Volume 706 Week 19 - Thursday 18 June 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 706 Week 19 - Thursday 18 June 2015[Sitting date: 18 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4557. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 18 June 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):When the House resumes on Tuesday 23 June the Government will look to progress the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill the Harmful Digital Communications Bill and the Environmental Reporting Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.Points of OrderCommittee of the Whole House—Chair’s Acceptance of Closure MotionsCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not have anything for the Leader of the House but I do have this point of order that I would like to raise with you and ask you to consider it and give some considered deliberation to it before coming back to the House. It relates to a matter that arose in the House last night during the Committee stage debate on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill a debate that took 36 minutes.During the Committee stage leave was given for clauses 2 to 4 to be taken as one debate with separate questions to be put at the end of the debate. After 36 minutes of the debate with speakers on all sides of the Chamber seeking the call the Chair presiding over the Committee put the question to the vote as one question and the debate was then finished. There was no closure motion before the Committee at the time and as I indicated there were members across the Chamber seeking the call at the time. I would like you to consider the rules around this matter because my understanding has certainly been that there are only two ways in which a Committee stage debate can end. One is where no one seeks the call; the other is where the Chair takes a decision to accept the closure motion and the Committee decides to end the debate. I would like you to reflect on that and make it clear that that is the case.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I would urge you not to make a ruling that in any way constrains Chairs of the Committee over and above the rules that we currently have. One of the things that was an interesting feature of last night’s debate was the number of times in which the presiding officers had to call speakers back to the bill. In other words the contributions in many cases were straying well wide of the content of either the clauses being debated or the bill itself. At some point the Chair of the Committee should have the authority or the ability to make a judgment that says: “Actually members have said all they can on this. We are now into repetition or new material and so we should put the vote.” I think it would be unfortunate and it would somewhat neuter the Chair if there were to be any stronger ruling about that particular matter.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): The Leader of the House is correct in one respect in that the Chair should always have the prerogative to end the contribution of any members where they are infringing on the rules of the House. In this case however it was ending an entire debate where leave had been given—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That point has been made.Ron Mark: Speaking to the point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Is this in regard to the same matter?RON MARK (NZ First): Yes it is. I was present in the Chamber during that particular moment in time. My recollection of the evening and no doubt you will acquaint yourself with the Hansardin your deliberations is that that was not actually the case. In fact the Chair was encouraging people to be more creative and bring new material in. But there was not a caution by him that things had become repetitive—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I thank all three members for their contributions. As Mr Hipkins asked at the onset I will now go back and have a good look at what happened and I will come back to the House accordingly.Questions to MinistersEconomic Outlook—Reports1.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing progress on building a growing economy supporting more jobs and higher wages for New Zealand families?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): This morning Statistics New Zealand released the GDP data for the quarter to March 2015. A reduction in dairy production and reduced output from the oil and gas industry contributed to a low quarterly growth figure of 0.2 percent—around the lower end of market expectations. Agricultural output was influenced by drought conditions. This was offset by increased output in business services retail trade accommodation and transport warehousing. Our economic fundamentals remain sound and the outlook remains positive for more jobs and higher wages. We would expect the economy to remain on track to average 2.5 percent to 3 percent growth—moderate sustained growth—delivering moderate increases in incomes for New Zealanders.David Bennett: How does New Zealand’s economic growth in the year to March compare with growth in other developed economies?Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand continues to perform relatively well compared with other developed economies although GDP is just one measure of economic progress. Increases in incomes and growth in jobs are just as important. With a 2.6 percent growth rate in the 12 months to March New Zealand is in the top third of the OECD and is a bit higher than Australia and the United Kingdom about the same as the US and certainly well above the euro area.David Bennett: What is the outlook for economic growth over the next 3 to 4 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The most recent outlook published is that of the Reserve Bank which indicates growth of just around 3 percent over the next 3 years taking into account lower dairy prices for longer but also including lower interest rates and lower exchange rates which will help those parts of the economy that are under pressure.Grant Robertson: Is he aware that 21 percent of the weak growth in the economy this quarter came from retail spending and that 80 percent of that was from Christchurch and Auckland and does he really think that our recovery from a natural disaster and spending based on a housing bubble is a sustainable economic strategy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is not the case although the Labour Party does insist on saying that the people digging up the water pipes laying new roads and building houses in Christchurch are somehow not doing real work—not real work—perhaps because it does not involve sitting around analysing and measuring. All those things are contributing to economic growth. We welcome the contributions of hard-working New Zealanders and we do not believe that people in Christchurch are not doing real work.David Bennett: What are some of the risks to the economic outlook and what steps is the Government taking to manage those risks?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a great number of risks that we cannot control such as those that affect the New Zealand economy that come from the rest of the world. However at the moment probably the single biggest risk to sustainable moderate growth in New Zealand is the fast-rising housing market. We welcomed the draft report from the Productivity Commission yesterday which is going to help central government and local government to deepen their understanding of the complex set of issues around faster land development and faster growth and infrastructure and therefore a more responsive housing market.Economy—Commentary2.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement last week that it is important not to “think ourselves into a negative mindset”; if so does he think the Reserve Bank Governor has a negative mindset?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I was just concerned about the member’s state of mind to ensure that he was not getting too depressed about being so negative all the time; but no I do not think the Governor of the Reserve Bank does have a negative mind-set. Last week he confirmed that the Reserve Bank expects the economy to grow by over 3 percent in each of the next 2 years supported by low interest rates high net migration and construction activity.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer then is the Reserve Bank Governor correct that there is “little sign that exports are about to recover.” or is that just a negative mind-set?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am by nature an optimistic person and I am a bit more optimistic than the Governor of the Reserve Bank on that matter. You have to remember that our export sector has been geared up around an 80c-plus US$1. It has become lean mean and productive and now that the exchange rate is dropping relatively quickly I believe the prospects for export growth are pretty good.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer then is it correct that the ANZ commodity price index has declined by 18 percent in the last 12 months or are exporters just making up those numbers as a result of their negative mind-set?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Just to cheer the member up commodities are not the only thing New Zealand earns export income from. In fact I think the top earner is tourism and that is going very well. Then there is dairy and that is down—there is no doubt about that. Then there is international education which is growing pretty fast.Hon Michael Woodhouse: Wine.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Then there are areas like wine where exports have expanded dramatically in the last 10 years. Kiwifruit is in better shape than it has been for a long time.Hon Steven Joyce: ICT.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Information and communications technology is growing at 15 percent. In fact I saw the other day that the avocado industry is enjoying boom times.Grant Robertson: Was Cameron Bagrie correct when he said that the economy has slowed down markedly in recent months and today’s GDP figures are weak or has he just got a negative mind-set?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In my experience Mr Bagrie has a sharply analytical mind-set and certainly when you get a GDP number of 0.2 that tells you that less has been happening than the market expected. It is one quarter’s numbers and it is mainly because the drought reduced production but not prices as the member has been saying in his press releases. The New Zealand economy however in general is on track for 2.5 to 3 percent growth.Grant Robertson: Is the Reserve Bank Governor correct when he says that the terms of trade are “declining significantly” and that the Government is unlikely to return to surplus before 2017 or does he just have a negative mind-set?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the Reserve Bank Governor has every right to have his own opinion about it. We do not necessarily share those opinions. I just look at the Reserve Bank’s growth forecasts that I know disappoint the member but what they actually show is 3 percent growth over the next few years. Whether that can be achieved is pretty likely because New Zealand businesses and households are working hard they are resilient they are productive and we think they are doing a good job.Fletcher Tabuteau: Would the Minister sympathise with a negative mind-set from the Reserve Bank Governor given that in the Budget the Minister told the public that total Crown borrowing was approximately $60 billion but in reality the Reserve Bank Governor knows the truth of the situation—that it is in fact nearly twice that at $111334000000?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We just use the normal way the Public Finance Act indicates for calculating gross debt. If you look at debt right across the whole Government balance sheet you will come up with some different numbers. I am quite happy to discuss with the member how that is calculated so that we can all understand the difference between those two numbers.Fletcher Tabuteau: I seek leave to table in the House a breakdown from the Minister himself on the numbers I have just quoted—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. Again I do not think that that is going to inform the answer. The question was a legitimate question. There was a discussion between two figures. The Minister has answered it. What the member is attempting to do now in tabling that is simply to use it to make a political point. I am not going to allow that.Grant Robertson: When Graeme Wheeler Cameron Bagrie and exporters all over New Zealand are telling him that his economy is being propped up only by retail spending in Canterbury and Auckland is it not time for him to stop blaming people for telling the truth and to admit that he does not have a plan for the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the member to say that the economy is being propped up by just Auckland and Christchurch—I mean what is he suggesting is the alternative? That somehow we measure it without Auckland and Christchurch? That would be ridiculous. I think it shows that the member thinks that Wellington is the centre of the universe and that is the only thing that we should count.Fletcher Tabuteau: Can the Minister confirm that despite the sale of nearly half of the electricity to foreign interests determined to increase their profits the net debt of our State-owned enterprises has actually increased $11 billion since this Government came into power?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would need to have a look at the detail or the figures but I can assure the member that State-owned enterprises certainly will not be borrowing unnecessarily; that is for sure. I can assure him also that the sale of half of each of the three generators has led to us getting more dividends as a 50 percent owner than we got as a 100 percent owner.Emissions Trading Scheme—Effectiveness3.GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he think the Emissions Trading Scheme is working to incentivise low-carbon choices?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I believe that the New Zealand emissions trading scheme’s fundamentals are extremely well designed but its effectiveness depends entirely on the carbon price driving the adjustment process.Gareth Hughes: What is the Minister’s response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment who has said “New Zealand’s primary mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions—the Emissions Trading Scheme—has been repeatedly weakened and the country’s emissions continue to rise.”?Hon TIM GROSER: That goes to the heart of the point I just made. It depends entirely on the carbon price and when the international carbon price collapsed which nobody saw coming the effectiveness of the emissions trading scheme was radically reduced. We then took measures to close the window to the importation of units and the current carbon price has rocketed from about 10c to I think between $6 and $7 yesterday.Gareth Hughes: Does the Minister think that the emissions trading scheme and the carbon price are working when New Zealand’s consumption of coal—the dirtiest fossil fuel with some of the highest carbon emissions—has increased every single year for the past 5 years?Hon TIM GROSER: Well I am in no position to agree or disagree with those figures until I have seen the data. All I would say is that in terms of renewable electricity it has been growing steadily in the past 5 years to over 80 percent and I would be actually rather surprised to find we were using more coal in producing energy; I would expect the exact opposite.Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table data prepared by the Parliamentary Library based on the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment document Energy in New Zealand2014 from 16 June 2014.Mr SPEAKER: Order! On the basis that it is freely available from a Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment document if members want that information they can go and get it.Gareth Hughes: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: No I have ruled on that. Does the member have a further supplementary question?Gareth Hughes: Does he think the emissions trading scheme and the country’s carbon price are working when industrial consumption of coal is currently at its highest level since 2003?Hon TIM GROSER: I do not have the data on that. What we are focusing on is leveraging the enormous strength of New Zealand’s renewable energy. I am extremely optimistic that if we take a longer-term perspective we will be able to use that to engineer a dramatic shift in other stationary energyover the next 20 to 30 years. I think that things are going in the right direction but that we just have to be very patient.Gareth Hughes: Does the Minister still consider the emissions trading scheme a success when a survey out last year found that not a single forester believes that the emissions trading scheme drives new plantings that two-thirds of carbon traders believe the scheme does not help New Zealand to reduce its overall emissions and that two-thirds of emitters said the scheme had caused no emission reductions in their company to date?Hon TIM GROSER: Once again we go back to the core point: the emissions trading scheme is not driving adjustment because of low carbon prices but the fundamentals are there. Foresters of course would like to have an additional stream of income—the highest possible would be their best-possible option. The trouble is that other New Zealanders in the form of households and companies would pay for it. There is no such thing as a free lunch here and of course the vast majority of the—from memory—1.76 million plantation forests in New Zealand was planted before anyone had heard of carbon pricing.David Seymour: Why are international carbon prices low?Hon TIM GROSER: A combination of a collapse in the global economy called the global financial crisis which was the biggest downturn in the world economy for 70 years and an inadequate responseby the European Union—I am not blaming it but it was an inadequate response—to the issuance of new units which is the dominant player in the marketby far.Gareth Hughes: When New Zealand has a lower percentage of renewable electricity generation than it did in 1980 or 1990 is he concerned that the Renewables 2015 Global Status Reportpublished just this morning ranked New Zealand 77th in the world for renewable energy policies?Hon TIM GROSER: I am aware of the old saying that every senator is entitled to his or her own statistics. The one that I follow is the simple one that says that New Zealand has over 80 percent of its electricity coming from renewable energy. I know that there is huge potential to increase that proportion. We are aiming for 90 percent and the issue will be: is there going to be demand for electricity given the increasing energy efficiency of this country?Gareth Hughes: With the Pope joining the chorus of leaders across the globe calling for urgent climate action does the Minister not—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Allow the member to continue with his question please.Gareth Hughes: Thank you Mr Speaker. With the Pope joining the chorus of leaders across the globe calling for urgent climate action does the Minister not think that National’s track record of a 13 percent increase in net emissions is becoming a worldwide embarrassment?Hon TIM GROSER: I am receiving a great deal of informal advice to be very careful how I respond to this question. I shall be watching the encyclical with great interest.International Students—Enrolments4.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What reports has he received on growth in international student enrolments in New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): Yesterday I released the International Education Snapshot 2014 which shows that the number of international students enrolled to study in New Zealand grew by 13 percent last year to 110198 or 13091 more than in 2013. This is a tremendous result for New Zealand. More students leads to a greater economic contribution for education providers and their communities across the country. It also means there are now more international students developing a deeper understanding of this country and making connections with Kiwis. Not only that studying alongside students from places as diverse as Shanghai and Sao Paolo helps prepare Kiwi students for work in an increasingly globalised world.Jonathan Young: How are the regions benefiting from the growth in international student enrolments?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The regions are benefiting well. International education is New Zealand’s fifth-largest export industry contributing around $2.85 billion to the economy annually and supporting more than 30000 jobs across the country. A number of regions including the Bay of Plenty Waikato Nelson Taranaki Tasman and Southland have all experienced double-digit growth in enrolments. Canterbury has also had growth: 2014 saw enrolments in that region return to close to 2011 levels up by 18 percent in 1 year. Although they are good results we are continuing to work with regions to ensure that they can continue to benefit from international education now and in the future.David Seymour: Has the Minister seen any evidence of international students going to the regions being discouraged by backward attitudes emanating from this House?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Fortunately not many international students are aware of New Zealand First.Jonathan Young: What is the Government doing to sustainably grow international student numbers?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We need to make sure that growth is sustainable. I am glad the member raised that question. It is particularly positive to see a record high level of growth in post-graduate enrolments up by 18 percent at the publicly funded tertiary providers. Master’s-level enrolments have increased by 23 percent and doctoral-level enrolments are up by around 7 percent. In addition we are also working to ensure provider standards remain at appropriately high levels and have recently introduced changes to enhance English language requirements for international students as well.Housing Auckland—Housing Developments on Crown Land and Consultation with Iwi5.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Why did he issue a press release titled “First Crown land parcels for development identified” and take the media on a tour of the sites identified if they were only conceptual and not actually for sale?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): I announced 10 parcels of land totalling 9.5 hectares in Massey East that will be used for this programme. I also identified three other areas involving about 14 parcels of land at potential sites that I said required more work. I also noted then that some of the sites in the programme would involve both council and Crown parcels of land and that is why the programme was announced to developers jointly with the Deputy Mayor of Auckland.Phil Twyford: Has he confirmed to Waikato-Tainui that they do in fact have right of first refusal triggered by the use of Crown land for private housing development?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. The law is very clear that when there is land that is surplus from an agency—for instance in the example we are proceeding with in Moire Road—the first step is to establish whether other Government agencies require the land. The second step is to establish whether the land is wanted to be purchased by the previous owner and the right of first refusal is triggered only as a third step. I would also point out that that is exactly the process that was followed by the previous Government with housing developments at both Weymouth and Hobsonville.Phil Twyford: What was the outcome of his panicked meetings with Waikato-Tainui and Ngāti Whātua yesterday and can he confirm that iwi are planning to file court proceedings on Monday?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. On Monday we will see what occurs. All I can confirm at this point is that the discussions were very constructive and in my view we will come to a common-sense solution that will see houses built for New Zealanders as much as that might frustrate the member.Joanne Hayes: Has the Minister seen any other proposals for using surplus Crown land for housing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes I have. I have seen a proposal for the Government to build 10000 homes per year for 10 years. The proponent claimed that there was ample surplus Crown land available that the development would be done by the finest construction companies in the country and that the homes would be onsold to first-home buyers. This proposal would require about 5000 hectares of surplus land but the proponent says that we cannot find 500 hectares and that iwi rights should come before those of homeowners.Phil Twyford: Has he reflected on the fact that by picking a fight with iwi over right of first refusal he has put his entire Budget housing policy at risk; if so who or what does he blame for this particular comedy of errors?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My ministry met with the 13 iwi of Auckland a month prior to the Budget. I would draw the member’s attention to the number of iwi that have actually come out as very supportive of the programme. I remain confident that we will be able to work through the issues with both Waikato-Tainui and Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei.Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā anō tātou. What submissions or representations has he received from the Minister for Māori Development advising that he should not proceed with the current proposal for the release of Crown land in Auckland for housing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had three meetings with my colleagues from the Māori Party who have made very sensible representations. They are very determined to ensure that Treaty settlements are respected as is the Government but they are also very well aware of the high needs that Māori have for housing and that is why I am confident that with them and our Treaty partners we will get a programme that will work for Māori and we will get new houses built for New Zealanders.Phil Twyford: When the Prime Minister said yesterday that he had been sent to the regions was this to search out any new land—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister made no such statement yesterday at all.Mr SPEAKER: Then the way forward is for the question to be asked and that may well be the way it is handled by the Minister.Phil Twyford: When the Prime Minister said yesterday that he had been sent to the regions was this to search out new land for housing developments to consult local iwi on first right of refusal or simply to avoid giving the Government any further embarrassment?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am actually very proud to do an arrangement that was made over a week ago for a launch of the Government’s Resource Management Act policies for forestry because members on this side of the House understand how important forestry is to the regions. I spent the rest of the day meeting with Waikato-Tainui and Ngāti Whātua and any member of this House who was seriously interested in housing would be pleased that we are working hard to resolve those issues and get the houses built.Marama Fox: Given the fact that in a special housing area if houses have been built under mixed tenure those houses would be subject to being sold off in private home sales would the Minister not concede that that land then should be offered to iwi under right of first refusal?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Housing Act is very clear that where it is designated for housing purposes that includes it being able to be sold on to homeowners. What I would say to the Māori Party is that we have shown how successfully we can partner at Weymouth for many houses and I am confident that with this programme we are going to be able to achieve similar results in our important partnership with the Māori Party.Pita Paraone: What contributions did the Minister for Māori Development make if any in the meeting yesterday with Ngāti Whātua and Tainui the purpose of which was to try to dissuade them from taking High Court action?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The purpose of my meeting with Waikato-Tainui and also with Ngāti Whātua was actually that they wrote to me and wanted to meet with me to work these issues through and that is just what we are doing. I met again this morning with the Minister for Māori Development as we work through a solution on this issue which I think every member of this House who genuinely is concerned about honouring Treaty settlements and getting houses built would support.Marama Fox: Given those discussions and in the light of those responses does the Minister not think that it would be prudent to be discussing with Ngāti Whātua the development of a successful housing development in coalition and collaboration with them?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely and that is why in the announcement I made last Saturday at Hobsonville where we are going to be building a thousand additional houses part of that programme in the village area is a partnership with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara. These are the sorts of other partnerships that we want to pursue as part of this programme.Grant Robertson: In light of his answer about his visit to the Rotorua forest can he confirm that when he was there he finally managed to see the wood for the trees?Mr SPEAKER: It is a very marginal question. [Interruption] Order! Members want to stay for the balance of question time.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just respond—in fact I take a point of order and note that that was the most cohesive and clear statement—Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not going to be a point of order.Canterbury Recovery—Housing New Zealand Properties6.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Social Housing: What progress is being made on the repairing and rebuilding of Housing New Zealand properties in Christchurch?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): Excellent progress is being made on repairing and rebuilding the 95 percent of Housing New Zealand properties that were damaged in the earthquakes. Housing New Zealand has now repaired more than 4000 of the 5000 homes that it needs to fix and is well on track to finish all 5000 by the end of this year. In addition to the 191 new homes that have already been built a further 509 are contracted or under construction. Around 1000 workers are involved in the repair and rebuild programme. The volume of work that Housing New Zealand faced was unprecedented and I am really pleased that it has risen to the challenge. Thanks.Stuart Smith: How is the repair and rebuild programme improving the quality of social houses in Christchurch?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The programme is not only restoring the number of houses but also enhancing the quality by building modern warm dry homes. Floor coverings ventilation heating insulation and other upgrades have been incorporated into the repair programmes. There is also a programme for upgrading thermal curtains. This programme began in 2013. Housing New Zealand has upgraded more than 17000 properties with thermal drapes throughout New Zealand including 151 in the last week alone.Stuart Smith: How is the rebuild programme contributing to having more social houses of the right size for tenants?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Last week I visited new Housing New Zealand homes on Armagh Street in Christchurch where nine new two-bedroom units have been built on a site that used to have just four houses. The houses are warm and modern and are a better fit for the needs of the tenants. But the old houses are being put to use too. They are being refurbished by inmates at Rolleston Prison as part of a joint initiative with the Department of Corrections. Once they are finished they will be relocated—the houses that is; not the inmates—in the Christchurch region and rented to Housing New Zealand tenants.Adventure Tourism—Shark Cage Diving7.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First) to the Minister of Conservation: What action will she take given that 768 people have signed a petition calling for shark cage diving near Stewart Island to be stopped immediately and permanently?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): As the Minister of Conservation I will not be taking any action as a result of the petition but what I will be doing as I have said from the start is paying very close attention to the review that the Department of Conservation now has under way. We have said from the beginning that at the end of the season we will evaluate it. That process is under way now. I will be very interested to see what has been happening. There have been no formal complaints. There may well be changes or not as a result of that review. Any changes will be widely circulated and discussed before the start of the next season in December.Clayton Mitchell: Given the present compliance measures that the Department of Conservation has put in place to protect the sharks how can she explain the fact that this season the sharks were still showing evidence of fresh wounds from cages?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: This member illustrates very clearly why it is important to go with evidence and be science-based. I have seen the photographs that have been taken. There has been some injury to a dorsal fin of one shark that is not an injury that is consistent with shark cage diving. We have paid very close attention because my role in all of this as the advocate for nature is to look after the safety in the first instance of the sharks. There have been no reported incidents of any damage to sharks.Clayton Mitchell: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act document dated 16 June from the Department of Conservation providing the observers’ monitoring reports of the two shark cage diving operators Shark Dive New Zealand and Shark Experience.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Clayton Mitchell: Does the Minister now agree that the issuing of permits has done little to protect either the great white sharks or the people of Stewart Island who are clearly strongly opposed to shark diving operations so near to their homes?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: As the member constantly either wilfully or ignorantly misunderstands before the permits were put in place there was no protection whatsoever of sharks or people. Edwards Island—a place that that member does not seem to understand—is a place where there are fur seals and therefore it is a restricted area. It is some 8 kilometres away from any other park where swimming or recreational activities take place. So it is very important to note that—Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether you are having the same difficulty but I am having trouble even hearing the Minister’s lame excuses here.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No I do not need—[Interruption] Order! I do not need assistance. If the member would mind having a word with one or two in his own caucus that would lessen the background noise considerably and then he would be able to hear the answer.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Points of order are heard in silence.Chris Hipkins: It is a fair point—there was a lot of noise during that particular answer but what I would like you to consider is the beginning of the Minister’s answer where she immediately insulted the questioner which is going to lead to disorder in the House.Mr SPEAKER: And that is a very fair point. The way the question was answered was not helpful to the order of the House. The Minister is capable of giving a more direct answer without deliberately attacking any member in this House and I would be grateful if she would do that in the future. But that is still no excuse for the level of noise that was coming—[Interruption] I am on my feet Mr Ron Mark. That is still no excuse for the level of interjecting that was coming making it very difficult for Mr Prosser to actually hear the answer that was given.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I have finished with that matter.Ron Mark: I understand that. This is something new.Mr SPEAKER: Fresh point of order—Ron Mark.Ron Mark: Thank you for your indulgence but it is—Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is hopefully going to be a fresh point of order.Ron Mark: You are quite right; it is no excuse but that does inflame disorder.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. He is very lucky that I am allowing him to stay. I asked him whether it was a fresh point of order. It added no contribution of any value whatsoever and the member has a consistent habit of doing that. My patience will not last much longer with that member if he continues to do it.Health and Safety Workplace—Fatalities and Serious Injuries8.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: In the four and a half years since the Pike River disaster how many New Zealanders have been killed or injured at work?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): In the period since 19 November 2010 there have been 228 workplace fatalities and 23416 serious injuries notified to WorkSafe New Zealand.Iain Lees-Galloway: Would passing stronger health and safety laws help prevent injuries like the following injuries that all happened to workers who worked for the same employer: Alister Doran whose arm was sliced open while he was working at the Malvern freezing works; David Brine who suffered respiratory problems after being poisoned at the Malvern freezing works; Jason Matahiki who was impaled in the back of the head with a 10 centimetre hook dragged along the chain like a carcass and had to wait—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have got to take this opportunity of reminding the member of Standing Order 380: questions must be concise. I have allowed the member one or two examples because I think that reinforces his simple question as to whether these accidents would have occurred if the law was stronger. But I cannot allow the member to carry on if he is going to carry on with the number of examples that he is giving. Bring the question to a conclusion.Iain Lees-Galloway: If so why are we still waiting for urgently needed improvements to health and safety law 4½ years after the Pike River mine disaster?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: To the extent that a very strong legislative framework is important in improving health and safety yes. But laws alone will not prevent the types of deaths and injuries the member describes any more than road rules prevent death and injury on the road. What will improve our health and safety record is changes in behaviour and attitude and that is what I am promoting.Iain Lees-Galloway: Do these horrific workplace injuries and the many thousands like them indicate to him that the Health and Safety Reform Bill needs to be weakened as a faction of the National caucus would like to see happen or strengthened which is what the Labour Party wants?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not accept the prefacing statement in that question. The bill will be returned to this House in an appropriate form to ensure significant improvements in the legislative framework for health and safety.Barbara Stewart: What additional funding has been contributed by WorkSafe New Zealand to the new $500000 rural mental health programme considering that 169 farmers have committed suicide since 2008 compared with 112 agricultural occupational deaths and if mental health is not a consideration for workplace relations and safety why not?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In relation to the first part of the question of course the taxpayer contributes that money—whatever the vehicle is through which it goes. I applaud the Minister for Primary Industries and the Minister of Health for that announcement earlier this week. In respect of the latter yes indeed it is; positive mental health is important to good physical health at work.Iain Lees-Galloway: Has the lobbying he has received from National Party MPs at the behest of employers with terrible safety records led him to agree to weaken the—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question is simply out of order.Iain Lees-Galloway: When he says he wants a balanced framework for workplace safety does not that really mean that National is weighing Kiwis’ lives against the interests of his corporate allies; and how many meat hooks to the head will it take—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That question is also out of order.Freight Auckland—East West Connections Project9.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Transport: What update can he provide on plans to support the movement of freight in Auckland?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): The important East West Connections project which will support increased freight movements in Auckland took another important step forward yesterday with the announcement that the preferred route has been chosen for the project. The projected growth rates of Auckland particularly of Auckland Airport Manukau City and East Tāmaki - Botany are expected to generate greater demand for cross-city east-west movements. That is why the Government has brought the project forward by including it in our accelerated Auckland roading programme.Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Why did the Government include the East West Connections project in its accelerated Auckland roading programme?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Onehunga-Penrose industrial hub is a significant contributor to our economy. It generates $5 billion in GDP each year and employs over 64000 people. Many of the country’s largest distribution and logistics facilities are based in the area because of its access to key road and rail routes but its heavy congestion is slowing freight movements and restricting economic growth. That is why the Government has brought the project forward by including it in the accelerated Auckland roading programme.Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What benefits will the East West Connections project deliver?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: There will be many benefits once the East West Connections project is completed. It will improve freight flow in and out of the Onehunga-Penrose industrial hub and save up to 11 minutes on journey time. It will also provide public transport with dedicated bus lanes making services between Māngere Ōtāhuhu and Sylvia Park more reliable. The project will also improve pedestrian and cycling facilities in the area with 5.5 kilometres of new and improved routes. Can I acknowledge the tireless advocacy from local members including Jami-Lee Ross and Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga for this project. The Government is committed to providing the infrastructure New Zealand needs to grow and prosper and this project is significant proof of that.Refugees—Quota10.DENISE ROCHE (Green) to the Minister of Immigration: Does he agree with the Prime Minister who ruled out increasing New Zealand’s refugee quota saying it is “at the right level”?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): Yes I always agree with the Prime Minister. What I do not agree with is the member’s account of what the Prime Minister said.Denise Roche: Who is correct—the Minister of Immigration when he said earlier this week he would have an open mind to increasing quota numbers or his boss the Prime Minister who said there will be no increase in the refugee quota numbers?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The Prime Minister did not use those words and had he done so the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I would not be preparing to take recommendations to Cabinet early next year about the following 3 years’ quota. The Government still has an open mind on that quota number.Denise Roche: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that there are two sides to paying people-smugglers or does he agree that there is really only one side given the other side is illegal?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I am not aware of the exact words the Prime Minister used in respect of the issue the member raises and therefore it would be prudent of me to check first given the track record in relation to this question. But that is a matter for the Australian authorities.Denise Roche: Does he agree that the best way to stop desperate people from getting on boats is by increasing quota resettlement opportunities; if so will he support the Green Party’s bill to increase our refugee quota to a thousand?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In respect of the first part of that question there are a number of ways to stop people getting on boats and becoming the victims of heinous criminals the people-smugglers. The first most important and most enduring one is to ensure that there are settled States with the rule of law and strong economic and social growth so that the population of those countries does not have a desire to leave them. The second thing is that the Government makes no apology for its contribution through the Bali process to the deterring disruption and detection of that illegal activity.Forestry—National Environmental Standard11.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Associate Minister for Primary Industries: What recent announcements has the Government made to standardise and simplify the Resource Management Act 1991 requirements for the forestry industry?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister for Primary Industries): Yesterday the Minister for the Environment the Hon Nick Smith and I announced the proposal for a new national environmental standard for plantation forestry. The proposed standard will save the industry millions in compliance costs while ensuring environmental issues like wilding pines fish spawning and erosion are better managed.Barbara Kuriger: What is the purpose of the proposed standard?Hon JO GOODHEW: Currently the rules for plantation forestry vary across territorial authorities. Because forests often stretch across several boundaries this means that the industry has had to deal with unwarranted costs and uncertainty. This proposed national standard will mean forest workers will no longer need to meet multiple sets of planning rules because industry will be able to standardise their systems.Barbara Kuriger: Who has been involved in developing the national environmental standard to ensure that it will lead to consistent environmental outcomes?Hon JO GOODHEW: This proposal has been 2 years of hard work by the Ministry for Primary Industries. It has engaged with the non-governmental environmental organisations the forestry industry iwi and local government alongside the Ministry for the Environment. Their work on the proposed standard will ensure that the environmental risks of afforestation pruning and thinning to waste earthworks river crossing forestry quarrying harvesting and mechanical land preparation will be consistently managed across New Zealand. This proposal will put one set of rules in place for our third-largest export industry and it strikes a balance between economic well-being and environmental outcomes. It is fantastic news for the forestry industry.Free-trade Agreements—Saudi Arabia Negotiations and Al-Khalaf Group12.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Trade: On what date was New Zealand Trade and Enterprise first informed that there were “high losses” of lambs born on the model farm in the Saudi Arabian desert and on what date did it inform the Ministry for Primary Industries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): I am advised that New Zealand Trade and Enterprise and the Ministry for Primary Industries were told of significant losses on 9 December. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was informed on 10 December 2014.Hon David Parker: Why did New Zealand Trade and Enterprise say yesterday that the welfare and treatment of the lambs at the model farm in Saudi Arabia was not its responsibility given that the Government is still asserting that the reason it spent over $6 million on the model farm plus $1 million flying the sheep on Singapore Airlines is to showcase New Zealand’s agricultural expertise?Hon TIM GROSER: Well the comment was made because it is correct. It is not their responsibility which does not mean to say that they are not concerned about the implications of it which is precisely why they sent experts up to Saudi Arabia 4 days later to help the Al Khalaf Group to deal with the issues. So I think they showed an entirely responsible attitude.Hon David Parker: Is the reason the Minister for Primary Industries was blindsided by this news yesterday and why he said at the select committee meeting today that the lambs may have died in a sandstorm because neither the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade nor New Zealand Trade and Enterprise had properly informed the Minister for Primary Industries about this debacle?Hon TIM GROSER: I do not know precisely what the circumstances of it are and neither would any Minister because these are operational matters. We are informed of the broad nature of the agreement but it is up to the people who are responsible for detailed matters. It is not the responsibility of the Minister for Primary Industries to be hot-footing it up to a Saudi Arabian farm to find out precisely what happened. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not yet called the member.Hon David Parker: Given that the Minister for Primary Industries has hot-footed it up there when will he release the report on why some 70 percent of the lambs died and show whether it was due to starvation scours or a sandstorm?Hon TIM GROSER: We could debate the terms of this “hot-footing”. I think the Minister has visited the Saudi Arabian farm but it was not to give veterinary advice to the Saudis. As far as the report is concerned actually I am not advised as to where that report stands or whether or not it is commercially confidential.Hon David Parker: Why has the Government spent millions on a farm in a desert on the other side of the world where the vast majority of the New Zealand lambs have died?Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! A question has been asked. The Minister is now required to answer it and if that sort of interjection carries on it will be very difficult to do so.Hon TIM GROSER: Let us be very clear about this: the New Zealand lambs are the breeding stock we exported consistent with the tens of thousands of breeding stock that both the previous Labour-led Government and this Government have seen on their watch. What happens to the progeny and successive generations of those breeding stock is not a matter of responsibility for the New Zealand Government and it would be literally absurd to suggest that it was. But this does not matter to the underlying point that if people ask for our assistance we will always consider it in a positive and humane way.Hon David Parker: Is this latest twist in this bizarre and sad waste of millions of taxpayers’ dollars not further proof that the real purpose was to buy the cooperation of the Al Khalaf Group which was according to Mr McCully’s own Cabinet paper obstructing the Saudi adoption of the Gulf free-trade agreement?Hon TIM GROSER: The objective of this is to test out a new model for the export of our agribusiness. And yes it has had these problems. I have also been advised this morning that a second meeting has been achieved which has gone extremely well. So it is a little bit early to call this a failure at this stage.Passports Amendment Bill (No 2)First ReadingHon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): I move That the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. At the appropriate moment I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Government Administration Committee for consideration and that the committee report finally to the House on or before 30 October 2015. This is a concise but important bill that will ultimately help many New Zealand citizens. It contains measures that are designed to make passport services more convenient for travellers and it modernises the Passports Act 1992 to reflect the increasingly electronic nature of passport services.The main feature of this bill is that it increases the validity period of the adult New Zealand passport to 10 years. This addresses a common concern raised about the current validity period of the New Zealand passport in that when matched by passports issued by comparable countries our passport is valid for a shorter period. This was an issue considered carefully by the Government Administration Committee last year before it recommended a review of the passport validity period. New Zealanders are well known for their love of travel and being as geographically isolated as we are the passport is an essential document for many people for both business and holiday purposes. It is simply inconvenient having to renew a passport more frequently than in many other countries.The validity period was originally reduced from 10 years to 5 years in 2005 against a background of security concerns at that time. The New Zealand passport was not considered then to be a sufficiently secure document so in order to reduce its attractiveness to counterfeiters there was a need to ensure that the passport was in circulation for a limited time and that its security features were improved. Reducing the validity period addressed some of those risks and the launch of the e-passport which introduced an electronic chip containing biometric information about the passport holder enhanced the passport’s security.Since 2005 there has been significant investment in passport security both for the security of the book itself and of the issuing processes. The book has been updated a number of times and now contains many effective security features alongside the biometric chip. Other countries have updated the security in their passports in recent years and have also been confident enough to increase the validity periods of their passports to provide greater convenience to travellers. I believe New Zealand should now do the same.We have a passport that is considered to be amongst the best in the world. However security challenges still exist. The international security situation is constantly changing and remains volatile. Therefore in considering a change to the passport validity period the Government has sought to ensure that passport security would not be compromised. That is why in August last year I announced an independent review of New Zealand’s passport security settings. That review and subsequent work has carefully considered the relevant issues and involved the border and law enforcement agencies in that process. We are now confident that the security risks involved in moving to a longer validity period can be mitigated.This change to the passport validity period applies only to adult passports which are issued to individuals who are at least 16 years of age. Children’s passports will still have a 5-year validity period in line with international convention which recognises that younger people’s appearances change more quickly.In addition to changing the maximum validity period for adult passports the bill will also change the validity periods of other travel documents. This includes extending the validity period of refugee travel documents from 2 years to 5 years. That brings them in line with the length of the residency period required before refugees can apply for New Zealand citizenship and obtain a New Zealand passport.The bill reduces the maximum validity period of certificates of identity from 4 years to 2 years. These travel documents are issued only to non-New Zealand citizens who cannot get travel documents from their own countries. As we may not have full access to these individuals’ identity information the majority of certificates of identity are issued for 1 year only so it is therefore appropriate to amend the Act to reflect this reality and the greater security concerns around those travel documents.In addition to changing the validity period of travel documents other changes in this bill are designed to ensure that New Zealand’s passport services are supported by up-to-date legislation. The bill does this by removing outdated provisions that are inconsistent with modern security and operational practice. For security reasons passports and other travel documents that expire or need to be changed because their visa pages are full are now replaced by completely new documents. The original documents are not amended in any way. Therefore the current provisions in the Act which enable the expiry dates of passports to be extended and additional visa pages to be inserted are redundant and are being removed.In a similar vein the bill also removes references in the Passports Act to the reissuing of travel documents. This change reflects the fact that new travel documents with updated identity details for the document holder replace any previous document. The bill also provides clear legislative authority for best practice document security. For instance clauses in the bill authorise the permanent invalidation of passports and other travel documents that have been reported lost or stolen and this helps prevent the use of such passports for criminal purposes.Other clauses refine provisions in the Act that already enable the recall and cancellation of passports for specified reasons. These amendments in the bill provide for the travel document database to be flagged when passports have been recalled or cancelled. This information is then shared with border control agencies quickly under existing arrangements.Finally the bill gives extraterritorial application to the offence of false representation. This change aims to reduce the risk of the online passport application service being misused by individuals who are based overseas or who apply to the Department of Internal Affairs’ London or Sydney offices with false information.To conclude I believe it is important that the operational practices of this world-class Government service are supported by modern legislation. The majority of the amendments in the bill are of a relatively minor and technical nature or they simply update the Act to reflect computerised processes. In that respect the bill will ensure that the passport service continues to operate effectively to help New Zealand citizens living all over the world and that appropriate safeguards preventing the misuse of the service are put in place and maintained.Importantly the bill will ensure that New Zealanders will benefit from the convenience of a longer passport validity period. I believe that the House should therefore get this bill moving through the select committee process and enacted as soon as possible and it is with considerable pleasure that I now commend the bill to the House.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the first reading of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I would describe the New Zealand passport as a taonga actually. When we are travelling overseas the New Zealand passport allows us to visit 170 other countries without a visa. The New Zealand passport has a very high standard and is recognised around the world as having a very high standard of quality attached to it. So the New Zealand passport is valued by every single New Zealander I believe who has one. New Zealanders do not like 5-year passports. Despite the fact that in 2005 there was a real need to have such a passport New Zealanders have never liked it and have actively sought a longer period of validity. Increasing it to 10 years was Labour Party policy last year. We had a campaign to raise the validity of a passport to 10 years from 5 years. More than 15000 people signed a petition to that effect and we made that our policy. So it is really good to see that this bill has finally made it to the House to increase the validity of New Zealand passports from 5 years to 10 years. That is certainly something that the Labour Party supports. It was in fact our policy and it is good to see that the Government has finally caught up.In talking about this amendment bill I want to also touch on a number of other things particularly an issue that will be important to New Zealanders and that is the cost of making applications. Over the past 5 years due to timing issues I have actually had to renew my passport three times in that period. One of the things that New Zealanders will be thinking about—and I refer to “Regulatory impact statement: Passport validity period” and its executive summary’s point No. 6. It reads: “The decision on whether to remain with a cost-recovery model or provide Crown revenue to limit fee rises is in our view a decision involving political trade-offs that should be made by Cabinet.” Never a truer word was written. The actual cost of processing a passport apparently is around $400. It has been recorded that in order to I guess make this more palatable for New Zealanders to accept the Minister has said that it would be set at around $180. We know that leading into this period the cost of processing the passports in the last few years has been subsidised from an accumulated fund which is now exhausted. I understand that there would need to be additional funds to subsidise the processing of passports moving forward over the next 5 years and beyond.I also want to make a point that in transitioning from a 5-year passport to a 10-year passport in around 2020 there would be possibly or most probably a surplus of staff. Logic tells me that me that if you are extending the validity of passports to 10 years then there will be fewer passports to be renewed over a period of time—a transitional period of up to 5 years out. That is certainly on this side of the House an issue that we would take particular interest in and we look forward to the select committee process so that we can examine fully these kinds of issues.As the Minister of Internal Affairs pointed out there are a number of technical changes in this bill. I am particularly interested in the online issue. I am sure we will have good and robust debate and discussions in the select committee over that issue. I am going to try to compare what I think—because I am not absolutely certain that there is a need to remove that option. I am told that technology advances in the power of the computer double every year so we might want to look more closely. As a comparison I will say this: as I understand it last year the select committee in its examination of the passport issue came to the conclusion that having biometric data within passports was more likely to have reduced the falsifying or counterfeiting of passports than the 5-year validity period. I would also suggest that maybe technology as it advances could be available to address those concerns about having online renewal of passports. I think that the online applications for new passports might be a separate issue but I do look forward to having a discussion in the select committee stage around those particular clauses.The Minister in charge of this when it becomes an Act will have the ability also to record or to note warnings on files travel documents and passports. I think we need to carefully examine that as well to make sure. We are seeing other similar legislation go through the House and I think that it would be important for us to ensure that that is used appropriately and that New Zealanders always have the ability to get home. We have discussed other bills and Acts in this House that traverse that issue and I think that within the Government Administration Committee it is one of the areas also that I would be paying particular interest to.I go back to my original comments about the 5-year validity period increasing to 10 years. I certainly do wonder why it has taken so long. I am pleased that it has finally arrived here but I am bound to say that it is another example of the Government being out of touch with New Zealand families because they have been talking about this issue for quite some time. For the Government to only nowbe dealing with this particular issue—at this stage of the Government’s 7 years on the benches opposite—I think that maybe this is political poll policy reacting to what New Zealanders want albeit very slowly and albeit with some real doubts about some of the things in this bill. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee. Thank you very much. Kia ora.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): I rise in support of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) and it is a true pleasure to take this short call because this is going to be a very popular move. We have all wanted this for a while but in response to the member opposite Adrian Rurawhe I think it is important to outline why it was the case that our 10-year period of validity for passports was reduced to 5 years. That was done of course on the back of the 9/11 attacks in the States which were horrifying events and really did change the world landscape with regard to terror. Since then we have seen such horrific events through Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and other terror groups so it is very important for us to take our security seriously. As passports are our prime form of identification we need to make sure that our passport holds its integrity and that we deter counterfeiters from preying on a passport as the member opposite did identify for himself. He said that our passport is well respected and valued overseas. So as part of that the Government has looked at biometrics bringing in place a chip to store biometric information about the passport holder in the passport but of course reducing the term was one way to deter counterfeiters from preying on our passport.So that was the reason but of course since then we have secured the passport. The security is now good. We are quite pleased with where we have got to and now it is time to increase the term again and that will be well received. There is nothing worse than having to turn around and fill out more forms after a short time to reapply for travel. New Zealand is a nation of travellers. In fact 77 percent of us hold passports and being as the Minister said geographically isolated as a country the tradition has always been that Kiwis will fly and we head off and do our OE or overseas experience. I am no exception to that of course and I needed a passport to do that and I guess that was when I realised the full value of travelling on a Kiwi passport. It is well respected our country is well respected overseas and it helps the ease of travelling through Europe. So of course this is going to be a popular bill. It is going to be well received but I certainly look forward to the process as we progress this through the select committee.The other thing about this amendment bill is that it is not going to extend the validity period for children. Obviously children’s appearances change too rapidly. I have got a couple of children myself. I see how fast they grow. They sprout up like mushrooms so security-wise we simply cannot issue them a 10-year passport. You would take a photo and just a couple of days later it just would not reflect who they were so it is important that we maintain that difference. It is important for security and I think that mums and dads will understand that exemption in respect of maintaining our security but having to update passports for their young ones.I want to touch on the online system because of course it is a target of this Government under our Better Public Services target to have most—77 percent in fact—of our interactions with the Government online. The online system of applying for passports has been well received and the take-up has been very good. That is going to improve interactions with the Government. The system again is secure and will help people through the process of applying for a passport and getting that as a good and secure form of identification.So it is with pleasure that I partake in this first reading of this bill. I think it will be something that is well received by the public. It is refreshing to say the least to try to keep down and minimise paperwork. But at the same time the public should be heartened that our passport is in a good space is secure and obviously is still well respected around the world. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). Over the last couple of days and again later in the House today I have been and will be speaking a bit about passports and about the quality of citizenship. Passports are as my colleague Mr Rurawhe says a taonga. They are important to us and they do differentiate us from other people around the world. They are well sought after by those unscrupulous people who would take our passports off us because having a New Zealand passport allows us to travel to many countries of the world where other passports may not take those passport-holders. We do support this bill going to the select committee and there are a few components of this bill that I am hopeful the select committee will spend some time reviewing and refining and coming back to us with some answers for.The most significant part of this bill is the validity period—moving that from 5 years to 10 years. As my colleague has already said that really has come about by public pressure—New Zealanders not really enjoying the shortened 5-year period of their passports. We are great travellers being right down here at the end of the world. We do a lot of travelling and the renewal period is quite prescriptive being at 5 years.The issue around the cost is interesting. The Minister of Internal Affairs has made various statements in the public arena about the cost being set at $180 and this reflecting really the cost savings over the period of time of moving out the validity period from 5 to 10 years. That is a very interesting point and I do want to just pick up on something that I read a statement from the Minister that came out in the Taranaki Daily News a couple of days ago which shows that Cabinet papers reveal that the Government will need to front an extra $200 million to double the validity period to actually cover the costs of the passport. The actual cost of the passport sits at around $400. I think this is really interesting because Treasury did say to the Department of Internal Affairs that it did not want this decision made based on financial reasons. But Mr Dunne is in favour of subsidising the passport in order to keep it affordable as a public good. Although I understand that the ability to have a passport and to travel is an important right for a New Zealander it does seem like an issue that should be discussed at the select committee because it does seem at odds with Treasury recommendations.Also a very good point was made that the child’s passport stays at 5 years because yes it is true that children’s appearances do change and a period of 10 years would not be appropriate for them. But the 10-year validity period throws into the mix another issue and that is around the issue of technology and how quickly technology does move. In terms of our passport with its chip we were one of the first countries to move to the passport with a chip which makes it easier to move through borders as the process is much quicker but it also does beg a question about technology. Ten years is a long time in the technological world the modern age. It is a long time and technology will change quickly over that time. The ability to potentially counterfeit passports or to find ways to replicate chips in passports in that 10 years is a distinct possibility.One of the concerns I have that I hope the select committee will pick up on is that there will not be the need to see the physical passport in order to cancel it. You can do so electronically on the database. I am concerned for a couple of reasons. What concerns me is that mistakes do happen and it would seem like a useful checking process to have the physical passport in front of you before you actually cancelled that passport. We know from other discussions in this House that databases including the databases of the Government are not always entirely secure and it is a possibility that databases can be hacked or manipulated and people may have their passports cancelled when that is not actually required. That also brings into question the ability for Kiwis to return home should their passports be invalidated incorrectly. This bill also provides for the extraterritorial application of the offence of false application which I thought was an interesting phrase. What that means is that when you apply to an overseas New Zealand passport office if your application is falsely made it is now an offence for that application to be made at an overseas passport office.I have referred to the cost of the 10-year passports but I found it really interesting that one of the concerns is around the issue of identity documents. When it comes to foreign nationals who do not have appropriate identity documents we are looking to reduce the length of validity of identity documents that an overseas national without appropriate identity documents can have down to a period of 1 year. This is an issue that has come up in my electorate a couple of times in the last couple of years. There have been people from Somalia who have identity documents that are not considered valid in a number of jurisdictions and they are finding it very difficult to have any ability to travel—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I apologise for the member’s colleague—it is very disorderly Mr Lees-Galloway.POTO WILLIAMS: Thank you. Just to reiterate I was talking about the identity documents for certain groups of people. We are moving in this bill to reduce the period of time for which we will provide identity documents for people who find it difficult to have their own national identity documents recognised by New Zealand. I was referring to Somali people. I know there is some issue with them being able to obtain appropriate documents through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.I also just want to pick up on a point that the previous speaker spoke to—that 70 percent of the interactions with the Government are to go online. Although on the face of it that sounds like a very useful process it does also flag the fact that there are barriers for those people who do not have access to online facilities. What mechanisms are to be in place for people who cannot use computers do not have access to computers may not be able to afford the internet or cannot access free internet because of remote locations? It does call into question why we would have such a high reliance on our interactions being online. There is also again the issue of security around online interactions and the ability to hack into and manipulate those systems. So just in conclusion I say that I look forward to the work the select committee will do on this issue and I hope that it will be able to address some of the concerns I have raised. Thank you.BRETT HUDSON (National): I rise in support of the first reading of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). It is a great pleasure to be able to stand here and be giving the public what they have requested—a bill that will return a New Zealand passport to a validity period of 10 years and one that supports New Zealanders’ desire to be and history of being adventurous and global explorers. In doing so it is important to note that we will not be compromising the security or indeed the international reputation of our passport. It will contain the latest technology to protect passport holders from identity fraud. It will ensure that our passport holders can access as many countries tomorrow without a visa as they can today—a number that is around 170.It is important to reflect on the fact that the reputation of New Zealand’s passport is extraordinarily high. We are in fact the eighth most desirable passport in the world in terms of the number of countries we can access without an entry visa and that comes from a study done by global advisory firm Arton Capital. It may not surprise anyone in New Zealand to know that as eighth in the world we are ahead of Australia and in fact with the performance post the global financial crisis of this National-led Government it will not surprise any Australians that we are ahead of them now too. But we do indeed have a very strong reputation for the quality security and robustness of processes around our identity documents.But that reputation also is something of a magnet for criminals fraudsters people who realise that if they can get hold of a New Zealand passport—if they can counterfeit one if they can repurpose one—then they have an advantage of themselves or other people perhaps being able to access the borders of other countries that much more easily. I just have a quote here from a Massey University Centre for Defence and Security Studies lecturer Rhys Ball. He noted that “The Kiwi passport helps reduce an individual’s profile. It is looked upon as a non-threatening travel document originating in a country with a robust processing system.”But it is worth noting that although we are very strong and robust in our processes we are not immune from fraudulent activity. In the period from 2010 to 2014 over 11000 New Zealand passports were stolen and over 42000 were lost. In fact even in just one case in 2009 Roderick Robinson used Rex Smith’s passport to flee to Portugal in that year. So we must remain ever vigilant. When we look at that it is the reason why we moved to the state that we are currently in with a 5-year validity period.I just want to recap that a little because I think the history of where we have come from is important in understanding why we can now make a change without compromising security. So it was in the early 2000s—in 2002—when the Department of Internal Affairs advised the Minister of a rising number of attacks on New Zealand passports and a shift from crimes of opportunity to crimes of intent with sophisticated forgery and counterfeiting. There was also the new US legislation for homeland security that demanded machine-readable passports with biometric identifiers. Non-compliance with that would have seen us lose our visa-waiver status which would have required Kiwis travelling to the States to visit the US consulate in Auckland in person and to pay visa fees.On top of that in 2003 there was a review on border security particularly around counter-terrorism threats and measures. So a bill was introduced and given to the Government Administration Committee in 2004. After hearing submissions and deliberating it reported back that it recommended that passport validity be reduced to 5 years. It noted that the longer a passport has been in circulation the greater the chance that its security features will become outdated and easily altered or successfully duplicated. Its view was that security and international reputation outweighed the inconvenience of a shorter validity period.It is with great pleasure that our officials will tell us now—and that we in this Parliament are now debating it and saying that it is possible—that we can now take a position where we can react to changes in the world where we have a very very robust and secure passport and that we can in fact look to return to a much longer validity period of 10 years without compromising the security of our people’s identities or risking our international reputation. It is going to be a very very good debate in the select committee. I look forward to that and I commend this bill to the House.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the first call for the Greens on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I think when we are looking at the bill and its introduction it is important to trace back to where the inspiration for this policy change came from. I believe that it was from a petition launched by Kyle Lockwood. In his interview in the Sunday Star-Times he said that he was inspired to create the petition after he saw a really upset mother with her son at Melbourne airport who could not fly because her passport had less than 6 months left on it so it was about to become invalid.It is important that we acknowledge the democratic process and that it was a petition that ultimately led to this bill coming to the House and that it was a campaign that did that. Although the democratic process can move really slowly we really do need to celebrate the fact that an ordinary New Zealander was listened to in the halls of power and we are hopefully changing policy as a result. I guess from our point of view this is a good partial application of one of the principles of our founding charter for the Green Party which is appropriate decision-making. That means that decisions are made directly at the appropriate level by those affected. Although the people who are affected did not directly get to decide I am glad that we have listened to the voice of Kyle Lockwood.We have been supporting that campaign for 10-year passports throughout the process. My colleague Mojo Mathers agreed with the recommendation from the Government Administration Committee to review the current system with a view to extending it once that petition came to the select committee. We support this move for a variety of reasons. The policy of 10-year passports will save ordinary New Zealanders the hassle the stress and the time-consuming nature of applying for a new passport as well as saving money.There has been some discussion about what it costs. The current cost of the 5-year passport is $134.50 or $26.90 a year. The proposed fee of $180 for the 10-year passport works out to be just $18.00 a year. This proposal also brings us into line with international standards. Much of the European Union most of the Americas most of Asia and even our cousins in Australia have 10-year passports. I think it is fair to acknowledge the evidence from the Department of Internal Affairs that was presented during the select committee inquiry. I have to say that it ultimately concluded its evidence by saying that it considers a 10-year validity period acceptable. But it had serious concerns about reintroducing 10-year passports because it feared that it would encourage criminal organisations to invest in counterfeiting New Zealand passports and I think that is a fair concern.That is I guess why we are so disappointed that this National Government has been investing fewer resources in public safety through the police that would counter that. Yesterday my colleague David Clendon released figures that show that spending on the Police budget has fallen by 5.7 percent which means that there is less public safety happening and certainly less investigation. This is sadly emblematic of the National Government’s chronic under-investment in public services and that is a point that was reinforced in a report released on 8 June by the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions saying that our health system for example was $1 billion worse off than 6 years ago which works out to be about $220 per New Zealander.The fact that the department’s submission identified that the change from 5 years to 10 years could lead to a revenue problem further reinforces my point that under this National-led Government our public services are scrambling to penny-pinch the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders. The Government has basically been fiscally reckless by giving tax cuts to the very wealthy on their top incomes.We are assured by the evidence given at the Government Administration Committee’s review of the passport validity period that biometric passportsreduce the risks of counterfeiting and identity fraud to such a degree that the validity period could be safely extended—and that is a direct quote. However we do have some concerns. They arise from the findings of Simon Murdoch’s passport security review as laid out in the regulatory impact statementfor this bill where he concludes by saying that investment would be necessary to reduce the risks of moving to a 10-year validity period. That is why we would much prefer that the added security of biometric passportswas supplemented by adequate funding of public safety. We need to restore that 5.7 percent to the police. Although technology can be a wonderful thing it is no substitute for an adequately funded public service. We cannot and should not skimp on funding our core public services. An investment approach is absolutely crucial for our country’s security.There are other measures in this bill that we support such as better provisions for cancellation and usage of our travel documents database. In the 21st century it should not be necessary for a modern Government department to physically cancel a document that needs to be sent and received sometimes from half a world away. Also this data move will save us money and time. Despite many disagreements with my colleagues across the House on many many issues I am happy and we are happy to be working with them on this issue to make a change that was spurred on by an ordinary New Zealander. It is fantastic to see democracy in action when it actually works. Thank you.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I stand to take a call for New Zealand First in the first reading of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2).David Seymour: Very strong opinions.CLAYTON MITCHELL: And already David Seymour you are into it. I would like to start by simply saying: David if you throw a party and you are the only person—David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Standing Orders require the member to refer to another member by his full name not only his Christian name.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is actually not quite accurate but the Speakers’ rulings do require that and the member I am sure will react much more appropriately to future interjections.CLAYTON MITCHELL: Absolutely. So let me finish what I am saying Mr Seymour of the David variety. At the end of the day if you throw a party and you are the only person who shows up at that party are you actually throwing a party or are you just a person by yourself at home alone—because it is a lot of noise from a very very small corner over there.I would like to add that I have been as busy as a bee with a bum full of honey in the Beehive today and there has been a little bit of a lack of preparedness for today’s delivery. But I dare say I think that just about every single New Zealander could stand up and speak to this piece of legislation because finally we have got a little bit of common sense. I would also like to say this—and I bet you that this compliment does not come across very often to the honourable member Peter Dunne—for the simple reason that I commend him for fighting hard to get the costs of passports down when Cabinet was originally coming out with a fee of around $225 and for bringing that fee down to $180. So I would like to congratulate him on fighting a good fight for New Zealanders; however I think that there is still more of a fight that needs to be had.Although New Zealand First strongly supports this bill—in fact back in 2012 the Rt Hon Winston Peters spoke to this matter for the first time and New Zealand First was the first party to say that this was absurd. The reality of cutting back passports from 10 years to 5 years when the vast majority of the world—the Western World that was supposedly affected by the terror attacks—kept their passports at 10 years for me was that it was an opportunity for this Government to collect revenue to put some money in the coffers and it was at the expense of everyday Kiwis.Sarah Dowie also mentioned the 77 percent of Kiwis who have passports. That is fantastic. We are a flightless bird and we do like to travel the world. I myself have had many passports and travelled the world too but we should be making it affordable for 100 percent of Kiwis to be able to do that. Travel internationally at the moment is probably the cheapest it has ever been and we should not be excluding any New Zealander from being able to afford that right. Denise Roche said that the cost of passports over a 10-year period is going to be reduced by nearly $100 over that period. But if you think about it the actual cost of putting a passport together is the same—it does not matter whether you are doing it for 5 years or 10 years. So in actual fact there is no cost saving. We should be able to bring the cost of passports back even more than to $180.David Seymour: Oh fixed and variable costs mate.CLAYTON MITCHELL: And if you would let the grown-ups just speak for a moment Mr Seymour we might give you some sort of positive thinking and some practical sensible and innovative ideas. If we are just throwing a little bit of a sling out here the reality is that at the moment I think there are 20-odd pages in a passport. If we cut back the number of pages in a passport—because let us be honest back in the 1990s when I was doing some prolific travelling you used to have to ask for countries to stamp your passport and even after 10 years you could not actually fill up all the pages in your passport. It was almost like you would wear it as a badge of honour—how many different countries you went to when you were travelling around Europe. By simply looking at things practically we might actually be able to reduce the cost of those passports by reducing the number of pages that are in them and that might be brought out in the select committee.The second point I would like to bring your attention to is how quickly this Government can react—with the recent retrospective legislation it has put through and backdated that ripped the $1000 kick-start contribution off the table. So we know that this Government when it is in action can get things done. That piece of legislation did not suit the vast majority of New Zealanders but this piece of legislation does. We have been getting a lot of correspondence and I am sure that Labour has been getting it and that National has been getting it. The Greens have certainly been getting it as well. We have in New Zealand First people writing to us to ask why this piece of legislation is taking so long to come through. It should not take this amount of time—until 1 January 2016—to get this through. If we have made a decision as a political movement and it looks like we have got full support across the table I for one would be happy to debate this in urgency and take it right through to the end stages to push this through.There will be Supplementary Order Papers but the reality is that there are people here right now in this country waiting to put in their applications for their passports. They are wanting to travel but they cannot and they are going to be locked into a 5-year passport deal. Right now it looks like we are seriously making a move forward for the betterment of New Zealand so why cannot this go into urgency? I urge you to consider that and put that to the House for consideration.There are some serious concerns from New Zealand First with regard to a media report that was sent out last week on 9 June about the potential doubling up—$400 by 2021—for those costs of passports. The cost and the time issue are certainly the most fundamental issues that we have to keep up with the play on. We understand about the modernising of the Passports Act 1992 and about the 16-year-olds who get only 5-year passports. We understand that. I think that is a sensible pragmatic solution. I have got young children myself and goodness me they change. From the week that I start Parliament to the week that I get home they look different. I can understand that that is in line with the rest of the world so we also support that.I would also like to say just to finish things off—because again I could waffle on and take up 10 minutes of everybody’s precious time back home—that I think the message is clear out there that we are behind in this. The piece of legislation putting passports back to a 5-year passport was not from the National Government as was suggested; it was actually done by the Labour Government. I think that move was a little bit too quick off the hip and I think we should have stuck with those 10-year passports. Now it is coming down to getting those costs down and actually making it affordable for New Zealanders to travel.I am concerned that the cost of travelling is being increased with new legislation the travel tax that has been put through—$16 out; $6 coming back. A young family with four or five family members wanting to pop across the Ditch to Australia for a week is now up for $100-odd. Putting in the cost of the passport we need to do what we can to get these flightless Kiwi birds out on their planes and travelling around the rest of the world. It is a great world to see but when you are out there you realise what a wonderful country we live in and it certainly does make you appreciate it a lot more. Thank you.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): This week was a little unusual for me. I have had the pleasure of sitting on the Government Administration Committee and now I have got the privilege of speaking on a bill that is going to the Government Administration Committee.Jami-Lee Ross: Moving up in the world.IAN McKELVIE: I must be as the whip says moving up in the world. I have been promoted.But anyway during the Budget debate on the border processing arrivals and departures levy we learnt how many people were coming and going from New Zealand now—some 5.2 million per year—and of those about 2.5 million are New Zealanders so clearly those 2.5 million need to have a New Zealand passport. It shows the very high demand for New Zealand passports. In fact we know that 77 percent of all New Zealanders have a New Zealand passport.Interestingly passports are not always used for travel. Most electorate MPs will know that through their electorate offices they will get a lot of people coming in complaining about the fact that they have got to find some form of ID. If they do not have a driver’s licence or indeed a firearms licence or something like that then a passport is often the only form of ID they can effectively use. There are people who do have a passport but never use it for travel so passports are a broader thing than just being used for travel.Just to go into the background of this bill the terrorism acts of 2001 in my view were a good reason for the Government of the day to change—Iain Lees-Galloway: Tell us about sheep passports.IAN McKELVIE: Well we have clearly had a lot of discussion on sheep passports this week. It proved my point actually—Iain Lees-Galloway: Oh God—ha ha!IAN McKELVIE: Well you are clearly on my side on that. Mr Assistant Speaker I have been distracted.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): I am having trouble with the relevance of it.IAN McKELVIE: But the reason we reduced the terms of those passports was of course for security reasons around identity security and around the ability to track changes in behaviour of people from time to time and new technology has now given the Government the opportunity and the confidence I guess to extend the period of passport eligibility to 10 years which as the previous speakers have noted will make a difference to the cost of a passport and will certainly make a difference to the amount of hassle one has in getting a passport. In fact like one of the previous speakers I have had to get three passports in the last 5 years because I inadvertently dumped one of my passports as it came in the post from the Passports Office—so the online passport system was not exactly clever.But surprising as it may seem I think this is a Government that cares listens to New Zealanders and reacts appropriately. Although we may feel that Governments are slow to react I think we also need to realise that Governments are creating legislation and law for the long term. I think it is pretty essential that something as important as a passport gives us the opportunity to be sure that we are on very solid ground before we change the law around passports and find ways of issuing them.As many people have said it is a privilege to hold a passport for a start and this new legislation will make it easier for the authorities to remove a passport. They will not have to have it in hand. It is done merely by the click of a button on a computer or a phone. It will be easier to get a passport. It will be easier to take a passport away. I think the whole process will be improved by the introduction of the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). That is my short contribution to this bill and I wish it all the best as it goes into the select committee process.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a 5-minute call from the Green Party. I call Mojo Mathers.MOJO MATHERS (Green): I rise to take a call on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). The Green Party supports this bill and in particular we support the provision to extend the term of adult passports to 10 years. I was on the Government Administration Committee last year which considered the petition that has triggered this legislation. I just want to acknowledge the very high calibre and quality of the information that was presented in support of this petition. It was incredibly well researched and was backed up with lots of evidence about what is happening around the world to show that it is an exceptionally reasonable request to go back to a 10-year term for adult passports.The petition was presented by Kyle Lockwood and was signed by more than 15000 New Zealanders but the public discussion in the media shows that this is just the tip of the iceberg and that this was something of extreme concern to many New Zealanders—the cost the hassle and the stress involved in having to renew their passports every 5 years. In fact the 5-year term means that passports are in effect only really valid for 4½ years for a lot of travel overseas because of the requirement to have a passport that is valid for 6 months. I think it is really encouraging to see an ordinary New Zealander making such good use of the democratic process bringing a case to the select committee and being heard by the select committee so that we were compelled to make a recommendation in favour of the request. It has been absolutely fantastic to see the Government responding to that and now bringing legislation to the House to address that concern.One of the key points that were made by the petitioners in favour of the extension was the fact that most of New Zealand’s trading partners have 10-year passports—whether we are talking about Australia the US China the UK and so on. It is even more compelling because of the fact that New Zealand is on the inter-governmental group that developed this passport—this practice. Four of the five countries on that committee—that is the other four—all issue 10-year passports and they are Australia Canada the UK and the US. It was starting to look and feel like New Zealand was being overly paranoid about passport security when all of our trading partners and the people on the committee that is actually considering this passport practice have 10-year passports. Why are we a small country down here in the Pacific being so excessively paranoid about passport security? In addition the International Civil Aviation Organization has also recommended 10-year passports. So again how can we decide that 5 years is the best practice? I think it is just silly.Of course the public also moved that with the incredible strives in biometric information we can either address or mitigate a lot of the security concerns. We are never going to have 100 percent security around passports but what we can look at is what a reasonable level of security around passportsis. I feel very confident that we can address these security concerns at the select committee when the bill comes to the select committee. Thank you very much.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call. I call David Seymour.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT): An earlier speaker said that he found it a great pleasure to speak on this bill and he said it with great conviction. It was possibly more a reflection of the member than the bill but it is important that we get this technical adjustment made. I cannot help but respond to a few earlier speakers. There was one from the Labour Party who said that it was a policy issue as to whether passports should be funded by user-pays or general taxation. Only the modern Labour Party would seriously contemplate taxing the working class to pay for a good that is entirely private in its benefit—entirely private in its benefit—and used by people who can afford to leave the country. But that is a sad commentary on the current state of the Labour Party members who have forgotten whom they represent and where they are.I thought perhaps I should also respond to the earnest member from New Zealand First only to say that I believe he is improving in his speaking and may become a very good parliamentarian in due course. I wonder members whether I should try to explain to him the difference between fixed and variable costs but he has got the professor—oh no he does not. Perhaps I should try to explain that the reason it can cost more per unit to produce a smaller number of passports is that indeed some costs are fixed and others are variable.Iain Lees-Galloway: How much did it cost for David’s garage?DAVID SEYMOUR: I think that was a private arrangement Mr Lees-Galloway. I would like to speak on behalf of some constituents I have heard from who have told me that they find themselves in the difficult position of being eligible to renew their passport between now—or at least between August 2014 when this change was first announced—and the time when they will be able to get a 10-year passport. These people “the 1¼ years people” find themselves requiring another 5-year passport and they are missing out on the benefit of this bill.If you think about it there is a 5-year term for passports so in 1¼ years around 30 percent nearly a third of all passport holders will be caught in the delay between the announcement of this change and the change coming into effect. Indeed it was announced first in August 2014. It was announced again in April 2015 and it was announced again in May 2015. As one of my constituents wrote this has been announced more times than the coming of Christ. And how many times does the Government impose a similarly complex—or indeed much more complex—change which is ultimately a change in a price and date upon small businesses and across New Zealanders and their households and expect them to adapt much more rapidly to far more complex changes with so little notice?This is a worthwhile consideration for anybody who thinks about the impact that we in this House can have upon people when we make regulations when we raise taxes and when we provide services in a certain way. So often the regulations and the Acts in this House have a disproportionate cost imposed on people out there and it is very important that we are always mindful of the impact that the Government with its coercive powers and its very powerful legislative instruments can have on the welfare of ordinary New Zealanders. So with those few considerations in mind I like Brett Hudson take great pleasure in the idea that we will soon again have 10-year passports—a much more efficient outcome—and I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a call on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) in its first reading and obviously commend it as it goes through to the Government Administration Committee. Like my honoured colleague over here Ian McKelvie I have not sat on that select committee but I believe that the work of the select committee will be important in discussing some of the issues of importance to all Kiwis.First of all can I just say that one of the things that is importantis in regard to the timing—and I know that there were comments made by New Zealand First by Clayton Mitchell. I think that was a good point because timing is something that is important. We know that other countries responded differently when it came to the issues of 9/11. New Zealand is in a unique situation because in a sense it did respond—it did reduce the number—and there are a couple of reasons for that. Part of it was to ensure that the technology was available in order to detect any sort of fraudulent behaviour that may have been happening. So that is what you would call the key issue that came to us.When we talk about timing as of now returning back to the House there are a couple of things. There were two reviews that were undertaken. One of those reviews was in regard to the cost. Many people sort of thought: “Well this is just a typical Government situation where we go from 10 years to 5 years where we put the cost up to over $200 and it is generating revenue for the Government.” Can I just put on record before the House that the Government does not actually gain any fees from the cost of passports. It is done on a cost-recovery basis so it is very minimal and is actually in regard to the administration costs for passports. So I just want to stake that out there. This is not a Government money-generating exercise.The second thing is just in regard to technology. We know that that is important as we enter in and out of borders. New Zealand in particular has SmartGate and we often use that. I use it quite oftennow. It is a lot easier to be able to enter in and out using SmartGate. Why? Because we now have the technology that is important and that allows us to travel in and out quite easily and accessibly. In saying that over 77 percent of New Zealanders actually have a passport. The interesting thing about technology is that over 40 percent of those who make renewals actually make them online. And so we think that the investment in regard to technology is also really important.I want to commend this bill to the select committee and the work that it has to take. I think it is important. It will be interesting to see the submissions that come out and whether there are any changes. We think that this is a good bill obviously. It is going to a select committee that actually has a neutral perspective in regard to its numbers because it is believed that actually this is something that is agreed oncommonly right across the House. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to its return. Thank you.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): It is just as well that you called me Mr Deputy Speaker because I was the only person taking the call. That is a big relief to me. It is a real pleasure to participate in this debate on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2). I want first of all to commend the Minister responsible for the bill the Hon Peter Dunne and thank him for responding to the recommendation of our Government Administration Committee which considered a petition on this very issue. It was a really interesting consideration of a petition: learning about the background to the move from the previous 10 year to 5-year passports what other countries internationally had done and of course how technology has moved on. It was a mature debate at our committee and I know that the current membership will welcome this bill to be considered by new members of the select committee.I want to recommend a more mature approach to the consideration of policy issues particularly to the sole member from the ACT Party David Seymour. I think he has got a contribution to make to this House. I probably will not ever agree with him—I hope not; it is unlikely—but I still thinkthat in a democracy in a valuable democracy such as this Parliament we should have different views heard. But I think it would be a good thing for him to consider contributing to a debate from a less ideological and less entrenched position. We all agree on this bill. It would be good to say that things have moved on we have changed our minds instead of trying to throw grenades at a Government that changed the law probably around the year he was born. It was not that long ago; he is a young man. But I would recommend that.David Seymour: Hey look. You don’t talk about my age; I won’t talk about yours.Hon RUTH DYSON: And if the member does not want to take my advice on his contribution in a better form let me just say two words to him about this issue: David Garrett. I would not go there if I were you. I bet that party wished it had never ever gone near that person. But the issues of identification the issues of fraud the issues of misrepresentation the potential threat to our security—all bring David Garrett to mind actually—were the very reason that at the time officials recommended and the Government that I was proud to be part of accepted the proposal that we move from 10 year to 5-year passports.Since that time my colleagues the Hon Trevor Mallard—a fine chair of the Committee on occasions—and the Hon Phil Goff have both campaigned really hard within our party and outside it actually for the return of a 10-year passport. They were both heavily involved in the discussion at the time when we moved from 10 years to 5 years and understood the increased threat and risk and our lack of confidence in the security of our systems at the time. They said things had moved on. They persuaded Labour of that. It was our policy at the last election to return to 10-year passports. They argued it strongly when the petition came to our select committee. I think it was a member of Mr Seymour’s party actually who brought that—you would know all the members of your own party by name I presume—Kyle Lockwood and he was very adequately supported by Jordan Williams from the taxpayers’ something-or-other union. He is certainly an ACT member. But they actually did a very good presentation on this issue to our committee.So through all those pre-discussions as I say we have learnt a lot about the changes—David Seymour: Actually misleading the House.Hon RUTH DYSON: About what? I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure who said it but a young man made a comment that I take offence at and I require him to withdraw and apologise.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: If the man could self-identify.David Seymour: I believe that the member is referring to me. I have been asked to withdraw and apologise. I will not. The member said that a person is a member—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Be seated. The point is that the member the Hon Ruth Dyson has taken offence at something the member has said. I did not hear it myself. If she has taken offence the member should withdraw and apologise. Actually I will just ask the Hon Ruth Dyson as to what it was that she took offence at.Hon RUTH DYSON: With respect that would be repeating something that I say is unparliamentary. I am happy to come and tell you but I do not think it is helpful for the order of the House to do that. But I give you my assurance that it was something that I genuinely take offence at and I am a fairly robust debater.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. In that case the member will stand withdraw and apologise without comment.David Seymour: I withdraw and apologise.Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. So back to the—David Seymour: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has been stating that certain individuals are a member of a political party I happen to lead and that is untrue.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter of debate and we will carry on.Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you for the clarification on what was not a point of order. I want to absolutely apologise to Jordan Williams for saying that he was a member of the ACT Party. I can understand why Mr Williams would be offended at that. I thought he was; I apologise. I will never make that sort of assertion again.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Maybe we should come back to the bill.Hon RUTH DYSON: OK. It has been a bit of a tradition in the House over the last few months to end the week on a bill on which there is agreement and I am pretty sure that there is unanimous agreement on this bill. I think it is a very good way for us to end the week’s session.I want to make a couple of comments on the specifics of the bill. It is interesting that technology does not seem to allow us to replace photos of children. So children are still going to have 5-year passports because their looks change more frequently than adults’. I would have thought that there may be enhanced technology to enable a photo to be updated as a child ages rather than the entire passport having to be renewed. There has been considerable debate about the cost of the passport. Originally we were told that it was going from 5 to 10 years and the cost would double. There was a bit of a shocked reaction to that. It certainly does not take double the administration or double the paperwork—literal paperwork in a passport—to extend it from 5 to 10 years so I think the Minister should be commended for his intervention then and it seems to have got back to a more reasonable rate.There are some other specific areas in the bill that I think will warrant quite close attention from the select committee. We want to get this right. We want to make sure that the original reasons that we changed from 10 years to 5 years and that was as I say our lack of confidence in the robustness of our system so that we could have confidence that it was not being used for fraud and that it was not being used as a way of having people enter our country when we did not want them to or that they were able to change identity or misuse passports in any fraudulent way—so those issues I think we will want to re-examine at the select committee and we have had a good advance on that through our petition deliberation.Then there are other “let’s look to the future while we have this opportunity” chances that this legislation will provide us with. For example do we have to continue to do so much of the work on paper? Can we do more online? What is the current situation in regard to the security? I have been very impressed with the way the Department of Internal Affairs has updated access to online renewal of passports. Is that going to still be maintained under the 10-year issue and will it give us the integrity without having individual verification?So just in conclusion I think this is a great note on which to end the week with Parliament agreeing that this is a good bill worthy of progress. The select committee that I am privileged to chair will welcome it. I hope that we give it the level of scrutiny that it deserves and I look forward to its further progress through the House.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to speak on the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) in its first reading. Like the previous Government member Mr Ngaro I do not sit on the Government Administration Committee but it is nevertheless a bill that will have an impact on many of my constituents. I was just looking over the recent tourism numbers of those who travelled—and Mr McKelvie touched on this—and in the last year there were 2.31 million New Zealand residents who travelled overseas which reached the highest record in our history and sees a 4 percent increase in international trips by New Zealand residents in the last year. Interestingly around half of those trips were to Australia with the next most-visited countries in order being the US Fiji the UK China and the Cook Islands. So that is a fascinating fact for the day there.I just want to touch on a point that Mr Clayton Mitchell made in his insightful contribution around some of the considerations that he would like to have seen put into this bill. Particularly there were a couple of suggestions around the number of pages in passports potentially reducing which somehow could reduce the administration costs included there. Changing the materials that passports are made of also the colour combinations used on passports as well as the watermark solutions that could potentially be on the pages would also potentially reduce the cost of passports. If you combined simpler watermark solutions on the passport pages with reducing the number of pages it probably would save you one or two dollars. So there were very interesting points made by New Zealand First.Just getting back to the main provisions of the bill we see that it will increase the validity of passports from 5 years to 10 years for citizens aged 16 and older. The reasons behind children not being included in that have been well canvassed and the point was made by Ms Dyson just before around potentially some technology solutions to include updated photos of children in passports. I think yes she is right that technology has progressed but one thing that has not progressed is magicianry. The ability to take a blink and slip a photo in and out of a passport—I do not think we have quite reached those technology levels yet. None the less I would just like to reiterate my support for this bill and I look forward to seeing it proceed through the rest of the parliamentary process. Thank you.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Government Administration Committee.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Land Information) on behalf of theMinister of Internal Affairs: I move That the Passports Amendment Bill (No 2) be reported to the House by 30 October 2015.Motion agreed to.Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) BillThird ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I move That the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill be now read a third time. This bill will provide greater pension flexibility for people who wish to live in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. This Government wants to recognise the great contribution that people from those islands have made to New Zealand. We also want to make sure that those countries and territories that have close constitutional ties with New Zealand are recognised and that their ongoing economic and social viability is supported. Current pension portability arrangements allow people to take their New Zealand superannuation to 22 Pacific countries and territories including the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. The provision that makes this possible is called the Special Portability Arrangement.Under this arrangement New Zealand superannuation is paid at a minimum of 50 percent after 10 years’ residence in New Zealand rising to 100 percent after 20 years’ residence. There are also general portability provisions which cover people going to all other countries with which New Zealand does not have a social security agreement. The payment formula for the Special Portability Arrangement is more generous than the payment formula for the general portability provisions. This is because the Special Portability Arrangement is designed to recognise that contribution that Pacific peoples have made to New Zealand and the inability of Pacific countries and territories to fulfil the reciprocal obligations necessary to conclude social security agreements with New Zealand.Despite the relative generosity of the Special Portability Arrangement an issue for people who wish to retire in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau is that under the arrangement they must be resident and present in New Zealand on the date they apply for New Zealand superannuation. Consequently people who wish to receive New Zealand superannuation in those islands are not able to leave New Zealand until they are 65 which is the age of eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. Should they choose to return permanently to the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau prior to age 65 they lose their ability to apply for New Zealand superannuation. This bill will remedy that situation by eliminating the resident and present in New Zealand requirement for the Special Portability Arrangement in respect of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. The bill will allow people to move to those islands after reaching the age of 55 and apply for the New Zealand superannuation or veterans pension from these Pacific Islands at age 65. People still need to live in New Zealand until they are 55 because in order to be eligible for New Zealand superannuation or a veterans pension a person must have lived in New Zealand for 10 years since the age of 20 5 of which must be after the age of 50. The residence rule applies to all applicants for New Zealand superannuation.There has been a lot of debate in the House on this point. I want to make it clear that all New Zealanders must meet the 5 over 50 rule regardless of who they are and where they live. New Zealand superannuation is based on principles of fair and equitable treatment and it would not be fair and equitable to allow a small group of New Zealanders to avoid a rule simply because of where they choose to live when every other New Zealander must fulfil that rule. Members have also said that it is unfair that migrants can come to New Zealand and qualify for full New Zealand superannuation after 10 years’ residence in New Zealand whereas people who want to live in and receive their pension in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau must have had 20 years’ residence in New Zealand to get the full payment available. This bill reflects the universal nature of New Zealand superannuation. All applicants living in New Zealand will receive full superannuation after 10 years’ residence. This Government believes that all New Zealanders regardless of where they were born deserve to be treated equally.Where applicants want to receive their New Zealand pension in another country though we apply a different set of residency requirements. This can vary between countries depending on the details of the relevant legislative provisions or social security agreement. As I have already said people who live in the Pacific including the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau have a relatively generous payment formula compared with people who take New Zealand superannuation anywhere else in the world. If a person moved to another country they would need to have lived in New Zealand for between 40 and 45 years to be eligible for full New Zealand superannuation. To be clear those who live in New Zealand qualify for full New Zealand superannuation after 10 years’ residence including 5 years after the age of 50. Those who choose to live in the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau qualify for 50 percent of New Zealand superannuation after 10 years’ residence and full superannuation after 20 years’ residence. They must be resident in New Zealand for 5 years after the age of 50. Those who choose to live in another country subject to portability agreements would generally need to have lived in New Zealand for 45 years to be eligible for full superannuation. However there can be some difference between agreements.Some members have also said that the bill discriminates against people from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. There is no inequality here. People from those islands who remain in New Zealand are subject to exactly the same rules as all other New Zealanders. They will receive full New Zealand superannuation after 10 years’ residence. All people who wish to take New Zealand superannuation to the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau are subject to the rules in the special portability provisions regardless of whether they were born in New Zealand the Islands or another part of the world. The change in this bill is restricted to the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau because it is about recognising New Zealand’s close constitutional relationships with these Pacific Islands which enjoy shared citizenship with New Zealand and unique legal arrangements. Tokelau is a non-selfgoverning territory of New Zealand. Both the Cook Islands and Niue have adopted constitutions enabling self-government in free association with New Zealand. Free association is a status distinct from that of full independence in that it allows for the Cook Islands and Niue to maintain New Zealand citizenship while administering their own affairs.As I mentioned earlier this bill is also about ensuring the economic and social viability of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Depopulation and its related social and economic consequences is a longstanding issue for those islands. The current “resident and present in New Zealand” requirement has been described as a disincentive for Cook Islanders Niueans and Tokelauans who are established in New Zealand to return home before the age of 65. Removing this disincentive would potentially help boost economic development and human resource capability in these islands through an increased return of experienced people who are able to effectively apply skills acquired in New Zealand in their home communities. People returning at age 55 would have the capacity to contribute to the workforce 10 years in advance of the age of qualification for New Zealand superannuation. As pension payments are paid in gross it is expected that more income and value-added tax will be paid by returning migrants to contribute to the local economy.I want to reiterate that this Government wants to make sure that those countries and territories that have close constitutional ties with New Zealand are recognised and that their ongoing economic and social viability is supported. This Government also wants to ensure that superannuitants have options as to where they choose to live. By allowing people to apply for New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension while resident in the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau this bill will achieve both of these things. I commend this bill to the House.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): Kia orana fakalofa lahi atu and taloha ni. It is a privilege to speak on the third reading of this bill. I want to acknowledge all of our Cook Island Niue and Tokelau - New Zealand residents living in New Zealand and all of our Tokelau Cook Island and Niue people living in the Realm of New Zealand countries.We come here today all in support of this bill with one minor—or not so minor—point that we disagree with. Listening to the Minister for Social Development there was much of what she said that I agreed with; some of what she said I thought: “Hang on a second that’s not actually correct Minister.” One of the points she raised was that all New Zealanders must meet the 5 years after 50 rule in terms of 5 years having been spent in New Zealand over the age of 50 regardless of where they live to be able to access their superannuation.We know—and this has put forward through a Supplementary Order Paper—that actually there are countries where we have a reciprocal pension agreement. They are countries like Australia the UK and the Netherlands where actually they can access their pension there without having to spend 5 years in New Zealand between the ages of 50 and 65. What we have been asking for alongside New Zealand First is that that same exemption be given to these three countries which have a special constitutional relationship with New Zealand. Actually if any citizens were going to be exempt from that 5-year rule it should be the three countries that are actually part of the Realm of New Zealand. So to hear the Minister go on and say that there is no justification or rationale for an exemption well actually I think that that is incorrect and the submissions that we received from people like the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue actually should have been enough to persuade the National Government and to convince it that an exemption was warranted in this particular case.Many of us of Pacific descent in this House have an understanding of the importance of returning to the Pacific country that we came from. I myself have a father who was born and raised in Samoa and who has now in his later years gone back to Samoa to invest in the land to renew the plantation and to get people working on that plantation. It has made a huge difference to our family over there in terms of—here is this plantation that was not touched for almost 30 years and now there is this whole family that has found this renewed interest in the land that had kind of been left to itself for just a long period of time.Niue the Cook Islands and Tokelau have the same possibilities and we have an opportunity here to support these citizens to return to those countries to invest in their own countries and to contribute to their economic development. For the Minister to say that that investment can start at age 55 or that that investment can start in those years but they must still spend 5 years here between the ages of 50 and 65 well actually that is not good enough.One of the biggest issues that we have been told about by these countries is that we have depleted them of their major resource—their major resource—that being their people. We look at places at Niue which now has a population of something like 1200 people. How can it develop its economy with 1200 people when we have 24000 of its people in this country? Those are 24000 people who have contributed to this country not only to our workforce to our sports fields to our academic credentials but also—and I think this is really important to point out—serving under the New Zealand flag alongside our military at war. Yet we have a Minister and a National Government who cannot give that one exemption that was asked for that being to exempt them from the 5-year rule between the ages of 50 and 65.If we had had agreement on that one small point I think we would all be celebrating in the House today. We would have consensus here and actually we would be happy with each other. But when we walk out the door today and we go and talk to our Niue Tokelau and Cook Island communities yes we can say that we have made some arrangement so that the portability has increased for them so that they can go back earlier and they can contribute but not to the extent that we think we should have.Let me just say that members on that side of the House need to know that when we walk out this door we will be saying to our Cook Island Niue and Tokelau communities that yes there was consensus overall for the bill but we were disappointed Labour was disappointed that National could not understand the rationale or see the justification for exempting our three Realm countries from that one rule that would allow them to spend 15 of their years between the ages of 50 and 65 back in their homelands. Exempting them from that one rule would have allowed them 5 additional years between those age groups to contribute to the economic development of their own countries. National would not agree that the historical and constitutional ties we have with those three countries were enough to actually warrant an exemption. So we will be going out there and voicing that to our communities.Actually already I did see that my colleague Poto Williams did put something up on social media and the reaction she got from the Cook Island community about the fact that the one Cook Island MP in the National Party could not convince his National Party colleagues to support that one exemption was actually—let us just say they were outraged that had happened. You know we know that regardless of whatever ethnicity we are there are ideologies philosophies and ways of thinking in different political parties and this is one of those examples where actually the rest of our community gets to see that that exists regardless of ethnicity that there is a philosophy and ideology that comes with an individual depending on which political party they are in. That has proven itself today and with this whole discussion around the bill.I am not sure actually whether I have more to contribute to this discussion. The point I wanted to make today was that actually yes we are happy to support this bill. We are disappointed in the National Government that it did not understand the rationale for exempting Niue Tokelau and the Cook Islands from the 5-year rule. We will be letting our communities know that that was the case but in the very least this is a step forward. It is a step towards recognising the special relationship we have with the three Realm countries. I will end on a positive note and say that at the very least that is a good thing. Thank you.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is nice to finish on a positive note there. It is a pleasure to speak on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. I think there is general agreement across the House that this is a good bill. With the Realm countries electing to have self-governance and free association it is a wonderful thing to be able to align them with the same rights to be able to retire and take your superannuation with you to the Islands.Although there has been a lot of talk about those rules—I think I will touch on that a bit further on—I first want to talk a little bit about the submissions that were given to the Social Services Committee. Generally they were mostly all except for one focused on the 5 years over 50 provision in the bill and two of them in fact suggested that the 5 years over 50 should be 5 years over 40 giving people a bit longer in the Islands. The rationale of course is that those people would be able to contribute more to the economy of those islands and contribute to the communities as well. Although I suggest that that is a very good ideain spirit they will actually get that at age 55 anyway.Although we are aligning this with what every New Zealander has to do to qualify for superannuation I think I would just like to point out that in those countries we have agreements with like Australia and the UK as was pointed out before what is different about that situation is that there is a provision known as totalisation. That provision allows for reciprocal payments of superannuation within those nations. That does not apply in the Islands because they are not able to pay their superannuation at the same rate.So in theory it sounds good to hand out a little bit more money and I know the rationale of some members of the Opposition in the Committee debate was that it is not that much money so why do we not just pay it. Well my running total so far at the moment when adding all of these up in these various bills through the House is half a billion dollars. So these little bits of money add up to quite a lot of money and being legislators we have to make hard decisions. We take taxes off New Zealand citizens and distribute them to provide the services that the Government provides and superannuation is one of those. In this bill we must be responsible with that money as we are with every other bill we debate in this House.On the whole I think we can be very proud of this bill. I think the people of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau can all be very very pleased with this. I would also like to take note that my colleague Alfred Ngaro reminds us that the triple star that is referred to in our national anthem refers to these nations. I think that probably should be spoken about at every opportunity because most people do not realise that that is what it refers to. I think it is a great thing. In summary I think this is a great bill and I have a lot of pleasure in commending it to the House. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Kia orana Mr Speaker. In February I had the pleasure of travelling to Rarotonga to attend a United Nations development partners meeting. They had an award ceremony on one of the nights I was there and during the award ceremony they made an award to my uncle Mr Tekake Williams. Tekake Williams is a pioneer of the black pearl industry. Many of the people from this House who have travelled to the Cook Islands know that the black pearl is one of the major components of the economy in the Cooks. My father Nahora Williams used to travel back to the Cooks to help his younger brother work in the pearl farm in the early days. When my father retired he would travel every year to the Cooks for a couple of months—he would winter up there—and he would be very pleased to know that we are putting this bill through the House and that it will be passed tonight. Portability was important to him. He did not have the opportunity to access the portability that is now being afforded so in that regard today is a very important day because the bill will be passed and afford to many people the opportunity that my father did not have. My father I should also say used to travel to the Cooks and leave mother behind but that is a whole other issue.Portability is important because as my colleague Carmel Sepuloni said one of the unintended consequences of being part of the countries of the Realm of New Zealand and travelling on a New Zealand passport is the depopulation of the home islands. We are able to travel freely as people of the Realm to New Zealand and we have done so not only to New Zealand but also to Australia. So this portability bill is an attempt I guess to support the travel home the return home of people in order that they contribute to the economy of their home islands.But what is difficult about it—and we have traversed this well and truly across the House during the passage of this bill—has been the difficulty around the residency clause that mentions “after the age of 50”. Twelve of the 13 submitters were very clear that they felt that clause was a huge barrier to the opportunity to make a significant difference to the economy of the Cooks and to the population of the Cooks—and I speak of the example of the Cooks because I have personal knowledge of this. The opportunity that my father for example may have had to go back and actually start a pearl farm of his own had he been able to do so cannot be afforded to him and there are many people who are currently in the countries of the Realm who will have to return to do that 5 year residency. It is blatantly unfair when we have portability arrangements with other countries that do not have that as a provision. It is unfair.We had the benefit of having the Hon Henry Puna the Hon Nandi Glassie and Premier Talagi from Niue here to present and the very fact that we had two heads of State and a Government Minister from overseas countries come and present to our select committee should have been recognised for the value that it brought. They were coming to plead their case and that unfortunately fell on a couple of deaf ears. There was also the hard work by the Matua group and I have to acknowledge the group in Christchurch led by Mama Tufunga and Papa John Pitomaki who were very impassioned in their submission and quoted the sacrifice they felt they and their families who had come before them had given to this country. I have already in this House talked about the 500 soldiers from the Cook Islands who fought for New Zealand under the New Zealand flag during World War I. What has that afforded to us? In this bill it is demonstrated that that sacrifice has been for nothing. I also want to commend the submission made by the Christian Church in Christchurch by Mrs Teremoana McNabb. She too spoke quite passionately about the residency requirement post age 50 and how unequal that made her feel as a Cook Islander living in New Zealand.But there was hope. There was hope in the form of the Supplementary Order Paper that was put forward by New Zealand First. It was supported by us. It was a good Supplementary Order Paper and it was an attempt to redress an inequality that exists within this bill. After the Committee stage as my colleague Carmel Sepuloni has said I was canvassed quite heavily by members of the Cook Islands community to ask: what now? What now? What can we do now? Unfortunately for this bill that is it. We will not actually be able to demonstrate our commitment to our Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau communities as we would have hoped. We will not be able to say that yes your sacrifice your hard work and the lives of your ancestors do mean something to New Zealand and yes we will bring you in line with portability arrangements with other countries that do not have the special arrangements. But in this case we cannot say that.I also have to acknowledge the RSA submitter who made a very clear case that when you receive a war pension that is not the same as superannuation. He wanted it noted on the record that someone who puts their life at risk in service of this country should be recognised differently to someone who receives a pension because they have been a taxpayer and it is the age of eligibility that triggers that. I want to acknowledge that RSA submitter and say yes I agree that someone who does put their life on the line for their country should be treated in a different way and acknowledged in a different way. Superannuation and war pensions should be treated separately so I acknowledge the work that you have done.So I say to all of those people—and there will be one or two who are watching the third reading of this—that we did try. We tried really hard. We did our best but it has not come to fruition as you would have hoped. But we all know that there is one person whom we can point to on the other side of the House who could have stood up for you but chose not to—someone who could have petitioned his colleagues and talked about his own family experience but chose not to. I am not going to belabour the rest of this bill. I am pleased about the provisions that we are passing in this bill and it will make it possible for some people to have the opportunities that they may not have had prior. But at the end of the day it does not do what was promised by Mr McCully all those years ago and for that I am very disappointed. Kia orana. Meitaki maata.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): After that speech by Poto Williams I struggled to get to my feet—what a sombre affair. It just drained the energy out of me. What a great day for the Cook Islands what a great day for Niue what a great day for Tokelau and what a great day for all New Zealanders who now will not need to be resident and present in New Zealand to receive their superannuation. This is just typical petty oppositional politics—everything we do they will say it is not good enough. Imagine if we gave every vulnerable family in New Zealand $25 a week. They would still say that was not enough—hold on we did do that and they still said that was not enough. What a great day for the Cook Islands for Tokelau and for Niue. What a great day for all New Zealanders who will be able to retire at the age of 65 and not have to be resident and present in New Zealand.Can I say kia orana to the Cook Islands taloha ni to Tokelau and fakalofa lahi atu to Niue. I do not have any ancestral connections to these islands but as I disclosed in my second reading speech it was in Rarotonga in the Cook Islands that I got down on my knees on the beach and proposed to my wife. I could not think of a better environment to start a beautiful relationship and I could not think of a better environment to retire to. This bill is being passed so what a great day this is.On Wednesday of this week I was at the Budget estimates hearing for Vote Social Development. I think we need to remind ourselves where the funding comes from. Vote Social Development is the biggest spender of this Budget at $25 billion—$25 billion. The country trusts us with the management of this money. It was demonstrated very clearly in September last year that they trust us that they know we are responsible. That is why they returned us to Government. In Vote Social Development the focus of the Government’s work is to move people from dependence to independence. It was great to see the programmes like the Community Investment Strategy which will deliver this.Can I pay homage not only to the Minister for Social Development Anne Tolley for this bill but also to the chair of the Social Services Committee Alfred Ngaro. Like many people in this Chamber we wear many hats. At times we look at things through a personal lens and at other times we look at things through a professional lens. It is very disappointing that people on the other side of the House have blurred those lenses from personal to professional and forgotten the very important roles that we play.It is somewhat interesting that the members opposite have selective memory about the submissions. The submissions process was yes overly favourable. I remember the Concerned Community Collective. It was great to see about 30 people get together from ages 25 to 75. It shows the key interest of this bill because they all can see the benefit but the Opposition clearly forgets.There were concerns around this bill around people moving back to the Islands and the pressure that would put on housing on social services and on health. That is why it is good to structure the process as we have done to take the steps we have done to see how this will play out. Of course these islands need repopulation and it is great that we will be able to promote economic development in these islands. Not only is it about people returning home to spend their hard-earned superannuation to support the local businesses in Tokelau Niue and the Cook Islands but it is about the tourism as well—the pensioner tourism. They will be able to go over and spend money in these islands.This bill amends the payments for New Zealand superannuation. Currently people have to reside and be present in New Zealand at 65. This change will allow applicants who are 65 to apply from these countries. It was great to hear the thinking that has already happened about the roll-out and the phasing-in of the IT support that will be needed to facilitate these payments. It shows that this Government—trustworthy and responsible—has clearly thought through the pragmatic implementation of this bill.We must remind ourselves that this bill is not only for people from Niue Tokelau and the Cook Islands. This bill is for all New Zealanders. They will be able to go and retire in these countries and enjoy a blessed retirement. Thank you. I support this bill to the House.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the first call for the Greens on the third reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. We are pleased to be supporting this bill in its final reading and we will of course be voting for it. This bill recognises and should recognise the special relationship that New Zealand has with the countries of the Realm of New Zealand: the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. It is a special relationship that has lasted a long time.This bill changes what has been seen to be an inequity. I have to say that the evidence we heard during the Social Services Committee hearings suggested that this bill has been a long time coming and certainly that is the view of my colleagues over here who were also on the select committee at the time. It was a special privilege to have the premier leaders of our Realm countries come and present their oral submissions to the select committee. It is not something that happens very often but I would reiterate that it was an absolute signal from these countries that a change to superannuation and the veterans pension portability is absolutely required for the citizens of the Realm who want to go back and spend their final years in those Island nations.What the bill does is enable citizens of the Realm from those island nations who have lived in New Zealand for more than 10 years after the age of 20 to return to their home country while remaining eligible for New Zealand superannuation as long as they have lived in New Zealand for 5 years after the age of 50. This provision was quite controversial and I want to acknowledge and thank the members on this side of the House from both New Zealand First and Labour who put up Supplementary Order Papers in an attempt to amend that provision in the bill because we do still see that as an inequity. What the bill does is allow after the age of 55 citizens from Niue Tokelau and Cook Islands to return to their home islands and to apply for and receive New Zealand superannuation and the veterans pension if they are eligible for it. The previous situation was that they had to be present and resident in New Zealand in order to access that superannuation.When the Act actually comes into being it will not actually affect a huge amount of people right away. Roughly about 250 only will be triggered into being able to access superannuation and the veterans pension. However it does give an opportunity for those many people from the three Realm countries living in New Zealand to be able to access it in the future which we do see as fairer.Currently according to Statistics New Zealand there are 62000 people from the Cook Islands 23000 Niueans and 7176 people from Tokelau living here and those are far greater numbers than the populations living on those islands themselves. It has been an ongoing issue that the local economies have been depleted of their greatest resource which I agree with my colleague Poto Williams is their people. So we have a larger number of people living in New Zealand then than are living in the Realm islands. But their connections are strong and their ancestral ties bind them to those countries and it is fair and reasonable that they return in their final years if they want to to take up their lives back in their home country. The depopulation issue has been a real problem and we did hear that from the leaders of those countries when they submitted but we did also hear that there was some potential for this change in this bill to enable people to return to their country at the age of 55 when they may—they may—be young enough to be able to contribute further to the economies in their home countries. But we are not sure about that; that was one of the reasons why we were quite keen to remove the 5 years after 50 rule.We are happy to be supporting this bill and to know that it is supported unanimously across the House. It is very rare that that happens and it is an unusual experience I have to say but for the people of the Realm and from the Realm countries I think it is something we should be doing to ensure that they get the best deal that we can possibly give them. Again I restate that I am disappointed that the National Party did not listen to the submitters that we heard including those from those nations’ leaders asking for more flexibility because they have been waiting and they have been negotiating with Murray McCully and others in the National Government for a very long time. So although this bill does not go as far as we would like it to go it is a step forward and we will be supporting it.DARROCH BALL (NZ First): New Zealand First has made it quite clear from the start where we stand on this bill. We do agree with the changes that are being made but it is not good enough. We did put in Supplementary Order Paper 71 and requested support from the Government; in particular from one member of the Government at least who knows that he should have voted for that Supplementary Order Paper. We have had support and the same way of thinking from all the Opposition parties in regard to the Supplementary Order Paper and that Supplementary Order Paper was specifically in regard to the 5 years over 50 rule.I would just like to talk about something that Matt Doocey said in his speech previously and that was that this was nothing but petty Opposition politics—disagreeing with things or thinking that the changes are never good enough. Well I would like him to have a look at the submissions and who submitted and what they submitted on. There were 13 submissions and 12 of them were in regard to the 5 years over 50 part of the amendment. I would like him to contact the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and tell him that this is nothing but petty politics because it is not. It shows the importance the outright importance of that specific clause to the people of those three Realm countries. In fact we had a unique situation where the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue I believe it was came over personally and gave an oral submission. That is the importance that they placed on that clause. In fact what the Government of the Cook Islands submitted was that the Cook Islands did support the bill but recommended further consideration given the 5 years over 50 rule. Not only that the submitters actually made a good point where they pointed out that the regulatory impact statement did not actually mention the financial burden placed on New Zealand by applicants who may claim welfare payments returning to satisfy the 5-year residence requirement. So from the get-go in the process—and I know that there has actually been a long time going through the process of this bill—it seemed to me when I was going through it in the select committee and through these different stages that there was not actually a lot of thought put into the bill itself. The reason why I say that is—Jono Naylor: Oh!DARROCH BALL: Well Mr Naylor might disagree with that but I ask him to look at all of the submissions and see what the opposition to that clause is and who is saying it. It is not just the Opposition parties; it is the people who are being affected by that clause specifically—and that is the importance of that clause.What I would also like to go on to are the purpose and intent. The reason why I say there was not much thought put into the bill is because the purpose and the intent of the bill are actually good ones. They are to recognise the very special relationship that New Zealand as a country has with those three Island nations. They come under the Realm of New Zealand and the Cook Islands as Mr Ngaro would know even uses the New Zealand dollar. So not only have we got ancestral connections with those islands but we have the largest population centre—being Auckland—of the Pacific Islands and in particular of those three. We have economic ties. They come under our protectorate. So the bill misses out on that very important provision on the 5 years over 50 which those islands have been asking for for a very very long time. I think that the Government assumed that this would be a bill that would pass through the House quite easily and uncontested. But that was not the case. New Zealand First put through a minority report stating those different points.But I would just like to touch on the extra costs that the departmental report from the Ministry of Social Development said that it would actually cost. We are not talking about a huge number of people this would affect but it would make such a big impact in their lives—and more important their families’ lives. If we are talking just about the administrative implications for the ministry in 2020 in 5 years’ time we are talking about only $60000 to $65000 in administrative costs. That is the cost that the Government is saying is one of the reasons why it will not change that clause. We are talking about up to 100 additional applications for New Zealand superannuation in subsequent years and it costs the ministry only around a million dollars a year. If you compare that with a waste of money like the flag referendum which is costing $30 million you can see where the Government puts its priority.New Zealand First like I said is supporting this bill. We support the intent; we support the purpose. We do not think it goes far enough and for very good reason. I would like to join my Labour colleagues in saying to those peopleout there whom this does affect that we tried our hardest. We put in the Supplementary Order Paper. All it would have taken was one member across in the Government benches to vote for the Supplementary Order Paper but he did not.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR (National): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker for the opportunity to take this call to speak on the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill in its third reading. This is a great bill for the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau because this bill seeks to provide greater pension flexibility for those people who wish to retire in these three Pacific nations—Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau.This bill as acknowledged by the member who just spoke Darroch Ball is about recognising our special constitutional ties with these three Pacific nations which enjoy shared New Zealand citizenship and unique legal arrangements. Under our current portability arrangement eligible people are required to be residents and present here in New Zealand at the time of applying for their superannuation at the age of 65. This bill is to remove that requirement.There is a residence condition which is that to be eligible for New Zealand superannuation or the veterans pension people should have lived here for 10 years after the age of 20 which includes 5 years after the age of 50. This means that people—those who wish to—can actually retire in these three Island countries at the age of 55. They can go to these Island countries to retire at the age of 55 and when they turn 65 they can apply for their New Zealand superannuation from any of these three Pacific nations.The Social Services Committee received 13 submissions and they were thoroughly considered. Six were orally heard and I can say that most of those submissions were in support of this bill. I want to acknowledge our chair Alfred Ngaro and I also want to acknowledge our Minister the Hon Anne Tolley for the work that she has done on this bill. I also want to acknowledge all submitters for the time they took to come and make those submissions. We had thorough discussions on points that were raised.One issue that came up and widely discussed was depopulation. This was actually linked to the 5 years after 50 rule. I also note the Supplementary Order Paper 71 by New Zealand First to make a change to exempt these three Pacific nations the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau from this 5 years after 50 rule.I was here in the Chamber when we were debating the Committee stage of this bill. My observation was that I did not expect Labour to be fair. The New Zealand First members were pleading to get support for this Supplementary Order Paper but they could not provide even a single reason why their Supplementary Order Paper should be supported. The only reason that came from their side was that it is not that many people; it is not about how many people. It is about fairness and it is about having a balanced approach. That was coming from the party that thinks it has some common sense. It thinks it has some common sense but there was no common sense in its Supplementary Order Paper to get support.Hon Simon Bridges: No common sense.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: No common sense.Hon Simon Bridges: Common sense is decidedly uncommon.Dr PARMJEET PARMAR: That is true. There was no common sense. There was no fairness. There was no reason given as to why that rule should be amended. It was very interesting for me to sit here and watch that.But this National Government is committed to all. This National Government is working for all. We are an efficient and fair Government. We are not unfair like them. This bill going through does not mean that it will apply only to those people who originally came from the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau. Once this bill goes through this provision will be available to all those eligible people those who wish to retire in these three Pacific nations. It is the kind of flexibility that we want to provide to people. It does not mean that all people those who are from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau will take up this provision. So it is about providing greater flexibility. We know that there are around 650 people in the Pacific who are receiving New Zealand superannuation and out of those 650 people around 300 are in the Cook Islands. We also know that with this legislation going through there will be around 245 people who will benefit with an increase of 16 people per year.The New Zealand Government is always committed to its relationship with the Pacific nations. We have strong cultural political and economic ties with the Pacific nations. With these three Pacific nations the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau we have a very special relationship. We call it free association. As a result of this free association the people from these three Pacific nations enjoy New Zealand superannuation and also there is substantial assistance from our Government to their Governments so there is this very close linkage. Employment opportunities here in New Zealand are better so it is natural that the people from these Pacific nations are attracted to New Zealand.With these three Pacific nations there is even greater attraction because their people have New Zealand citizenship and rights to residence. The issue of depopulation is a real one. That is why this bill is really important. It is to help these three Pacific nations with that issue. This bill will make people go to these Pacific nations if they wish to at the age of 55 and at the age of 65 they can apply for their New Zealand superannuation from any of these three Pacific nations.This National Government recognises that New Zealanders have worked hard and they deserve to enjoy their retirement. We want them to have as many options as possible. It is very hard to say what the cost of this to the Crownwill be but we know that this move will definitely help these three Pacific nations—the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. This bill is to help these three Pacific nations socially and economically and it will also reduce the impact of depopulation that they have in these three Pacific nations.This bill is about keeping it fair. Once the bill goes through it will be applicable to all eligible people—those who wish to retire in these three Pacific nations. This 5 years after 50 rule applies to all even to New Zealand - born people—those who have gone overseas and come back and want to spend their retirement here or those who want to go to other countries and spend their retirement there. It is about fairness and it is about having a balanced approach. As I said this National Government is about fairness. We analyse everything from a fairness point of view. That is why we are not supporting the exemption to the 5 years after 50 rule in Supplementary Order Paper 71.This bill is a great bill to support these three Pacific nations. This bill is about recognising our special relationship with these three Pacific nations. I am really delighted to commend this bill to the House and to support it. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call will be a split call. Jan Logie—5 minutes.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on the third reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. The Green Party is of course supporting this bill. We are united with this side of the House in disappointment that it does not go far enough. I will explain to members of the public what this bill is about. It is about enabling people who live in the Realm of New Zealand—Niue Tokelau and the Cook Islands—to access superannuation or their veterans pension after they have worked in New Zealand for 10 to 20 years and to access it without having to be in New Zealand on the age of retirement.The bill still requires people to live in New Zealand for 5 years post the age of 50 which is our contention with this bill. Partly it is because this has been an issue that has been raised with members in this House for decades. It has been a real concern for people from these countries who are part of our Realm. They are part of our family. They are not another country per se. They are part of the Realm of New Zealand. They have been saying that these rules have been creating an incentive for people to stay in New Zealand when they would have otherwise returned to their country to be able to engage in meaningful work pre-retirement. When we look at the example of Niue which for me is the most striking there are fewer than 1600 people left on the island and over 23000 are here in New Zealand. We can see the impact of this kind of regulation on that country and by virtue of the impact on them the impact on our overseas development and aid budget. So where there is a small cost here there is also a potential savings in overseas development and aid support from New Zealand. This is about seeing this whole situation holistically and addressing it holistically but also to me it is fundamentally a matter of respect.Two heads of State presentedbefore the select committee which is a very rare occurrence. They spoke directly to this House about what a difference it would make to be able to pass this legislation and to remove that 5 years post 50 years of age requirement. They said that it would absolutely assist their countries in reversing the depopulation building their economies and sustaining their communities. I think it is very sad that the Government has chosen to go only part-way in addressing those concerns and I think it is short-sighted. I do not think it makes sense in terms of even the medium-term economic interests of this country let alone those Realm countries’ interests for the Government to make this decision. I think it is very short-sighted and poor thinking.I do particularly want to acknowledge the Realm countries as part of our family and the contribution of the people who have left their countries to come to our country right here. They are people who have contributed massively to our economy to our societies to our academic sphere and to this Parliament for goodness’ sake. They are people who have died under the colours of this country in war. Where their needs are met only part-way by this Government I find it disrespectful and another example of unnecessary meanness. Although we are happy to support this bill for the step that it does take we are disappointed that it could not go the whole way in honouring the contribution of all those people. Kia ora.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Louisa Wall—5 minutes.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Tēnā koe te Māngai o te Whare. Kia orana. Fakalofa atu ki a mutolu osi. Malo ni. It is my pleasure to speak on this the third reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. I would like to take this opportunity to pay my respects to the two heads of State—Cook Islands Prime Minister Henry Puna and Premier Talagi from Niue—who came to our country and in a very rare occurrence made a submission to the select committee. From my perspective I think the significance of that submission really needs to be reflected in the final debate in the House because what it speaks to actually is the prioritisation from their perspective of this piece of legislation.I just want to outline quickly the eligibility for New Zealand superannuation. For people who are listening: you have to be 65 years of age you have to be a citizen or resident you have to have lived here for 10 years since the age of 20 and you also have to have lived here for 5 years since the age of 50. Generally you have to be a resident in New Zealand on the date of application. Those are the general rules or criteria around New Zealand superannuation.If you are from the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau you are a citizen of this country by virtue of having been born in one of those countries. They are Realm countries of New Zealand so they are incredibly special and they have a special status in terms of us here in Aotearoa. You have to have spent 20 years in New Zealand since the age of 20 and 5 years since the age of 50 but under this legislation—and this is where I want to congratulate the Government—you can now apply from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelaufor your pension. So well done; congratulations. On behalf of the people of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau I would like to say thank you because I think it is significant. In fact it is one of the two things that the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and the Premier of Niue came to submit about.Half of what they asked for has been achieved. In terms of the differences obviously being able to apply from those Realm countries is incredibly important. The other difference that I want to highlight is that unlike general New Zealanders who have to have been here for 10 years since the age of 20 in fact if you come from the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau you actually have to have lived in New Zealand for 20 years. And that was the main contention particularly of the submission by the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands to the select committee. If you are a general New Zealander it is 10 years; if you are from the Cook Islands it is 20.So he said: “How about because we have to live in New Zealand for 20 years the compensation for that is not to scrap the 5 years since 50 but”—he was actually saying—“why do we not recognise that if you spend 5 years from 50 in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau because they are Realms of New Zealand that qualifies you?”. Because the reality is that they may have lived in other parts of the world. They may have lived in Australia or in Sweden or in London or wherever. So actually it was about recognising people who come back to the Cook Islands and contribute to those countries. And I think that has been the main contention.When you look at all the statistics about how expensive it is it actually does not stack up. Currently 220 people receive New Zealand superannuation in the Cook Islands. That is about 33 percent of those who are eligible. When this legislation goes through tonight 245 people will become eligible. So there is not going to be a big flood. The Government is not going to take a big hit. It is not going to cost the Government a lot of money. In fact they have estimated that there will be an extra 16 people per annum. So this is not about money. Yes this is about the special status that the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau have in New Zealand’s constitution and about our recognition that they are part of our country. They have automatic citizenship.We would have contended that the Government could go just that little bit further and got rid of the requirement. I think that in the Government’s mind Cook Islanders live in New Zealand and then when they are 55 they leave here and go back to the Cook Islands. The reality is that that is not what happens. So thank you to the people who made a submission and thank you to the people who have contributed to the debate. I commend the bill to the House but with that caveat. Thank you.JONO NAYLOR (National): It is with great pleasure that I rise to talk about the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. As a relatively new MP I was reflecting today that I think this is the first bill where I have been a part of the first reading the Committee stage the select committee and seeing this through to the end.Chris Hipkins: Not working hard enough.JONO NAYLOR: No it is just a great thing for me to be able to be a part of. It is a great thing to be able to be a part of doing something that is actually very positive. Of course everything this Government does is positive and this is just another one of those things. But it is just I think for me something that we can really look at and say that this is something positive we are doing for the people of the Cook Islands Tokelau and Niue. I think the last speaker Louisa Wall summed it up when she reflected on the very positive response that we had in large part from the submitters from those islands who talked about the fact that they were very grateful for what is going on here and what is happening.What we are doing is ensuring—and I think this is the particularly important part of this—that people no longer have to be resident in New Zealand at the time at which they apply for their superannuation to be able to be transferred to them if they are living in any of these Realm of New Zealand Islands. I think it is a critical thing because people do sometimes want to go back a little earlier than the age of 65 to retire and so it is great that they can do that.I think what is critical about this though is that it actually gives people who are from those places the same rights that are afforded to the rest of the New Zealanders who are living here. I am 48 years old now. If at some time I decide that I want to move to the Cook Islands or Niue or Tokelau and I want to stay there when I retire I am going to have to spend 5 years after the age of 50 in New Zealand. And yet what is being proposed by Supplementary Order Paper 71 which has come from the other side of the House is to give people who are from these islands something that other New Zealanders are not eligible for. That is not necessarily fair. So what we have done in putting this legislation forward—despite the fact that a member over the other side thought that not a lot of consideration had not gone into this a huge amount of consideration has gone into this to ensure that people can go back before the age of 65 and they can receive superannuation in exactly the same way as other New Zealanders can. I think that is absolutely critical.One of the points that was made from the other side of the House was just bizarre. I just want to pick up on it because it was stated that almost all of the submissions were for changing this. I thought: you know what? If this Government—if any Government to be honest—said every time that submissions came to a select committee “Oh the people who came to make submissions asked for this so therefore we should give it to them.” well the Government would go broke so quickly it would be unbelievable. So yes we do need to listen to submissions but we need to weigh them up against the reality of the situation. Yes we will get submissions on bills but we do need to be sure that we weigh those up against the reality of the situation. We listened to those people and we have responded to those people but it does not mean that we always have to do just what somebody wants every time they ask.These islands are facing some real issues. They are facing issues of depopulation. They are facing some challenges. As a nation New Zealand is offering protection to those other islands in the Realm of New Zealand and it is our responsibility to do what we can in an appropriate way to assist them. That is exactly what we are doing through this legislation. Through this legislation we are ensuring that it will be much easier for people to go back to be able to retire somewhere along the line perhaps a little bit earlier than they might have before and to make some useful contribution back home in those islands.I have heard members on the other side use the word “mean”. They have used the word “mean”. They have said that this Government is mean because we are not changing—Su’a William Sio: Mean-spiritedJONO NAYLOR: Mean-spirited even was the word that I have heard. It is absolutely bizarre because what we are talking about doing today is offering something that has not been offered before—something that up until now has been missing through successive Governments of New Zealand. I do not want to lay blame but it has not been addressed until now. We are addressing it and we are doing it so that the people of those Islands are being treated in the same way as any other New Zealander in terms of whether they wanted to retire there and I think that is critical in what we are doing.So I want to finish up by saying we are committed to these islands of the Realm of New Zealand. We do take it very seriously. We do acknowledge the special place that they do have but we do need to make sure that what we do is fair is equitable and is in line with everything else that we are doing. That is exactly what this bill does. This bill ensures that we are working in a way that is most appropriate to meet the needs of those islands and also keeping in mind what is fair and equitable for other New Zealanders.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I think that members of the Pacific Islands listening in to this debate will have a very strong difficulty accepting or believing the comments about this Government being committed to the Pacific. They have heard it often—too often—and particularly in the last campaign and it has all come to naught. It means nothing. Words are quite cheap. They have learnt to understand and accept that this Government will say anything to try to bring people around to its thinking but at the end of the day they are just simply words.I want to firstly acknowledge the leaders and the people of the community of the Cook Islands who are listening in—kia orana tatou katoatoa. I also want to acknowledge the leaders and people who are listening in from Niue that place that we affectionately call “the Rock”—fakalofa lahi atu. I also want to acknowledge the leaders and people of Tokelau who are prayerfully listening to this debate as well as prayerfully waiting for one of their former Ulus who is sick in America the honourable Toloa. I acknowledge them because I am aware they have been listening in to the debate as this piece of legislation goes through its passage in this House.May I begin by saying that I want to share a Samoan saying: “O e e lavea’i ia te a’u i taimi o puapuaga o ivi o toto o aano.” If I translated that it would mean: “They who come to my hour of need are my family. They are blood bones and flesh.” I say that at the outset because when it comes to dealing with the Pacific you are dealing with people and relationships are paramount in our ongoing dealings with the Pacific.I have got just a few points that I want to raise. Firstly I want to acknowledge Poto Williams Carmel Sepuloni and members of New Zealand First and the Green Party. We have stood united in acknowledging the fact that yes we support this bill but we believe that New Zealanders should be treated equally regardless of where they are based and we support the removal of the 5-year resident and present status. I will tell you why. New Zealand prides itself on saying that we have this constitutional arrangement between New Zealand and members of the Realm countries: the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau. Because we do not have a written constitution we rely on the words of past and present Prime Ministers past and present Ministers of Foreign Affairs and past and present Governors-General.For me the Governor-General who enforced how important that was was Sir Anand Satyanand who everywhere he lived walked and spoke would always acknowledge the languages of the Realm of New Zealand: Māori English sign language Cook Islands Niuean and Tokelauan. That says it all—that that Governor-General acknowledged this uniquely special relationship. What does it mean? Time and time again Murray McCully and the Prime Minister John Key always say this phrase: “We New Zealanders have a special relationship with the Pacific.” But in their hour of need when the leaders of those countries present themselves at the select committee what do we give them? We give them half a pie but we hold on to the other half. What for?That reminds me of another Samoan saying: “E u’u le afa ae togi le moa. E togi le moa ae u’u le afa.” It is a trap. We will give you a little bit now but we will hold on to this other part for later on. If the relationship is important the Government should recognise that these leaders come armed with the prayers and with the endorsement of the people of those countries. They are New Zealand citizens. Why does this Government continue to treat them as second-class citizens? Why is that? That is what it is doing. That is exactly what it is doing.We had the Premier of Niue the Prime Minister of the Cook Islands and some significant individuals from these countries come to make submissions. I want to read something out that is important to me: “The unique and special relationship has seen many New Zealand citizens move from the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau to work in New Zealand and contribute economically socially and culturally to [the] fabric of New Zealand society.” That side of the House—that Government—makes out as if we are giving them a handout. That is what it believes. Here we have the Government of the Cook Islands saying it is not a one-way street. Yes they receive aid from New Zealand. They have to. It is a constitutional obligation.But by the same token the people of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau come here and work they go to school here and they pay taxes here—they contribute. The Hon Nandi Glassie lived in Māngere and worked in Manukau in local government until he was about—oh I do not know; he looks older now—I think around his 40s. He left here and is now a Minister in the Cook Islands Government. So what do we tell him? When he retires he will not be eligible—he will not be eligible because he has to be present here in the land of Aotearoa New Zealand. But the land of Aotearoa New Zealand should also include the Cook Islands—the soil the land of the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau.I agree with what my colleagues here on this side of the House have said. This Government’s members are just being mean. They say words to the effect that the relationship is real and genuine but in reality these actions speak louder than the words they continue to roll out.Only yesterday Adrian Rurawhe Kris Faafoi Jenny Salesa and I attended Jerry Collins’ funeral in Porirua. This is important. Peseta was there and we helped him get into the row we were sitting in because he did not want to sit next to Ken Douglas. We were there. Prior to the funeral we made a brief presentation to the family of Jerry Collins in accordance with Samoan protocol and culture to pay our respects to convey our alofas to them. The essence of all the testimonies and tributes made at that funeral was that Jerry Collins never forgot where he came from. Jerry Collins never forgot his tupuaga—the people who supported him to the role that he played. Jerry Collins never forgot his si’osi’omaga—his environment what made him the person he was. He was constantly working to give something back to “P-Town” or to the people who made him the person he was and helped him along to become a star All Black. It was an amazing funeral and it was an amazing atmosphere—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Su’a WILLIAM SIO: —with all the tributes. I am getting to the point. The point I am making and this is with reference to the chairman of the Social Services Committee Alfred Ngaro is that I want to appeal to him. When we were campaigning last year he went out to the community and made promise after promise after promise in the likeness of John Key to the people of the Pacific that if National came into Government things would happen—things would happen. I want to say to him that the sign of a Government that has become arrogant and drunk with its own mightiness is that it refuses to listen to the people. I want to appeal to you Alfred. You need to listen to the people who helped you arrive at where you are now. This is important.Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This member has been here long enough to know that he is getting well away—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. No I am the judge of these matters and I am calling Su’a William Sio.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I am appealing to the chair of the Social Services Committee who heard the submissions who heard the pleas from the Cook Islands Prime Minister from the Premier of Tokelau and from the elders of those communities—the community that he belongs to. I am appealing to you: listen to the people. Do not live up to the meaning of your name and forget who brought you to where you are.Alfred Ngaro: I raise a point of order Mr Assistant Speaker. That member knows that there is an offence culturally to actually start to use a person’s name which we would never do. So I take offence actually at the use of that comment.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): All right thank you. The member has taken offence and I ask the member who is speaking to withdraw that comment.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: I withdraw. I appeal again to the chairman Mr Alfred Ngaro. Do not forget your tupuaga—the people who supported you who covered you who enabled you to sit at the head of the table. Listen to the pleas that they have given you because I am afraid that if you have not listened to their appeals and to their submission to be flexible in your stance on this particular issue then it means that you are selling your soul. You are selling your soul and that is a bad thing because there are so many of us—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The member’s time has expired.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise and take the final call on the third reading of the Social Assistance (Portability to Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau) Bill. I want to make reference to the comments that were made by Mr Sio and in particular when he talked about actions speaking louder than words. Can I remind the member that in 1990 what was then the Social Welfare (Transitional Provisions) Act actually indicated that you needed to have 7 years rather than 5 years. The year was changed so that it was 5 years to make it a lot more equitable. Can I remind that member that the Green member who spoke Jan Logie also talked about how the petition for change for the provision of the portability of the pension has been happening since 1990. So if we are going to talk about actions speaking louder than words why when Labour was in Government were there no changes made? I tell you the reason why: actions speak louder than words. Here we are with the honourable Minister Murray McCully putting actions to his words. And actually under this Government we are making it happen. Since 1990 the petition has been happening.If we talk about actions speaking louder than words let us also talk to our Cook Island Niuean and Tokelauan communities that are out there. In the inquiry that was taken in 2010 into New Zealand’s relationship with South Pacific nations one of the issues that it talked about was the Pacific Parliamentary and Political Leaders Forum. Now the member Mr Sio will know that this is not a new issue. In fact when Mike Moore was in Parliament he talked about it. When Helen Clark was in Parliament she talked about it. But guess what happened? Under that Government—when Labour was in Government—nothing happened. So what happened? Minister McCully turned round and in 2013 we had the very first Pacific Parliamentary and Political Leaders Forum with 138 members from across the Pacific. They came here and for the first time we talked about issues that affect our Pacific nations. When actions speak louder than words it is under this Government that we make it happen.The last thing—because it is good to have a trifecta—when we talk about actions speaking louder than words is that it was under a Labour Government that the Pacific Island affairs portfolio was taken out of Cabinet for the very first time. The Pacific community turned round and asked: “Why? Why did this happen?”. It was under a Labour Government and those people could not understand it. Why? Because for all the talk and for all the rhetoric that Government was not appealing to the so-called submissions of the Pacific community. [Interruption] No I do not stand to take those comments; I stand to actually proclaim the things that this Government has done. It is making a difference.I am going to round off my speech with just a few comments that I think are actually really important to actually address some of the issues of concern. I want to address the issue that Louisa Wall raised when she talked about discrimination. I am going to read this out really clearly: some members have also said that it is unfair that migrants can come to New Zealand and qualify for full New Zealand superannuation—Louisa Wall: I didn’t say that.ALFRED NGARO: —no no no I am just reading from this—Louisa Wall: After 10 years—after 10 years.ALFRED NGARO: —hang on let me finish OK—residence in New Zealand whereas people who live in the Cook Islands Niue and Tokelau must have 20 years’ residence. That is the point I wanted to make—the 20 years’ residence. This bill does not discriminate against people from the Cook Islands Niue or Tokelau. People from these islands who remain in New Zealand are subject to exactly the same rules as all other New Zealanders. I want to make that point really clear to all other New Zealanders. There has been a lot of misinformation that has gone out to our community to believe that there is discrimination and that there is an injustice. Absolutely there is not. What you are talking about is the special portability provisions that are there as well. I want to be very clear. These provisions that are there are absolutely important. They do allow for the migration back into the Pacific which is what the communities have asked for. If we are talking about what they have asked for Mr Sio this is what they have asked for—those Pacific nations those Pacific leaders. When they came and they presented they said: “These are the things that we have been waiting for—these are the things that we have been waiting for for a very long time.” So this Government put actions to the words and is making it happen.The last thing is around this 5-year rule. You are absolutely right Mr Darroch Ball: 12 out of the 13 submissions said: “Can we find that there is some discretion around that?”. There is no discretion for anybody. When we talk about those who have discretion you are right that there are those for whom there is a social security agreement a reciprocal financial arrangement that is made with those particular nations like the UK like Canada and like Australia and that is that arrangement. There is no discrimination there at all. Therefore all New Zealanders all Cook Islanders all Niuean people and all Tokelauan people have exactly the same.I want to finish off by saying this. This is a bill that is ensuring that when the community of the Pacific has asked for portability of that pension they shall receive it. They will be able to go back and when they go back at the age of 55—my parents are residing back in the Cook Islands as we speak and they are there now. When we are asked for the reasons why these are the reasons why: it allows for them to return back to give back to their local economies so that depopulation where they are migrating out does not happen. They return back and they can give something back to those local economies.This is a good bill. It is a bill that we know right across the House has added support bar one point of difference. We have justified that we know what that is and you are absolutely right it will impact 245 people every year increasing by about a hundred people who can make the application. We know that that is there. But we know that actually it is clear. The provisions of the bill make the difference.Lastly I want to finish with this. There were some comments made by New Zealand First and its leader that there were promises made back in the Cook Islands by Andrew Bayly and by me at the Swordfish Club or Swordfighters Bar whatever it is. There were absolutely no promises that were made—no promises that were made. The only promise that was made was this: that we would address the issue of the 5 years. I can say with hand on heart that the only promise that was made was to address the issue of 5 years not to fix or change that.I am proud of this bill. I am married to my beautiful wife Mokauina Fuemana-Ngaro who is Samoan and Niuean and comes from the beautiful village of Mutalau in Niue. I am of Cook Island descent and I am proud that this bill will make a difference. I commend this bill in its third reading to the House.Bill read a third time.Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment BillThird ReadingHon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I move That the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) (Transitional Provisions) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill deals with the exclusive economic zone which amounts to an area 21 times the area of New Zealand’s land mass. Prior to 2012 there was no environmental assessment of oil platforms minerals activities or the like in that massive area of space and I am proud to be part of a Government that has actually provided for a robust system of scrutiny for activities that might take place in that area. But we have the issue of the four major platforms of activities that occur in that space and how we might transition them into the new regime. There are four operators: Shell Todd Oil Services with the Māui platform; Australian Worldwide Exploration which runs the Tūī platform; OMV New Zealand on the Maari platform; and Origin Energy Resources with the Kupe platform. The regime we put in place required each of those to apply to the Environmental Protection Authority for a consent at the time their minerals permit expired. Shell Todd Oil Services was the first of those to come up for renewal in respect of its minerals permit and it properly applied for a permit and consent from the Environmental Protection Authority and that consent has now been granted.The issue that is before the Parliament with this bill is that in the event that anybody chooses to appeal that consent we could have the quite unsatisfactory position after the end of this month where Shell Todd Oil Services would not be able to continue to use that platform at Māui and as a consequence there would be a significant effect on the security of 20 percent of the gas supply for New Zealand. What this bill simply makes plain is that in the event that that decision is appealed Shell Todd Oil Services can continue to use the consent and that platform through to the date when all of the appeal processes are concluded and I would be very surprised if there was any member of this House who would logically take issue with that. Of course we also deal with the other three operators by clearly setting out the process when they come to apply through the same process.I want to commend the work the Local Government and Environment Committee did and I commend the work of the Committee of the whole House which finalised this bill. A future reapplication will now be required over a period of 9 months. The technical amendments that have been made through the select committee process clarify the way in which the Environmental Protection Authority will deal with those applications. With these additional transitional provisions we will end up with a sensible regime in which we can bring those previous permits in when we did not have a regime for the assessment of environmental effects for those applications previously made. It is a sensible bill. It is a bill that provides for the continuation of New Zealand’s central energy supplies while also ensuring that we have integrity for the Environmental Protection Authority’s assessment of those environmental effects and the conditions that it has recommended in its decision around the continuation of the Māui platform. For all those reasons I commend the bill to the House.Debate interrupted.Sittings of the HouseCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): With only 1 minute to go before 6 o’clock I seek leave for the House to conclude early so that the next speaker gets the full 10-minute allocation uninterrupted for his or her speech.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. This debate is interrupted and set down for resumption next sitting day.The House adjourned at 5.58 p.m.