within and between departments within and between policies and practices is a worthy aspiration. I am a great believer in an integrated approach to things more generally. Again we have not seen a great deal of evidence of it. What we have seen is the sort of mashing together of Government agencies into these great unwieldy beasts—and I daresay many people will recognise the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in that description as it currently exists. Integration is a good thing. Simply randomly stuffing bits of Government together is not.The initiative contained within this bill could contribute to proper integration and better relationships between business and the Government. It could facilitate successful small and medium enterprises to do their job well and to do it better than they can now if they are not chewing up valuable time complying with Government regulation.It is up to this Government to prove that its reasonably well-grounded legislation can work and I leave it with that challenge. Surprise me and do it well. Kia ora.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I am happy to take what is going to be a short call on this New Zealand Business Number Bill. I have to say as I do so that I have some interest in this because there are 1.1 million New Zealand companies that have been allocated a New Zealand Business Number; only about half of those are active. The company that I am a director of which has been allocated one of those numbers falls into the other category—which is those companies that are not active and not currently trading.But I will potentially benefit from this legislation because one of the things that I have to do as the director of a non-trading company is do a tax return every year. You have to go online to do your return and of course whenever I went to go online I could never remember what my log-on was and could never remember what my password was. So one of the first things the Government did was to give me a new log-on—another log-on and another password—and now I cannot remember what those are either. This is one of the problems with the Government when businesses want to interact with it—they get another log-on and another password and another number. This of course is something that maybe has some promise: the idea that you would have a single number for interactions with the Government. Who could possibly object to that? Except that it is going to be another number in addition to all of the other numbers that companies already have. It begs the question of why could we not just use one of the many many numbers companies already have.Companies already have a company number an Inland Revenue Department number—you can go through them and count them all. There are plenty of other numbers that could have been used as the single business number a company could use to interact with the Government. It seems a bit crazy that the idea is that we can solve this problem by creating another system. It seems a little bit crazy a little bit mad and something that we should certainly do something about.There are many businesses around the country that are small businesses operated by one or two people. They are typically—as at least several parliamentary colleagues have spoken about this afternoon—operated out of a kitchen or a van or a garage somewhere. These are people who do not have administrators working for them. They are people who administer their own businesses and the Government should be doing all it can to make that process as streamlined and as simple as possible for them. A single point of contact would be a good start; a single number is also a welcome opportunity.But there is so much more that can be done to reduce the compliance costs for small business. I am not sure that the Government has necessarily got on top of all of those. There are some big issues around tax for example. I think that would have a far bigger impact on small business—and on provisional tax in particular—than the adoption of the single business number proposal. Although it is welcome that proposal probably is not necessarily going to make a significant difference in the way that some of the other reforms that the Government could take to reduce the compliance costs New Zealand businesses face would actually make.The Labour Party is going to be supporting this bill through the next stages with some reservations and my colleagues will set those out in due course when we get to the Committee stage of the debate. I am sure that there will be some amendments on the Table when it comes time to go through those in detail.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.