Volume 692 Week 48 - Wednesday 10 July 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 692 Week 48 - Wednesday 10 July 2013[Sitting date: 10 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11843. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 10 July 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersPrime Minister—Electricity Market and Skycity Convention Centre Legislation1.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.David Shearer: Why does he stand by his statement on the prices New Zealanders are paying for power: “I think that they are paying a price … in relation to the environment we find ourselves in”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because it is true.David Shearer: Did he fulfil his undertaking to the House yesterday to check the figures that show New Zealand households will pay an extra $370 on average for power because his Government insists on taking out $1.16 billion in Transpower dividends?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I did two things yesterday. One was that I went and looked on the Infratil website to see how it is bagging the Labour Party for misleading the country—David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That piece of information has nothing to do with the question.Mr SPEAKER: I think that on this occasion the Prime Minister has adequately answered the question.David Shearer: Does he accept that pulling dividends out of a company that needs to invest $5 billion to strengthen the network means that family power bills are hit twice: first to pay for the upgrade and then second to pay for his Government’s dividend; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Dividends actually make no difference in terms of the pricing of power. I am surprised the member does not know that. What actually sets the transmission part of pricing is the Commerce Commission’s weighted average cost of capital charging. It has got nothing to do with dividends. Secondly yes Transpower has gone through a substantial upgrade. By the way it started under Labour in 2005 when it invested $252 million and then in 2006 when it invested $288 million. So yes it has invested about $3 billion for which it will get its weighted average cost of capital return and that obviously has some impact. I suspect that what the Leader of the Opposition should do is that he should go and look at this State-owned enterprise and then he should go and look at another State-owned enterprise called New Zealand Post because it has got a letter waiting for him from the Labour Party caucus.David Shearer: That was a strain. Does he think it is fair that his Cabinet awarded the chief executive officer of Mighty River Power a 34 percent increase on top of a $500000 retention bonus at the same time as forcing New Zealand families to pay more than $370 extra in power?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Decisions on remuneration are made by the board of Mighty River Power. So the board of directors at Mighty River Power said to Doug Heffernan their chief executive: “Doug we love you.” But we know that in the Labour Party no one would go to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! That is sufficient.David Shearer: Is he saying therefore that his Cabinet did not tick off the approval for the chief executive officer to be awarded a 34 percent pay increase and a $500000 retention bonus; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I am saying is that decisions of compensation are made by the board. Those decisions are held by the board. They may well tell the Government under a no-surprises policy but they are made the board.Dr David Clark: How about answering the question?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Were you on the letter or not? Actually last night—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! There is no need to bring the Speaker into this debate.David Shearer: Is he aware that under the Labour Government it did not take dividends from Transpower and instead invested it back into the company rather than having to take dividends out and then ask consumers to pay for that?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Maybe I can answer that question by asking a question.Hon Members: No!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can see why your caucus meeting went so badly yesterday.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the Prime Minister just address the question that has been asked.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: OK I will address the question. Was Labour the Government in 2002? If it was it took a dividend from Transpower. Was it the Government in 2003? If it was it took a dividend from Transpower. Was it the Government in 2004? If it was it took a dividend from Transpower. Was it the Government—Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! I have a point of order from the Hon Annette King.Hon Annette King: I believe that in question time the members of the Opposition ask the questions and the Ministers answer. What we have had from the Prime Minister is a series of questions back to the Labour Party.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] No I need no assistance from the Prime Minister. The question was asked and the Prime Minister chose his way of answering it. It was addressed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does the Prime Minister justify paying $1.9 million to the “feed the schools” programmes and then $1.7 million to the chief executive officer of Mighty River Power—how can that possibly be equitable or fair?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The two are not correlated. For a start off the Government spends about $70 billion - odd a year so you can go and draw any particular thing. But in the end the compensation for the chief executive of Mighty River Power is determined by the board. It might be that he happened to be doing a good job. I know David Shearer is not but Doug Heffernan—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Metiria Turei: Given the Prime Minister’s statement that he opposes a conscience vote on the Skycity convention centre bill what pressure has he or his office placed on National MPs to vote against their conscience on the first reading of the bill?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I never said I opposed that. What I said is that all National MPs will be voting for the legislation. The reason they will be voting for it is that this party went on the campaign trail and campaigned on this issue. Every single member of this party was elected on the back of that policy just like the members of the Green Party were elected on some of the mad policies that they campaigned on.Skycity Convention Centre—Gambling-related Harm2.HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana)to theMinister for Economic Development: Does he think the Government’s decision to grant 230 new pokie machines 52 new gambling tables and a 35-year licence extension is worth the increase in relationship breakdowns depression suicide family violence increased money laundering job losses increased problem gambling and financial problems as identified by its own Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment-compiled regulatory impact statement; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):I reject the premise of the member’s question for a number of reasons. The first point is to note that the regulatory impact statement states that harm from gambling may include the things the member refers to. It is also important that there are a number of things that mitigate those possibilities in this case. Firstly it is by no means clear at all that a marginal increase in machines in one casino will increase gambling harm especially when the total number of machines across Auckland and across New Zealand continues to decline. Also the negotiated significant additional harm-minimisation measures that apply to all gambling machines across the casino will together act to reduce harm. Once the concessions are in place there is also absolutely nothing to stop the regulatory authorities introducing new harm-minimisation measures over time.Hone Harawira: When the Minister said yesterday that it is difficult to quantify the potential size of any increased risk of harm does that mean he did not read the full regulatory impact statement from his own ministry which said: “an additional 4779 … people may be at least partly affected by casino machines and an additional 3600 … by casino tables.” and does he now accept that the potential size of any increased risk of harm is not only quantifiable but also unacceptable?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. In fact the same statement—because it is important to get this in context—says that it is difficult to quantify the potential risk of any increased risk of harm. It goes on to say in relation to the matters the member raises that this is a hypothesis and says in paragraph 91: “it is possible to hypothesise”. It then goes on to say: “It is difficult to estimate the additional numbers …” and “Putting a precise cost on this potential increase is also difficult.” So it does record a hypothesis as a possibility but as I answered in answer to the primary question there are a number of things that mitigate that.Hone Harawira: Does the Minister accept that the decision to grant 230 new pokie machines 52 new gambling tables and a 35-year licence extension is evidence that this Government operates on the basis that deliberately harming its own citizens is acceptable as long as it achieves its own primary goals of allowing its fat cat friends to profiteer from New Zealanders’ misery and getting free access for themselves; if not why not?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I reject that assertion completely. This Government is focused on jobs and growth for New Zealanders. I appreciate that that member himself is against jobs and growth for his constituents in Te Tai Tokerau. This Government is focused on them. The reality is that many human activities have the potential for social harm but the important thing is how you mitigate that risk.Tax System Changes—Impact on Families3.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore)to theMinister of Finance: How has the Government made the tax system fairer for New Zealand households and families?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Over successive Government Budgets the Government has made a number of changes to make the system fairer. Ithas removed the ability set up by the Labour Government to enable people to shelter their income in trusts raised the effective tax rate on property investment increased funding for the Inland Revenue Department to target property speculators and others avoiding tax prevented people from using investment losses to make themselves eligible for Working for Families and other Government support and brought in stricter rules to ensure multinational companies contribute their fair share of tax. At the same time the Government has reduced income tax rates across the board. Almost three-quarters of taxpayers now face a personal tax rate of 17.5 percent.Maggie Barry: What changes has the Government made to income tax rates and other taxes to help families get ahead?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In 2010 our tax package reduced tax on work and savings and increased taxes on consumption and property speculation. After-tax incomes at all levels of taxable income were immediately increased by more than the increase in GST in 2010. The changes also made the tax system fairer. Two-thirds of the cost of the income tax cuts in 2010 went to reducing the bottom two tax rates. So someone earning $48000 a year now has a top tax rate of 17.5 percent.Maggie Barry: How does the income tax system interact with income support provided to lower-income families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Despite a recession and significant fiscal deficits the Government has maintained a redistributive tax and income support system that supports low and middle income earners in New Zealand. At any particular time a large number of households effectively do not pay net tax. That is because the amount they pay in income tax is exceeded by the amount they receive from welfare benefits Working for Families paid parental leave accommodation subsidies and others. This is entirely appropriate to redistribute income from the higher-income earners to those genuinely in need.Maggie Barry: How significantly do the income tax and income support systems redistribute incomes for New Zealand households?Hon BILL ENGLISH: When we look at the way the system redistributes income we can measure that by net tax for income groups—that is the difference between the tax they pay and the assistance that they receive. For families earning under $60000 a year taking into account the income support payments and their income tax they pay $2.7 billion in income tax and receive $1.8 billion of income support. That is the total for people earning under $60000. The net effect of that is that for households earning over $150000 it is 12 percent. The top 12 percent of income earners pay 76 percent of net income tax.Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that his superficial analysis of tax paid by income group firstly takes no account of the fact that low and middle income people pay GST on the vast majority of their spending at higher effective tax rates than high-income earners and secondly ignores the advice of the OECD that in New Zealand capital income earned by the wealthiest in society attracts virtually no taxation which is unfair; if he is not aware of either of these things does it not show that his latest educational trip to the OECD was a waste of time and money?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No that is not true. If he is concerned about the capital gains of the wealthy not being taxed that is actually part of his policy because he wants to exempt the family home from his capital gains tax. Secondly when you look at the distributional effects of GST in fact it is relatively neutral. The Labour Party has to get used to the idea that the 2010 tax package reduced inequality in income tax distribution in New Zealand.Skycity Convention Centre—Harm Minimisation Plan and Consultation on Legislative Changes4.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green)to theMinister for Economic Development: When he said that gambling-related harm from theSkyCity deal would be mitigated by “negotiated significant additional harm minimisation measures” did he mean measures additional to those the casino is already obliged to use; if so how?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):Yes. The Government has negotiated a number of significant harm minimisation measures as part of the agreement with Skycity. These include the introduction of the predictive modelling tool which analyses data to identify players at risk of problem gambling. Skycity is also being required to implement a voluntary pre-commitment system where players can elect to restrict the amount of time they play or the amount they spend and this applies to all machines at all times in the casino and will become part ofSkycity’s host responsibility programme. It will also have to introduce player identification requirements when amounts over $500 are being put on to or cashed from ticket-in ticket-out machines in non-restricted areas as well as of course doubling of the number of host responsibility specialists to deliver 24-hours-a-day 7-days-a-week coverage in the casino.Metiria Turei: How many of the 13000 people and 6500 children whom his advisers say will be harmed by this deal will not be harmed due to the supposedly additional measures?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I reject again today the premise of the member’s question. I have reviewed the regulatory impact statement fairly carefully as you would expect and it makes it clear that actually being able to determine a level of additional harm is not possible to do. They talk about a hypothesis and it is very difficult to estimate the additional numbers of people who may experience problems. They also say that putting a precise cost on a potential increase is also difficult.Metiria Turei: Will the Minister release all the advice he has received on the social harms of the extra gambling in this deal today so that when National MPs vote tomorrow they are fully informed about the extent of the social harms in his bill?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I will check again but my understanding is we have released most of the information that we have. There is some more information in regards to the negotiations which will be released in the next little while but I think particularly the key elements in relation to potential harm have been released and are also very adequately traversed in the regulatory impact statement.Metiria Turei: Will the Minister explain to his colleagues before they vote tomorrow why the New Zealand Police and the Ministry of Justice were excluded from the discussions to introduce ticket-in ticket-out technology throughout the whole casino when his officials knew that those ministries would be concerned about the increased risk of money-laundering?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that the member is correct on that but certainly it is fair to say that my colleagues in the caucus of the National Party have had plenty of time partly with assistance from the member to assess their level of support for this particular arrangement including of course the ability to assess whether the 230 machines are an appropriate arrangement to make for a very large convention centre compared with say 230 machines for one a quarter of the size under the previous Government supported by the Greens.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table an email received by me under the Official Information Act dated 16 March 2012 from an official who says: “As for Justice and Police they have obviously not been consulted on the details—”Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Metiria Turei: Is it not the truth Minister that the Minister is frightened of supporting a genuine conscience vote on this bill because he knows that this bill this deal is hanging by a one-vote thread?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am pretty confident and I know that the Government is pretty confident about the votes on this side of the House but I appreciate there are members on the other side of the House who might like the opportunity to vote for jobs and growth through this bill. I note that the Labour leader for example has allowed a conscience vote in this matter and given the state of the Labour caucus I expect a few more votes from them.Hon Trevor Mallard: Is this Minister prepared to rule out using a process similar to this for a convention centre in another city?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well I can tell the member that there are no plans at all that I am aware of in this respect. What he raises is a hypothetical question and we would deal with it if it came up at the time but there has been certainly nothing raised in that regard.Better Public Services Targets—Infant Immunisation and Rheumatic Fever5.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country)to theMinister of Health: What is this Government doing as part of Better Public Services to ensure that New Zealand children are better protected from preventable diseases such as whooping cough and hepatitis B?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):New Zealand’s children are getting a better start in life as a result of progress towards the Government’s Better Public Services results which include increasing infant immunisation rates so that 95 percent of 8-month-olds are fully immunised by December 2014 and maintaining this through to June 2017. The latest results show 89 percent of 8-month-olds have been fully immunised with their scheduled vaccinations protecting them from serious diseases such as whooping cough and hepatitis B and we are on track to achieve the 95 percent target.Shane Ardern: What other work to protect people from preventable diseases contributes to the Government’s Better Public Services targets?Hon TONY RYALL: Very early indications from the Government’s programme to reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever by two-thirds show a reduction in the incidence rate for acute rheumatic fever initial hospitalisations but this is only one set of data and so needs to be treated cautiously. For the second Budget in a row this Government has doubled its investment in the Rheumatic Fever Prevention Programme from $12 million to $24 million to $46 million in Budget 2013.Solid Energy—Financial Position Management and Assistance6.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour)to theMinister of Finance: Given his statement yesterday that “Solid Energy was another example of where the incoming National Government had to clean up a mess left by the previous Government” what was the level of debt held by Solid Energy on 30 June 2008 compared with the level of debt on 30 June 2012 and what is the total amount of dividends received by the Crown from Solid Energy since he became Minister of Finance?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The amounts are $15 million $295 million and $163.9 million respectively.Hon David Parker: Is the Minister of Finance aware that the Labour Government never approved of Solid Energy’s lignite developments because of dubious economics and greenhouse gas emissions and that he the Minister turned the first sod on Solid Energy’s lignite plant; and how is that the previous Labour Government’s fault?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is mixing up a couple of projects there. One is the briquette plant for which I did turn the first sod because it created jobs in a community where 400 jobs had been lost. I know of course that the Opposition was against the new jobs in Mataura even though a whole lot of the people in Mataura vote for the Labour Party. Now I am asking them why.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a photograph of Mr English and a sod.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I am not prepared to put that leave.Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that his National Government encouraged Solid Energy to expand its coal operations take on more debt and pay out higher dividends all in the face of a falling coal price; and how is that the fault of the previous Labour Government?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have to say that Solid Energy did not need any encouragement. It had very large-scale plans for expansion which the current Government disagreed with. Of course we could have moved faster to slow down Solid Energy’s investment but when we did move the Labour Party organised a protest on the steps of Parliament which means that we do not take its complaints about this very seriously.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a document of Mr Brownlee’s—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not prepared to entertain this any further. Would the member continue with his supplementary questions if he has any.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it now out of order to table photographs that are inconvenient to the Government?Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is questioning a previous ruling.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Is it out of order for members to seek leave to table photographs in this Parliament?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have given a substantial ruling on the tabling of documents. If a document is of assistance to members and gives them further good information I will allow the leave to be put. In this case the member is attempting to play politics with a couple of photographs. I told him I would not put that leave. He continued his point of order which is an abuse of the privilege of a point of order and will lead to disorder.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to raise a point of order and it will be heard in silence.Hon Trevor Mallard: My point of order is that we have had a Minister denying the promotion of coal and a member trying to table a document that was promoted by a current Minister of the House and described as “Sexy Coal”. It seems inappropriate not to allow a document entitled “Sexy Coal” to be tabled.Mr SPEAKER: Again that member is now disputing a ruling I have already given and I will take that very seriously if it happens again. Question No. 7.Hon David Parker: Supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I had called Catherine Delahunty for Question No. 7.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. What happened before was that David Parker was raising a point of order with you when you indicated that you did not want to hear it so you moved on to the next question.Mr SPEAKER: That is exactly right.Chris Hipkins: He had further supplementary questions. He had not at any point indicated to you that he had finished. Are you now saying that if you do not like something that is going to happen you are just going to discontinue the question and move on? That is wrong.Mr SPEAKER: No the member is quite right—that is exactly what I am saying. If we are going to get into a situation—[Interruption ] Order! If we are going to get into a situation where I detect that a member is creating disorder then I will move on. On this occasion I will allow David Parker to finish his supplementary questions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You said in your ruling that you had relied upon a previous Speaker’s ruling. Can you tell us what that ruling is please.Mr SPEAKER: No I did not say I had relied on a previous Speaker’s ruling. I said I had given a very substantive ruling some 2 or 3 months ago. I will send a copy to the member so he is fully aware of it.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry. If I can just make it clear it was a previous ruling of the current Speaker not a ruling of the previous Speaker that the Speaker was referring to.Mr SPEAKER: And that is not a point of order. I have allowed David Parker to continue with his line of questioning.Hon David Parker: Given the Minister of Finance’s statement on Monday about Labour’s criticism of his Government around Solid Energy and the Future Investment Fund when he said “They need to show us who they’re going to borrow the money off which foreign bankers are going to lend us the money.” if his Government provides a loan to Solid Energy that is not from the Future Investment Fund will the Government borrow for the loan or is he just going to print the money?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Just as with student loans we will be borrowing for it.Hon David Parker: Which is correct: that Treasury officials made a mistake reading the Cabinet minutes and appropriated $100 million from assets sale proceeds to “Solid Energy recovery facilities” seemingly without Cabinet authority and that this $100 million mistake was replicated in multiple Cabinet and Budget documents that he and other Ministers checked over and signed off in the lead-up to the Budget somehow all missing the $100 million error; or that he is once again covering up for the misrepresentations by the Prime Minister who feigned ignorance because he did not want to associate the Future Investment Fund with his Government’s mismanagement of Solid Energy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The second assertion is nonsense and the answer to the first one is that Treasury did not describe correctly what Cabinet had decided.Mr SPEAKER: Just before I call the member the ruling I gave for the benefit of the Rt Hon Winston Peters was given on 19 February 2013. The Clerk has found a copy and we will pass that to the member for his information.Mining in Conservation Areas—Permits for Schedule 4 Land7.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green)to theMinister of Energy and Resources: Why did he grant a mining permit over Schedule 4 land in the Coromandel just six weeks after saying “I do not think there is any ambiguity in our policy. Let me say again that we have a very clear view against mining on Schedule 4 land”?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):Because the mining permit granted to the Broken Hills Gold Company does not allow mining on schedule 4 land.Catherine Delahunty: Why does Broken Hills Gold Company require access to 3 hectares of schedule 4 land split into two distinct areas separated by 150 metres in order to build the one additional mine exit that this permit requires?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Unlike the member I do not have a mining fetish so it is difficult for me to claim expertise on these matters but as I understand it the reason is that a wider area is needed as they search for health and safety purposes to find where the egress will be then it would narrow down considerably.Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table a Parliamentary Library - prepared map that shows the two areas—Mr SPEAKER: Order! What is the source of the map?Catherine Delahunty: The Parliamentary Library prepared this for me. It shows the two areas unconnected of 3 hectares separated for one exit.Mr SPEAKER: The easiest way of resolving this matter is that I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular information prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Catherine Delahunty: Will the Minister clear up the ambiguity in the permit conditions by removing the word “and” in condition (b) that allows “mining underground and outside of Schedule 4” so that it explicitly states that only mining underground that is outside of schedule 4 will be allowed?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I thank the member for her legal interpretative skills and help on that matter but the fact of the matter is that the permits are very clear. There is no mining on schedule 4 land.Catherine Delahunty: Will he rule out granting a mining permit over the schedule 4 areas for which Sea Group Holdings Ltd currently has a mineral prospecting permit andHawkeswood Civil Ltd holds a mineral exploration permit given that there are no nearby mines that require these health and safety upgrades?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Off the top of my head I do not know a lot about the matters that the member refers to but our policy as she read out in the primary question is very clear: no mining on schedule 4 land.Catherine Delahunty: Will he now be assessing mining permits on schedule 4 land on a case-by-case basis and is this not an erosion of his unambiguous promise to New Zealanders that he will not allow mining on schedule 4?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think I have been very clear. Our policy is no mining on schedule 4 land.Question No. 6 to MinisterRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You referred me to a Speaker’s ruling of 19 February 2013 by you. I have read this document. It has two pages. At page 2 is a final paragraph. Nothing on page 1 refers to any substantiation of your ruling here in the House today and page 2 certainly does not as well. I am trying to find out why you used this as a precedent to make the decision you made against my colleague Mr Parker. It is not this document I am telling you now.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That ruling was very clear and was accepted by the House at the time. Where members seek to table a document that is genuinely informative then leave will be put. Where a member is simply trying to make a further political point that is not acceptable and leave will not be put.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the point that the Rt Hon Winston Peters fairly makes is that there is no absolute prohibitionon photographs. There never has been and I do not understand there to be one. In the context of a photograph that is 5 years old which mine was in respect of a Government Minister promoting the opposite of what a Minister has just said was the Government’s position I would have thought it is in order for leave to be sought and to be put to the House. The House is free to reject it. But I do not understand there to be a prohibition on political documents; it is just a prohibition on documents that are readily available to members.Mr SPEAKER: The member now is questioning an earlier decision I made. I will decide whether leave will be put. If I feel the information is truly informative I will certainly put the leave. If I am in doubt I will tend to put the leave. But we are not going to have members taking up the time of the House attempting to make political points with the tabling of documents that I do not consider inform the House.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We are dangerously into an area where you literally have a parallel where a court says it will not accept a photograph as evidence. This is what the member was seeking to do. If we get ourselves into that situation we will make ourselves a laughing stock around this country. I hesitate to go any further than to say if you read the last paragraph of your precedent of 19 February it is not a source of authority for what you have said in the House today—if you would like I will read it back to you because it is rather important.Mr SPEAKER: No. Order! Listen I have heard enough from the member. I have made a ruling on that particular point and that matter is finished—[Interruption ] Order! That matter is finished. The member is now continuing to question a ruling that I have made. I am not prepared to tolerate that in the House today.Better Public Services Targets—Advanced Trade Qualifications Diplomas and Degrees8.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West)to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What progress has the Government made on its Better Public Services target of increasing the proportion of 25-34 year olds with a Level 4 or above qualification?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):Very good progress indeed. In 2012 52.6 percent of all 25 to 34-year-olds had achieved an advanced trade qualification diploma or degree at level 4 or above on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework. This is up from 51.8 percent in 2011. That means over 8100 more 25 to 34-year-olds gained qualifications at level 4 or above last year than in the previous year. The Government is working very hard to meet its target of 55 percent by 2017.Tim Macindoe: What signals indicate the Government is on track to meet its target?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well for this target the number of 22-year-olds achieving level 4 or above qualifications is a very important indicator for the progress towards the overall target of 55 percent. That is because of course people who were 22 last year will turn 25 in 3 years’ time. In 2012 34 percent of 22-year-olds had completed a qualification at level 4 and above in that year. That compares with 30 percent 4 years ago in 2008 so that is encouraging progress. I am particularly pleased with the increase in achievement forMāori and Pasifika students. In 2012 22 percent ofMāori 22-year-olds achieved a qualification at level 4 and above compared with 15 percent 4 years ago in 2008. In regards to Pasifika 26 percent of 22-year-old Pasifika students in 2012 had completed a qualification compared with only 14 percent in 2008. So we are not there yet but we are making very good progress.Tim Macindoe: Why is the Government focusing on increasing the number of 25 to 34-year-olds with a level 4 or above qualification?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: For several reasons: firstly level 4 qualifications are the minimum standard of competency for many vocational occupations and increasing the number of people with level 4 or above qualifications increases the skill levels in New Zealand workplaces and contributes to economic growth. A level 4 or above qualification also has a significant impact on an individual’s income for them and of course for supporting their family. For example the median weekly income for 25 to 34-year-olds in 2011 when they had level 4 to 7 vocational qualifications was $106 more a week than for 25 to 34-year-olds without those qualifications. And of course a higher-level qualification also means people tend to be employed stay employed and spend less time on the unemployment benefit than those who do not have qualifications.Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the 52.6 percent result he is trumpeting today means that we are now just about back to where the percentage was in 2007?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well I do not have the percentage that the member has in 2007 but like most things tertiary education was running off the rails in the latter half of the previous Government’s job so we had to turn it round and get some decent results particularly with the money that was being wasted with all the “bums on seats” programmes.Grant Robertson: In order to be helpful to the House I seek leave to table this table from the State Services Commission that shows that it has just about reached the 2007 level.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon Shane Jones: [Interruption ] Suck it in Steven.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will just ask his supplementary question.Hon Shane Jones: Why does he think it is agreeable for members of his department to come to theMāori Affairs Committee after having promised to provide a written briefing about the chief executive officer appointment process of one of New Zealand’s most significant tertiary institutions only to provide absolutely nothing and to be sent away as an ill-prepared bunch of overpaid officials?Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a question that is very wide of the original primary question. That is the difficulty.Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the Minister responsible for a wide-ranging level of responsibility. This is an incident that took place at a significant select committee. It is not unreasonable for us to ask him to give us his view.Mr SPEAKER: That is not an unreasonable point but a supplementary question must be related in some way to the substantive question that has been asked. The way the supplementary question was asked seemed to me to be a long distance away. If the member can sharpen up his supplementary question so that it is connected to the primary question I am only too happy to assist.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague for interrupting. This is one of the broadest primary questions available. What progress has been made and how they are going to do it are clearly going to be a responsibility of a chief executive about which the questioning is now happening.Mr SPEAKER: No I think that particular point is a good try but wide of the mark. I will give the member the Hon Shane Jones the—Hon Shane Jones: The primary question reflects the words “Better Public Services”. It is in the context of Better Public Services. How—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to assist the member. I am giving him a chance to ask a supplementary question related to this primary question and I hope it is in order for his sake and mine.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Kia ora. Just some clarification Mr Speaker: my understanding of the original question is that it was around the Minister reporting on a university that delivers education at level 4 for 25 to 34-year-olds. If that was the case would that not make it relevant to the primary question?Mr SPEAKER: No I do not think it does because the second question was then around the employment of a chief executive of a particular tertiary education institution.Hon Shane Jones: How does the conduct of his officials in preparing for a briefing to theMāori Affairs Committee on one of our significantwānangas contribute to the Government’s progress on Better Public Services targets?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: My view is that their level of preparation obviously contributes to the targets. I think it is important that they prepare well and that they understand the various institutions and who has what responsibilities in the sorts of questions that they are asked. My understanding is that they may have provided that information to the committee accordingly.Child Youth and Family—Resourcing and Response Times9.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)to theMinister for Social Development: Does she believe that Child Youth and Family have the resources they require to care for the needs of our most vulnerable children?Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Acting Minister for Social Development):I believe that Child Youth and Family has been well resourced. This Government has increased its funding by nearly 15 percent over the last 4 years. We now have more social workers—about 250 more social workers—working with a bigger budget and investigating more cases in a more timely way. With the response-based interventions there will always be times when resources are stretched but I believe we do have sufficient resources to care for the needs of vulnerable children.Jacinda Ardern: In light of that answer how does the Minister explain her response to estimate questions which shows that the longest wait for a Child Youth and Family notification classified as “critical”—because the child was severely abused or was in immediate danger of death or harm—was 5 days when they are meant to be assigned a caseworker within 24 hours?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: It is important to note that the time frames that are referred to in the estimates questions referred to when recordings were made in respect of allocations not in respect of the time action was taken or intervention was made.Jacinda Ardern: How does the Minister explain that the longest wait for Child Youth and Family notifications that are classified “very urgent”—because the child has been abused or neglected and there is a risk of further abuse or neglect—was 31 days before a social worker was even allocated the case when it is meant to happen within 48 hours?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: I can only repeat the answer given to the previous supplementary question. I do not have specifics around the 31-day matter that the member has raised. I am happy to check it and get back to that member.Jacinda Ardern: How also does the Minister explain the fact that the longest wait for Child Youth and Family notifications that are classified as “urgent”—because although the child is protected from harm in the short term there is an allegation of abuse neglect or serious concern—was 67 days when they should have been allocated a caseworker within just 7 days?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Again the recording of interventions and who case managers are in respect of individual cases is not necessarily consistent with when the intervention was made or when that allocation was made. We can put it this way for the member. As previously said in answer to the primary question there are 15 percent more funded allocations towards Child Youth and Family interventions now than there were before. To just make an analogy in 2006 we had 1089 unallocated cases. In 2012 there were just 95. This is out of 150000 notifications to Child Youth and Family.Jacinda Ardern: Given these waiting times and the fact that since 2008 notifications to Child Youth and Family that require further action have increased by 50 percent or more than 20000 cases will the Minister commit to review the adequacy of baseline funding for Child Youth and Family as Labour did when it was in Government; if not why not?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: It is important to note that baseline funding is reviewed annually and this Government is responding in a very positive and popular way to the care of vulnerable children. A whole new strategy has been designed and is being rolled out currently and we are returning better results than have ever been returned before from Child Youth and Family—certainly far better as illustrated in my previous answer to a supplementary question than that lot over there did.Better Public Services Targets—Reduction in Reoffending10.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei)to theMinister of Corrections: What progress has the Government made on its target of reducing re-offending by 25 percent by 2017?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections):I am pleased to advise the House that Better Public Services results released this week show that reoffending rates are down 9 percent since June 2011. There are also more prisoners than ever before involved in drug and alcohol rehabilitation employment training and education programmes. These results are very encouraging and show that the initiatives this Government is rolling out across the Department of Corrections are having a real impact on reoffending rates and are making our communities safer. To put these figures in perspective a 9 percent reduction in reoffending means there are over 1600 fewer offenders and 6600 fewer victims.Ian McKelvie: What further initiatives is the Government rolling out to improve offender rehabilitation?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government is determined to deliver programmes that address the drivers of crime: addiction lack of employment skills and poor education. As part of the reducing reoffending programme every year we will be providing alcohol and drug treatment to 33100 additional offenders and numeracy and literacy training to an additional 1200 prisoners. To increase employment training the Government is establishing full working prisons at Auckland Women’s Prison Tongariro/Rangipō Prison and Rolleston Prison. As part of this initiative work is under way to construct a building yard at Rolleston Prison which will see prisoners repair 150 State houses from the red zone over the next 5 years. Prisoners will of course be provided with construction skills and qualifications that will help them find employment in the Christchurch rebuild on their release.Ian McKelvie: What is the Government doing to reduce the chances of a prisoner reoffending following their release from prison?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Prisoners are at a high risk of returning to crime as soon as they are released from prison. Around 50 percent of prisoners are back in prison within 4 years. In addition to the increased rehabilitation that we are providing in prison Budget 2013 made $10 million available from the justice sector fund to establish thenew Out of Gate reintegration programme. This new nationwide post-release service will see prisoners supported as soon as they leave a facility. Up to 4000 prisoners serving a sentence of less than 2 years will be allocated a dedicated provider who will connect them to social services and help with accommodation employment and general living skills.Transport Planning—Alternative Approaches11.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First)to theMinister of Transport: Does the Government believe that the future transport demands of New Zealand’s three main population centres will be less dependent on roading systems and instead utilise a greater proportion of alternatives to motorways?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport):Neither of those positions is the Government position. We believe in an integrated approach to current and future transport needs involving roads rail and public transport options.Denis O’Rourke: If the Government will not accept the need for alternatives to more road capacity to meet a greater proportion of future demand upon what basis does it expect to satisfy future demand?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is a great pity that the member did not hear my answer. I will repeat it for him. The Government believes in an integrated approach to current and future transport needs involving roads motorways rail and public transport options.Denis O’Rourke: Does the Government accept its responsibility to take a leading role in the development and provision of sustainable urban transport alternatives to roading in all of the main centres in the same way as it does for motorways or does it expect local authorities to go it alone on this?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: In the context of our understanding of New Zealand’s needs we do.Denis O’Rourke: Does the Government see a place for much greater use of light rail in the main cities in the foreseeable future other than just the—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. Would the member please start again? I had difficulty hearing the question being asked.Denis O’Rourke: Does the Government see a place for much greater use of light rail in the main cities in the foreseeable future other than just the completion of the Auckland rail loop in order to provide an effective and affordable alternative to motorcars and motorways?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think it is a very very open question as to whether or not light rail in other parts of New Zealand would be an affordable alternative. The answer at this point is that we do not believe so.Denis O’Rourke: In evaluating the long-term costs of passenger rail systems against more motorways will the Government include all of the real costs of motorways including externalities such as road accidents ACC costs air and water pollution parking and associated land costs; and for all those reasons does the Government accept the need to give higher funding priority to the alternatives?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: In the last measured year New Zealanders travelled over 40 billion kilometres on the roads. That is not going to stop any time soon no matter what the member might like to assert.Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 12 the Hon David Cunliffe. [Interruption ] Order! I would be reluctant to be asking a member to be leaving the House at this stage. I have called the Hon David Cunliffe.Inland Revenue Business Transformation Project—Cost of Consultants12.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn)to theMinister of Revenue: How much to date has been spent on consulting costs for the IRD Business Transformation programme?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue):The cost for the period 1 July 2011 to 31 May 2013 for consultants and contractors engaged to assist with the transformation programme is $29.1 million. By contrast I understand that the Inland Revenue Department has a budget spend on information and communications technology of $162 million over the equivalent period to maintain support and develop its current legacy systems.Hon David Cunliffe: Can he confirm that of that $29 million over $23 million has been paid to one consultant which isCapgemini and can he explain what that vast amount of fees has purchased?Hon TODD McCLAY: The last chairman of the Finance and Expenditure Committee wrote to the Minister and asked for information about that and all information was given by the new Minister. I can answer that question because I happen to be both of those people. What I can say is that of the $29 million—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister just get to the answer?Hon TODD McCLAY: Thank you Mr Speaker.Capgemini is one of the 23 companies that has contracted to the Inland Revenue Department on the Business Transformation programme and it has provided around four contracts. The member is correct around that amount.Hon David Cunliffe: HasCapgemini provided an estimated total cost of the Business Transformation project; if so approximately what is it?Hon TODD McCLAY: No I am not aware of whether that is part of the contracts that have been issued. We need to be a little bit careful that we do not get ahead of ourselves around total costs. This is an important project with appropriate due diligence needed on it. We have around 7 million taxpayers in New Zealand. They have a right to expect value for money and the due diligence we are going through at the moment will ensure the success of this project.Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister’s department has already paid over $21 million to one consultant and has not received an estimate of the total cost of the project does he consider that good practice; and what action will he take to ensure that the project is properly costed?Hon TODD McCLAY: That was not the answer that I gave.Hon David Cunliffe: Have the Minister’s Cabinet colleagues been advised of the total cost of the project; if so when?Hon TODD McCLAY: I am not a member of Cabinet but there are ongoing discussions. Indeed Cabinet was first apprised of this issue some time ago and I expect additional papers to go to it later in the year.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a summary list of all consulting spending on the Business Transformation programme totalling nearly—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The source of the document please.Hon David Cunliffe: It has been compiled from Inland Revenue Department documents by the Labour Party research unit.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a full list of consulting expenses from the Inland Revenue Department in relation to both the Business Transformation project and other matters for the last 5 years.Mr SPEAKER: The source of that document?Hon David Cunliffe: From the Inland Revenue Department.Mr SPEAKER: Is it available on the website?Hon David Cunliffe: Not that I am aware of.Mr SPEAKER: On that basis I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? Yes there is.General DebateGRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour):I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business . It is wonderful to be so popular on the other side of the House. Picture the scene. Picture the scene. Parnell resident—[Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection is unreasonable. There are too many bits of paper unhelpfully being waved at the back of the Chamber and that will cease. I invite the member to start again.GRANT ROBERTSON: I am happy to start again Mr Speaker. Picture the scene. Parnell resident and occasional visitor to the Helensville electorate John Key sits down in a room in his modest 15-bedroom electorate office to get an update on events in the area. He is surrounded by his closest advisers. He cannot remember any of their names and he does not know who they are. One of them looks like the Fletcher boy from high school but he cannot be sure. He makes a note for WayneEagleson: “Ask SaundersUnsworth who my advisers are.” He seeks to get a briefing on what has been happening in the happy hamlet of Helensville: “Any major developments?”. A hush comes over the crowd and a quiet voice whispers: “A German has moved into the mansion.” John Key is shocked. This is a development of considerable note—“A German in the mansion?”. First things first John Key says: “Whatever you do in no circumstances must anyone tell me the German’s name. It is a matter of national security. It is a matter of national security and I am struggling to remember all of the things I have got to pretend to forget so don’t tell me his name.”Then arrives the figure of Steven Joyce or as we shall know him from now on “Corporal Jones”. “Corporal Jones” appears yelling: “Don’t panic. Don’t panic. The Germans are coming. Don’t panic.” John Key sits calmly and says: “I normally get my list of overseas migrants. Where are the Australians? Where are the Indians? Where are the Chinese? I am being told only about the Germans.”In John Key’s Helensville it isDad’s Army all over the place. Well on this side of the House we say: “Who are you kidding Mr Key?”. He tells us he cannot remember a very large multimillionaire—Hon Members: Billionaire.GRANT ROBERTSON: —multibillionaire—German arriving in his electorate. He says that he cannot remember the man who put on the biggest fireworks display in New Zealand’s history. But he does not know because he is surrounded by hisDad’s Army of advisers. John Key is surrounded by Steven Joyce as Corporal Jones. “He doesn’t like it up ‘em.” as he would say. “He doesn’t like it up ‘em.” That is what Corporal Jones would tell the House.But you see what John Key tells us is that he has a mandate to govern. Well it is certainly true that John Key has been on a hell of a lot of man dates. He went on a man date with John Banks and he got a seat in Parliament. He went on a man date with Ian Fletcher and he got a job running the Government Communications Security Bureau. He went on a man date with the Skycity chief executives and they got a whole law for themselves. Man dates are what John Key does but someone else always wins out of them other than New Zealanders.People who are associating themselves with John Key have another problem. Those who go on man dates with John Key have a major problem: “PTD” or politically transmitted diseases—politically transmitted diseases. Every time anyone goes near him there is trouble. John Banks cannot even remember what day it is. He does not even know where he is. He cannot remember $50000 worth of donations from the German in the mansion. Peter Dunne has completely lost his way—totally discredited. And theMāori Party appears to have three leaders or it might have two and certainly after the next election it will have one or none at all. So politically transmitted diseases are the order of the day for anyone who comes into contact with John Key.But on a serious note tomorrow this House will debate the Skycity law—the “Casino Bill”—and there is nothing that is more of an emblem of this Government than that bill. It is a convention centre built off the back of problem gamblers; a convention centre that will add 8000 additional problem gamblers; a convention centre built with a dodgy process where the Prime Minister intervened; a convention centre built by selling off the laws of this country; and a convention centre that typifies a Government that works for vested interests and not in the interests of New Zealanders. This Government is a crony capitalist Government.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):Well we know what Grant Robertson was doing last night. In between his desperate denials on Twitter he was watching the JONES! channel. That was the inspiration for his speech today. It was his JONES! channel. The only thing is that he should have been Sergeant Schultz today because he is the one running around saying “I see nothing. I know nothing. There’s nobody challenging for the leadership of the Labour Party. I know nothing at all.” when the reality is that there is a Jones channel and the Jones channel is the channel by which the leadership challenge of the Labour Party is being conducted.It has been a fascinating 24 hours in the identity politics of the Labour Party. First we had the man ban then we had the ban of the man ban and then very nearly we had the demise of the man who banned the man ban. That is where it nearly got to last night and it is where it is heading again today. Despite the denials—the many many denials—the reality is that there are three of the men who were going to be banned in the man ban who have decided to take their opportunity and step forward. I say stand up those men who are against the man ban—Shane Jones Andrew Little and Clayton Cosgrove—the red meat men of the Labour Party who are as we speak either circulating or not circulating or denying they are circulating a letter of no confidence in the leadership of the Labour Party. That is what is going on right now. The red meat division has decided that this is its chance to get its own back.But those members did not quite succeed. All they succeeded in doing yesterday was causing a massive Twitter explosion last night. There was a massive explosion on Twitter where nearly all the Labour Party caucus except Shane Jones except Andrew Little except Clayton Cosgrove and except a bunch of other Labour Party members were on Twitter last night saying “No there’s nothing happening here.” and Annette King was even on the radio this morning saying: “No there’s nothing happening here.” Well you know what you say about denials. “De Niles” is a river in Egypt and the reality of the situation is that the Labour Party is heading towards a leadership revolt.Mr Shearer of course is desperately trying to shore up his leadership and today he has made a significant bid in that regard. He has decided that the vote for jobs and growth tomorrow will be a conscience vote for his caucus and he welcomes people who want to vote for the New Zealand International Convention Centre to do so tomorrow.Hon David Parker: That was the Speaker’s ruling.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Speaker has ruled—absolutely right—but go and check. There has been a statement released by your leader this afternoon where he hassaid that if members of his caucus want to vote in favour of the convention centre tomorrow they are welcome to do so. Of course most of them will not be voting in favour but it will be interesting to see who does and I think it is yet another test of this man’s leadership.On this side of the House it is pretty clear. On this side of the House we are in favour of jobs and growth for New Zealanders. Every day this Government proves that and tomorrow is just another day when we prove that we are in favour of jobs and growth for New Zealanders. But not the modern Labour Party. It used to be like that. It actually supported a convention centre being built in a very similar arrangement 10 years ago but not today—not today. Those members are caught up in identity politics and are focusing on the man ban. Well tomorrow a few of them—the few middle-of-the-roaders left—have an opportunity to stand up and say: “Actually no. We are in favour of jobs and growth and we should go forward and say so.”There are three or four of them who might do that. Obviously they would then have to turn their backs on Grant Robertson and David Parker and so on. But for example the “fab four” who attended the Eden Park discussion with Skycity in the corporate box—[Interruption ]—or was it six or was it eight—will have the opportunity to do so and we will know whether there is anybody left in the Labour Party who supports jobs and growth or not. So tomorrow is a test of Labour Party caucus members. It is yet another day of a test of the Labour Party leadership—Grant Robertson: This is a very long 5 minutes Mr Speaker.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and I will finish by saying that I thought that in the audition for Mr Grant Robertson just now he got more laughs in 5 minutes than his leader has had in 18 months.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):I want to start off my contribution this afternoon by thanking you Mr Speaker for the decision to hold a conscience vote on the Skycity bill tomorrow. I am distressed to hear the way that the National member Steven Joyce has treated the issue of conscience votes. When it has been agreed that a conscience vote should be held it is the right of each individual member to make the decision for themselves. It may well be that most members from a particular party decide to vote the way that their leader believes they ought to vote. There are lots of reasons why that may be the case. The nature of the vote and the fact of the vote are of less consequence than the right of each individual member to vote according to their conscience. That is the right that members have when the Speaker makes a decision as he has done.This means that Auckland now has the ability to take real action on the Skycity deal as well. Auckland people who are opposed to this deal now have a genuine opportunity to speak to their local representative from whichever party and say to their local representative: “We believe that this deal should not proceed and we would like you to represent our views when you vote tomorrow on this bill.” It is a genuine reflection of the democracy that allows the members of the public who are most affected by this issue—that is those who live in Auckland—to talk with their MPs their representatives in a genuine way to say: “We would like you to vote like this.” The Speaker has given those MPs the opportunity to reflect their constituents’ views—their constituents’ views. For that we are very grateful and we would like to see this continue through the whole process of this bill. Thank you Mr Speaker.Actually my contribution today was intended to be not so much on Skycity but on the issues of gender because the National Party has such a poor level of representation of women in Parliament. [Interruption ] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is very difficult to continue my speech with the conversation that is being shouted across from one side of me to the other.Mr SPEAKER: Would members cease the interjections because it is distracting to the member who is speaking.METIRIA TUREI: Thank you. Why is the National Party lagging so far behind when it comes to women’s representation? Last term 29 percent of its caucus were women; this term it is 25 percent—one in four. It is lagging behind. Do you know what we heard from the National Government’s Minister of Women’s Affairs Jo Goodhew? Do you know what she toldMorning Report just this week—on Friday actually? People should be selected on merit alone said the Minister of Women’s Affairs. She said that New Zealand had a proud history of women succeeding on the basis of their competency. Is Minister Goodhew really saying that of all the women in the National Party only 25 percent are competent enough to be MPs? Is that what she is really saying? Does her attitude explain why it is that the Government has this miserable target for the private sector boards of having only 10 percent of private sector boards being women? Is that because the National Government’s Minister of Women’s Affairs believes that only 10 percent of women who are in business are competent enough to be on these boards? In terms of partners in law firms an area particularly special to my heart only 16 percent of women lawyers are partners. Does Jo Goodhew believe that only 16 percent of women lawyers are competent to be partners in law firms?The Green Party is very proud of its record of having a majority of women in our caucus represented in this Parliament because we believe that representation of women is absolutely critical. We believe that women do have all the skills and capacity to be representatives in this House for this House to be genuinely a representative democracy and we make sure it is possible—we make sure it is possible—unlike the National Party which is actively obviously excluding women from the opportunity to hold positions of authority in its party. There is no commitment in the National Party to any kind of representative democracy. It prefers a male-dominated elite to be making decisions and to be sucking resources to that male-dominated elite and leaving women leaving their children and leaving all of those others who are entitled to be represented here out in the cold. Thank you.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):What a joy to follow the lecture that we have just received from that member Metiria Turei. Oh for goodness’ sake! Honestly I was so so enthralled with her lecture that I almost forgot that last night she was so busy lecturing us that she forgot to vote against the legal assistance legislation that she had railed against from one end of the country to the other. It was wonderful to have her support in the final moments so that in fact the bills went through unanimously. So well done Ms Turei well done—you are finally seeing some sense.But I have to say that that presentation on merit and how bad it is was pretty amazing. To say that over here the women are—what? We are dominated by the men? I think that is a bit of a joke. Unfortunately what I can see though is that in the Labour Party of course it is in fact all about the man ban. Why is it that with the three different factions in the Labour Party all vying to take the leadership not one of the leaders or deputy leaders in contention is a woman? Why is that? Of course the reason is that they are always chosen on merit. That is why it is; it is clearly on merit.I thought Ms Moroney did brilliantly onThe Nation last weekend. I am looking forward to her coming on again next weekend and probablyQ+A  as well. It was so much fun I even taped it. It was fantastic. I played it again just in case some people missed it—and they really should see it. I have no idea why she is not allowed to turn up in the media more often. It must be because she is a woman! That is what it is in the Labour Party. That must be the reason.But of course David—what is his name? David Shearer yesterday—[Interruption ]—well that is what they asked onMorning Reportyesterday on RadioNew Zealand National. They said: “Where is David Shearer?” because for the first time in living memory I think since the 1930s when the Labour Party was first set up a Labour Party leader refused to go onMorning Report . How does that happen? How does that happen? He refused to go on because he did not want to talk about MsMoroney’s very good attempt to bring in the man ban. It is so clearly needed because Labour has only two women on its front bench and of course we have got three. Of course our three are equal to about six of them when it comes to merit. But having said that why is it?All the last week we have watched as the Labour Party has imploded and it has talked about the things that nobody cares about—in other words getting rid of men not letting them compete equally against women and turning them into an endangered species if they were not already within the Labour Party.But of course what have we been doing? Well we have had a bit of fun I have to say amongst all the work and most of that fun has been at the expense of Labour members. But we have also been getting on with the job of government thinking about what it is that the people of New Zealand want. They want jobs. There is the convention centre deal which I am sure those people in the Labour Party probably will end up voting for. I am sure that Phil Goff Clayton Cosgrove David Shearer—and who else—Annette King and Kris Faafoi will want to vote for the convention centre legislation. They were very happy to take the hospitality of Skycity the other week—why was that—after they had been bagging them day in day out in the media. Of course what they did was stay there all night just to tell them off. It is amazing what those poor people endured.We are also into bringing the crime rate down and this last week we announced our Better Public Services targets. What can we say? Under Labour prisons got full. Under National crime is coming down. Youth crime has dropped 18 percent since June 2011—a fantastic rate. Total crime is down 11 percent. Reoffending is down 9 percent. Under Labour what was happening? Violent crime was going up and reoffending was going up. Labour made no progress. Poor Miss Moroney is still trying to get a question in the House. Why can that woman not get a question? Why is that? It is because she is not on merit—no she is on merit.Hon Member: The woman has a name.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: She has and she deserves it because she has helped us in Hamilton West to make it a safe National seat and before that she did the same for Hamilton East. I think that is an outstanding record and I am looking forward to her doing it again in Christchurch East because apparently it is that member whom the hierarchy want to be there. That of course will be on merit—yes absolutely. I see theTui billboard coming on.I am so proud to be a member of this National-led Government. It is working well and getting on with the business. It is talking about the stuff people want. What we are doing is we are getting the crime rate down getting jobs for people bringing the economy further up and actually undoing some of the rot that Labour left us with.MOANA MACKEY (Labour):That was an intriguing speech from Judith Collins a woman who has a Twitter account that 99 percent of people assume is a parody because it is so bizarre and so random. I take offence at her lecturing Metiria Turei about the merits of women after she tweeted last week: “What a vile vulgar ugly speech Metiria Turei gave just like her jacket.”—just like her jacket. How is that being a role model for women in this House when apparently the jacket that a woman wears is more important than the substance of the speeches that she gives in this House?I want to inform the New Zealand public that that Twitter account is not a parody; it is real. That is how scary it is. She actually believes those things that she is saying onthat account. I think that Ms Collins is on wafer-thin ice when she lectures anyone on this side of the House on the merits of women and respecting the role of women in Parliament.It has been interesting to see the focus of the National Party. One of the issues we want to talk about on this side of the House is power prices. In 1 year disconnections have jumped by 10000. Mr Simon Bridges the Minister of Energy and Resources said: “There’s no problem. Nothing to see here. That’s OK.” Power prices have continued to increase at double the rate of inflation despite flattening demand despite the surplus of supply and despite a collapsed carbon price and Minister Bridges says: “That’s OK. It’s all fine. Nothing to see here.”It is unfortunate that it has been left to Simon Bridges to deal with this issue because he is the JustinBieber of the National Cabinet. He does not take these issues seriously. What he has been saying consistently is that power prices are not too high. We said to him: “Well then what would be too high?”. He replied: “Oh I don’t know—I don’t know.” That is not an appropriate answer from a Minister of Energy and Resources who is overseeing a jump in disconnections of 10000. People cannot have power connected over winter because they cannot afford to pay the power bills and the National Government has no plan to do anything about that.I suspect that Minister Bridges would think that power prices were too high if he could not afford to pay the power bill. I suspect that that is the real answer to that question. National members will think power prices are too high when the massive tax cut they gave themselves is no longer enough to pay the power bill. But the unfortunate reality out there for most punters is that as winter kicks in and as power bills are landing in letterboxes family budgets are being stressed and the National Party is saying: “There is no problem. There is nothing to see here. Please look the other way because that is certainly what we are doing.”One of the most extraordinary statements from Minister Bridges was: “Well we just haven’t given the Bradford reforms enough time to bed in.” Given that he was not even born when they first came in I do not know how long he needs to show that they have utterly and completely failed to deliver the competition and the price reductions that were promised at that time. They have failed. They have not worked. They do not need time to bed in. They need to be reformed. They need to be changed. Tinkering will not help. A Labour Government is the only Government that is going to be prepared to do that.Minister Bridges’ answer to this is always: “We have this fantastic What’s My Number campaign so the fact that people are able to switch power companies and go and find out all the different options proves that there’s competition.” Firstly if there is such great competition in the market why do we need to throw millions of dollars at a What’s My Number campaign in order to improve competition? But more important what does that programme do for the poorest families in this country?Hon Member: Nothing.MOANA MACKEY: Nothing. Do you know why? Because the families that I am dealing with every single day at home who cannot pay their power bills are lucky if they can find one power company to pick them up. The idea that they could have a choice of power company—[Interruption ] Anne Tolley who has moved from Gisborne toŌhope Beach and so is hardly ever in Gisborne now does not realise perhaps just how hard people are doing it in Gisborne. The local fire service tells me that it is seeing an increase in house fires because of people using little gas stoves to cook on and candles to light their homes. Maybe she needs to spend a little bit more time in Gisborne to get some idea of how hard people are doing it there.The reality is that most families in that position cannot find one power company to take them on. So when they hear the National Party and Anne Tolley lecturing them saying: “Well just change power companies. You have a choice.” they realise just how out of touch this National Government is. Those programmes do not help the poorest families. Simon Bridges the Minister does not care about those families—neither does this Government—and that is why the Labour-Greens NZ Power policy is the only policy that is going to deliver for the poorest families in New Zealand.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence):It is a complete joke for that member Moana Mackey to be lecturing the National Government on power prices because the Government that she was a part of raised power prices from 1999 to 2008 by 72 percent. So if she is complaining about the price now that is because power prices went up under her Government. Under this Government power prices have gone up by only 16 percent. So when Labour members say that they have got the answer on power prices they know that they are dead wrong. Quite frankly there is a word for that beginning with “h” that would describe anything they say about electricity prices.Those people over there are truly theunelectables. There is no question about that. When you look at the options once David Shearer goes it is not a very pretty sight. Grant Robertson was doing his leadership audition here today and I must say that it was not too bad really if you wanted a light comedy routine. But when you team him up with Andrew Little and Shane Jones you have got three guys—two of whom cannot win an electorate seat and the other one is completely unelectable as the leader. So I reckon that although they might be happy individually they are in a pretty bad space.What I think is really disgraceful is the way that they are acting towards their leader. If that Twitter explosion from last night was not treachery at its worst—and if those denials do not actually signal that the coup is on—I do not know what is. Grant Robertson is pretty happy because he has convinced David Shearer that he is allowed to answer only one question each day. That is why 37 times since he was elected leader David Shearer has come into this House and said: “Prime Minister do you stand by all your statements?” or “Does he stand by all his statements?”. That is the one question that David Shearer asks every day and the rest of the time he is totally dazed and confused.I think that the Labour research unit is pulling David Shearer’s chain. It is conning him completely because quite frankly it is not giving him a fair go. Grant Robertson there is not supporting his leader. He cannot wait for David Shearer to go. David Cunliffe was up there today having a go. Who else was there? There was the other fellow—Shane Jones. Shane Jones is suddenly back in the game because he knows that the coup is coming and it is all going to be up for grabs. Even Darren Hughes’ landlady might fancy herself as making a bit of a comeback. It could be anyone. The good news is that they are all completely unelectable so it is good times ahead.The one man they do really want to ban is David Shearer. They want to get rid of this guy but there is no one there with the steel and the political nerve to actually grasp the chalice. If Grant Robertson was up to it he would never have let Shearer get that job in the first place. That is the fact of it. Grant cannot do the job. Old what’s-his-name Shane Jones is not up to it either. He had his chance. So really there is not the next Labour Prime Minister in Parliament at this stage and that is a very big problem.Tomorrow we are going to be voting on the Skycity Casino legislation. That is going to be a conscience vote and I am looking forward to Phil Goff Kris Faafoi Clayton Cosgrove and David Shearer all voting for it because they would not want to look like hypocrites.Hon Tau Henare: Annette King.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Oh and Annette King. You would look like a bit of a hypocrite if you went to the Skycity box if you drank all night and if you ate all night and you came in here and voted against the legislation—Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was in the Chamber last night when the Chairman of the Committee ruled against the use of the word “hypocrite”. I am surprised that you did not pull the member up particularly as I could have thrown that back at him as a member who went to a corporate box with a tobacco company—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! The member is quite right. The word should not have been used and I ask the Minister to stand and withdraw the use of that word.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I withdraw but I think you get the gist of what is going on. So anyway those guys over there—Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He cannot then comment on your ruling.Mr SPEAKER: That is true. Would the member now that he has withdrawn that comment just continue his speech.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I withdraw. But as I was saying those four Labour members were at the Skycity box so of course morally they are compelled to vote for the legislation tomorrow because Annette King is for jobs and growth and Phil Goff is for jobs and growth. Grant Robertson is not and he is the only option Labour has got as the leader for the future. The more it gets bogged down in things like the man ban the less it is able to connect with the people of New Zealand.I can tell you a story. A lady I know in Auckland a friend of my family had a couple of plumbers around last week and they said: “Well I guess it’s the last you’ll be seeing of us.” She said: “Why?”. They said: “Well the way it’s going if Labour ever gets into Government we’ll have to send only female plumbers here.” The point of this story is that once the plumbers and the blokes driving the white vans are getting the message that the guys over there are against the “blokeytradies” as Shane Jones calls them those guys have lost. So I think that with the man ban thing Labour has conscribed itself to the wilderness for a decade I would say. It is looking pretty bad for Labour.Meanwhile over here we are focusing on the economy—the best economic growth in the OECD bar Australia—the jobless rate being down inflation being down and good economic times. We are looking very good. Those guys there are absolutely hopeless.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First):Honourable members today I want to talk about an issue of concern.Paul Foster-Bell: What’s that?Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: That issue is crime Mr Foster-Bell. We are all very aware that some of our citizens fail to behave in accordance with the law. So New Zealand like every society has to live with a certain amount of illegal and dysfunctional behaviour. Human perfection is not likely to happen any time soon. Accordingly our society must be able to marshal such levers as will influence people to abide by the law. These points need to be made because right now in New Zealand it is plain that many of those who break the law in a serious way are getting an uncertain message about how unacceptable their behaviour is to law-abiding society.Let me mention a few recent examples. Darren MurphyFidow age 18 brutally attacked an 82-year-old woman. He was sentenced to only 11 months’ home detention. John Richard Cox received 6 months’ home detention and 150 hours’ community work for making incorrect tax claims for his clients without their knowledge which amounted to a fraud of well over $400000. Eru MichaelTimoti 27 a factory worker had sexwith an under-age girl for over a year knowing that it was illegal. He was sentenced to 200 hours’ community work and 18 months’ intensive supervision.It would be inappropriate for me to comment in detail on any specific criminal case but what is apparent is a clear pattern of extremely serious crime resulting in sentences that would strike most New Zealanders as lenient—as lenient. Justice must be done and it must be seen to be done. We place great trust in our judiciary—we do. Those appointed to the judiciary in New Zealand are people of the highest calibre—the highest calibre. But ultimately if people believe that sentences do not reflect the harm that individuals in society have suffered confidence in the whole judicial process will suffer.Has the Government directed judges to avoid prison sentences because of the cost and serious overcrowding? That is a good question for the Minister of Justice to answer. The public are rightly concerned about what appear to be lenient sentences and they are questioning the validity of our court system. The public can be forgiven for their scepticism. They can be forgiven. Is something going on here? What are we not being told? Is lenient sentencing a covert way of saving money? Is leniency an undeclared way of keeping prison populations down? Is it? What we do know is that the public take crime very very seriously. New Zealand First takes crime very very seriously. In relation to crime we must all stand together—we must.Earlier this week we watched in horror a chase on television. The chase started inŌpōtiki and went all the way up to North Auckland. That chase took over 3 hours and shut down the motorway for 14 hours.Hon John Banks: How many?Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: 14 hours Mr Banks. Do you remember something now? New Zealand First wants to commend the New Zealand Police for its handling of the extremely dangerous situation. But it does raise yet more concerns—it does raise more concerns. Let me put it in plain language: it means that the Minister is asleep at the wheel—it does.Hon John Banks: Speak up.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I am speaking up for that as you can hear. You cannot even remember half of the story Mr Banks.It means our police force is under-resourced. It means our community safety is hugely compromised. It means the Minister and the Government are turning a blind eye to the huge number of unreported incidents and unrecorded crimes. There are just not enough police—there are just not enough police—to cope with the demand. The Government should stop boasting about the crime rate coming down because we have got prisons overflowing with prisoners. New Zealand still has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world. How can our prisons be overflowing if the crime rate is coming down? How can you expect the prisons—Mr SPEAKER: I apologise for interrupting the member. The member’s time has expired.Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT):What a soul-destroying rant from the list member from the “New Zealand First Winston Second Party”.Why is the Leader of the Opposition not here this afternoon?Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon JOHN BANKS: OK I will not Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition needs to get up in the House and take calls like this to defend his position. It seems to be that I have never seen a Labour Party in such disarray. In 10 Parliaments of being here I have never seen a more dejected reduced-to-nothing hopelessly out-of-control miserable specimen of an individual than the leader of the Labour Party. Why is it that his bench mate Grant Robertson “The Toad from Toad Hall” looks so happy? In the AA Milne bookToad of Toad Hall  Toad of Toad Hall looks so happy. He looks so happy because he is creative and he is devious but he is self-centred to the point ofsociopathy. He is self-centred. The “member for Vivian Street” is happy today because he wants to take over the mantle of the leadership—the remnants of the leadership—of the Labour Party. But he is completely lacking in common sense.Toad of Toad Hall is known as someone who is always clever devious educated—over-educated—and over-competent but lacking common sense. That over there is “The Toad from Toad Hall” who would be the leader of the Labour Party if the poor joker—to use the vernacular the Leader of the Opposition has just finished a long visit to the taxidermist. He is finished. It is all over. I have never seen anyone so dejected. I have never seen anyone so miserable. He sits there at question time he eats peanuts he chews his fingernails he feels out of depth and all he is saying is: “If only I were in New York with my secret bank account it would be so much better than this place of purgatory.” But “The Toad from Toad Hall” the grunter from Vivian Street is there. He is ready to take over and he would be an equal disaster.In AA Milne’s book it says: “When the Toad came down the street howling the streets were full of people jeering at the sight.” That is what will happen with that leader. So we get rid of the hapless Mr Shearer and we get the “member for Vivian Street” in charge of the Labour Party. That is where Labour members belong—in Opposition for a long long time. They can have theirMoët champagne at Skycity; they can have their secret bank accounts in New York; they can have their hapless hopeless and useless leaders; and they can have their very earnest little chief Government whips. But what they cannot have is any constituency out there that represents common ground common sense investment growth or jobs. The Labour Party is in a bad way.A day before I entered Parliament in 1981 there were four women members of Parliament. The day after I entered Parliament 10 Parliaments ago there were eight women members of Parliament. Today there are 44 women members of Parliament. What we need are high-quality women members of Parliament like the two I am looking at now and the one who is behind me—the three on this side of the House—Mrs Tolley Mrs Upston and this lovely member over here.Grant Robertson: Tell us her name.Hon JOHN BANKS: What is wrong with that? On their own those three women would be an Opposition demolition team and they would not need “The Toad from Toad Hall” the “member for Vivian Street”.Is it going to be Shearer Robertson Cunliffe or Little? We on this side of the House do not care as long as they stay where they are. As long as no one cares because no one up and down the country cares this Labour Party is in disarray from the grassroots up. Worse by cuddling up to the Greens Labour has become a party intent on destroying business growth and jobs and more content on staying over there and that is not all bad.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka):When Mr Banks gets back to his office he can reflect on where he went wrong with that speech. He went wrong right at the point that he decided to introduce Parliament to the women on the National side of the House. He got two out of three and he could not remember the name of the third one. At that point it went wrong for Mr Banks. We know that his memory is not particularly good.John Banks could not remember being flown in Kim Dotcom’s personal helicopter to his mansion where he met the giraffe and got given $50000. The same man put on a fireworks display for Auckland but John Banks could not remember. Kim Dotcom is the guy who put on the biggest fireworks display Auckland has ever seen. John Banks sent him a note to say thank you and then claimed he could not remember. And hecould not remember Melissa Lee’s name when he was speaking. That is the point at which his speech all started to go very very wrong.If I were John Banks I would not be talking about secret bank accounts or Skycity. Bear in mind that John Banks is the man who pretended not to know that Skycity gave a massive contribution to his campaign. He said he did not know about it even though they personally handed him the cheque. Well I do not know about you but if someone gives me a cheque for $15000 I generally tend to remember that. That is not the sort of thing I would forget.Who else have we had from National today? Well we have had the great Mount Albert maestro Jonathan Coleman. Jonathan Coleman—Grant Robertson: He wishes he could forget things.CHRIS HIPKINS: He wishes he could forget things. He wishes he could forget the Mt Albert by-election. Jonathan Coleman decided to give us a lecture on corporate box etiquette. When Jonathan Young was the Opposition spokesperson on health he took money from the tobacco industry and decided to blow smoke in their faces in their own corporate box. Who else did we have? Well we had Judith Collins. “Cruella” herself decided to make a contribution. I want to know why Judith Collins had to speak after Steven Joyce. Has the deal already been done? Has the succession planning already been mapped out for the National Party?The deal has been done. We know that John Key does not want to stick around after the next election so has the deal been done? Yes they have stitched it up. It is going to be “Corporate Jones” Steven Joyce and “Cruella” with the Dalmatians lined up behind them. That is the deal. It is another deal that National has done behind closed doors a lot like all of the other ones that John Key is so keen on doing.John Key cannot sit down for a meal without whacking New Zealanders with another massive bill. Every time that man sits down for a meal New Zealanders end up paying. He sits down with Warner Bros and there is a law change that they pay for. He sits down with John Banks—another dodgy deal—with Peter Dunne with Skycity. Every time John Key meets somebody he does another dodgy deal.I found it very ironic that Jonathan Coleman decided to ask why it was that David Shearer always asks John Key whether he stands by all of his statements. [Interruption ] Well I will answer that for Jonathan Coleman. It is because for the first time in New Zealand’s history we have a Prime Minister who has to think about it. He actually has to pause and think about it: “Oh my goodness what did I say? What did I say?”. He has to think about it.I found this comment from John Key very very revealing when he was talking about his relationship with the parliamentary press gallery. He said: “I’ve found in my time as Prime Minister I’ve had less engagement with the press gallery simply because I do not mislead people so I have to answer the question if they ask me a question.” So his solution to dealing with the press gallery is that he does not want to mislead them so he just does not talk to them. He just avoids the question in the first place because he does not want to get caught out not telling the truth which has happened so many times before.This is a Government that is simply intent on doing all of the dodgy deals that advantage its mates. It is not interested in the issues that hard-working New Zealand families care about. Power prices are going up all the time and this Government says it does not have a problem with that. It thinks the power prices are right for the environment—that is what National says. Actually New Zealanders are saying that they do not think that is right. This is a Government that wants to take hundreds of millions of dollars a year out of the electricity industry—out of Transpower in particular—individends and force New Zealanders to overpay for their power. This is not a Government that is concerned about the issues affecting ordinary New Zealanders.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō):One would have to stand in the House this week and ask what the most important issues are for hard-working Kiwis. Well according to the Labour Party it is whether or not its caucus of—how many—33 has enough women or actually whether there are too many men. That is the issue that it has been talking about day after day after day. And you know what? It could not even count. It could not even count the number of women it has now so good luck with getting to your 45 or 50 percent—I hope you can count by then.Let us actually quote from one of its own. JosiePagani who was a candidate for the Labour Party says that Labour is “stuck talking about ‘man-bans’ and social engineering rather than jobs and social mobility. How have they let this happen again?”. I think that says it all. It just shows actually how the Labour Opposition is so disconnected. It is so out of touch. It is not listening to hard-working New Zealanders. This side of the House knows that John Key’s team is leading in the issues and getting results in the areas that matter to New Zealanders: having safer communities having higher levels of education having more of our youngsters in education in the first place having more jobs and having an economy that is growing.This week the National Government actually reported on its Better Public Services targets. Not only do we talk about things; we deliver results. We deliver results in the areas that matter to hard-working New Zealanders. So last week up and down New Zealand Labour supporters were picking up their jaws off the floor when instead Labour was talking about man bans. It was quite interesting because to quote one of the other commentatorsKerre McIvor said in theHerald on Sundaythat policies count ovaries do not. So clearly the Labour Party cannot find any policies it cannot find anything that resonates with New Zealanders so it is going around counting ovaries. Well I do not think that matters to hard-working Kiwis.On this side of the House—and I am proud to be a female member of the National caucus—we measure on merit and performance. Not only do we select on that basis; we then measure the results that our Ministers are achieving. I want to—[Interruption ]I was not going to go there but let us do it. There is a bit of a competition in the National caucus and that competition is who gets to stand against Sue Moroney in the next election because in every single seat she has stood in our majorities go up—our majorities go up. So there is a competition—a demand competition—for who gets Sue. When it comes to the Christchurch East selection which is coming up I actually think that the Christchurch East selection has driven this man ban because Labour does not want Clayton Cosgrove as its candidate. It is kind of interesting if you look at who are the ones who have come out with the letter this week. If you look at some of the names involved and if you look at the list that Labour put up last time and how that 50 percent would have worked—surprise surprise—David Parker Shane Jones and Andrew Little would not have made it based on a fifty-fifty list. So they are actually only covering their own butts.I am really proud of the Better Public Services results that our Government is achieving. If you look at our line-up of strong women Cabinet Ministers they are looking after the areas that count for New Zealanders: looking after justice looking after police looking after corrections looking after education looking after a whole range of issues like social development looking after families looking after children—those are the issues that matter to New Zealanders. That is why I am proud to be sitting on this side of the House delivering results not focusing on petty things like whether we have got enough men or too many or what they have got between them.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Back to reality. There is awhakataukī in Aotearoa that says: “Whatungarongaro he tangatatoitū he whenua”. It means “People perish but the land remains”. I want to talk today about the consensus amongst New Zealanders outside this House that looking after the environment for ourselves and for all living things is more important than destroying it. However whether the land remains or not has become a dubious question under this Government as more and more of the land is opened up to block tenders applications and exploration permits of all kinds. However they are out of step these people who are running our country with what New Zealanders have built a consensus around for many years. Although we disagree on many things and although we now face one of the most unequal societies that we have ever seen there is still a core at the heart of our commitment to our environment. New Zealand citizens of all stripes know that without the environment there is no economy and without the economy the people and the environment together we do not have a future.So it is very sad to hear the Minister of Energy and Resources today unable to answer my questions in the House—and indeed last week—about the details of his portfolio because we do need some leadership around protecting the environment for future generations and it is not going to come from this Government. In 2010 there was a very very strong expression of the values of our country when 30000 people marched down Queen Street and 40000 people wrote submissions against mining in conservation land specifically schedule 4 land. That was an amazing expression of resistance to “sexy coal” and “sexy gold”. What it waswas a statement that there are things that we value together that are more important than the narrow extractive 19thcentury vision of how to build a country. The Government had to change its strategy because it had such a clear message from the people of this country. I was proud to be one of the people at the front of that march. On that day I saw a huge diversity of people express the values that the Government has decided to ignore. The Government has done that in a really interesting way. Because it could not win up front it has done it through the backyard. It has done it through the manipulation of the Crown Minerals Act and through incursions into schedule 4.So I would just like to go through some of those interesting strategies of the Government after 2010. In its single economy plan which is to facilitate the multinational mining industry it had to find a way around the enormous public opposition to this plan. It had to find ways to undermine the public commitment that it had made and that it continues to say it makes to this area known as schedule 4. So what the Government did was change the Crown Minerals Act—that was one of the major tasks—in order to hoodwink New Zealanders into thinking that it was committed to no mining but actually it created a law that facilitated joint ministerial decision-making over the Department of Conservation estate. It also gutted the Department of Conservation estate; that was easily done in the Budget. Then there were also other strategies such as paying for aerial surveys over the country to see where the minerals are so that the Government can help the mining companies get hold of them and indeed doing things like beefing up the Crown minerals section of ministries involved in energy and resources and putting out tenders for block offers basically begging foreign large-scale mining companies to come in and take advantage of the minerals which it was determined to allow.But it also had to do something to undermine schedule 4 without anyone noticing. I live in an area called the Coromandel where we notice everything. Although the Minister of Energy and Resources was in short pants when I started working on mining—I have been doing this for 30 years—the people of my area both younger and older are very very clear about what is happening to schedule 4. So basically how dowe get around the fact that there is supposedly a mining ban but we want to send a signal to the mining industry that mining is great? We do that by doing things like allowing drilling inside schedule 4 land. The Minister makes statements about the difference between exploratory drilling and drilling for mining because he does not understand the industry. Actually drilling is drilling and what they do is send a tube down into the earth. They find out what is there and then they decide whether it is worth mining or not. And the Minister has said they can do that in schedule 4 land in the most precious part of Aotearoa where there is the strongest biodiversity where our endangered species live where our iconic landscapes are and which should be set aside for future generations which it allegedly had done. But no they are drilling.So drilling is fine and drilling is the new normal in schedule 4 land. What we have now today is that mining—a dodgy mining permit which allows all kinds of activities and which is supposedly just in an exit shaft but is in fact not—is allowed on schedule 4 land. Watch this space—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.MELISSA LEE (National):There was something in CatherineDelahunty’s speech that I quite liked and I actually am going to use it. It was “back to reality” because obviously CatherineDelahunty’s reality and my reality are actually quite different.In a week while Labour has been suffering a leadership crisis or shall I say an identity crisis over that whole disaster over the man ban stance National has actually been getting on with managing the country’s finances and working hard to deliver a brighter future for all New Zealanders. In fact during Labour’s leadership crisis—and we have heard from previous speakers all about the Twitter feed and all that sort of stuff—we have been putting through clear plans to support and grow our economy.We have also been very very carefully listening to Kiwis and what they want. One of these demands has been for better transport systems in Auckland. People have been demanding better transport systems in Auckland because we have such a congestion problem in Auckland as well. Just last week our Government kick-started the next generation of Auckland’s transport projects. These projects will cost in excess of $10 billion and will make a huge difference to the congestion on our Auckland roads.One of the things that actually happened in Auckland last week while Labour was busy talking about the man ban and leadership challenges and all that sort of stuff—possibly with a letter going around their caucus—was I was wondering where the leader Mr David Shearer was on Saturday because it was the reopening of the Mount Albert train station. He is after all the MP for Mt Albert. Being the list MP I actually turned up to the blessing ceremony where the local iwi was blessing the new train station making sure that people who travel on the train are safe but he was nowhere to be seen. “Mr MP for Mt Albert” David Shearer was nowhere and you could sort of wonder whether maybe he was at home watching Sue Moroney perform onThe Nation to make sure that she said the right things about the man ban. Perhaps that is where he was. He was not actually present at the 10 o’clock opening ceremony and ribbon-cutting ceremony either. You sort of wonder how stressed Mr Shearer is and my heart does in fact go out to him. He is actually under a lot of stress worrying that there is this massive target on his back that his caucus will actually stick him with a knife and actually turf him out perhaps.We have got a clear view over this side. This National-led Government has a clear view as to how to manage our economy and how to make sure that New Zealand has a brighter future. But over there Opposition members are into only that whole Mickey Mouse thing within their own caucus as to who is going to lead them. Perhaps they have to worry because as previous speakers said it has been a long time since the Labour Party has had a real leader. Perhaps that is the reason that Helen Clark keeps ontweeting them andtexting them to give them some ideas on what to do. Maybe then they might actually have a real leader very soon.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 12 June.Part 1 General provisions(continued )ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):It is once again my duty to rise and talk on this completely ridiculous piece of legislation the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill which ought to be an embarrassment not only to the member in the chair Mark Mitchell but in fact to the Committee.I just want to draw the Committee’s attention to a very simple remedy to the problem because here we are spending the Committee’s time taxpayers’ money looking at a piece of legislation that will deal with one iota of the problem when the rest of the problem is out there—the problem about which the Government said: “Well we have people turning up to the Government offices and some of them are wearing their gang patches. So we need to pass a law to stop them doing that.” Well you do not have to look too far past today’sNew Zealand Herald —usually a very good newspaper usually accurate in its reporting at least on general stories—and here on page 8 is a very fine photograph of the Napier District courthouse. Here we have a photo of a chap leaving the courthouse.I want to draw the Committee’s attention to a little sign on the doorway of the Napier courthouse. On the sign on the doorway it says: “No Gang Patches or Insignia”. Apparently the Napier District Court can do it but everybody else needs this House to pass a law. I do not know of any report of any problems with gangs turning up to the Napier District courthouse and causing a problem. The registrar at the District Court—probably a couple of judges too maybe even some sensible people at the Ministry of Justice maybe some sensible people at the Sensible Sentencing Trust; I do not know but maybe somebody—had this brilliant idea that they would put a sign on the door because they wanted to stop people from turning up to the Napier District courthouse in their gang patches. In fact I can report to this Committee that they are not alone.There are some other Government premises the managers of which have had the brilliant idea to deal with this nefarious problem which has burgeoned across the country of people in gang patches turning up to Government premises and they have put notices on the door. And do you know that there has not been a single report in the newspapers of good repute—sadlyTruth has now met its demise and that might say something about the reputation of that paper or at least its editor the most recent one anyway. There has never been a report in a newspaper of good repute that has reported on trouble with gang members with gang patches and insignia turning up to those public buildings.So the question has to be asked: why is it—how is it—that we have to detain all the members of this House and use the House’s very precious time to consider this piece of legislation knowing that it is confined to Government buildings? These are the very buildings whose occupants have the power—and they have demonstrated that they use it—to put up little signs saying: “No one with gang patches here”. That is unlike the proprietors of children’s playgrounds unlike those who are the custodians of beaches and other public places without any structures who will have no power to give notice even under this legislation to those who would wear their gang patches and insignia andturn up and maraud across the innocent citizens and the burghers of those places where those beaches and children’s playgrounds are.Why do we waste our time on legislation like this? This is window dressing; it is not substantial. It will not make a blind bit of difference as the good people of Whanganui found out. All they did was shift the problem somewhere else and that is what this piece of legislation will do. If this Government is serious about dealing with the problem of gangs let us see a law that deals with the gang problem. Let us see a law that gives people the ability and the power and the rights to stop gangs and their criminal enterprises in their tracks. Let us assist the police with their powers to do that. But let us not pretend that dumb legislation like this is going to make a blind bit of difference when all the evidence—the evidence on the record and in reputable publications like theNew Zealand Herald —shows us that a little notice on the door is all that is needed to deter the evil nefarious gang patch and insignia wearers from doing their dirty business.This bill is wasting our time and that is why on this point with this bill knowing that it will achieve nothing knowing that it will do nothing we will continue to oppose it and wait for this Government to do something sensible and meaningful about the real problem which is about the criminal nature of gangs and the criminal enterprises that they undertake.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Um—I call the honourable member Mike Sabin. I had to think for a while mind.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I could not possibly comment on your choice there but thank you very much for the privilege and opportunity. The member Andrew Little unfortunately takes after his name in the sense that he has tried to belittle the issue of criminal gangs of organised crime in this country. There is nothing more certain in my mind than that the proliferation of gangs and the drugs that they peddle the money-laundering and the crime and misery that they have wrought on New Zealand society are nothing more than an out and out disgrace. Every single effort that we can actually put forward that undermines their ability to perpetuate the intimidation the crime and the misery that they bring to New Zealand society is a positive thing.Mr Little seems to suggest that courthouses have little signs and therefore all other Government buildings can have little signs as well. If Mr Little had spent a little bit of time in the real world he would have actually seen the challenges of gangs and the one area that is dealing with them more than any other Government department of course is courthouses. There have been stabbings shootings beatings and the like in courthouses—inside the courthouses outside of the courthouses—and for a long time they have had rules on the wearing of gang patches. The rules are not always because of the fact that the gangs are actually beating up innocent members of the public who may be waiting in the gallery or may be waiting outside the courtroom. They are beating up fellow gang members from opposing gangs because that is what gang members do.What happens is that the violence is created because of the fact that when a gang member wears a gang patch it is about identity it is about mana. To them it is everything. It encapsulates everything that they are as human beings. That patch is so important to them. So courts have long decided that to avoid that sort of confrontation they would have a “no gang patch” requirement inside courthouses.The big difference between a courthouse and a primary school Mr Little is that in a courthouse they have court security. There are plenty of people who with a few seconds’ notice can respond to the outbreak of violence. The difference is Mr Little when we see the ability of a courthouse to enforce the rules—and trust me they cannot always enforce them. I have been called to the courthouse on numerous occasions toremove gang members who are wearing patches taken their patches off put them back in the cells and put them back upstairs.Chris Hipkins: So who’s going to enforce it in a primary school?MIKE SABIN: Well the police can enforce it because obviously when gang members wear patches in there according to this bill—and it is a very good question Mr Hipkins—the police will be able to respond very promptly and will be able to come in there with the power of arrest that this bill will provide and take care of that. But the point I want to make here Mr Hipkins is the difference between how a courthouse tries to operate and is dealing with it compared with the many other Government departments or Government buildings that this bill will actually give effect to. The difference is quite significant.The idea though that in the local Inland Revenue Department office or at Mangonui Primary School or atKaitāia Intermediate School a teacher can wander up to a patched-up gang member and say “Oh no you must remove that.” and they will say “Certainly ma’am. I will comply with that order immediately.” is just ridiculous. It just does not happen. It just does not happen.Andrew Little: But if she turns up with the bill in her hand she’ll be fine.MIKE SABIN: I have some respect for Mr Little because he does actually make some learned comments at times. But I am afraid that on this occasion Mr Little has gone right off tangent. This is really what we see in this bill—the fact that the Labour Party has gone right off tangent. Its members are out of touch with what New Zealand society is saying.I am very interested to hear what the member Louisa Wall will say about this because she is making a big stand on party pills and recreational drugs. But of course what gangs do is deal in illicit drugs. So I am sure that member will be wanting to make some very strong comments about gang members and the proliferation of gang members in her electorate and the significance of the gang patch to the gang member. I would ask that member to tell us what she believes the importance of a gang patch is to a gang member. I would welcome that call from the member.When we look at the problem of gangs in New Zealand there is nothing that will convince me otherwise than that this bill is going to have a positive effect.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):It is my pleasure to take a first call in Part 1 of the Committee stage of the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. It is a member’s bill. My contribution to the discussion will very much be about looking at what this piece of legislation is trying to achieve which is to prohibit gang insignia on these premises: Public Service departments the police Crown entities local authorities and through the select committee process the committee members added schools because they deemed schools to be part of the State sector.In responding to the previous speaker Mike Sabin I would like to talk about what he talked about which was about eradicating gangs. This is not a purpose of this bill in fact. Nowhere in this bill do we talk about eradicating gangs or why gangs were created in the first place. He made a very good point about why people end up choosing to be in gangs. People choose to be in gangs—according to people like Kim Workman who has worked in this area for a long time—because they are isolated. They have been for want of a better word dislocated from their families and dislocated from their communities. So whether we like it or not gangs have served to fill a collective identity that some people yes take pride in.We on this side of the Chamber are very aware of what gangs do. We do not support the activities of gangs—absolutely not—Mike Sabin: Clearly the member does.LOUISA WALL: No I do not actually but I have a bit of recognition about why they exist in the first place. So if we are going to analyse how they were created that is one thing. But if you were really interested in the issues about gangs then why is there not a purpose in clause 3 in this part about eradicating gangs and addressing some of the fundamental issues about people who end up in gangs because they come from abusive backgrounds? Why are we not talking about staircasing people from prison into vocations into housing into a better and more productive lifestyle? That has got nothing to do with this piece of legislation. All you want to do in this piece of legislation—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!LOUISA WALL: All this piece of legislation wants to do—sorry Mr Chair—is to say that if you are wearing an insignia then we are going to fine you $2000. What a wonderful solution that is! How many of those people do we think will actually pay $2000? When you look at the whole bill it is not very big at all. This is it. So someone with an insignia who is in these public places is going to be fined. Big deal. What does that mean then in terms of trying to assist people who find themselves in circumstances as I have just said where gang affiliation has become a normal way of life for them?The other point I wanted to make clear in my contribution was that the commentary we made on this particular piece of legislation is very clear that the Government already has the tools to address this issue. My colleague Andrew Little made that clear by showing you—even today in theNew Zealand Herald —a sign that courts can put up that prohibits the wearing of gang insignia. What we were really clear about is that under the Summary Offences Act of 1981 section 3 makes threatening behaviour an imprisonable offence section 4 makes offensive behaviour a criminal offence and section 21 states that people cannot intimidate anybody. So we do have tools within the current legislation to deal with this issue. I think that is our major reason for opposing this piece of legislation because it is not needed.So if the member in the chair Mark Mitchell wants to get up and talk about the rationale for this bill where did it come from? Who asked for it? Why have we got this piece of legislation before the House? Surely there is some evidence about the need for it. The only evidence that I have heard from my colleague Moana Mackey in reference to some of the conversations in Whanganui is that now there are a whole lot of gangs that want to be added to the list that is in this bill.Darien Fenton: Because it’s cool.LOUISA WALL: Yes because it is cool for gangs to be listed in a piece of legislation. Well if that is one of the outcomes of this then actually that is pathetic. That is a pathetic rationale for this bill—that we can have gangs that want to add their names to this piece of legislation. Obviously that is Part 2 of the bill where there are going to be certain powers—MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):I will take a call now just so that I can address a couple of the issues that have been raised. But before I get started I would like to refer to an article written by Anna Williams. It is in relation to an interview that she did with the Mayor of Marlborough District MrSowman. He said that “five people had reported seeing patched”—this relates to last week—“Mongrel Mob members in public including at a netball game at Horton Park in Blenheim and in supermarkets. … ‘The community needs to combine together with police to make them unwelcome to ensure there isn’t illegal activity in Marlborough’ he said. ‘There’s an old saying if you take away the oxygen from the flame it goes out and that’s what we need to do. … These people who wear patches they won’t give them up easily’ he said. ‘The patch gives them identity and they won’t want to lose that. I have no sympathy for them.’ Heplanned to talk to the Marlborough police area commander to make sure everything was being done to ensure gangs did not thrive in the region.” So this is an issue that does affect our communities.I would just also like to briefly mention that in my speech in the second reading of this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill—and of course I acknowledge the Hon Todd McClay who brought this bill to the House—I spoke about an incident that I had to deal with personally when I was down in Rotorua. It involved two young girls who had been attacked by prospect Mongrel Mob gang members and patched gang members as well. That is going back 12 years ago. Some people would say to me: “Well you know we have moved on. Is this really still an issue?”. Yet I was sad to read in the media reported through theThe Daily Post in Rotorua 2 weeks ago of a young girl who was attacked by four Mongrel Mob prospects walking through the grounds of a school. She was raped pretty savagely attacked and physically damaged. Of course she will be emotionally and psychologically damaged as well. So this is still a real clear and present problem that as a country we have to face.In terms of whether there is current legislation in place that can deal with this—no there is not. The legislation that is in place at the moment—and Miss Wall made a very good point on this—however requires an action. It requires gang members to actually do something to meet the elements of the offence whereas what this bill does is allow the police to come in and take action purely off the fact that a gang member is wearing his patch. I would like to bring us back again and remind us all in this Committee actually what that patch signifies. The patch signifies that someone has got into a gang—and gangs unfortunately use our youth; they are recruiting from our youth. Sadly the youth see this as a way of identification the camaraderie and the rest of it—that sort of collectiveness that you were talking about. It would be much nicer if they could get that through a sports group through a sports club or through a community group rather than a gang. I come back to what that patch means. What the patch means is that they have to have achieved a pathway of committing crimes and normally violent crimes against our communities to get themselves to the status where they are awarded a patch and they become a patched gang member.For some reason in this country over the years—I do not know whether we have become desensitised to it or whether we have just learnt to live with it—we have actually allowed these people to walk around with patches on which clearly say to the rest of us: “Hey we have committed offences against you.” I think it is time as a country as we say that we use every chance that we have to say: “You know what? We are not going to accept that any more. You are not going to wear patches around. You are not going to”—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!MARK MITCHELL: Sorry Mr Chairperson. I think these are the important points we really need to think about when we are talking about this bill.The other thing that I just wanted to point out very quickly is that we had a very good trip the Law and Order Committee down to Christchurch recently. Kris Faafoi was with us. We were talking to the police there and they spoke about—I think they are called—the domestic protection orders. Do not quote me on that; I am pretty sure that is what they call them. What they allow police to do is go to a violent domestic and they can remove the offender without actually having to rely on or have a complaint generated from the victim or the complainant. So they remove the onus and they remove the stress of the complainant or the victim having to make the complaint. The police can just go in there and remove them under these domestic protection orders. And actually Kris thought that was a great idea.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!MARK MITCHELL: Sorry. Mr Faafoi thought that was a great idea. Well actually this bill is exactly the same principle as it removes the onus of a member of the public someone working in a Work and Income an administrator or a receptionist at a school or a teacher at a school from having to actually generate a complaint. They do not have to do that. [Bell rung ] The minute a gang member walks on to a school—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Is the member seeking another call?Mark Mitchell: No it is fine. No Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Well the member has to sit down. Thank you.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):Kia ora Mr Chairperson. Thank you for the opportunity to make a contribution at this Committee stage of this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. It is really unfortunate that we are wasting parliamentary time and resources on this really redundant piece of legislation because the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill is a totally ridiculous piece of legislation. It is unnecessary. These situations are already covered by existing laws. So it really is a waste of time. It is actually quite an embarrassment really that the Government has put this member’s bill up to occupy parliamentary time that we would much rather spend on more productive things for our country.I want to start off by saying that I do a lot of work. Obviously I have got a very big patch down there in the South Island. My good colleague there Mr Mitchell was referring to Marlborough the great region of Marlborough and Te Tau Ihu the top of the south which is not exactly known as the most racially harmonious region of New Zealand what with theMarlborough Express cartoons of recent times.I wanted to take this opportunity to display some people that I know. I know that it probably will not be able to be viewed by the people at large but here is aMāori man. He isMāori. He is wearing a motorcycle jacket. There are all sorts of insignias and other badges on this jacket. Oh! There is even a tino rangatiratanga badge on there. If you saw this gentleman in an emergency room of a public hospital or maybe in the grounds of courts or justice buildings potentially this gentleman here could trigger the provisions of the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. He could activate the powers of the State to call in the police constable to come and assess whether this gentleman here is part of an organisation or a gang that is listed in the appropriate section with specified gangs that are all listed there in the relevant sections. This is an example I guess of what the Government would like to prevent.I will show another one. Let me pick this one here. I am very good friends with this gentleman here. Again he isMāori wearing a motorcycle jacket he is part of a chapter and he has even got an Arab-looking scarf wrapped around his neck. That could have very negative connotations.Mike Sabin: What’s his gang?RINO TIRIKATENE: Oh! It is very intimidatory—very intimidatory.The gang that this man belongs to Mr Sabin isRangitāne ki Wairau in the Marlborough Sounds. He is the chief. He is an iwi leader. He is an iwi leader ofRangitāne ki Wairau ki Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka—an upstanding citizen. The other gentleman whom I mentioned is a highly decorated—a highly decorated—soldier who has served our country—Mike Sabin: That’s fine. Is he wearing a gang patch or not?RINO TIRIKATENE: Absolutely on the face of it. What would a member of the public think? Perhaps—Mike Sabin: Not on the face of it. Is he wearing a gang patch? Has it got gang insignia on it?RINO TIRIKATENE: It fits the profile Mr Sabin. It fits the profile. It just makes a mockery of this ridiculous piece of legislation. I could display a lot of pictures. But the thing is these gentlemen are part of the chapter of the Patriots Defence Force Motorcycle Club.Mike Sabin: Are they listed in the bill?RINO TIRIKATENE: They fit the profile. They would activate the suspicion potentially of this ridiculous piece of legislation.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: No they wouldn’t.RINO TIRIKATENE: Oh yes they would. The thing is that those gentlemen those upstanding citizens actually do a tremendous amount of work on their Harley-Davidsons on their revved-up scary-looking big burly bikes up and down the country every November for White Ribbon month spreading the message that violence against women is a terrible thing and that we have got to stamp it out—Mike Sabin: Are they listed in there?RINO TIRIKATENE: It does not matter that they are not listed in the bill Mr Sabin. Do you think that everything has to be prescribed—that you can cover every situation every gang situation because it is set out in the definition of “gang”? It is ludicrous. There is always the catch-all or other provisions to catch others. But I am saying that these people are upstanding citizens. They love to congregate and associate with others in their motorcycle club. They visit schools. They are welcomed into schools. In fact I welcomed a whole big group of the South Island tour going into a public hospital. Far from having people actually thinking that these people were intimidating—there were a lot ofMāoris with big leather jackets and big insignia on them—they were welcomed and they were treated as real heroes because they are doing good work.All I am saying is that that makes a mockery of this piece of legislation. The fact that a bigMāori man and he may even have atā moko—he may even have atā moko—is wearing a leather jacket with insignias and writing all over it saying “motorcycle club chapter” from wherever part or region he comes from means he automatically comes within the profile and the ambit of this legislation of this ridiculous bill.Richard Prosser: Not if they’re not on the list.RINO TIRIKATENE: They do. It does not matter that they are not on the list; they potentially fall within the ambit of a person a member of the public. And it would be a waste of time it would be an absolute waste of taxpayers’ money and time for the police to be called up to rush along to the hospital or school where this chapter of this motorcycle club is revving up its engines. Then they would have to say: “Well is this so-called group within the definition of ‘gang’ within this prohibition of gang insignia legislation? If so we will have to require those gentlemen or those thugs on those motorbikes to remove their jackets and any other memorabilia that they have.” It is absolutely ridiculous. It is an absolutely stupid piece of legislation because this is already covered by existing provisions elsewhere.The other thing—I just want to make my concluding remarks—is that this legislation is already dealt with—[Interruption ]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! I have people on my right and my left who are interjecting on each other. It is not permitted. If they want to take a call they are welcome to.RINO TIRIKATENE: I am just completing my speech. I am looking at the so-called list of prescribed gangs here and I do not see “Bloods” or “Crips” here. I meanthe Bloods and theCrips are the two most sort of—I was not a wayward person but the Bloods andCrips are not even mentioned—[Interruption ]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I have just cautioned the House.RINO TIRIKATENE: They are not even mentioned in this bill. So how comprehensive is it? You cannot prescribe all those situations but you can include a whole bunch of innocent upstanding absolutely heroic people who are doing a lot of good work and who like to associate and ride motorbikes wear their insignias and do good things in the community. Potentially they are impacted by this bill.Lastly I just want to make this point. If you go into a doctor’s surgery and you see a youngwhānau with a Mongrel Mob man—and how do you know that? He is wearing his red T-shirt and he has got his gang insignia stamped on his face. How can you tell that person to remove himself because his gang insignia is tattooed on to his face? That happens to a high proportion of gang members. What is the situation there? Do they have to remove themselves? Do they have to cover themselves while they are tending to their sick children waiting in the doctor’s surgery so they can actually get their child tended to? It is a ridiculous piece of legislation. I regret that it is having to waste parliamentary time and resources and I definitely oppose it.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei):I cannot believe what I have just been listening to. Clearly the member Rino Tirikatene could not support the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill because he has not read it. I find it extraordinary and the members ofRangitāne in my electorate will find it extraordinary to think that they could be called up as gang members. I just do not believe what I have been hearing.Anyway aside from that I want to make a couple of other points because there has been some interesting stuff talked about in the last few minutes. During the course of the select committee process both Labour and the Greens talked a lot about what was not in this bill. They did not bring one single thing that could have been added to it or add one piece of value to it in the course of that discussion. Really they suffer from what I would term the “do little syndrome”. They get up here and criticise the bill because it does not deal with what they perceive to be a gang problem but it certainly deals with a portion of the gang problem. It deals with the intimidation part where in public buildings and public places these gang members can intimidate people who are ordinarily serving them along with other members of the public. I think it does a great job in that area. So that is the first thing I want to question.The second thing is that Louisa Wall talked about the eradication of gangs. This bill was never designed to eradicate gangs; this bill was designed to deal with gang patches. This Government of course is dealing with a number of other issues that will help in the eradication of gangs. The record this Government has around crime is a significant deterrent to people who want to join gangs. In other words the less crime we have in this country the less likely we are to have people encouraged to join gangs. Certainly our retraining and reintegration of reoffending prisoners will make gangs less attractive places for them. The Government along with its economic policies where it is driving job growth and the opportunity for people to work will certainly also discourage people from wanting to join gangs. So we can certainly answer the Opposition queries in respect of that. I think the Government is certainly working towards helping with gangs.I want to make just one final point on that. If you think about—and I think I might have used this point before—the banning of cigarette advertising is very similar to the banning of gang patches in public places. Really that is the gangs’ mode of advertising I guess for want of a better word.The promoter of this bill Mark Mitchell who received it through attrition from the Hon Todd McClay made reference to the Law and Order Committee’s visit to the Christchurch prisons a few weeks ago. For most prisons throughout New Zealand we have an average of around 30 percent of their total tally of prisoners being gang members. So anything we can do as a Government or as a Parliament to lessen the number of gang members is certainly going to make quite a contribution to lessening the number of people in our prisons. I think there are some very good initiatives in this bill. I think it will help to achieve the purpose it set out to achieve which is to lessen the intimidation of people serving in our public areas.I want to make one final observation from my own electorate where I have a large number of schools a number of which have had problems over time with gang insignia on the grounds of those schools. In many instances—in fact I think in all instances—the principals of those schools have asked the gangs to remove themselves from the schools and they have done it. But that does not mean that we do not need legislation like this because although my schools might have the cooperation of the gang members concerned there are many schools in New Zealand that do not. So I think this is a very good piece of legislation and that is my lot on this part of it.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to take a call on Part 1 of this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. I think sometimes it is important with these sorts of bills to find where there might be some commonality across the House. There is absolutely no doubt that across this House there is absolutely no one whom I have heard yet who is condoning the activity—and in particular the criminal activity—that often coincides with the existence of gangs. Absolutely not. There is also no one in this House who is applauding in any sense the intimidation that comes with the strong presence of gangs in our communities. Absolutely there is agreement that this is a problem particularly in some of our most deprived communities and as Louisa Wall has pointed out there is a message in that.Where there is disagreement however—which I would like to talk about specifically in relation to Part 1—is whether or not this bill will have an effect on those critical issues. What Labour is saying is that it is our concern that it will not have an effect and if it will not have an effect does it in fact have the chance in some cases to make things worse or make things potentially farcical in some cases? Will it increase the sense of intimidation for some people who will be required to try to enforce this bill? Additionally underneath all of that are we therefore wasting our money and time when there are other alternative routes that we should or could be taking? So that is where our objection squarely lies.I do want to go back to the beginning of Part 1 because Part 1 sets out the purpose of the bill. It says: “The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the display of gang insignia on premises of departments of the Public Service the Police Crown entities local authorities and schools.” I think that is an acknowledgment that the areas in which something like this can be enforced are relatively constrained and they are constrained to areas where any Government of the day can express some enforcement because obviously there are issues with general bans of insignia in this way. That does mean that you are going to have an ad hoc situation where—if as we have said we are concerned about intimidation and with criminal activity—someone who displays their gang insignia can simply wear it in transit between all of these places in which it has otherwise been banned. Does that overall change a situation? We fear of course that it does not.Secondly it is constrained around what it defines gang insignia as and I do not think it recognises that the way in which gangs identify is not solely down to a symbol. Let us just go over the definition of gang insignia. It is set out in the definition of “ganginsignia” in paragraph (a) of clause 4. It says: “gang insignia—(a) means a sign symbol or representation commonly displayed to denote membership of an affiliation with or support for a gang not being a tattoo;”—obviously recognising that it is hard to forcibly remove a tattoo. But as my colleague Rino Tirikatene has pointed—Mike Sabin: It can cause a little discomfort.JACINDA ARDERN: As Mr Sabin points out it could cause discomfort obviously. But as Rino Tirikatene has pointed out some gang members do display their gang symbol in that way permanently on themselves. The definition “(b) includes any item of clothing to which a sign symbol or representation referred to in paragraph (a) is attached”. Of course then it lists gangs that will therefore be covered by that definition of gang insignia.There are two issues in that definition and the way that it is set out. First of all it requires a gang to be listed within the bill. One thing I wanted to clarify was that if a gang is not listed and the Crown decides that it wants that gang to be inserted in the list is that simply changed through regulation? I am assuming that it is except that it is embedded it seems in the primary legislation rather than in regulations. So I would appreciate hearing from the member in the chair Mark Mitchell—and excuse me for not determining this yet—whether it is via Order in Council that an additional gang must be added. That would be a useful clarification.But first of course you must be listed and then you must fall under the criteria of a particular gang insignia. As my colleague Rino Tirikatene has pointed out not every gang uses explicit gang insignia. He has asked for instance why the Bloods and theCrips are not listed here. The response from across the Chamber from the member Mike Sabin was that the Bloods and theCrips do not have an insignia but as the member will know they certainly have a colour.Mike Sabin: They have colours.JACINDA ARDERN: They have colours—yes they do have colours. Actually they also have hand signals and in the United States especially they identify not only with colours but with certain sporting codes and teams. That is how they represent their gang.Walking around some of our streets where you know that these gangs are particularly prevalent—and I have certainly campaigned across areas like that in my time—you know when you see a group of young men who belong to one of these gangs. They are not wearing insignia but you know. Again this points out how this legislation is so flawed. You do not have to wear a gang patch to be a member of a gang—clearly not you Mr Chair. I see that you are in a red tie. I have not interpreted that to be membership of the Bloods but that points out the flaw in this bill which is that not every gang member wears a patch or insignia and indeed not everyone who wears a patch or insignia is a member of a gang—as Rino Tirikatene pointed out with his example where someone was wearing insignia that someone may interpret to be a gang affiliation when clearly it was not. So therein lies the second problem. I have already talked about the first problem which is that this bill will not actually get to the heart of the issue that the Government proclaims that it is about. But secondly in and of itself it is extremely difficult to enforce and it would be flawed in the way that it would be enforced given the way that different gangs identify themselves.I want to come on to the second purpose of the bill and that is what the Government has said around the intimidation of gangs. I have grown up in communities where there is a strong presence of gangs. You know obviously when gang members wear their patch they are identifying very strongly with a brand that denotes a sense of intimidation to some members of the community. There is no doubt about that. But I would question whether empowering those who work in Crown entities—I mean thosewho work in a hospital or those who work in a Work and Income office who are already often working in very fraught and tense situations—and saying to them that they should now feel empowered by the fact that they can have someone’s gang insignia removed every time they deal with them enhances their feeling of safety. I ask whether that lessens that sense of intimidation or actually whether or not it will ever be enforced by those individuals. I would be interested in the member in the chair’s view on whether the Law and Order Committee heard any submissions from those who are working in those fields—particularly hospitals where often the staff will be dealing with critical situations and particularly with schools—to see whether or not they expressed a concern that actually they are unlikely to enforce the provisions of this bill because of that power dynamic and because of that relationship.One final thought I would like to leave members with is that I think it is important that we think about the practical nature of these bills. You know Muldoon was known for his engagement with gangs with Black Power. You know—Richard Prosser: One time.JACINDA ARDERN: Yes one time. It is a lasting legacy. I believe that it might still put the National Party’s hoardings up does it not? That was I think a long time ago an acknowledgment of the presence of those gangs in communities and an attempt by a political leader to engage. People have views on that absolutely but I think that we need to keep in mind that whilst we sit here and pontificate about these issues the reality is that day to day there are front-line workers who are engaging with gang members and their families. A specific case that I have heard of was in a hospital situation where a patched gang member took in their child because they had injured themselves. The immediate thought was that they would be immediately questioned as to whether or not they had been the one who had perpetrated violence against that child. Those are very delicately balanced situations where of course we do not want to stop anyone from coming in and bringing in their child for care based on the way that they might be then treated in that situation—in a hospital context for instance. That is a difficult situation. If a health worker comes in and the first thing they say is: “Remove your insignia.” are we always going to guarantee the safety of that child and the ability for them to be cared for because we have suddenly prioritised what is going on with the adult over the child’s well-being? Those are the kinds of issues I think about.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Mark Sabin.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):Sorry Mr Chair?The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Oh sorry Mike.MIKE SABIN: We are both former police officers. We obviously both cut a fairly fine jib. It is easy to see how one could get confused with these things. I trifle with the Committee.I just want to touch on a couple of points that have been raised. The member Rino Tirikatene raised what I think was a bizarre contribution. It was a long 10 minutes. Basically he showed a couple of pictures of some friends who were wearing dark clothing. He suggested—which I think was right on the limit—that because they wereMāori that somehow would have some impact on what the police may or may not be doing. I strongly hope that the member was not going down that path but it seemed to me that he was. But he suggested because they wereMāori because they had a black jacket on because they had some tattoos and because they ride a motorbike that suddenly they would be captured in this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill that they are intimidatory that he cannot understand it and that it is all bizarre and confusing much like his speech was.Well here is a little something for the Committee to consider. I amMāori. I have tattoos—in fact quite a few of them. I ride a motorbike—not well I admit and generally I like them to have four wheels not two because I find I can stay on them more stably that way. I have also got a leather jacket that happens to be black. So would I be captured in this bill? That is the question I would like to ask the member. Does that then mean that I will be getting the once-over from the local constabulary because of that? Can the member answer that?Rino Tirikatene: You could be.MIKE SABIN: I could be and I do not look a shred intimidatory. I am sure the member Jacinda Ardern will agree that I am a very gentile member of this House—very gentile. [Interruption ] What is it I hear coming from the cross benches? I posed a question on this bill: what would the police say?Hon David Cunliffe: Tell us about the Judaeo-Christian tradition.MIKE SABIN: Well it just so happens—there is the next leader of the Labour Party. He is wanting to get in before he gets his call.Tim Macindoe: Andrew or David? Which one?MIKE SABIN: Oh well true—there are moreDavids than we can shake a stick at to choose from but I am backing that one.Tim Macindoe: I wouldn’t choose that one.MIKE SABIN: You would not choose that one?Tim Macindoe: No.MIKE SABIN: No—wrong horse. Right so I will get back to this. The police would rightfully have a view on this. As a former police officer working in the area of organised crime for a number of years and in particular working with the gang situation I think I can probably share a perspective from the police. I wonder what they would have to say. Clearly the Police Association wholeheartedly endorses this. The police are saying that this is a good thing. It is not the panacea and there is nothing to suggest that what this bill is about is solving the gang problems because actually the gang problem is a reflection of many other societal issues and many other problems and areas which I will touch on that we are addressing. But removing gang insignia and this bill itself is not about getting rid of the gangs per se. The police say it is a very good tool.What I would say to members on the other side is that even at its worst—if they think this will have little or no impact—it will certainly do no harm. I for the life of me—[Interruption ] Oh no it is very harmful when we lock up a gang member for intimidating others by wearing his big mobster patch! That is a shocking thing to do! I question why it is that on that basis even if we argue that it has little benefit and it would do no harm they would not support it. It just shows that those members are disengaged with the views of New Zealanders because there are no New Zealanders who actually think going anywhere in the area of being soft on gangs or soft on crime or anything—the Labour Party says no it is not doing that. But what does this bill actually say? Because if it is actually not doing anything other than giving the police the ability to arrest people when they think that they can intimidate others they can patch up and they can gangster their way around town—and that happens frequently in my electorate and I am sure many electorate MPs here have had that issue in their constituency and would attest to that. It does pose that question.I just want to touch on the other point that has been raised: “Oh if they were serious about gangs they would”—Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):The member who has just resumed his seat Mike Sabin came out with the brilliant thought that just because this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill does no harmParliament should pass it. What an amazing precedent to set! Do you know how much it costs to run this House? It costs $7500 a minute. That member just took $35000 worth of taxpayers’ money to tell the Committee to do it because it does no harm—do it because it does no harm. How about solving the problem? How about being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime? The Labour Opposition does not want tokenism; it wants solutions. It does not want half the country growing up in poverty and the other half sheltering behind razor wire. A divided society is a society that ultimately will be an unhappy and unhealthy society—[Interruption ]—a society where no one Mr Macindoe wins. No one wins.There have been some great studies that show that more equal societies do better. They do better economically. They do better socially. People live longer. They are healthier. They are happier. All the statistics go in the right direction. To get that boat turned in the right direction what do you need? You need housing. You need health care. You need good policing. You need a growing economy. You need jobs. You need all those things which the National Government cannot deliver. So what is its smokescreen? I know: we are going to ban gang patches because it “does no harm” even though it costs $7500 a minute to waste Parliament’s time—to waste Parliament’s time—and to waste the public’s time.We all know that the magnet of gangs is there because there are disaffected youth looking for a home looking for awhānau looking for role models and looking for male role models in particular. Gangs are a symptom of societal breakdown. And to be fair sometimes they can be the cause. We have no sympathy for gangs but what we are not going to pretend is that the clothing on someone’s back determines the outcome of our society. If the National Government was serious about fighting crime it would be serious about fighting unemployment. It would be reducing unemployment by growing jobs. It would put people back to productive work. It would work with our police to intervene before gangs were a problem.The member who just reduced his seat—when he sits down he does reduce the seat. That is just the thing. The member who just resumed his seat is a disappointment to the New Zealand Police Force today because the New Zealand bobby on the beat knows that the gang problem is a complicated problem and changing the colour of the shirt on your back or the patch on your jacket is not going to solve it. It is not going to solve the problem.What the Labour Opposition stands for is end-to-end solutions. We are going to follow the lessons of a “King Dick” Seddon or a “Mickey” Savage. We are going to have opportunities from the cradle to the grave and we are going to make sure we build a good society. We are not going to waste Parliament’s time by worrying about the gang patch on somebody’s back. Tough on crime tough on the causes of crime—that is the Labour philosophy. Let us get a real strategy not something that in the words of the member opposite will simply “do no harm”. Thank you.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):I will just take this opportunity to respond to some of the issues that have been raised by the Opposition. I want to come back to MrTirikatene’s speech and state very clearly—and I share my colleague MikeSabin’s concern—that I think Kiwis are all a bit over having race introduced into these types of arguments. This bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill relates to Asian Triads it relates to the Mongrel Mob and it relates to the Hell’s Angels. If your friends want to wear leather jackets—I enjoy and I am sure all of us in this House sometimes enjoy going biking like Mr Sabin was saying and wearing a leather jacket—there is nothing wrong with that Mr Tirikatene. They can do that. But if they choose to put a Mongrel Mob patch or a Black Power patch on it they are going tohave to remove it take it off when they go into a school or a Government building. It is as simple as that.How do people qualify? How do people get membership to this club? If its members associates or supporters individually or collectively promote encourage or engage in criminal activity then they will find that they have their gang patches registered on the schedule. That is how you get membership.In terms of police leadership and whether or not this bill is actually going to have a real effect and give the police another effective tool to use in their fight against organised crime and gangs the clear answer to that is yes. The great thing to see about our police service at the moment is that it has got very strong leadership in the Police Commissioner Peter Marshall and his two deputies Mike Bush andViv Rickard. Sadly for a long time in my own personal opinion I feel that our police service lacked some strong leadership. Thankfully now they have it.The feedback from the Police Association and the police is that this is a very good bill and it is going to provide them with a very effective tool to be able to take action and apply pressure put pressure on the gangs in New Zealand.It is not a waste of time. I am a bit disappointed to hear Mr Cunliffe say that. In fact most of New Zealand really does not know at the moment what the Labour Party stands for and this is a great opportunity for those members to put a stake in the ground and say: “You know what? We are going to be strong on law and order and we are going to support this bill.” Wishful thinking. I do not think we are going to see that happen.Mr Cunliffe said that Mr Sabin stood up and wasted $35000 of taxpayers’ money. Actually he has every right to get up and speak in this House. That is why he was elected as the representative for Northland in 2011. He has a big history in having to deal with and see the carnage and the victims associated with gangs. He was recognised by the Sir Peter Blake Trust for providing leadership in this area so he knows what he is talking about. My point there is this: Mr Cunliffe talked about $35000. Do you know what? That pales in comparison with what gangs and gang activity and criminals and organised crime sponsored by gangs cost the taxpayer and cost this country every year. I want everyone to think about that and reflect on that as well.He is right. This bill is not the panacea and I have said myself that this is not the panacea but this is one very important part of giving our police a tool to be able to take action against gangs. Are the nurses in the accident and emergency departments going to want to be too bothered about having to ask gang members to remove their gang patches? I visited North Shore Hospital recently and I can assure you that the nursing staff there the sisters and the doctors are certainly no shrinking violets. They are more than happy to do whatever they have to do to provide a good environment for the patients and the people in their care. But the beauty of this bill is that they do not have to tell a gang member to remove a patch. This bill allows for the police to come in and do that and remove any tension that may be created between nursing staff or medical staff and a gang-patched member bringing in a child for treatment. That really is in response to the issue that Miss Ardern raised. I hope that that has clarified some of the points that have been raised by the Opposition. Thank you.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):It is a pleasure to take a call on this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. I am going to be a bit kinder than my colleagues. First of all I congratulate the member who originally brought the bill. Members’ bills are a big thing for individual members so I congratulate Todd McClay and also Mark Mitchell who I think did a good job at the Back Bencher the other night explaining this bill. I think it is very well intentioned. I do not doubt that it is well meaning and that members genuinely believe that this bill will make a difference.I was not on the Law and Order Committee so I do not have the benefit of the experience but I have listened very carefully to my colleagues and I have come to the conclusion that this is window dressing—this is window dressing. I think the member over there Mike Sabin actually confirmed it. What he said is: “Even if it won’t work passing this bill will do no harm.”Mike Sabin: That’s not what I said.DARIEN FENTON: That is what he said. I wrote it down as you said it Mr Sabin: “Even if it won’t work passing a bill will do no harm.”As I have looked through this bill and looked at what the select committee said about it particularly our members and the Green Party members I can see that the committee members really struggled with definitions in this bill. They struggled with the definition of what is a public place or what is a public service “department” “Crown entity” “local authority” and so on. There are still the unanswered questions and perhaps the member in the chair Mark Mitchell can take a call and answer the questions that I have about this. What it seems to do is to create a situation where you can have anomalies. You can have for example someone wearing a patch in a bus shelter and that is prohibited because the bus shelter belongs to the local council but they are allowed to stand on the footpath outside. You can have the same kind of intimidation outside a school because it is not public property as you are not allowed to have in the school. I can see that gang members can be just as intimidating if not more so if they can stand outside public premises outside a hospital and so on.The other thing I think about this bill too is that if I were a gang member I would be deeply disappointed if my gang was not mentioned in this list in the bill. I would make it a matter of pride to get my name mentioned in legislation. Who has their gang mentioned in legislation? Where else would you be able to have such a badge of honour as to have your gang mentioned in legislation? There are bound to be gangs that have been missed out. There are bound to be problems with identifying who the gangs are. What the members opposite have been saying is that—although they were arguing about the speech of my colleague Mr Tirikatene and saying that the people he was describing were not covered by the bill—this bill expects public servants such as teachers and nurses to be able to identify what is a gang patch covered under clause 4 “Interpretation” in Part 1 and whether it is actually covered by this bill and the long long list of the various gangs. I think what Rino Tirikatene was trying to describe is how easily people could be confused and what a waste of police time that could be.One of the things I have been following recently is the National Front. Have you seen the insignia of the National Front? It is not covered by this bill but it is just as intimidating as that of many of the gangs that are mentioned here in this bill. How would a nurse or a teacher know the difference between a member of “Hu-Hu MC” or “Lone Legion MC” or “Mothers MC” or “Nomads”? How would they know that? The fact they are listed in this bill—Mike Sabin: I realise that. I’m astonished that the member is even suggesting that they’re unknown.DARIEN FENTON: Well they are unknown. I would not know who they are. I am sorry I have not been a policeman like that member. The arrogance of the policeman on that side of the Chamber is really getting a big boring to be honest. Look I am a lay member of the public. I am putting myself in the shoes of ordinary hard-working public servants such as teachers and nurses and asking a genuine question about how on earth they are supposed to be able to identify the gangs that are covered by this bill.Are they supposed to carry this legislation around with them? When someone comes into the hospital or the school wearing an insignia—and as I said there are many types of insignia; it is not just gang insignia—are they supposed to go up to them and say:“Are you a member of theBandidos MC? Is that a gang under clause 4 of the bill?”. Are they supposed to have a list on the wall? These are people who are trying to teach our kids at school. These are the nurses who are trying to deal with the injured who are coming through the door. Then they are supposed to ring the cops if they think that those people are covered by this bill and then they have got to wait for a policeman. The poor policemen have already had their resources cut under this Government. What this is going to do is add more pressure on cops who actually should be solving the crimes of ordinary people who are having their houses burgled and other things not wasting time.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence):The Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill is a very good bill and it just amazes me that the Labour Party—I know it is the Opposition—could be opposing it because this is common sense. If you go out there and speak to any New Zealander in the street and you say: “Should gang members be able to come into a school or a hospital or a WINZ office with a gang patch on? Should they be allowed to?” people will say: “No of course they shouldn’t.” The fact that the Labour Party is arguing against this bill just shows how completely out of touch it is. This is actually the problem that the Labour Party has got—that it will oppose legislation like this.Andrew Little: Why would he say something that is not even being argued? This is how desperate his Government has become.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Andrew Little is going ballistic over there because he is losing control. He is losing his grip on the prize of the Labour leadership. I would like to hear him get up and argue against a very common-sense bill.This is the difference you see between people like the National members and on this occasion I believe our colleagues in New Zealand First and the totally out-of-touch people representing Labour. Just like with the man ban they will argue in favour of something that makes absolutely no sense to the average New Zealander in the street. This is why those people over there are going to be in Opposition for a long long time to come.David Cunliffe got up and he said: “Tough on crime tough on the causes of crime.” Everyone at home would think “Well that sounds very good.” until they actually realised that that is a line directly plagiarised from Tony Blair’s 1997 UK “New Labour” manifesto. That shows what the problem is with these people. There is no substance there. There is absolutely no common sense. Who would say that the Mongrel Mob should be able to go into a hospital wearing gang patches? I tell you I have worked in hospital accident and emergency departments and it is not very nice for the staff and the rest of the public when these people come in wearing their gang patches and intimidating people.This bill sends a very good signal to gangs that yes you might be able to wear your red T-shirt or you might be able to have your facial tattoo but actually we are going to make it inconvenient for you if you want to come into a hospital a Work and Income New Zealand department or a primary school and try to intimidate excellent public servants going about their daily tasks scare kids cause inconvenience and basically try to be macho. Supporting this bill shows that we are not going to tolerate gangs and their activities in New Zealand but of course the Labour Party thinks it is fine.That is the problem with Labour. Labour members talk a big game but in the end they are prepared to tolerate all sorts of unacceptable behaviour because actually the Labour Party lacks any form of common sense on just about any issue whether it is the man ban whether it is gang insignia or whether it is power prices. If you want a really stupid solution ask this current crop of Labour MPs. They will be losing touch with the blokes out there who drive the white vans the guys on the building sites and the peoplewho basically have walked away from Labour in droves because constantly it comes up with stupid positions on common-sense issues. Even a schoolkid could look at this and say it is a very good idea to ban gang insignia in our schools in our hospitals and in the Work and Income New Zealand offices.So I say to the Labour member Andrew Little if you get your crack at the leadership try to turn those people round. We want some decent Opposition. National and the country deserve a good Opposition. We are not getting it from that party over there at the moment because it is not connecting with New Zealanders. There is a total lack of common sense from the Labour Party and it is exemplified by the fact that it would oppose this excellent bill that Todd McClay and now Mark Mitchell have brought before the House. I want to commend them for their very good sensible work. The National Party wholeheartedly supports this bill. Thank you.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):It is a pleasure to take what will now be my final call on this part of the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. I just want to respond to some comments made by Dr Coleman the previous speaker. You see here is the thing: no one on this side of the Chamber has argued nor would we argue that gangs should have some sort of free rein over schools or hospitals or any other Government office. No one has argued that. We do not need to argue that.If he wants arguments about sensible solutions to real problems then Dr Coleman could do a lot worse than actually sitting there listening to us for a moment and hearing what the real problem is. The real problem is not the presence of gang patches and gang insignia; it is the fact that we have criminal enterprises some of them tied up with gangs. Their members wear whatever garments they wear—some of them do not wear any gang patches—but they are still tied up with groups and they are still involved in criminal enterprises. If we had a Government that was genuinely interested in dealing with the issues of crime and bringing to justice those who would commit crimes against those in our communities then it would not be wasting its time our time and the time of this Committee on legislation like this. It would be addressing the real issues the real drivers of crime. It would be dealing with the people who bring to their activities bad motives poor motives evil motives and it would be addressing those issues. It would be looking at those people who are driven into the gangs through poverty through hardship or through whatever misguided sense of membership or belonging that they have or want to have and it would address those issues. But this is not a Government that wants to do that. This is a Government that is about blaming others blaming people blaming everybody else rather than taking the time and the effort to come up with real solutions.If I were in business driving a white van around the streets I would want to know that I was driving through safe communities and safe streets. I would want to know that I had a Government in charge that was committed to dealing with those issues and putting in place those measures that were genuinely about dealing with issues of crime and ensuring that those who commit crime are properly brought to justice. I would be equally concerned about making sure that those who are brought to justice are then handled through our criminal justice system in a way that actually has a better chance of fixing the problem.That is not what this bill does. This is about cosmetics. As everything about this bill—which is about gang insignia and gang patches—suggests it is just cosmetics. It is not about dealing with people and it is not about dealing with the issue and that is why we are opposed to it. That is why we will continue to oppose silly measures proposing silly solutions to problems that do not exist.If we want to deal with people who are on premises and should not be there we already have the means to deal with that as the Napier District Court has shown and asmany public organisations are showing. But if we wanted to stop criminal elements turning up in public places we would not be stopping at public buildings or Government buildings; we would be dealing with criminal elements turning up to playgrounds turning up to beaches turning up to barbecue places and turning up on our streets. We will deal with that in the next part and we will deal with the measures that are there for police to chase these people. We will be dealing with real measures to stop this. This bill does not do that. That is why we are opposed to it.I know that Dr Coleman has listened intently to this and I see now the look on his face. He now realises of course that this legislation does not go anywhere near the sorts of problems that he spelt out and that we need to have fixed. I know he understands that no one in this Committee is arguing that we want to have gang members marauding around our schools and our hospitals. I know he understands that we are all opposed to that and I know now that he understands that we want real measures to deal with the real problems not just window dressing.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I just want to pick up on a few points that Mr Little has actually raised there. He made comments to the effect that basically what we should be doing is removing the attractiveness of gangs. I could not agree more with the member in that regard. And actually it is interesting to note that the police in their submission to the Law and Order Committee on the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill also agreed with MrLittle’s sentiments. They said: “The bill is welcome in that it provides recognition in principle of the seriousness of New Zealand’s gang problem. The provisions will be of some assistance in reducing the attractions of gang membership and the intimidation felt by members of the public and government employees.” So actually the point that Andrew Little raises is a very good one. It is just that for some reason Labour members cannot find it in themselves philosophically to actually vote for the bill; they are struggling to find the arguments to vote against it.I want to pick up on some comments that Darien Fenton mentioned about gangs wanting to get on this list in the bill—that that would be some sort of badge of honour. That actually goes to the heart of what a gang patch is all about. What do people have to do to earn a patch? Well they can start at the lower end with an aggravated robbery or some grievous bodily harm. They can move their way up the scale with a pack rape or something of that nature. If they want to get an instant patch it is with a homicide—it is with a murder. And they will do their lag. They will plead guilty they will do their lag and they will earn their patch because of course prisons in New Zealand have often been seen as almost some sort of learning institution for the gang fraternity. Inside those walls that is actually what they do: they practise their gang skills and their networking and so forth. It is good to see some great leadership from Minister Tolley in terms of making it a lot less comfortable for gang members to perpetuate their functions from inside the walls of prison.The point I want to make here is that in terms of earning a gang patch that means the world to them. And as a police officer removing a gang patch from a gang member taking that away—generally of course that can be done only if it was used in the commission of an offence in some way and it becomes evidence. But this bill will give the police the ability to take it away just for the fact that it has been worn in Government premises or in local authority premises.The significance of a patch should not be understated. Gang members would rather die than give up their patch. Indeed there are gangs that will kill rather than let someone de-patch which gives some indication of how important it is to have that. The point that Darien Fenton was raising actually works against her own argument because what it says is that gang patches are very important therefore it is very important to make surethat the New Zealand Government and the New Zealand public deny gang members every opportunity to wear that patch and intimidate.Darien Fenton went on to say: “Oh they can’t wear it inside the building but they can wear it on the footpath outside the building.” If Darien Fenton took a little bit of time to have a wander through the Crimes Act 1961 she would actually find that there are all manner of offences that rely on proximity as an ingredient of the offence. They have to be on public property but if they step inside the house immediately they are not committing an offence because they are one step removed from that public place. This bill is no different so I am baffled as to why she is trying to raise the idea that inside the building it is an offence but outside the building it is not. There are plenty of other tools that the police can use if they want to remove a gang patch in terms of criminal offending because in my experience when you see one or two gang members hanging around generally they are committing offences and it is just a case of finding out which one it is and locking them up for it.It seems to me that what we have got here is a Labour Party struggling to find reasons to vote against this. Labour members have also talked about the idea that we should be doing other things—we should be building houses we should be growing the economy. Why do those members vote against every effort we make to do that and then come in here and disingenuously say: “Oh if they were serious about it they would do something about jobs and houses.”? Stop voting against our efforts then. New Zealanders have so woken up to that approach. The only people who will be supporting this Labour Party will be gangs. How ironic.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 253 in the name of Richard Prosser to clause 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; Independents: Dunne Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14;Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 1 as amended be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; Independents: Dunne Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14;Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Offences and enforcementMIKE SABIN (National—Northland):Once again it is a pleasure to rise to take a call on Part 2 of this Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill. In doing so can I just acknowledge as I have not as yet the member Mark Mitchell a former police officer. He was of course a dog handler and spent a lot of time be dragged around by his Alsatians that he no doubt—they must have been big stocky brutes I am sure. I acknowledge him for the work that he is doing on this bill and alsoMinister Todd McClay who originally brought this bill to Parliament. Part 2 deals largely with the offences and the enforcement.I just want to pick up on a couple of points around the forfeiting and the ability for the Crown to subsequently destroy the gang patch. This goes back to the point I raised in the debate on the first part around the significance of a gang patch to a gang member. It is not just an item of clothing. In fact it is the single most important factor in identifying gang members and it is something that they will fight for that they will die for and that they will certainly have to commit offences to have. One of the challenges that the police have faced—and I certainly have—is the ability for a gang member to wear the patch unless it is used in the commission of offence. Only then do the police have the ability to seize it.In the second part of the bill here it lays out quite clearly the practical tools that police officers on the street will be able to use when they seize those gang patches. They will be able to stop vehicles and search those vehicles and I bet there will not be a single gang member in New Zealand who—if they bother to tune into Parliamentary TV. I am probably a little optimistic that they do; I am not sure that it is really their cup of tea. One thing I do know is that—Darien Fenton: You shouldn’t mention “cup of tea”.MIKE SABIN: As soon as word gets around that this bill—or cup of P as the case may be—has passed I bet they will be paying real attention to it as will the police who will use every opportunity they can to immediately start removing these patches from gang members who like to go around perpetuating their intimidation on society.What we will see in the practical sense is some gang members being very very upset by the fact that not only has their patch been taken but the patch will go into a furnace and it will be destroyed. Along with it will be their mana their identity and everything that they stand for because that patch is almost a part of them. As members have rightfully raised many of them actually go to the point of having their gang insigniatatooed on their body. I have of course seen one or two who have tattooed on their face in front of the mirror and it does pose some interesting problems when they tattoo themselves back to front. Once it is on it is on. No amount ofBrillo-pad scrubbing is going to get that thing off there. That goes to the point.Of course it would be ridiculous to assert: “Oh well you can’t remove”—sorry not you Mr Chairperson—“The police cannot remove tattoos from their face so this bill has no meaning or substance.” It is the patch that means something. The tattoo is simply an embodiment of what that patch means. They wear their taiaha as it were on their skin by red-tattooing it. The patch on their skin—the tattoo on their skin—is not their patch. Their jacket is their patch. For members who are not aware of that it does not matter what gang members will tattoo on themselves it is the patch that matters. So the idea that we should get caught up on the idea that if they have got tattoos on their face or insignia on their face—that is nothing. That is actually just someone who has got a bit of scribble on their face because they think it makes them look staunch. The point is that it is their patch that matters. They would sooner lose the skin off their face than lose the patch off their back. As a police officer I would just be jumping at the opportunity to see these patches going into the furnace because that sends a terrific signal to the New Zealand public that this Government does not back the gangs.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):I would just like to acknowledge Richard Prosser from New Zealand First and congratulate him on his Supplementary Order Paper 253 going through tonight. I just acknowledge his contribution on the Law and Order Committee and the fact that he is taking a very strong position—and New Zealand First has taken a strong position—in support of this bill the Prohibition of Gang Insignia in Government Premises Bill as well.It is actually pretty simple. It is like Mr Sabin just said. We have spoken about it a lot in the Committee tonight and we have spoken a lot over the last couple of months on this bill. That is that the gang patch signifies one thing: the fact that wearers of gang patches have committed crimes against us as a community. It is their badge of honour. They do put a lot of significance in it. So I think that as a country it is actually quite a good idea to say to them that we do not want to see them wearing those around us—leave them at home. If you do not leave the patches at home then our police officers have got the right to come and remove them from you. If you do not want to give them up then the police have the right to arrest you convict you and destroy that patch.I think that another important question to ask ourselves is whether the police—the people whom we as a country charge with trying to provide safe and secure communities and protect us against the sorts of people who are in gangs—want to have this additional power. The answer is yes they do want to have it. They like it they know that they can use it and they know that it will be effective. The Police Association which is always a very good backstop and will always look at these things very very carefully and do a lot of analysis on them before taking a position came to the select committee and clearly said that it likes this bill it is going to be effective and it is going to provide serving police officers with another very effective tool to use. So what it boils down to is we as a country saying this: we know what patches mean we do not like them we do not want them around us so leave them at home. If you want to wear them wear them around at home but do not wear them into town do not wear them into our schools and around our kids and do not wear them into Government buildings. If you do then we are going to empower our police to take action against you and remove them. It is as simple as that.Finally I just want to touch very quickly on Part 2. If a gang member decides to get smart and walks into the Work and Income office with his patch on and for whatever reason he is asked to take it off and he refuses to do so hangs around in the Work and Income office intimidating as many people as he can and leaves—jumps in his car and takes off—then no he has not got away with it. Actually under Part 2 the police have got the ability to stop him to search him to get his details and to remove the patch. That is another very significant very important part of Part 2 in terms of accountability and giving the police the ability to actually take action even if the person has left the premises where they are not meant to be. Thank you.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Mark Mitchell to clause 6 be agreed to:in subclause (2) insert “on conviction” after “liable”.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; Independents: Dunne Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14;Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Amendment agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat Part 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; Independents: Dunne Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14;Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 1 be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; Independents: Dunne Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14;Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Clause 1 agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat clause 2 be agreed to.Ayes69New Zealand National 59; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; Independents: Dunne Horan.Noes51New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14;Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Clause 2 agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment BillSecond ReadingTE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki):I moveThat the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a second time . I cannot come to this debate without remembering the passionate advocacy of the late MaureenWaaka who inspired me to focus on the issue of problem gambling as one of the greatest social hazards impacting on our communities. Maureen moe mairā koe.The Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill was born out of a desire to minimise the harm of gambling on vulnerable communities as well as ensuring the returns from gambling remained in the communities from which the money was generated. First and foremost gambling-related harm is detrimental to the well-being the economic outlook and the community health of far too many New Zealanders. TheMāori Party stepped up to that challenge and this bill is the result. We do not have the luxury of sitting back and waiting for a better day. We know that problem gambling severely compromises the potential ofwhānau and that we must act now. When gambling gets out of control it is not just an individual who loses. Wholewhānau and communities suffer. Problem gambling has devastating consequences on individuals andwhānau. Those consequences can be demonstrated in relationship breakdown financial ruin psychological distress criminal offending imprisonment and suicide.Why then did theMāori Party take up this call? Over 20 years ago the very first gambling prevalence study in New Zealand identified thatMāori had at least three times more risk of problem gambling than non-Māori. In the early 1990s through the provision of the Gambling Helpline and gamblingcounselling services it was identified thatMāori particularlyMāori women were increasingly seeking help with problems of gambling. Ourrangatahi are also not spared the impact of this addiction.Māori youth are six times more likely to develop gambling problems than non-Māori youth. All in all the glaring reality of these statistics prompted us to commit to a goal which is shared widely in the problem-gambling sector and that is to prevent andminimise gambling harm. So I make these preliminary comments because I want to make it quite clear where our motivation for addressing problem gambling comes from: Hetangata hetangata hetangata.When this bill was introduced in September 2010 its purpose was very clear: to provide local communities with more power to determine wherepokie machines may be sited and how the proceeds can be distributed. Almost 3 years down the track I believe that that vision of a gambling-free future will be strengthened by the initiatives advanced in this bill including the intention to one cutrorts and conflicts of interest out of the gambling sector; two to introduce harmminimisation devices which can now be done through regulations; three to have a minimum amount returned to the community where the gambling occurred which can now be done again through regulations; and four to get pokies out of low socio-economic communities. Now venues will be able to transfer out of these areas where that is supported by the community and the council.The original bill wanted to cut out racing and racing stake money as anauthorised charitable purpose. The Government disagreed saying that it would have too much of a negative impact on the racing industry. That is a fight that will continue at another time. The original bill had a condition that at least 80 percent of the funds derived from class 4 gambling would be distributed to the community from which it came. The Government supported the idea of making sure funds from pokies went back into their communities of origin and the bill now enables this to happen through regulation. The original bill required territorial authorities to take control of distributing proceeds from gambling. The Government agreed that there needs to be greater transparency of the current grant system taking away the risk ofrorts and dodgy dealings. This will be part of a future workprogramme.The original bill allowed for public sentiment and evidence of harm to be a specific criterion when territorial authorities are developing their venue policies and for that to be a reason for reducing the number ofpokie machines in that area. The Government disagreed with this approach but it wanted to instead allow venues with the permission from territorial authorities to move theirpokie machines out of harm’s way. The original bill wanted harmminimisation devices to be put into gambling machines like pre-commit cards and player-tracking systems. The Government has now supported the development of regulations to support the implementation of harmminimisation technology.Let me be the first in this second reading debate to state the obvious. The bill that we are debating here today is far less impressive than my original intent. That is right. There is no denying that. Hands are up—guilty. I do however want to acknowledge my thanks to Graeme Ramsey and the Problem Gambling Foundation and indeed the mighty advocacy of the “People Before Pokies” campaign which has championed the cause of reducing gambling harm so clearly and in such a compelling way. In doing so I want to alsorecognise the incredible impact of the experience the advice and the wisdom from right across themotu. The Commerce Committee apparently considered5000 submissions from interest groups and individuals and considered another 30000 form submissions. It also heard around 159 or 160 submissions at hearings in Wellington Christchurch and Auckland. If nothing else the level of public participation has truly been awesome and this Parliament is better for their contribution.I know that this bill does not live up to the ideal that we all had. But I have chosen not to walk away. My approach to political reform is to chisel away bit by bit to persevere to do the work necessary to achieve change no matter how incremental.Tērā pea hepakupaku hepakupakunoa tenamuēngari kotōna wero ēkāore. As we say the smallest mosquito can have an impact. I was not about to pull out of those communities who desperately need change and turn my back on thewhānau who have come to me in need. So I started working with the Minister of Internal Affairs the Hon Chris Tremain on how to advance the many issues that my bill sought to address and I mihi to him today for his genuine commitment to working together to reform the legislation.What is the result? Well it is a broad package of class 4 gambling reforms which are given further strength within the regulatory and legislative reforms proposed by the Government. The changes announced by Minister Tremain are a direct result of my bill which was the catalyst for change. We placed the issue on the agenda and this wider package is the result of our hard work. Where we had achieved broad agreement we made changes and I am pleased that we have. I have been able to negotiate a series of changes that lift the percentage returned to the community that address conflicts of interest and rorts and that will ensure gambling proceeds are distributed in the areas raised. These changes are important reforms that were not on the radar until my bill came along. Perhaps one of the most significant impacts of this bill is that it has created the public climate for urgency in addressing problem gambling. In this sense a new bill to be introduced later in the year by the Minister and the regulatory changes that have arisen out of my bill are important signals of an appetite for change.If I had the right to reply to all of those who have chosen to publicly withdraw their support from the bill I would urge first that they look at the wider package and the eight new measures that have arisen provoked by the impact of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. The key drivers of my bill were to address rorts and conflicts of interests and concerns around gambling-related harm both of which have been addressed. But we were always clear that a wider strategy was required including broader legislative reform and a public education programme.Just to bring us back to the context of this bill—every day New Zealanders lose $5.5 million on gambling. That is around $2 billion every year. Should we ignore that reality? Should we walk away from this bill on principle? TheMāori Party says no. More than 18000 New Zealanders are problem gamblers and of course none of these individuals operate in isolation. Almost 3 percent of New Zealand adults close to 90000 people have experienced problems due to someone’s gambling in a previous year. Should we gamble on their future wish them good luck and walk away because we were not able to achieve what we wanted with this bill? TheMāori Party says no. We are in this for ourwhānau and our communities. We are not bowing out. We are continuing the tough fight. We have gained some ground. That is what you achieve when you sit down at the table.Tēnā koutou. Kia oratātou katoa.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I am pleased to stand and speak on this bill the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I want to give credit to my parliamentary colleague Te Ururoa Flavell for a number of things—firstly his passion to see people particularly people who are close to him in his electorate free from the problems of gambling addiction and to bring some answers to thosewhānau and families. I also want to give him credit for being pragmatic andworking through solutions with the Minister of Internal Affairs the Hon Chris Tremain. I certainly would not consider Te Ururoa Flavell a mosquito by any means or in any regard and I think that we on our side of the House would regard him as a colleague with whom we have been very happy to work towards his aims.Going through the public submissions was very enlightening I think for all members of the Commerce Committee who were part of that and for some who came on as members of the committee during the process. We have heard from thousands of New Zealanders and we have heard from both sides of the argument and I do not think there would be one person out there who would disagree with the aim of harm reduction for gambling. But there is a variety of opinion on how that ought to be achieved and I would have to say there were a number of comments to say that people did not feel that some of the measures that were proposed were going to work as hoped. So that is why some of the amendments came through from the committee.Also it would be true to say that quite a large number of people who came through said that we needed to have a wider review of the gambling laws. That is another reason why I believe that the Minister has been working with Te Ururoa Flavell to look at a wider working programme around this.There were a number of concerns regarding having local authorities as the entities that disburse the proceeds from gambling. There was not agreement that they would do it any better perhaps at more expense and with less funding available for community groups than what is currently happening. At the same time I believe that as the member has mentioned there was concern about what have been called rorts in the system. The Minister is well aware of the member’s concerns about that and no doubt there will be measures put in place to better bring transparency to the matters concerned.One of the areas that attracted some concern was this matter of where racing is considered to be an approved cause or authorised purpose. That was one particular area that the committee did not accept in terms of the member’s bill as it was originally presented to the committee. Essentially we saw that the racing industry is very much contributing to the economy of the country with 17000 fulltime-equivalent employees with a $1.6 billion annual contribution to the economy and with the export industry of thoroughbreds out of this country to other countries of the world. We considered in the balance of things that the harm to that industry was also something to be considered if they found that it became a retrenching industry because of these measures.You know those are all difficult decisions and difficult things to weigh up. I guess politics is full of trying to find an acceptable compromise and obviously there are people on one side who agree and people on the other side who disagree on these sorts of measures.All I can say is that this was an incredibly thorough process. There were 5020 substantive submissions and 28000 form submissions with a total of 33000 New Zealanders making their viewpoint known by one means or another. There was a tremendous amount of debate and discussion around the pros and cons of the money that is lost and the money that is utilised for community effort and concern. I found it quite a fascinating process to go through. I feel in the end that we—along with what the Minister and Te Ururoa Flavell my respected colleague are working on towards the future—hopefully have a comprehensive package that is going to address some of the concerns that the member put through in his original bill.In terms of just a wrap-up to what I am saying this afternoon one of the particular areas that the committee brought into the bill which was not actually in the original member’s bill was this ability now for licences in low socio-economic areas in particular to be transferred out. There were grandfather provisions that kept them lockedinto those areas which we felt was a real problem and so we have added an amendment that would enable councils with the agreement of the licence holders’ venue owners to transfer them out of those particular areas where there is some concern that in the past they may have been targeting people of low income.I am very pleased to be part of the process and I do trust that we can work together going forward for a good solution. Thank you.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills):I am very pleased to take a call at this stage of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I begin my just commending the member who has just resumed his seat Jonathan Young. I attended not as a regular member of the Commerce Committee but for the purposes of this bill for most of the deliberation and I thought that his competency in chairing was very very commendable. We had some pretty heated debates we had some pretty upset submitters—and I will get back to them—but I thought that the manner in which they were received and the order that was maintained on the committee was the way that other committees should operate in this House. I want to just note that to begin with.I also want to commend the member who introduced the bill Te Ururoa Flavell. I agree with Jonathan Young that Te UruroaFlavell’s motivation in bringing this bill about was absolutely exemplary actually. He understands—and many in this House now understand better because of the process of the bill—the harm that is done in our society which is caused not by the fact that people have a gambling problem but by the ability of people who have a gambling problem to access machines that take advantage of that addiction and the problem those people have.So the responsibility that we have as a Parliament is to support those people so that they have less opportunity to spend their family budget in a way that if they did not have that problem they would not do and to support them to spend their money responsibly. Our role is not to interfere in every person’s life to make them live a life of blamelessness in total; it is to support people who have addictions that do harm and to ensure that the opportunities for those addictions to be abused by profit motives are reduced or eradicated. I think that was the intention behind this gambling harm reduction legislation.I really regret what the committee did with this bill in the end. I regret the deal that was done and I do not think that it is a good deal. I understand the dilemma that Te Ururoa Flavell—I am assuming I do; it is bit presumptuous but I would like to assume that I understand the dilemma that the member faced. He is really in a no-win situation unless he takes up an offer from the Government because it was clear that National was not going to support the progress of this legislation.So the member can either stand on his high horse and say: “No if I’m not getting what I wanted or at least if I am not going a long way towards that I am going to withdraw my bill.” That is actually what I would have done given the deal that was reached in the end. Or he can choose to go down a different path and say: “Well I think I am making some progress and that is better than nothing.” I do not think this is progress and I really regret that because I think this was an opportunity for us—though not to go to the lengths that the original bill proposed. I would have voted for it but a lot of people were disturbed by it and I do not think that it had been worked through quite hard enough despite the best efforts of the committee.I think this bill ends up doing the opposite of what was intended. I think this bill could do more harm than was intended and certainly people who are experts in this area and who deal with the social consequences of problem gambling say that this bill should not progress. The Problem Gambling Foundation is the obvious organisation but we also have the Salvation Army an organisation that must be one of the most highly respected in terms of the work it does in the hardest area in our communities insupporting people and we have Auckland University’s school of population health. Those three organisations have taken a big step and gone public in opposition to this bill.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon RUTH DYSON: I am very happy to pick up the conversation that I started just before the dinner break when I was talking about the fact that I believe that the member whose name is attached to this bill Te Ururoa Flavell introduced it with the very best intentions and that his aim was to introduce and have passed legislation that would genuinely reduce the harm that is done in our communities through gambling. It is my view and the view of other experts in this area that because of the deal that had to be done between the Minister of Local Government Chris Tremain and the member Te Ururoa Flavell and because of the instructions the Commerce Committee got to alter the bill this bill actually does not just not reduce harm but actually has the potential to cause more harm in the community. It is with deep regret that I will therefore be voting against it.I have looked through the media response to the bill as was reported back from the select committee.AndréeFroude of the Problem Gambling Foundation had this to say: “The bill is not going to live up to its name. It was put forward as a harm minimisation bill effectively that’s all been stripped away.” This is one of the groups that supported the introduction of this legislation most strongly. The Associate Professor at the school of population health from Auckland University went so far as to say that he wanted the bill scrapped because of the changes that were put forward at the select committee.The director of the social policy research and parliamentary affairs unit from the Salvation Army Major Campbell Roberts has been a regular contributor to important debates of social justice and social policy in this Parliament over many years. He said that the proposed changes did nothing for problem gamblers those at risk or communities wishing to minimise the impact of gambling: “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this bill on balance will make matters worse.” That is from Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army.I really think that it is the responsibility of this Parliament not to listen to the rhetoric not to listen to the slogans but to listen to the people who deal with the impact of problem gambling in our homes in our families and in our communities. Those three experts whom I quoted who have had very close involvement with the bill right from its introduction said to vote against it; scrap it.Te Ururoa Flavell: Is there any explanation why?Hon RUTH DYSON: There is more in the media and perhaps at later stages of the bill I will be able to provide the member with more information in that regard. I do not have it right here but I am happy to pick up that challenge; it is a good one actually.I just want to make a couple of brief comments in relation to the comments that were made in earlier contributions about the large number of submitters who submitted on this bill and the overwhelming number of submitters who were opposed to the bill. It is my view that the bill was misrepresented to those organisations. They were told by the pokie trusts that the passing of Te UruroaFlavell’s bill would mean that their organisation—be it the local rugby club bowling club yacht club or whatever—would get no money in future.I do not believe that that was the intention of the bill and I do not believe at all that had the bill been passed as it was introduced that would have happened. It was not the intention of the legislation to deprive any of those community organisations of any funding. I resent the fact that our great community and voluntary organisations have been misled about the intention and the outcome of the bill. The intention actually wasto stop the slicing of the profits from the pokies to the trusts which stopped the profits going back into the community. The intention was to make sure that where the money was taken from it was put back. So where there were large numbers of pokies in the lowest-income areas and all that money was coming out of those communities through the pokie machines the intention was that the money went back into those communities into those voluntary organisations into those sports clubs and into those social service organisations that do so much good.I regret not being able to vote for this legislation. I would have loved to have had a bill I could have supported. I resent the fact that I believe that our great community and voluntary organisations were misled by the trusts in an effort to get them to oppose the legislation. I do not think that they have had that rectified in the interim since then.I hope that at some time in the future this Parliament has the ability through the force of numbers to take a more courageous step than what is going to be obvious in this legislation. And I hope that in fact perhaps in the debate tomorrow we can further our opposition to the proliferation of gambling given the shonky deal that this Parliament will be voting on tomorrow when we look at the Skycity convention centre being traded off for a huge increase in pokie machines. The very day after Te Ururoa Flavell tries to reduce the harm of problem gambling in our society—unsuccessfully I believe but I know the intention was genuine—we will be voting on that shonky Skycity deal.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie):It is a pleasure for me to take a call on this the second reading of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I also want to thank Te Ururoa Flavell for his leadership on this issue. It is an important issue not just in my communities in Maungakiekie and South Auckland and Auckland but across this country. This is a scourge—this gambling scourge—that certainly needs to be addressed and we are doing it with this bill. I want to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell for his leadership and for his soon to be leadership of theMāori Party. He has been a great backbencher and he will make a fine leader going forward in this Parliament and with theMāori Party going forward. It is a pleasure for me to support this bill.Across this House we have always accepted that gambling is a legal activity and what this bill does is it regulates the access to gambling facilities. It attempts to minimise the harm around that activity. But gambling is not just the scourge of my communities. We all know that there are teachers there are lawyers and there are even politicians who gamble. So let us not say that this is a problem defined to one area but across the country. It is also personal because I have had numerous constituents come into my electorate office in Onehunga in Maungakiekie and I have seen the broken relationships. I have seen kids who have gone without the essentials the broken families and the broken relationships. It affects our communities right across this country.We just heard Ruth Dyson talk about “her and other experts”. I do not know how she can claim to be an expert alongside these other supposed experts who have made submissions on this bill. She named an academic. She named the Problem Gambling Foundation which I acknowledge and the Salvation Army which does good work but what this bill does is that it enables the introduction of harm minimisation devices through regulation. That is one thing. It will enable us to update regulations as these new technologies are advanced—as they are developed. We have seen how in Australia they have had difficulties introducing some forms of these technologies and so we have given within this bill greater flexibility through regulations to allow us to introduce those technologies when it becomes clear that they have an effect on problem gambling.Secondly this bill will enable us to ensure a minimum percentage of gambling proceeds will generally go to community groups in the area where they are raised. That allows for flexibility. I know the last member who spoke talked about how there were concerns that people were benefiting outside the areas of where the funds were generated but we had some strong submissions from national organisations and regional organisations that would be impacted adversely should the corralling of funds be taken to the extreme in respect of local organisations.The third point I want to raise is that the bill also gives more flexibilities to councils to allow venues to move outside of low socio-economic neighbourhoods where that is supported by the venue and that local community. We saw in one of the submissions where maps were shown of high-deprivation areas where there were high concentrations of these machines. Certainly our Government—this National Government—supports the movement of those machines away from those communities where they have been known to damage local people who have gambling problems.We made some changes at the Commerce Committee. The original bill did talk about harm minimisation devices that may be introduced through licensing conditions. Well we thought that introducing them on an ad hoc case by case basis through licensing conditions was not the appropriate way to go in terms of progressing the bill. We thought that regulations would enable us to introduce new technologies on a mandatory basis nationwide rather than through those individual licences and I think that this provision will work going forward. Although I am not entirely happy about how regulations are delegated to officials to Ministers and to future Parliaments—personally I think measures should be in the primary legislation and should be debated in this Chamber—in my view this particular clause will establish better technologies and more flexibility going forward and it will go towards minimising harm.In terms of venue transfers the original bill would have allowed councils to shut down venues and ban gambling. In our view as I have said earlier in my contribution tonight gambling is a permitted activity it is a legal activity and this goes a step too far. So what we have said is that we will support the transfer of venues out of low socio-economic neighbourhoods and into areas like the central business districts of various cities and provinces. We support that. I think it is a good measure. It supports the sinking-lid policies that many councils already have in place—Denise Roche: It’s not what you’re saying.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: It may interest the House—I know that Denise Roche there is a former councillor in Auckland—that the number of pokie machines in this country has actually declined since this National Government has come into power. In the last 4 years it has declined on average by 550 machines a year.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How much?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: 550 machines a year Mr Bakshi. What that translates to is an 11.2 percent reduction in the number of pokie machines under this National Government. That is something we should be proud of as a National Government. That is something that the Opposition parties do not want to talk about—that the amount of pokie machines in this country has come down. So when you translate the 230 machines that are under the New Zealand International Convention Centre deal—just over 1 percent of the total pokies in this country a quite insignificant number of machines—Andrew Little: Defensive—here comes the guilt.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: You think that the sky is falling. Andrew Little or Chicken Little thinks that the sky is falling when we are doing the convention centre deal tomorrow—the legislation is having its first reading tomorrow—when it is only 1 percent of total pokies in this country. It is only 1 percent of total pokies in the country.Furthermore annual expenditure on pokie machines is falling. In 2008 when this National Government took over it was $912 million—$912 million. Today I can happily say that it has gone down to $840 million. So there is less money going into pokie machines today than under the Labour Government. The people opposite were responsible for $912 million and it is now $840 million. That is 8 percent less money going into pokies and 8 percent less damage in our communities. So that is something we can be proud of.We will debate that issue tomorrow night but what I am saying about the local distribution of proceeds is that the original bill had 80 percent of gaming proceeds to be distributed in the local area. As I have already said it really is about having the flexibility in the legislation through regulations because what sports clubs and other social service organisations that rely on gaming trust funding said to us inside of the select committee was that they did not want the adverse consequences of us messing around with the funding. It was not represented as the last member Ruth Dyson—the so-called expert in gambling—said. It was not about them saying that the money would go; it was about them saying that they were concerned that the risks were that they would not get the same amounts of money under another distribution mechanism. I think that is really important.I just want to say that this Government has already announced earlier this year $55 million with a 3-year strategy for problem gambling $25 million for front-line intervention $20 million for public health services and $6.6 million for research evaluation. This Government is doing more than any other Government to minimise harm around gambling. This Government has reduced the number of pokies in our communities. This Government by building the convention centre in 3 years will produce jobs and opportunities to feed the kids of the families that need those jobs and opportunities. This Government stands for harm minimisation jobs and opportunities and that is why the people of New Zealand support our Government. Thank you very much.DENISE ROCHE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker.Tēnā koutou katoa. I would like to rise to take this call for the Greens on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I will start my speech by also acknowledging the death of MaureenWaaka who was on the board of the Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand and was a stalwart defender ofMāori and a support forMāori with gambling problems. She worked tirelessly to raise this as an issue inMāori communities and to try to address the harm caused by gambling.This bill has come back to the House with its good intentions completely gutted and it should be withdrawn by the member who has the bill in his name Te Ururoa Flavell. It is a real shame because the original intentions of the bill were sound. Those intentions were to give councils and communities the power to cut the number of pokies in the area or eliminate them altogether; ensure that at least 80 percent of the 37 percent of the funds that were distributed as grants from gambling machine losses be returned to the communities where the gambling took place; phase out the pokies trusts that distribute the gambling money from pokies and replace them with more accountable committees under the control of local authorities; remove horse racing from the list of charitable purposes that can use the gambling funds; and introduce harm minimisation player tracking and pre-commit cards enabling gamblers to put controls on the amount of time they spend and the money they lose while playing pokies.What does this bill do? None of that. Why? Because the pokie trusts won. There were over 35000 submissions on this bill. The majority of them came from community organisations that are the recipients of the money from class 4 gambling—that is the pokie gambling. Many of these organisations received letters from pokie trusts that havepreviously given them grants encouraging them to put in submissions opposing the bill. One pokie trust Pub Charity went so far as to offer workshops to organisations that had received funding from it in the past. I know this because I asked submitters while they were giving their submissions. They were encouraged to write submissions to oppose the bill. These workshops also ensured that there was a lot of misinformation promulgated and Ruth Dyson has already spoken about that. There were simply so many non-truths told that it was a big beat-up by the industry.Let us step back a minute and just remember what pokies are for and what pokie trusts are for. The Gambling Act says that the only reason—the only reason—pokies exist is to provide benefits through funding to the community. And it says that the money from pokies can be used only for authorised purposes which are charitable purposes; non-commercial purposes that have community benefits; and promoting controlling and conducting race meetings. The only reason that pokie trusts exist is to distribute that money. I am not sure what others think of this but I think pokie trusts using the money that should go to communities to wrangle community groups together to get them to oppose a bill that will make them go out of existence is absolutely wrong.We have also recently seen an example of again Pub Charity’s Chief Executive Officer Martin Cheer deciding to punish Canterbury Cathedral by denying it funding because one member of the Anglican Church made a submission supporting the Flavell bill. And how did Martin Cheer know? He knew because he was in the room when the submission was given. He really could not have missed the submitter saying that he did not represent the Anglican Church and that some people in the Anglican Church were worried that if they submitted they would not be able to access funding in the future. And lo and behold that is exactly what has happened. So what we have here is a pokie trust that interferes in the democratic processes of the legislative system by using threats and rewards to get its own way. That is bullying.This bill was attempting to deal to the pokie trusts and the rorts they get up to. An example—and there are many—from this year is that the Department of Internal Affairs is currently conducting a $30 million investigation into the racing industry in the South Island. That is $30 million of community funding going to racing from three different trusts. This bill was an attempt to stop not just the rorts by pokie trusts but also the funnelling of money from pokies that are concentrated in poor areas to other regions and to also stop the dodgy practice of funding the racing industry. If we think back to the intent of the original legislation which was to provide funds for charitable non-commercial purposes with community benefits I cannot see that providing State money for racehorse owners is a particularly charitable act particularly when you consider that the New Zealand Racing Board is already taking millions from racehorse betting anyway.I note that the report from the Commerce Committee recommended including in the regulations the provision for 80 percent of the funds generated to be distributed back to the same area where the gambling took place. That is what it says in the bill. It also recommended that the actual harm minimisation measures—the player tracking and the pre-commit cards—also go into the regulations. But what that means is that they will have to consult further with the industry about these issues and as we have seen with this bill the pokie industry has got ample money to organise opposition. Is it likely that the industry will agree to measures that reduce the amount of money being gambled? I do not think so.What the industry will do and what it has done is sidetrack the deal with the least effective harm minimisation methods. The classic example is facial recognition technology as a harm minimisation tool which was put forward to the select committee and I must say the select committee became rather enamoured of it. But the thing aboutfacial recognition technology is that it is like a self-imposed ban. It kicks in after the gambler has developed a problem and has already lost a lot of money after they have already been sucked dry. Player tracking on the other hand is a predictive model and pre-commit cards mean that every gambler has to decide before they start gambling how much they will spend. They are the ambulance at the top of the cliff.Perhaps one of the saddest aspects of this bill now is that it actually makes things worse. The select committee has recommended that there be a provision for the transfer of pokies from one area to another. There was nothing in the original bill about this. This will enable pokies to shift their machines from poor areas where they are concentrated to other areas without losing any of their machines. This provision will cut across the ability of councils to use a transferral provision to reduce the number of pokies in their communities and I asked specifically about this. I asked whether councils could still require venues to drop some of their pokies as a condition of their being able to transfer which was the policy of the last Auckland City Council and I was told that they would not be able to do that with this provision in the bill.This is not giving communities a voice. This is not reducing harm. This is a win for the pokie trusts. This bill needs to be withdrawn. If it passes we are likely to have a worse situation than we have already. There is a clear signal that this bill is dangerous. When the agencies that deal with the fallout and that pick up the pieces in the community from the harm caused by problem gambling—and I quote the Salvation Army and the Problem Gambling Foundation—are calling for this bill to be dropped then there has to be some serious reasons for that. I have outlined a few of them. I will outline more as we progress this bill through the House. I appeal to the member Te Ururoa Flavell to heed those people and drop this bill. We will be opposing it.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to take a call on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill and say that I acknowledge the member Te Ururoa Flavell and acknowledge the honourable intentions he had in bringing this bill to the House and addressing what is a growing issue and a growing problem for many communities. He was right in his motivations and in his intentions to want to get some sort of meaningful redress for the issues that we are now seeing emerging in our community.I think in fairness however when we had a look at the original bill it probably treated the issue too crudely. It probably treated the issue with a one-size-fits-all solution. A more shall I say nuanced approach was probably required because the truth is that many Kiwis enjoy a little flutter. They enjoy a day at the races they enjoy getting their Lotto tickets and some indeed enjoy going down to the local RSA to the “cossie club” or to the workingmen’s club—pardon the sexist name but I did not call it that. They go down and they enjoy a bit of camaraderie a bit of fellowship and the odd flutter on the pokies.But there is a more insidious end of the industry too and it is that part of the industry that jacks up deals with hotels with other public bars and makes somewhat dubious arrangements with various sports clubs which are required to patronise the bar. People are required to do various things in order to win grants or rewards from the pokies that occupy particular licensed premises. So Te Ururoa Flavell was right to want to address that issue and those establishments. He was right to want to make sure that we had a set of regulations and a legal framework that reflected the modern era and reflected the modern problems with gambling—in particular the extraordinary growth in the number of pokie machines and the extraordinary growth of the number of those machines outside the more convivial more I think socially aware environments of the “cossie clubs” the workingmen’s clubs and theRSAs.What was clear was that we had a piece of legislation a member’s bill that went to the Commerce Committee that was ripe for good quality discussion and some good attention and refining and it was aiming at thosemischiefs that were really crying out for a remedy. What in fact we had from the Government members on the select committee was a complete denial of the problem and of the issue and a failure to face up through this bill to what was needed and what is needed to address those issues.The bill has come back to the House looking the way we are feeling—that is totally gutted—and it does not deal effectively with the harm minimisation measures that one might expect in the 21st century to see in premises where there are a large number of pokie machines. Really the only meaningful thing it does now is allow the transfer of large numbers of pokie machines from one set of premises under the licensing control of a local authority to another set of premises without reduction and without minimisation. To that extent it simply does not go anywhere near to achieving the original objectives set for it.So from my point of view I feel very disappointed. Here was an opportunity we had as a House albeit through a member’s bill to deal with this issue. In an ideal world it would have been a Government bill. A Government Minister probably the Minister of Health would in an ideal world have taken this issue seriously would have worked with officials and had the benefit of the full power of the bureaucracy to get good advice and good drafting instructions and would have put together a bill that met the problems that we know exist in the community when it comes to gambling. But that is not what this Government did. It left it to Te Ururoa Flavell who has acted honourably and nobly in putting this bill together to try to address this particular problem.This bill still does not address the issue of the pokie trusts the very powerful organisations that control and manipulate not only the presence of the pokie machines but the distribution of their funds. It does nothing to address some pretty untoward behaviour that we know happens where effectively conditions are put on grants and people are required to behave in certain ways. This bill does not deal with that. It does not go anywhere near it. This bill rather than trying to manage effectively the existence and the growth of pokie machines simply lets the existing arrangements continue.We know that the original bill caused some anxiety amongst those members of the community—the RSA clubs and the others the charter clubs—who approached the presence of pokies in their premises somewhat differently. The elderly folk who enjoy going down for a quiet sup with their mates down at their local club and who also occasionally enjoy a flutter need not have felt threatened by this piece of legislation had it been able to be processed properly carefully and with a good set of principles and some good information behind it. But that sadly did not happen. The bill was entirely derailed.I have to say I take some umbrage to be honest. I hear members opposite like Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga who come here crying their crocodile tears worrying about people in the community. He has no concern about them at all. If he was genuinely concerned about the people in Maungakiekie and in other places that he claims to represent or reflect he would have ensured that we had a bill that came back to this House that was in good shape that actually addressed the issues that exist out there and that genuinely brought some harm minimisation measures. Instead what we have is a bill that has been entirely sliced filleted and gutted and anything substantial anything significant and indeed I might add anything positive has been removed from it. That is not the way we ought to be dealing with these sorts of public health issues.These issues we know are capturing a growing number of people. We have the estimate from the Problem Gambling Foundation that anywhere between 10000 and 60000 people in any one year can be affected by problem gambling. That is an issuethat cries out for serious attention. It cries out for serious attention from the Government but in the absence of a Government Minister taking responsibility for it it cries out for attention from this House. When we do have opportunities to address issues like that through bills like this that go to the select committee that is a time for this House to take it seriously. That is a time to come up with through good discussion and getting good advice some practical measures that address the real problems and that leave those who can responsibly enjoy a flutter those who can responsibly enjoy a day at the races and those who can responsibly enjoy an afternoon at the local club to get on and enjoy their time their conviviality and their camaraderie. But those who enter the realm of addiction and problem gambling are the people who need attention.We should not baulk as legislators at passing legislation that poses obligations on those who benefit financially and those who clearly have a financial stake in peddling these devices and these machines and imposing upon them obligations to take responsibility for those who are victims of the activities that they peddle and market. There is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing unethical about that. That is the responsible thing for us as legislators to do. Here we had an opportunity to do it but we have a Government that is timid in the face of interests like the powerful gambling interests and the powerful pokie trusts. Its members’ knees shake at the mere mention of those interests and they simply do not have it within them to take seriously these particular issues.It is disappointing that we get to this point. From my point of view I will be voting against this bill because it is a bit like the last piece of legislation we considered completely meaningless.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First):New Zealand First remains unchanged in its position on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. This bill is intended to reduce harm caused by gambling to communities and families. It aims to achieve this objective by ensuring that the proceeds of gambling are distributed back into the community from which they came and to give communities greater control over gambling operations. These are laudable goals of course. However we have serious reservations about the workability clarity and legal efficacy of the bill before the House.First let us address some of the changes recommended to the House by the Commerce Committee.Hon Simon Bridges: Why is this member emailing Trevor Mallard?Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: Listen Simon Bridges you might learn something. When this bill was debated at its first reading we raised an objection to clause 5. This clause would have seen racing removed as an authorised purpose in section 4 of the Gambling Act. There are 63 racing clubs throughout New Zealand. These clubs have been recognised by the High Court as non-commercial—non-commercial. They are non-profit organisations that function in much the same way as sports clubs—Hon Simon Bridges: Prove it.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: Do not get lost in your thoughts honourable Minister; it is unfamiliar territory. To treat them differently under the law for political purposes would have been a low blow even for the National Government. So it is with great relief that we acknowledge the deletion of clause 5.The second change that the select committee has recommended to the House is in regard to the distribution of funding within localities. Clause 6(1) of the bill proposed that 80 percent of all funds derived from gambling be mandatorily distributed back into the same territorial authority in which they were raised. We said we were prepared to support such an amendment with the proviso that the responsibility for managing thesefunds be established within a national framework rather than left up to individual authorities. At present 36 percent is given back. Mr Flavell actually wanted 80 percent. He got only up to 40 percent which is a mere 4 percent increase from the current status. That takes it from 36 percent to 40 percent. This much-watered-down bill now proposes to replace the clause 6 amendment with an instruction to the Department of Internal Affairs to simply take into account the geographical area where proceeds were generated. In other words—Hon Simon Bridges: She’s forming her own party Denis.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: —in other words honourable Minister nothing really changes. New Zealand First was prepared to reconsider its position on MrFlavell’s bill if and when appropriate changes were made.Hon Simon Bridges: They’re the Government that spent a lot of money on travel—changed nothing.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: Oh we have got somebody over there who is very smart. You know a smart man believes only half of what he hears; a wise man knows which half—a wise man knows which half. Unfortunately this much-watered-down version does nothing to alleviate our concerns.Hon Simon Bridges: That was pretty good.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I know it is pretty good.New Zealand First acknowledges that gambling is a serious problem in the community. It is a serious problem in the community. That is why we opposed the Skycity pokies deal. It is also why we were the first party to raise concerns about the sordid relationship between China Southern Airlines and Skycity. However this bill offers no solution. It offers nothing but more bureaucracy and broken promises from the National -Māori Party alliance. I believe that MrFlavell’s Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill just like the flailingMāori Party itself should be consigned to the dustbin of history. Thank you.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):It is my pleasure to stand and speak on this part of the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. First of all I would like to acknowledge Te Ururoa Flavell for his work on this bill. I would also like to acknowledge the officials and the Commerce Committee for their consideration of this bill. To start with I would like to touch on gambling—the harm of gambling that we have been taught from our childhood. Dr Rajen Prasad must know the epic ofMahabharata  which is the narrative of the War ofKurukshetra and that war is based on gambling. The gambling game betweenKauravas andPandavas saw a hundred thousand people lose their lives during that war. That is a lesson that we have been taught from childhood—that gambling is not a good thing.The Government recognises this and we are working on it. We will see that the Minister will be introducing some more measures before the end of this year. The purpose of this bill is to provide additional measures to prevent and minimise the harms caused by gambling and ensure that money from gambling benefits the community and assists community involvement in the decisions regarding gambling. Gambling-machine venues tend to be overly represented in lower-income communities and town centres.Māori and Pacific Island areas are effectively being targeted and often are severely harmed by the use of these machines. Communities in South Auckland and especially in my area of South Auckland have been very vocal in their representation against the number of pokie machines. The National Government takes this problem very seriously. This bill enables the introduction of harm minimisation devices and in addition to this we have $55 million being invested over 3 years to focus on people getting the assistance they need.There were a number of submissions received by the select committee and most of the submissions came from the people who have experienced harm from pokie machines and they gave their personal accounts of lives that have been torn apart by pokie machines. This bill seeks to overcome the vulnerable locations and reduce or transfer the majority of the pokies or even eliminate pokies from those suburbs and towns where they are particularly concentrated or doing particular harm. In fact many communities at risk have voiced their feelings concerning the pokie machines in their areas and have been successful in having them removed.The bill especially requires all pokie-machine trusts corporate societies and other distributors of the proceeds of gambling machines to return at least 80 percent of their funds generated by the gambling losses on local pokie machines back into the charitable organisations that are meeting priority needs in the same local authority area as the venue. However this would mean that the groups in other areas including rural areas might miss out on some of the funding if they are limited and indeed if no machines in these areas are there. For example the majority of the pokie machines are situated in the central business districts of the large cities and therefore the provision of 80 percent requirement would mean that the funding is returned to the communities other than those from which the money was raised.Gamblers who experience problems with their behaviour when using pokie machines will benefit from the $55.3 million 3-year strategy on problem gambling. The provision will include front-line assistance and support in the form of safe gambling practices and raising the awareness of the dangers of gambling. I commend this bill to the House.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):This is a serious issue that I think some members of the Commerce Committee—well in fairness I think generally all members of the committee—tried to deal with as we had submission after submission mainly from people as colleagues have said who have experienced extreme problems or represent or attempt to care for those people who have extreme problems in the community as a result of gambling. Like I think Mr Little and others have said about all forms of addiction or forms of recreation or whatever if one overindulges these can become problems—whether it be alcohol gambling or other issues. That does not mean of course that the vast majority in our society as Mr Little said cannot enjoy a flutter whether it be on the horses or on the pokies or on other forms of gambling—internet or what have you—without the devil grabbing them by the throat and them becoming addicted to that form of gambling and that then having an insidious negative impact both on the lives of the gambler and obviously on the lives generally of loved ones and family around them.I recall some years ago a woman constituent coming to my office. She came with her kids. She turned up in tears very upset and said that she was in difficulty. She had no money. She needed housing and what have you. You would think that was almost a generic case of somebody who had been booted out of home. Had the landlord thrown them out? Had the home been sold? I said to her: “We’ll get you to Work and Income. What have you got?”. She said to me: “I’ve got nothing.” I said: “What do you mean? Has your husband left you or whatever?”. She replied: “No. We have no home. The home has gone. The bank has it. We have no assets. The bank accounts have been cleaned out. I have nothing.” and she meant that all she had was what she and her kids stood up in.As we got through the conversation she relayed the simple fact that her husband unbeknownst to her had a major gambling problem. I cannot recall exactly what form of gambling it was. It was not racing. It was other forms of gambling—pokies and other things I believe. But he had basically mown down the family resources. He had sold the house out from under her or the bank had repossessed it—I think that is how it went.The bank accounts had been cleaned out and various other chattels and assets had been sold off to try to pay gambling debts. She literally had nothing—zero. She felt obviously a degree of ill will towards her husband but she loved her husband and she realised that he had a problem.I recall the case of that woman and her family—I think we got them some assistance but I do not know what the future held for them. But their lives at that point were destroyed. You could cast blame on the bloke on the relationship and on all sorts of things and I was never close enough to it to make a judgment but for whatever reason that bloke had a problem and it was an addiction to gambling. It had destroyed not only his life but I suspect—hopefully not ultimately—the lives at that time anyway of his family members.If you look at the figures we are advised that at any given time between 0.3 percent and 1.8 percent of adults living in the community in New Zealand are likely to score on standard questionnaires as problem gamblers which equates to between 10000 and 60000 people. It is a problem. It is a hard problem to deal with.I have got to say that I oppose this legislation for many of the reasons that other colleagues have said. I think this bill to be blunt—and no disrespect to Mr Flavell—was ill-conceived in the form that it came in. I think we generally across the House tried to come up with some ways of achieving at least some of the objectives in a balanced way to address some of the problems. I think some of the problems that Mr Flavell brought to the committee were valid and others were less so but it gave us an opportunity to try to bring a bill out of the committee that had some worth and some value.I think putting politics aside there would not be too many in the House who would disagree with the fact that gambling in its forms is a problem. That does not mean it should be outlawed as a recreational opportunity for people. It means we have got a problem. Some people are addicted. We have got to deal with them. But I have got to say when you look at this piece of legislation that there are effectively only four clauses that survive from the original bill. The rest of the bill has been gutted changed amended or whatever. The assessment that we make on this side of the House and that colleagues who have more knowledge than me of these matters have made is that this bill is ineffectual.In fact there are those like the Salvation Army that have criticised the changes in this bill saying that they do nothing for problem gamblers—those at risk—or for communities wishing to manage the impact of gambling. They say: “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this Bill on balance will make matters worse.” Again putting the politics aside the Salvation Army is not a political organisation. It is a charitable organisation with you have got to say a pretty amazing lineage a pretty amazing history. Those folks in the Salvation Army know about these issues. They work with these folks they work with the lost and lonely over a wide range of issues and they do know about this. And I say to the Government that really apart from the politics of this those over the other side who are in charge of this bill should really take heed of organisations like the Salvation Army. If those organisations are saying that this bill will make matters worse in respect of problem gambling and if they are criticising this bill and saying that it does not have value then we should really heed that. I would counsel those in Government to maybe look at pulling this bill and doing it properly.The Government has not listened to organisations like the Salvation Army. I think we would all agree that the Salvation Army is not political. If it criticises something—it criticised things we did in Government—it is generally for the best motives for very good reasons and based on evidence research and experience. If it is going out andsaying quite clearly that on balance it will make matters worse in respect of problem gambling then you have got to ask yourself whether we have failed as a Parliament and failed those 10000 to 60000 people who at any given time have the devil grabbing them by the throat in the form of this addiction.So I suppose the question for the Government—and I would like an explanation from the Minister as we sort of mow through this piece of legislation—is that presumably officials have advised and have counterarguments in respect of the Salvation Army’s criticism and I think we need to hear those in order to get some understanding as to why the Government is going to force this through.We had submissions from many organisations. I see I think the Minister of Internal Affairs who is I suspect in charge of this or ultimately responsible for this bill. I am glad he is here. Minister I was just saying to the House that given that the Salvation Army has criticised this bill and has said that it will make matters worse for those with problem gambling I would be grateful if at the appropriate time you as Minister would provide us in Parliament with the advice or counter-advice that attempts to negate the criticism of a very venerable organisation made up of specialists who deal every day with folks who have this problem. They do not lightly make judgments like this on pieces of legislation.I see there are some clauses around mobility of gaming machines. There is not anything in here in respect of communities making and taking decisions about the numbers of machines or sinking-lid policies or those sorts of things that are in their jurisdiction. Again with this bill Parliament is sort of taking a blanket approach to telling communities what to do.So I have a plea in respect of this. I am sure that if we all looked at our constituent case files over the years we would have examples similar to the one that I gave of the woman and her family who lost everything in relation to gambling. We could dredge those files out. They would pull at the heartstrings because there is no early warning system. That is the problem with this addiction: there is no early warning system. If you are a drunk say there are some pretty physical and visible early warning systems that advise people around you sometimes graphically and violently that you have an alcohol problem. Often as with the problem in the example I used there is no early warning. In the case of this woman the bank accounts were gone—cleaned out. She had no idea. She was a good person. There was no physicality about the symptoms of addiction in respect of her husband. So I say to the Government as we proceed through that we need to know and we need to see the advice that counters the Salvation Army’s criticism. Organisations like that must indeed be listened to and we need to take this matter seriously.Dr JIAN YANG (National):I rise to speak on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. I would first like to thank Mr Te Ururoa Flavell from theMāori Party for introducing the bill and I would also like to thank my colleague and chair of the Commerce Committee Mr Jonathan Young. Jonathan has done an excellent job in chairing the committee over the process of improving this bill.We all agree that gambling can cause harm to some people and communities. The purpose of the bill was to provide additional measures to prevent and minimise the harm caused by gambling to ensure that the money from gambling benefits the community and to facilitate community involvement in decisions about the provision of gambling.There were some things in the original bill that the Government did not support but the select committee has made a range of sensible and balanced changes. For instance the original bill said that the harm minimisation devices may be introduced only through societies’ licence conditions. The select committee recommended a regulation-makingpower instead. Regulations enable us to introduce new technologies on a mandatory basis nationwide rather than through each individual licence.Similarly the bill as originally introduced would have required at least 80 percent of all funds derived from pokie machine gambling to be distributed back into the same territorial authority district. The select committee noted the support for the principle of returning net proceeds to the area where the gambling took place. However the select committee noted that requiring all pokie machine gaming societies to distribute their net proceeds to locally defined areas would also create other complications.For example gaming machines are not evenly spread across electoral districts and restricting distribution would have resulted in little or no proceeds being distributed in some areas. So again the committee recommended the introduction of a regulation-making power instead. The regulation-making power would enable better targeting of the distribution of proceeds and take into account the fact that the gaming machines are used by people from outside the areas in which they are located.Also the bill as proposed would have effectively removed racing clubs from the industry. The amended bill reverses this proposal. The Commerce Committee took the view that as non-profit organisations providing facilities to community groups racing clubs were similar to other sports clubs and that the removal of funding from this source would have an adverse effect.The Government appreciates that harm is caused by gambling. It imposes various levies and duties on the proceeds of gambling to deal with this along with other initiatives to mitigate problem gambling. The select committee’s changes make parts of the bill easier to implement while removing some parts that were not supported by submitters. So I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I am happy to take a call on the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill. Labour is treating this as a personal vote a conscience vote so this is my contribution to it. I do want to say that I believe that Te Ururoa Flavell came in good faith with a bill that had some very good intentions. Certainly I think looking at the Commerce Committee process there were 4944 submissions and also 29438 form submissions. So clearly this bill had a great deal of interest. Without knowing the details I suspect that actually the majority of the submissions that were heard and were received were from organisations that are very concerned about the harm that gambling does to our communities.The sad thing about this bill is that it has been hijacked by the National Party and it does barely anything to reduce gambling harm. In fact some organisations as we have heard tonight—for example the Salvation Army and the Problem Gambling Foundation—are saying that the changes will do nothing. The changes in this bill that have been made by the select committee will do nothing for problem gamblers and those in the communities who are wishing to manage the impact of gambling.What is the size of the problem we are talking about here? In New Zealand there are 1381 gambling venues six casinos 17670 non-casino pokies 199 tables and 2826 casino pokie machines. It is that third figure that gets me really. There are 17670 non-casino pokie machines that we now have throughout New Zealand—17670 which is incredible. In poorer areas the ratio of pokies to people is 1:75 whereas in wealthier areas the ratio is 1:465. That means a young person growing up in a poorer area is going to be exposed to six times more pokie machines than a young person in a well-off community. I really believe as I said at the beginning that Te Ururoa Flavell came with very good intentions for this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill and it is very disappointing that we have ended up with a bill that is not going to addressany of those problems that I have just been talking about. In fact as I have said some organisations are saying that it is going to make it worse.Some of the changes that have been made by the Commerce Committee effectively gut the bill. When you look at the bill you can see through the bill page after page of ruled-out clauses—page after page. It just goes on and on and on. The National members on the select committee have marched in and have completely redacted this bill actually. It bears no resemblance to its former self.The bill leaves gaming trusts in control of the distribution of funds and will not require gaming trusts to return 80 percent of the funds to the district where the gambling occurred. We will introduce a Supplementary Order Paper to rectify this issue. A few years ago the Manukau City Council conducted an investigation into how much money was being spent from pokie machines in that area in that poor area and how much was actually coming back to the community. It turns out that it was $90 million in deficit. It was actually costing that community $90 million to have all those pokie machines. This bill does not do anything about that. It does not do anything about helping councils to reduce and eliminate pokies in some areas because it allows operators to simply move elsewhere while retaining the same number of pokie machines. The Problem Gambling Foundation chief executive said the amendments to the bill mean it is effectively now misnamed because it will have little if any effect on problem gambling. It is a great pity. It is a great missed opportunity.JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. I have examined my conscience as have my colleagues and it is with significant disappointment that we find ourselves unable to support this Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill and in fact we find ourselves asking the member to withdraw it. Te UruroaFlavell’s intent was honourable and we were all significantly and really encouraged at how directly this bill sought to address the actual harms associated with pokies in this country and the very corrupt industry that has thrived around pokie machines in this country.The original bill set out to do five key things. First it sought to give councils and communities the power to cut the number of pokie machines in their area or eliminate them altogether. That intent is gone. Secondly it sought to ensure that at least 80 percent of the distributable funds would be returned to the area where the gambling took place. That intent is gone. Thirdly it sought to replace the trusts that currently distribute the funds from gambling with more accountable organisations set up by local authorities. That intent is gone. Fourthly it sought to remove horse racing from the list of charitable purposes that may receive gambling proceeds. That intent is gone. Lastly it sought to introduce harm minimisation mechanisms like player tracking and mandatory pre-commitment cards to put controls on the amount of time and money that could be lost by gamblers. That intent is gone. Of the five core purposes in this bill that so encouraged us and that sought to address the real harm created by the pokie industry in this country we are left with nothing.The Green Party’s view is that this bill as it is reported back to the House does not achieve any of the aims listed above and in one part it will actually restrict the right of councils wanting to reduce the number of pokies through their own transfer policies. Yes that is right. It will actually hinder initiatives to reduce the harm. This bill does not do anything that it sought to do and it undermines some of the very few current initiatives we have to address harm.This is not just our own opinion either. It has been echoed by the Salvation Army the Problem Gambling Foundation and Associate Professor Peter Adams from the school of population health at Auckland University who have also taken the very significant step of asking the member to withdraw this bill. They made a very clearstatement on how they see it now: “For those of us who deal with the problems created by pokie machines every day this bill on balance will make matters worse.”Along with my colleagues I have examined my conscience. I have considered the harm that pokies do to this country. I have looked at this bill and I have asked myself: “Will this help?” and the answer is a very clear no. This bill will in fact—against all the wishes I am sure of the member who introduced it—create more harm than it does good.Finally I do want to remind this House and those members who are considering voting for this bill that New Zealand loses $2.3 million every single day from non-casino pokies in this country. That comes right out of the pockets and takes the food off the table of some of the people in the country who most need it and it is going into corrupt businesses. It is something we have a duty to stop.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs):It gives me great pleasure to speak on Te UruroaFlavell’s Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill this evening and to counter some of the hyperbole from Opposition members who have decided to vote against this very worthy bill.I want to just quote Darien Fenton because Ms Fenton used some statistics that were very pertinent to this debate. Ms Fenton said that poorer communities in New Zealand have present in them one pokie machine to 75 people compared with wealthier communities in this country which she quoted have a proportion of one pokie machine to 465 people. She went on to say that poorer communities have six times the exposure to pokie machines than that of wealthier communities.At the very heart of Te UruroaFlavell’s bill which is before the House tonight it allows communities the voluntary choice to actually change that to take venues from those poorer communities and to put them in different locations. The Opposition the Greens and Labour is saying that it is opposed to allowing the movement of pokie venues from poor communities to other communities. Shame on the Opposition! It is appalling—appalling. It is voluntary for councils to be able do this and we are providing the opportunity.Here is the situation: if you are a pokie venue with 18 machines in a poor community guess what? Even with a sinking-lid policy in your community you cannot move even if the community wants you to go. Why? Because if you move you lose your business. You cannot go anywhere. So what do they do? They put their roots down and they stay there.Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: What a lot of nonsense.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: She says it is a lot of nonsense. That is the fact. These are the statistics that the Opposition members quoted and they want to vote against it. Why? The Opposition was looking for a reason to vote against this very good bill. That is the fact.Another key point in Te UruroaFlavell’s bill is a regulation-making power to allow the distribution of funds into communities. That allows us to go out and sensibly ask communities how much of the funds that are being distributed in communities are to be distributed on a national basis—not just to take an arbitrary 80:20 rule. There are organisations out there in New Zealand—rescue helicopter trusts St John Ambulance—who benefit from national contributions. For us to just arbitrarily go out there and deliver 80:20 is not sensible. So we have made a commitment: a regulation-making power that will allow us to distribute those funds throughout New Zealand and to go out and actually consult on a sensible basis. It is my commitment to the House that we will do that.Hon Member: We don’t believe you.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: We will do that. Well it will be interesting to watch the Opposition vote against that particular thing as well as we look to distribute funds throughout New Zealand.And the third thing that the Opposition wants to vote against tonight is harm minimisation. We have taken what is a—Dr Rajen Prasad: Where is the harm minimisation?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Yes they are voting against the opportunity for a Minister in this House to have a regulation-making power that simplifies the process to implement harm-minimisation technology. That is what it does. It simplifies the ability for a Minister to put sensible technology across the industry. That is really interesting—these guys want to vote against harm minimisation. That is what they are doing. The Greens and Labour are voting against harm minimisation. They are voting against taking pokie machines out of poor communities. That is what is happening. Shame on you. And they are doing it for politics. They do not like it that is a fact.I just want to back up the truck slightly. This National Government came into this period saying that we would review the policy around class 4 gambling. That is a commitment that we have undertaken. We also said that we would agree to support Te UruroaFlavell’s bill going to the select committee. We have done that. What we have done is we also set a number of key goals for reform in this sector. The first was to enhance the protections for problem gamblers. The second was to increase transparency and to address conflicts of interest because there have been rorts in this sector—no one is denying that. We have said we want to develop a way for gambling proceeds to be generally distributed in the area in which they were raised. We also want to simplify compliance for societies venues and the Department of Internal Affairs by simplifying the process making compliance by venues better and improving transparency. We also want to increase the proportion of proceeds that the community receives.So what we have tried to do is find a balanced way through this process; find a way where we could support parts of Te UruroaFlavell’s bill that actually delivered on those core objectives and at the same time we announced in conjunction with Te Ururoa Flavell through negotiation some of the other things that would deliver on those core objectives. So we have done that—we announced in conjunction with that a range of initiatives that will deliver on those things which I am really pleased to do.The other thing that we have announced just in the last 3 weeks that goes to the heart of problem gambling and looking after those people who do suffer from this addiction is a $55.3 million strategy over 3 years. This is the fourth strategy that actually goes to the heart of trying to help those families who have a problem gambler in them. Everybody in this House wants that to happen. There is $20.5 million for public health services focused on prevention and education awareness there is $6.6 million in that strategy for research and evaluation and there is $25.3 million for front-line intervention. That is a significant strategy to help those people who are most at risk of harm. My plea actually to people out there who have a member of their family who is addicted to problem gambling is to actually use these services—to refer that member of the family to those services.In those goals that I set out—increasing the proportion of proceeds the community receives; simplifying compliance for societies venues and for the Department of Internal Affairs; for developing a way for gambling proceeds to be generally distributed in the area they were raised; to enhance protections for problem gamblers; to increase transparency; and to address conflicts of interest—we have found a way through working with Te Ururoa Flavell to achieve three of those key goals.I just want to highlight those excellent initiatives in the bill because I do not believe for a minute that the bill in those three areas has been watered down. I think in fact we have enhanced the bill and we are delivering opportunities in those three areas particularly in harm-minimisation technology which I talked about before. The regulation-making power actually makes it easier for us to implement harm-minimising technology across the sector—not licence by licence. Labour and the Greens are voting against that.We have also implemented a way for venues to be transferred out of poor areas. Ms Fenton talked about the statistics and the extra numbers of venues that are in poor areas. They in the Opposition are now going to vote against an opportunity to move venues out of poor areas. Shame on you! Shame on you! We have also got a sensible method of looking seriously at how we can distribute funds back into those communities where they were raised. A regulation-making power and a discussion document will allow us to do that and to land that in a position where I think the majority of funds will end up back in those communities.So I think there are some great opportunities Te Ururoa from this bill in conjunction with the other initiatives that I have also announced at the same time that more funding will be aimed at going back to the community. For every 1 percent that we can lift the funds back into communities we put another $8.5 million back into communities.Hon Members: How much?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Another $8.5 million. No doubt the Opposition will vote against that. These are sports clubs these are all sorts of organisations who benefit from this and we will be able to help move that on.We are also looking to lower compliance increase the transparency and improve the conflict of interest provisions. This all helps. I am proud to be here tonight supporting Te Ururoa Flavell and working together in partnership to improve class 4 gambling. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The debate has now concluded. There are two questions: the first regarding the amendments from the select committee then the question on the second reading. So I will put the first question and that question is that the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. Those of that opinion—Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you going to call for a personal vote?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have not got to that stage yet. The question is that the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes—[Interruption ] A personal vote will now be called.A personal vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments recommended by the Commerce Committee by majority be agreed to.Ayes63Adams (P)English (P)Key (P)Sharples (P)Ardern S (P)Finlayson (P)King CSimpson (P)AuchinvoleFlavellLee (P)Smith (P)BakshiFoss (P)Lotu-Iiga (P)Tisch (P)Banks (P)Foster-BellMacindoeTolley (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McClay (P)TremainBennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McCully (P)Turia (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)McKelvieUpstonBorrows (P)Guy (P)Mitchell (P)Wagner (P)Bridges (P)Hauiti (P)Ngaro (P)Wilkinson (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)O’Connor SWilliamson (P)CalderHeatley (P)ParataWoodhouse (P)Carter (P)Henare (P)Roy (P)YangColeman (P)Hutchison (P)Ryall (P)Young (P)Collins (P)Joyce (P)Sabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)RossNoes57Ardern J (P)Graham (P)MallardShearer (P)BeaumontHague (P)MartinSioBrowning (P)Harawira (P)Mathers (P)StewartClark (P)HipkinsMoroneyStreetClendon (P)Horan (P)Norman (P)Tirikatene (P)Cosgrove (P)HughesO’Connor D (P)Turei (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)O’RourkeTwyford (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Parker (P)WalkerDalziel (P)King A (P)Peters (P)Wall (P)Delahunty (P)Lees-GallowayPrasadWilliams (P)Dunne (P)LittleProsser (P)WoodsFaafoi (P)LogieRobertson G (P)FentonLole-TaylorRobertson RGenter (P)MackeyRocheTeller:Goff (P)Mahuta (P)SageDysonQuestion agreed to.A personal vote was called for on the questionThat the Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes63Adams (P)English (P)Key (P)SharplesArdern S (P)Finlayson (P)King CSimpson (P)AuchinvoleFlavellLee (P)Smith (P)BakshiFoss (P)Lotu-Iiga (P)Tisch (P)Banks (P)Foster-BellMacindoeTolley (P)BarryGoldsmith (P)McClay (P)TremainBennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McCully (P)Turia (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)McKelvieUpstonBorrowsGuy (P)Mitchell (P)Wagner (P)Bridges (P)HauitiNgaro (P)Wilkinson (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)O’Connor SWilliamson (P)CalderHeatley (P)ParataWoodhouse (P)Carter (P)Henare (P)Roy (P)YangColeman (P)Hutchison (P)Ryall (P)Young (P)Collins (P)Joyce (P)Sabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)RossNoes57Ardern J (P)Graham (P)MallardShearer (P)BeaumontHague (P)MartinSioBrowning (P)Harawira (P)Mathers (P)StewartClark (P)Hipkins (P)MoroneyStreetClendon (P)HoranNorman (P)TirikateneCosgrove (P)HughesO’Connor D (P)Turei (P)Cunliffe (P)Huo (P)O’RourkeTwyford (P)Curran (P)Jones (P)Parker (P)WalkerDalziel (P)King A (P)Peters (P)Wall (P)Delahunty (P)Lees-GallowayPrasadWilliams (P)Dunne (P)LittleProsser (P)WoodsFaafoi (P)LogieRobertson G (P)FentonLole-TaylorRobertson RGenter (P)MackeyRocheTeller:Goff (P)Mahuta (P)SageDysonBill read a second time.Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment BillFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 15 May.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: By rotation the Government would have the next call.Dr CAM CALDER (National):It is an enormous pleasure to have this opportunity to take a relatively short call on this Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill which Sue Moroney our colleague across the Chamber has brought to the House. It is a member’s bill in the name of SueMoroney set down for the first reading and we are picking up the baton as we have had a number of speeches on this issue before.I regret to say to my colleague across the House that it is unfortunately not a bill of principle. And why is this? Well there are a few reasons.Andrew Little: Because you hate workers.Dr CAM CALDER: What was that? I am a horny-handed son of toil myself Mr Little. I just ask this question: if this is so important why did Labour not do anything about it in its 9 years? Why was that? Why was that? OK Labour did introduce the Employment Relations Act 2000. This was a major overhaul the Employment Relations Act of the labour legislation in New Zealand. It was also the first major piece of legislation introduced by the last Labour Government and it was touted at the time as a great reform—and to be fair it was a great reform for the labour sector. It was meant to cure all the supposed inequality in bargaining power between employers and employees. Yet at no point—at no point—did Labour members talk about redundancy requirements. I do not recall them talking about redundancy before. They never mentioned it. Why was that? It was because they knew it was too much of a burden upon our businesses.But let us look at what a previous Labour Government Minister has said about the labour market and in fact the Employment Relations Act which the Clark Labour Government passed. You might remember this gentleman’s name. Phil Goff said: “The Labour Government has moved away from the type of interventionism that saw our economy become less adaptive less competitive more debt-ridden and bureaucratised and that saw our living standards fall over time and employment rise.”Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who wrote that?Dr CAM CALDER: It was Phil Goff actually—Phil Goff. “It is a Government that has sought more market influence and efficiency going forward.” So that is what Phil said—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order!Dr CAM CALDER: That is what Mr Phil Goff the Hon Phil Goff said. That is what he said.We are committed as a Government to creating jobs and fostering economic growth. Statutory redundancy provisions we believe act as a barrier to employers taking on new staff because we believe that redundancy entitlements generally are a matter for employees and employers to bargain for in an employment agreement that is relative to their industry and the size of their business. Small and medium sized businesses may be disadvantaged and are unlikely to be able to cope with significant redundancy payments.It is worthwhile considering just what some of these costs to business would be. At the current minimum wage of $13.75 per hour an employer would be required to pay a full-time 40-hours-per-week employee who had worked for 1 year $2200 gross.Simon O’Connor: How much?Dr CAM CALDER: $2200 gross. That will increase by an additional $1100 a year every year the employee remains. So it is not insignificant. The male median hourly earnings figure is $22 an hour. That is $3250 gross after 1 year and a maximum of $22000. So it is not insignificant. Employees as we said have the opportunity to bargain for redundancy payments that they think are appropriate.We introduced theReStart package in 2008 which provides for workers made redundant and focuses on helping them back into work. We are focused on getting people into work not placing more burdens on employers. When the previous Government looked at the issue in the Public Advisory Group on Restructuring and Redundancy report 14 of the 22 submitters supported the status quo. In other wordsthey did not want change. What were some of the downsides to statutory redundancy provisions noted by the public advisory group? They were one disincentives to hire more staff; two reduced wages; three more temporary and contract workers; and four additional stress on businesses that are struggling already resulting in further job losses and actually putting business viability at risk. Thank you.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):It is a pleasure to take a call on this very important somewhat essential Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill and I begin by lamenting what was a shocking despicable miserable contribution from Dr Cam Calder. He began his speech by asking why Labour did not do anything about it. Well I have got news for Dr Cam Calder and it is that first of all Labour commissioned the very group the Public Advisory Group on Restructuring and Redundancy that investigated reported consulted on and came up with the recommendations. They were not just any recommendations; they were consensus recommendations which means that the employer representatives and the union representatives on that committee agreed with the recommendations.I want to say that I know a bit about that public advisory committee—and this may come as a shock to Dr Calder and indeed to some other members opposite—because I was on it. I know the hard work that went into it. I know the discussions. I know the people who are all decent people and we came up with a consensus set of recommendations. So the second answer to the question that Dr Calder asked which was “What did Labour do about it?” is that Darien Fenton one of the many hard-working Labour MPs in this Labour caucus and indeed in the previous one put together a member’s bill—which actually looked very similar on the face of it to this one—to introduce minimum redundancy entitlements.Dr Cam Calder’s speech and indeed all of the National members’ speeches illustrate their attitude towards working people and working life. They hate workers. They do not like workers having good-quality rights. They do not like it. They see work and workers as a cost to a business as something to minimise to reduce to deduct from and to discriminate against. They see workers as a pest to a business. They do not meet the 21st century standard that good employers actually have towards workers. They come from the 19th century view about workers that they are pests and that they need to get them out of the way as much as they can take away their rights treat them like dirt and give them no rights at all.I want to say this: redundancy plays a very important role in the labour market. It is compensation for the loss of job for the loss of office. It is about tiding people over while they are between employment while they are looking for work. Why is that important in the labour market? Because the reality is that when a worker is tied up with an employer they face an opportunity cost. They are not out there in the labour market elsewhere and the longer they spend with an employer the less active they are in the labour market apart from the fact that they are working and providing value to the employer helping that employer generate a profit and being paid from that profit. But when they are pushed out of that employment at the employer’s initiative for no other reason than that the employer decides that they no longer want them and can run the business without them then it is entirely appropriate that the labour market provides some compensation for that worker. That is all it is about. There is nothing particularly radical about it. It is orthodox labour market economics. It has happened before. It should happen again.Let us understand the history about redundancy in this country. Redundancy compensation was fought for by unionised workers back in the 1970s. It started with theMāngere Bridge a project that National has spent years if not decades lamenting. Butactually it has had a very important effect. It introduced the first redundancy rights. It led to a law change that allowed specific awards for redundancy compensation.Of course the biggest beneficiaries of that ever since were not workers. Actually it was those in middle management and upper management who have gone along to their boards of directors and senior managers and said: “Oh you can’t do without me. If you want to get rid of me on a no-nonsense basis you write me out a big fat cheque and you pay mebucketloads of money.” which is what has been happening ever since. That is the background to it.If it is good enough for the senior managers and if it is good enough for directors and others to walk away with big fat cheques when they get pushed out of their jobs then it is actually entirely appropriate that when hard-working front-line workers—Hon Member: What about the ones that aren’t hard-working?ANDREW LITTLE: Oh here is the National Party again. That is it. The prejudice had to come out—the prejudice had to come out. He cannot resist. Those members hate workers. National members hate workers. Everything they do is about taking away rights and expressing their hatred for workers and their opposition to this bill is just that. That is why we are supporting it. That is why we have good MPs like Sue Moroney and Darien Fenton who put up these ideas and we will be voting for this great bill.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):Thank you very much. It is important to rise and speak tonight. I want to acknowledge the previous speaker Andrew Little who has fallen into the continual trap of the Opposition: he spends a lot of time saying what National supposedly is talking about. National is not against the workers. National is not attacking the workers. We are not trying to keep the man down. This is not that Hegelian master and slave dynamic. That is always and only said—only said—by the Opposition about the National Party. We are a party committed to jobs to growth and to Kiwis who are prepared to be part of that growth agenda. So I am pleased to stand here and speak to the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill and pleased to stand in opposition to this bill.I was standing in my office an hour or so ago and I was trying to get my head around why this bill had been put up by Ms Moroney and others. Why was redundancy such a major issue for members of the Labour Party? Then it dawned on me. It dawned on me that they are worried about David Shearer. They are actually compassionate empathetic people worried about the impending redundancy of David Shearer. They are wanting to make sure to assuage their consciences that when they put the knife in his back and push him out in the coming days or weeks they will be able to look after him—they will be able to look after him.Is it Iain Lees-Galloway on the redundancy issue? We have to worry there. Is that the issue of the day? Is it Ms Moroney? Is she concerned about the redundancy? For her to step away from whatever shadow policy she is involved with it needs at least 4 weeks’ support. We find very quickly I think the motive here. This is an attempt to assuage one’s Labour guilt around redundancy for the impending issues around their leader that we hear. They have all of a sudden gone incredibly quiet. We wonder which of the members across the way have already put their ladders down.One of the key things that ultimately comes out of this is a mind-set. It is a mind-set. We could summarise it like this from the Labour Party. It is very simplistic—very simplistic. Karl Marx would be pleased with it. It is the belief from the Labour Party that ultimately every employer is a crook. It is also a belief that every employee is an idiot. We know that neither of those two statements is true. We believe that employers and employees—Kiwis—can go around the bargaining table and have a conversation. We can stand on our own two feet be we an employer or an employee.The party in Opposition—and it is the reason it is in Opposition—does not believe that. If you listen to those members’ speeches in this House time and time again they are always about control. They are always about control. No one bar the Labour Party has the knowledge the insight and the great belief—no one other than the Labour Party—to make the decisions! The National Party stands here with a belief that Kiwis can stand on their own two feet and negotiate their contracts. They can negotiate around their own redundancy payments if they so choose as members I am sure on all sides of the House have done in their time.It is about choice. You see the Labour Party falls back again. It does not want choice. And why does it not want choice? Because it wants to make the choice for everybody else. This is that hands-on politics. This is the hands-on politics we heard from David Shearer and the Labour Party. And I have said it before. They want their hands on your wallet and around your neck. This is all about control.Also it lacks economic understanding. You see in a very basic way if a company a not-for-profit organisation any organisation or a small business is moving towards redundancy it means things ain’t good. Let us put it in very simple colloquial language. It ain’t good. It does not have the money for these sorts of dynamics. Why is it going under? I am not saying that it is the case in every situation but things ain’t good to use a bit of Kiwi colloquial-speak for the Opposition. So this bill is crazy at a number of levels.As Dr Calder pointed out earlier Labour had 9 long years to fix this but as I also noted as I began this speech I think I understand the motive. There is a lot of talk about making a certain leader of the Labour Party redundant and to assuage those members’ guilt they are willing to try to push this bill through to make the ending of David Shearer a little smoother.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to move an extension of 5 more minutes for Simon O’Connor so that in the next 5 minutes he can make more sense than he made in the previous 5 minutes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member knows that that is not a point of order. That is a frivolous point of order.SUE MORONEY (Labour):That speech was from the party of privilege. Was that not enlightening? From the party of privilege people apparently choose to be made redundant under the National Party’s view. Apparently there is a freedom of choice about your job being taken away from you. Well I would like those members to share exactly how that works. I think that nothing shows more about how out of touch that Government is with the day-to-day realities than the sorry speeches we have heard from the National Party on this Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill tonight.I am really proud to bring this bill before the House but I am not proud of the circumstances in which this bill becomes so relevant today. Since we started the first reading debate on this bill just a few weeks ago there have been hundreds more redundancies announced in this country—and that is just in the weeks since we started the first reading debate. That is something that the Government needs to take responsibility for. Since this debate started 500 jobs have gone at New Zealand Post right throughout the country. In Hamilton where I come from 129 jobs have gone from that city alone.When I did my speech at the beginning of this process I warned about the tsunami of redundancies. I warned about the second wave that was coming. That is the beginning of the second wave. When 129 pretty reasonably decent jobs well-paying jobs like New Zealand Post jobs come out of a community like Hamilton those wages get sucked out of that economy as well. And when those good wages get sucked out of the economyguess what happens next? More redundancies start happening because money is not getting spent any more at the companies and the local businesses where those people once spent their wages. So the next wave of redundancies is not the one that you will read about in the newspaper. The redundancies will be the one job here the two jobs down the road and the three jobs at the other company down the road as well. They are the ones that we will not hear about.The National Party has focused on this somehow being a personal choice. Those 129 workers at New Zealand Post in Hamilton and the 500 of them throughout the country have apparently got a personal choice about being made redundant. Well here is the reality: they do not. They do not have a personal choice about being made redundant. Fortunately they are members of a union and they will get redundancy pay but those ones twos and threes—the redundancies in those other small companies that I talked about that are coming round the corner—are the ones where people have not had the personal choice to actually negotiate redundancy.What is it that makes the National Party feel so comfortable about the thousands of people being made redundant in this country every month and the fact that 80 percent of them—yes 80 percent of them—have no entitlement to any redundancy protection? Because that is the reality. That is the National Party’s personal choice for us: the personal choice to actually have your job taken from underneath you—not you Mr Assistant Speaker but thousands of New Zealand workers—and have no rights and no protection at all. That is what the National Party has just told us it is completely relaxed about. Well it is all right for the National Party to be relaxed about it but those workers and their families are not relaxed about it because they are facing no income and the prospect of no job. When those 129 jobs go in Hamilton I can tell you those people will be lining up with hundreds of others for minimum wage jobs at the local supermarket. That is the destiny that they have in place for them.It is clear. It is clear with this debate which party is focused on the real issues—the real issues that affect New Zealand today. Because here we are debating a very real issue which was promoted by the Labour Party and voted against by the National Party. Can I in closing thank the Green Party New Zealand First theMāori Party Mana and Brendan Horan for having the decency to stand up for everyday New Zealanders in support of this bill. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Motion not agreed to.Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment BillFirst ReadingMOANA MACKEY (Labour):I moveThat the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the bill. First of all I want to thank my former colleague and friend Charles Chauvel whose name this bill was in originally. Apparently I am completely incapable of having bills drawn from the ballot. In my entire time inParliament I have never had one drawn so I am reliant on my very kind colleagues to draw bills from the ballot in my portfolio areas and to then very kindly hand them over to me. That is what Charles Chauvel did and I am happy to take this bill through its first reading.This bill creates a preference for renewable electricity generation through the reintroduction of a 10-year restriction on new baseload fossil-fuelled thermal electricity generation capacity except where exemptions may be appropriate. I will be honest. I have very low expectations that this bill will progress beyond its first reading but I sincerely hope that members will give it due consideration.This bill is an important first step to meeting two current Government targets: firstly that 90 percent of electricity generation be from renewable sources by 2025 and secondly the National Government’s target of a 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. I am very pleased that the National Government has kept the Labour Government’s 90 percent renewable target and I want to commend it for that. But both targets are meaningless without a plan or a strategy or any policy to get us there and on current policy settings we will not achieve either target. The 90 percent renewable energy target should be easy for New Zealand. We are blessed with an abundance of renewable energy resources. I do hope that I do not hear claims from members who oppose this bill that we are doing OK because 2012 was a record year for renewable electricity generation. It was but only because it rained a lot. That is the only reason—our hydro lakes were at full capacity. I do not believe that hoping for wet weather is a plan or a strategy to get us towards a 90 percent target by 2025.When it comes to the National Government’s 50 percent target for greenhouse gas reductions by 2050 again we have no plan. We have a collapsed carbon price we have foresters deforesting and exiting the emissions trading scheme we have no new plantings and all the complementary measures introduced by the previous Labour Government have been removed except for the road-user charge exemption for electric vehicles. That is all that remains.Broader than that on the international stage New Zealand is the only country to have not tabled an unconditional single-number target for greenhouse gas emission targets for the 2013-20 period. This is something the National Government needs to rectify urgently. It was due in October last year. We are the only country that has failed to deliver and that has been noticed on the international stage. My point is that we need a plan and this bill could be an admittedly small but a very important first step.I want to say that this bill recognises that possibly the most crucial first step towards supporting renewable energy and towards meeting these targets is to have an effective price on carbon. This is a point that has been driven home by the Wind Energy Association which points out continually that an effective price on carbon is the best move that we can have for supporting renewable energy in New Zealand. The reason I say that my bill recognises that is that it has a 10-year restriction on this baseload fossil-fuelled thermal generation moratorium—a 10-year restriction—and that is in recognition of the fact that once we do have an effective price on carbon this measure will no longer be needed. But until that effective price on carbon is there the renewable energy sector is in a vulnerable position. The history of that is that we put that 10-year limit on when we first introduced the emissions trading scheme and when we recognised that it might take a number of years for the scheme to bed in for all the sectors to come in and for there to be a price on carbon that actually drives the behavioural change that all members of this House claim they support but very few put their votes behind. We are in exactly the same situation now unfortunately where the measures that were introduced under the emissions trading scheme as well as the complementary measures have all been wound back. We do not have any price oncarbon. Currently the price on carbon on the spot market is around 15c so again this bill is very timely—very timely. It would put in place a moratorium that would take us through to a time when we do have an effective price on carbon and when this measure is no longer needed.When it comes to the issue of the price on carbon I want to read out a couple of quotes from when the National Government voted against this measure in 2008 when it repealed it. Then Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee said: “Reducing carbon emissions in the electricity sector remains a goal and renewable technology will be encouraged through the Emissions Trading Scheme.”—through the emissions trading scheme. Well that is no longer the case. It is no long the case at all. The second quote from Minister Brownlee again in the first reading of the bill that repealed this measure in 2008 is: “National believes that investment decisions in the electricity sector should be made on the basis of sound economics with environmental effects taken into account through a price on carbon”. So the main reason given for not supporting this measure back when the National Government repealed it was that it was going to have an effective price on carbon. Well we do not have one. We have a collapsed carbon price—15c. So what is the National Government’s response to that given that this was the main reason it gave for opposing this moratorium back in 2008? I look forward to hearing that answer.I want to address some of the concerns that are going to be raised about this bill. This bill does not threaten security of supply. Can I repeat that—this bill does not in any way threaten security of supply. The bill in fact recognises the importance of security of supply and as such it provides exemptions for use of non-renewable energy during a power crisis. It allows for the running of plants that combine non-renewable and renewable sources. It allows for the running of non-renewable plants that recycle heat and thermal plants that temporarily replace the whole or part of another thermal plant so that security of supply is not threatened. We could not have done more to guarantee security of supply. I suspect that we are going to hear the same old excuses but there is actually no basis to that threat that I am anticipating will come from National members.Of course this moratorium applies only to new baseload generation. It does not apply to peaking generation which is what we need when we get those spikes at peak demand time. That is not affected at all by this piece of legislation. It is only new baseload generation that is affected.If I can come to another reason that was given at the time as to why the National Government did not support the thermal generation moratorium—and I believe that this is actually a key reason and back in 2008 I do not think that we were quite as cognisant of the National Government’s intentions in this area as we are now—that reason is that it would discourage oil and gas exploration. I want to quote again from the first reading with Gerry Brownlee where he said: “The fourth reason why the Government is repealing the ban is that it disincentivises oil and gas exploration in New Zealand. Already the ban in the short time it has been in existence is seeing some explorers and investors shy away from New Zealand.” Well I do not know whether that is true but I suspect that that is really at the guts of what we are talking about here. Look I understand that this National Government likes fossil fuel exploration. It goes giddy for it. I get it. That is fine. It is the National Government. That is what it does—that is what it does. But my question to those members is why you would not do both. Why would you not support the renewable—Hon Chris Tremain: We are.MOANA MACKEY: No you are not Mr Tremain. Oh my dear! Why would you not support the renewable—Hon Chris Tremain: We have got the highest amount of renewable—MOANA MACKEY: Because it rained a lot Mr Tremain. That is why we had a record year in 2012 because the weather Gods smiled on the National Government and it rained a lot in the hydro lakes. Dear Lord is that the basis upon which the National Government is voting against this bill—because in 2012 it rained a lot? That is so scary in its logic that it beggars belief. Even the current Minister of Energy and Resources’ own officials have told him that on current policy settings we will not get to that 90 percent renewable target.My message to the Government is that this bill provides investment certainty for the renewable energy sector especially when we have a collapsed carbon price. There is nothing else driving that behaviour change. It provides security that a big oil or gas find particularly gas is not going to change the current economics of electricity baseload generation which actually are very very favourable for renewables at the moment. But a big gas find and a National-led Government that will not rule out that that gas will be generated into electricity baseload electricity generation—and I would love to hear a National member rule that out—provide enormous uncertainty for this sector. This piece of legislation takes that uncertainty away until we get an effective carbon price which is ultimately what is really going to drive the kind of progress and renewables that we want.Again I say to the National Government that this is not about stopping oil and gas exploration. It is not about turning off fossil fuels. It is about asking why you would not provide the same level of support and enthusiasm for the renewable energy sector which is creating a huge number of high-skilled jobs as you are for the oil and gas sector. The oil and gas sector does get subsidies. It gets tax rebates. It gets assistance with seismic surveying and the costs around that. All the renewable energy sector is asking for is a fair go. This bill is a step towards that fair go and I urge all members of the House to support it.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):This does take me back this bill—thank you Moana.Groundhog Day —The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member will use the member’s full name or title.JONATHAN YOUNG: Thank you. Ms Mackey this takes me back to December 2008. The very first speech that I gave in Parliament was a speech on the repeal—Chris Hipkins: I’ve forgotten it already.JONATHAN YOUNG: You have not forgotten it—I cannot call you Chris can I?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No.JONATHAN YOUNG: So it isGroundhog Day . Here we are trying to put into place a piece of proposed legislation that was repealed by this Government—in fact it was the very first piece of legislation that we repealed—because we knew of the damage it was doing.I do not understand why this legislation the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill is before us because I know right now that in terms of renewable energy generation there is something like 3500 megawatts already consented. It is not as if you have to encourage the industry. What it sounds like to me is that you are creating a disincentive for thermal generation. You say “baseload”. I talked to my colleagues and we are trying to think of who at the moment is creating thermal baseload generation. We know there is an increase inpeaker generation happening. We know that just recently Nova Energy opened a plant in North Taranaki; I went and saw that opening. But I am just really struggling to find the relevancy of this proposed legislation.Is it propping up a failing carbon market? Is that what it is designed to do? Is it trying to create a disincentive for thermal generation so renewables get a fair go? We know there has been a huge development of renewable energy and there is a huge number of projects already consented. We also know that we have in terms of the nations of the world the third-highest proportion of renewable energy generation. We are No. 3 in the world. So I do not know what you are trying to do because we are already doing a lot. We are already doing a lot that is active in this market.In fact just last week your colleague down there Gareth Hughes on your side of the House made a comment at a symposium at Victoria University that there is too much tinkering around this space. This is what is happening: you are tinkering again. You are talking about this creating—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am not tinkering with anything.JONATHAN YOUNG: Sorry yes I am not referring to you Mr Assistant Speaker. The member is talking about creating certainty out there for the renewable sector. This creates uncertainty for the energy sector. In fact that is what the sector said about this piece of legislation when it first came in back in 2008.Moana Mackey: Name them.JONATHAN YOUNG: Todd Energy for a start. That is what it said when you first put this proposed moratorium into place with your emissions trading scheme back in 2008. In fact what it said back then was that this sort of thinking and tinkering actually will increase the price of electricity. I know that you are very concerned about that. Go back and read the statements. Go back and read the newspaper articles—all of those things. If the member remembers my speech back in that particular point in time you know that Contact Energy in collusion with Genesis Energy because of moratoriums like this was going to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) and was going to set up an LNG plant in New Plymouth. All of that was going to bring in LNG to be used in the consumption of energy forMethanex and different companies and also the generation of power. When you start putting in disincentives and when you start controlling by regulation that you—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!JONATHAN YOUNG: Mr Assistant Speaker I understand what you are saying.Iain Lees-Galloway: He’s a new member; he’s still learning!The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yes and I would ask him to look at Speaker’s ruling 27/5(1). The member may continue. You have brought me into the debate far too often tonight.JONATHAN YOUNG: Oh I am sure you are enjoying the debate Mr Assistant Speaker but we will leave you out if you like.What I am saying is that the tinkering around policies around whether it should be thermal or renewable is actually an out-of-date argument. When the member thinks about what is happening in the United States with shale gas and how that now has been utilised for thermal generation it has reduced their carbon footprint in the States quite considerably because they have moved away from coal.Moana Mackey: Are you saying that shale gas is better than geothermal for greenhouse gas emissions?JONATHAN YOUNG: What I am saying to the member is that we as a nation already have a very significant level of renewable geothermal and wind generation and we are just unsure of what the member is trying to achieve with this legislation. What we have seen over the last number of years is that a huge number of renewable projectshas been consented. As the market continues those assets will be built and as they are competitive those assets will be put in place as the investors in those assets deem fit.What this is all about is manipulating the regulations around the source of energy for electricity generation which I think is tinkering. It isGroundhog Day . It is not achieving anything that I think the member hopes to achieve. In a sense it is trying to—I think in her own words—wait until the carbon market becomes strong. So it is to support that. It is to support the continual building of renewables. They are already there going. They are already there waiting. I do not know what you are trying to achieve. I think that this piece of legislation is unnecessary in this House.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):The last speaker Jonathan Young said that the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill did not know what it was trying to achieve would not make any difference but would somehow inhibit the development of the electricity industry. There are some inconsistencies there. The world does face a challenge from climate change. Climate change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions and the increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere are probably the largest environmental threat that we all face in the world collectively. Emissions come from four main sources: electricity production transport industrial uses and in New Zealand agriculture. They are all hard to fix. But the easiest of them to fix in New Zealand is your emissions from electricity. If New Zealand a country that is as rich in renewable resources as we are cannot fix that part of the problem there is very little hope that the world will. If there is very little hope that the world will that is a pretty depressing outcome that we leave for our children and grandchildren. It does not have to be that way. Instead of having this sort of depressing vision as to whether we can get there we on this side of the fence think we should take meaningful steps to do it.I was part of the Government that put this measure in the original legislation at the time carbon pricing was introduced. Why did we do that? Because we knew that it was very affordable for New Zealand to go down a renewables path rather than a fossil fuel electricity generation path but we also were suspicious that a price on carbon did not give you the certainty that you will get there. That is why we put this in the original legislation and we were right because what has happened to the price of carbon since is that it has gone down below any expectation—in part because of poor policy choices by this Government but also in part because of what has happened overseas. The price on carbon is not an inhibition on the development of fossil fuel alternatives. It is not nearly as significant an inhibition as it was or as it may well be again in the future but is not now. What this bill does is try to get New Zealand to meet that target of 90 percent renewables by 2025.It is true that New Zealand has made great progress. The trend was downwards. The trend was downwards for some decades and in the worst quarter 57 percent of our generation came from renewables. Since then the trend has gone the other way. That was caused by a myriad of measures taken by the last Labour Government. Those included carbon pricing a national policy statement under the Resource Management Act to make renewables easier to consent transmission upgrades a Government policy statement under the New Zealand Energy Strategy and lots of other initiatives—all of which combined to get the industry going in the right way including the signal that was originally in the legislation in respect of future thermal generation.New Zealand can get to 90 percent renewables by 2025 but there is a significant risk that if you have got gas—sorry not you Mr Assistant Speaker. But if an industry participant—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.Hon DAVID PARKER: That was accidental Mr Assistant Speaker but it was quite good. If an industry participant has gas resources and it has no other use for them or it is not connected to the international gas market it may be tempted to price its gas at just below the cost of renewables not in a way that would meaningfully reduce power prices but in a way that would close out future renewables developments. So that is still a risk in New Zealand—that future thermal electricity will be priced just below the cost of renewables foreclosing those renewable developments and bringing forward more gas-fired generation instead. That is what Moana Mackey’s bill addresses and it should be supported by this House.I suspect it will not be supported by National because of course we had Gerry Brownlee come in and in an act of petulance really in my opinion reverse biofuels causing the bankruptcy of people who had made no mistake and replacing it with a failed voucher scheme which never worked. This was another of his measures because he really does not believe that there is a serious problem of climate change. Sadly I think this bill will be treated in the same way by the National Party but that is wrong.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie):Talofa lava and good evening. Look it is an honour for me to speak on this the Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill. This bill demonstrates what is wrong with the Labour Party today—it demonstrates what is wrong with the Labour Party today. I look across at Moana Mackey a person I have a lot of respect for as an intelligent articulate young woman inside the Labour Party. Grant Robertson decides to give poor Moana Mackey this bill to come into this House with and act like this is going to make a difference to New Zealanders. I am sorry but this bill which tries to re-enact something that the National Government has already repealed is a waste of our time in this Parliament. It is a waste of our time deliberating on this bill.I say to Moana Mackey that I know that she is on the backbenches doing the numbers for Mr Cunliffe. I know that Moana Mackey is doing a good job at undermining the current leadership of the Labour Party but Moana have a bit of pride and do not bring these types of ridiculous bills to this House—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —for us to debate. What National stands for—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! [Interruption ] Order! The member must use another member’s full name. Do not do that.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: What this bill represents is a back-to-the-past approach to energy supply. First and foremost Labour wants a single electricity buyer—a single electricity buyer. It is going back to the days when there were blackouts. It is going back to the Labour regime between 1999 and 2008 where electricity prices increased by 72 percent over 9 years. It accuses the National Government of sitting on its hands although 78 percent of energy is renewable which is higher than any level—any level—that the Labour Party achieved in its 9 years. In the last 4½ years of the National Government we have seen price increases of around 16 percent—16 percent—and yet in 9 years twice as long the prices went up 72 percent.The key message here is please do not bring these types of foolish bills to this House. The ban on thermal energy was totally unnecessary. Labour knows and Mr Bakshi will point out in his speech that in terms of renewable energy in terms of geothermal energy the types of consents for Castle Hill a wind farm which will come online—Iain Lees-Galloway: Can you cover all of that in 1 minute?Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Mr—sorry I do not even know your name. What is your name sir? He says: “What about it?”. Well 78 percent renewable energy—[Interruption ] I am sorry but this Government is bringing prices down. We are bringing renewable energy sources online and—Moana Mackey: No you’re not.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Yes we are. Poor Moana! I really feel for Moana who can come into this House and—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Moana Mackey. Grant Robertson gives her a bill that is totally redundant and that will get voted down because it is a ridiculous piece of legislation. I have a lot of respect for you—I have a lot of respect for you—but this is ridiculous I am sorry. The ban was enacted in 2008 but we have got to have trust in the emissions trading scheme that the Labour Government put in place and we have supported. That has led to lower electricity prices and security of supply. I am sorry but we cannot vote for this bill because it isBack to the Future stuff and it is totally unreliable.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker.Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to support this Electricity (Renewable Preference) Amendment Bill unlike the illogical ramblings we heard just then. What is this bill about? This bill is about cheaper electricity this bill is about greener electricity and this bill is about jobs and exports and here once again National is voting against jobs against the vision for our country and against exports. That is not surprising but it is disappointing because cleaner and cheaper electricity jobs and exports should be things this whole House can agree with.This bill is about reducing carbon dioxide emission for all of our kids’ futures. This bill is about a simple easy costless step New Zealand can make towards the target that everyone in this House agrees with. I cannot for the life of me believe that National members are voting against Moana Mackey’s bill. I know they have voted against it in the past but this is a chance for them to say that they made a mistake. It is all right to make a mistake if you look at the evidence if you look at the statistics on the table. Moana Mackey’s bill brings back that thermal ban that the Greens support obviously. Actually we would like to go stronger than the Labour Party but it is light years away from National’s energy vision which is simply to drill it mine it frack it. That is the extent of its vision for the country.Sure members opposite will talk about supporting renewables. They talk about it; they just do not walk the walk. You know they have got a renewables target. They should support renewable energy. But when we look at the renewables we have in our electricity generation mix at the moment we are the envy of the world. We are exporting expertise at the moment. We have got cheap hydro wind and geothermal energy which we are benefiting from at the moment yet in New Zealand our emissions from electricity have increased by 40 percent since 1990. The Government sits on its hands paying lip service to this 90 percent by 2025 target yet if you look in the Government’s own data at the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment reference report on New Zealand’s energy outlook we are on track for only 78 percent by 2025. We are failing in the Government’s own data.The Government talks about energy a lot but all it talks about are oil gas and fracking. We heard the Prime Minister say that at the recent opening of the gaspeaker in Taranaki. The Government talks about acting on climate change. What we see from this Government is it walking out of Kyoto II weakening to almost an irrelevancy the emissions trading scheme and even laying doubts on the science. It is not taking climate change seriously.This bill is doing what we should be doing. It is a first step. We are blessed with options. We have got more than 20 wind farms consented including the Castle Hill one. We have got huge opportunity to save energy—demand side energy efficiency. But of course there is a risk that we are not going to get to that target. We are not on track to get to that target yet 100 percent renewables is possible it is desirable and it is affordable. As we have heard there is a risk of gas taking out the reaching of that target. We know that gas is expensive. With the way the Government decides to price the electricity market the long-run margin on pricing electricity what we are seeing is all New Zealanders paying for expensive gas. Because it is expensive we are seeing it used more than it should be.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)