Oral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to MembersText is subject to correctionOral Questions — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members[Sitting date: 05 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3. Text is subject to correction.]Questions to MinistersPrime Minister—Statements1.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes because I believe them to be correct at the time they were made.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he stand by his statement that he would “hate to see New Zealanders as tenants in their own country”; if so why did his Government so avidly support Shanghai Pengxin Group’s purchase of farms in the central North Island and now 10 dairy farms south of Kaikohe in Northland?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Hon Steven Joyce: Opposing investment in Northland again.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh here is “Big Ears” again. He lost in Northland pretty badly.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am going to invite the member to stand and ask the supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why has his Government encouraged China to control so much of New Zealand’s dairy infant formula from production testing through to marketing and sale of New Zealand’s premium agricultural product?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The position of the Government is not necessarily to encourage investment from anywhere but to allow a framework whereby if people want to invest they are free to do so but they have to meet the conditions set out in the Overseas Investment Act. They have to be approved by the Overseas Investment Office. Actually the Government thinks investments by Inner Mongolia Yili Industrial Group Co. Ltd Yashili New Zealand Dairy and Bright and others have actually been sensible investments in the same way that we think Fonterra’s investment in Beingmate was also a sensible investment.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When will the National Government understand the law of supply and demand which sees Auckland housing demand massively inflated by record levels of immigration into Auckland and record levels of buying Auckland homes by offshore interests and do what the Australian Federal Government has done?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I understand it in Australia what they have done is they have stopped in theory non-residents from buying existing properties but in fact the actions of the Australian Government over the weekend essentially are saying that those measures were not working and required greater enforceability—a testimony to why those things are very difficult to enforce. The second thing is that despite the steps the Australian Government has taken I am pretty sure I am right in saying that Sydney house prices have risen at the same rate as Auckland’s but I actually think they have risen at a faster rate.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Do not all those answers add up to the fact that this Government whilst making dog whistles about foreign ownership before the general election has done absolutely nothing to stop it since?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is foreign investment. If one looks at a table—and funnily enough I looked at one this morning—the bulk of that foreign investment actually comes from Australia. China if the member is being specific about China is quite a small investor in New Zealand. But interestingly enough what I think is really important is that anybody who comes to New Zealand from overseas to invest follows the Overseas Investment Act. I am interested to note of course that the author of that Act was the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Answers to parliamentary questions are meant to be terse and to the point. That last statement was a demonstrable lie.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I would also be grateful if the member could equally ask short and terse supplementary questions.Inflation—Reports2.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West)to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on low inflation in New Zealand and how does that benefit households and businesses?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):As the published figures have shown New Zealand is experiencing very low inflation—or more accurately in the last 6 months actually we have had deflation. Usually in an economy growing at 3 percent inflation is rising not falling. However it is good news for New Zealand households and businesses which can expect to see interest rates and inflation stay lower for longer than they expected and this is likely to help to reduce unemployment and sustain real wage growth.Tim Macindoe: What impact does lower than expected inflation have on Government revenue?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Very low inflation and lower interest rates and lower commodity prices mean that growth in the dollar value of what New Zealand produces each year is a bit lower than expected. Treasury now expects that the dollar value of what we produce each year over the next 4 years will be around $15 billion less than forecast in Budget 2014 even though the economy will actually grow slightly faster than we expected in Budget 2014. This poses some real challenges for Government revenue because it means less PAYE less company tax and less GST. In total Treasury expects the Government will collect $4.5 billion less tax revenue over the next 4 years than it expected at the last Budget.Grant Robertson: In light of that question and answer is it in fact correct that “lower than expected inflation” actually means lower Government expenditure as well?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As it turns out the inflation impact on Government expenditure is considerably less than the impact on spending and the impact on tax revenue. That member had better figure it out because his other members are always advocating more spending when he is advocating bigger surpluses.Tim Macindoe: How is lower revenue having an impact on the Government’s ability to return the books to surplus in 2014-15?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Back in December Treasury forecast that the deficit for the 2014-15 year would be around $570 million which is just 0.2 percent of GDP. It is fair to say that the forecast for the 2014-15 year has deteriorated a little since December so we expect the Budget to forecast a slightly bigger deficit for 2014-15 and a slightly smaller surplus for 2015-16. So while progress is slower than expected we remain on track to achieve surpluses and to start repaying debt.Tim Macindoe: What steps has the Government taken to get on top of spending and return the books to balance?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has been very thoughtful about its new spending and very thoughtful about what drives existing spending. If you want a measure of that in the last six Budgets the total annual cost of new initiatives has been just under $3 billion. By comparison the last six Budgets of the previous Government totalled $20 billion of extra costs—$20 billion as opposed to $3 billion. But despite the fact that we have had very constrained spending we have been delivering better public services with better results for New Zealanders.Prime Minister—Reports3.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Oppostition)to the Prime Minister: Does he enforce high standards of conduct on all his Ministers including himself?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes. However in respect of my actions at a Parnell cafe my conduct clearly upset the staff member in question. I sincerely apologised to her at the time that I became aware of that and I have continued to do so publicly.Andrew Little: Does he accept that repeatedly pulling a woman’s hair who was just trying to do her job despite her indicating to him to stop was unworthy of any grown man let alone the Prime Minister?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I accept I misread the situation. I have apologised for that.Andrew Little: Does he accept that through his embarrassing and weird behaviour he has now made the office of the Prime Minister of New Zealand an international laughing stock?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I do accept I have to take responsibility for my own actions.Andrew Little: Has he read the section of the Cabinet Manual that states: “incumbent Ministers should ensure that any requests they make for advice or information from their officials is for the purposes of their portfolio responsibilities and not for party political purposes.”; if so was the advice and information Simon Bridges sought from the New Zealand Transport Agency used in National’s Northland bridges policy?Hon Simon Bridges: Information.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My understanding is that information was asked for—I might need to check that—and that is appropriate.Andrew Little: Why is he allowing a Minister whose portfolio conflicts with the alleged actions of his own brother to remain as Minister and why does he not follow the high standard I set in temporarily standing down Carmel Sepuloni in similar circumstances?Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is a very marginal call. I am going to allow the Prime Minister to deal with it.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly because I took advice on the day that I became aware of it. The advice was very clear that there had been no conflict up to that point and any potential conflict could be managed. I think all members of this House appreciate that there are potential conflicts as an electorate MP right through to a Cabinet Minister and they need to be managed. In relation to the actions that he took with Carmel Sepuloni I personally think he made the wrong call.Andrew Little: Does he stand by his statement made after Mike Sabin resigned that Mr Sabin could have been a Minister and what does that say about the standards he sets for ministerial office?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I do stand by that statement. In the time that Mike Sabin was part of our caucus I actually found him to be a very thoughtful hard-working member of Parliament. He had good policy ideas and I think he could have made a very very good Minister.Andrew Little: Is it not true that he is allowing Ministers off the hook because he has lost his moral authority and that is why Judith Collins is sharpening her knives?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just before I call the member I am waiting for a bit of assistance from my left.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does this mean that his subterranean standards are so low that Judith Collins despite the appalling Oravida scandal and numerous gaffes is soon to be welcomed back into Cabinet?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The great news on this side of the House is that we have a caucus full of talent and opportunity. Judith happens to be one of its members. There are many others and if one day an opportunity opens itself I am sure that Judith along with many others will be wanting to put her hand up. It is nice to have some fantastic people to choose from.New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill—Fiscal ImpactDAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT):My question is to the Minister for Economic Development and reads as follows—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is just too much noise from my left-hand side. I will ask the member to start his question again.4.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT)to the Minister for Economic Development: What are the fiscal risks to the Crown from Tracey Martin’s New Zealand International Convention Centre Act 2013 Repeal Bill if any?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):If the bill was to pass—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am about to lose my patience with one member in particular. There has just been perpetual interjection from one member particularly in a very loud voice. If it happens again I will be asking that member to leave the Chamber.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the bill was to pass and the New Zealand International Convention Centre Act repealed the risks would be high. In terms of direct Crown liability to begin with the Government would be liable for half of the design costs up to a maximum of $10 million. But following the signing of a building works contract that liability would rise potentially to the value of the concessions which would be in excess of $400 million as set out in clause 22 of the agreement. Also important is the reputational risk. If a Government is to be able to contract other parties to that contract need to be able to trust that the Government will follow through. Subsequent cancellation of a contract of this magnitude would mean that other parties would be less likely to contract with the Government in the future or price in that risk. I am pleased therefore that that member and others on this side of the House will not be supporting the repeal bill.Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm that Mr Seymour was in support of my bill until one he saw the polling in Northland and two he received a phone call—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No there is no ministerial responsibility for the bill in that question. If the member wishes to ask a question that relates to the ministerial responsibility I will accept it. The way it is phrased at the moment it will be ruled out of order.Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I rephrase the question to meet the—Mr SPEAKER: I have given the opportunity for the member to rephrase it.Tracey Martin: Thank you very much. Can the Minister confirm that Mr Seymour was in support of my bill until he received a phone call from the Minister himself?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is not in order.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s answer he introduced the bill and said that the ACT Party member was supporting it. It is perfectly reasonable for a follow-up supplementary question to address the answer that the Minister gave.Mr SPEAKER: I will listen again to the question. The way it was phrased in my mind I have made absolutely the correct decision. There must be a ministerial responsibility. If the member can relate it to the ministerial responsibility then I will accept the question. I am trying to assist the member.Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Start again.Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm whether he has seen any reports indicating Mr Seymour’s support of the bill until he received a call from the Minister himself pressuring him to change his position?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is absolutely no ministerial responsibility—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I listened to the question. It is a very easy question for the Minister to address. The Minister was asked whether he had seen any reports.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes I have seen reports. I am not sure that I could verify those reports exactly; they were from a media outlet. But I have seen the reports.Tracey Martin: Can the Minister explain why he and the questioner David Seymour are now asserting the sanctity of contract law around my bill in light of the fact that Skycity has already indicated that it is in breach of a core platform of this particular contract? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister did not hear the question I can get it repeated.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that that member is correct. What I can tell her though in relation to her bill is that she does say at the outset of her bill I understand through the press release that she is very keen to minimise costs to taxpayers. I agree with her that that is important but the simple reality is that the bill that she is proposing would actually dramatically increase costs to taxpayers.Tracey Martin: Can the Minister confirm that it was he who negotiated this contract which included clause 22 and whether it will cost the New Zealand taxpayer more or less than they have paid for the Novopay contract debacle he was supposed to be fixing?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No I did not personally negotiate the contract with Skycity. I did sign the contract on behalf of the Government and I can confirm that the Skycity contract as constructed says quite clearly that the concessions are in response to the construction of the New Zealand International Convention Centre and as such it would be considerably cheaper than the Novopay contract signed by the previous Labour Government.David Seymour: What can we learn about the role of Governments in commercial enterprises and has the Minister seen any reports of other parties proposing such enterprises in their manifestos recently?Mr SPEAKER: I think the—[Interruption] Order! The first part of the question can be answered.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think Governments should always be careful in their involvement with commercial enterprises and be seeking to transfer the risk to for example the private sector as has been done for example in the ultra-fast broadband contract that is being supported by this Government. That has transferred the risk to the private sector and resulted in a very competitive development of ultra-fast broadband in this country as compared with for example Australia where the taxpayer took on the commercial risk and it has cost masses and masses of billions of dollars.Research and Development—Growth5.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National)to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What is the Government doing to grow business-led research and development?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation):Recently the Prime Minister and I announced that as part of Budget 2015 the Government will invest an additional $80 million in research and development growth grants over 4 years to encourage more private sector research and development and grow New Zealand’s research and development ecosystem. Research and development growth grants are non-discretionary and meet 20 percent of the cost of an eligible firm’s research and development programme. To qualify they must commit to spending at least $300000 and at least 1.5 percent of revenue a year on research and development conducted in New Zealand. The new funding is equivalent to a 14 percent increase in Callaghan Innovation’s total research and development grants budget and contributes to the almost $1.5 billion the Government will be spending and investing in science and innovation in the coming financial year.Paul Foster-Bell: How does investing more in business-led research and development further diversify the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Research and development growth grants are a crucial part of our efforts to boost levels of private sector research and development in New Zealand and lift innovation. A strong emphasis on research and development helps to diversify and strengthen the New Zealand economy and ensure our companies maintain competitiveness internationally. This is borne out by the range of industries investing more in research and development in New Zealand these days. The top two industries by value in 2013-14 were manufacturing with 54 percent and information and communications technology with 23 percent of the research and development growth grants funding. This compares favourably with countries where research and development tax credits are in place and where the research and development tends to simply match the profile of existing industries—for example in Australia where mining and financial services are apparently the most innovative industries.Paul Foster-Bell: What examples has he recently seen of New Zealand companies growing internationally through their investment in research and development?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Hundreds of New Zealand companies are now succeeding on the world stage through their research and development in many cases supported by Callaghan Innovation. For example just last week I was privileged to be in Latin America and officially open the new Sao Paulo offices for growth grant recipient Tait Communications which is succeeding very well in Latin America. [Interruption] I also visited research and development project grant recipient ADInstruments from Dunedin which is doing a great job producing data acquisition and analysis systems for the life sciences industry and is expanding its presence in South America. The success of these and other innovative Kiwi companies around the world is lifting New Zealand’s export revenue and growing jobs and incomes for Kiwis including for people from Dunedin Mr Clark.Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus6.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to achieving a surplus that it is like “landing a 747 on a pinhead”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes because history shows that fiscal forecasts and out-turn move around quite substantially. For example in Budget 2008 the then Minister of Finance was forecasting a $1.3 billion operating balance before gains and losses surplus in 2008-09. As it turned out he left the Government books in deficit by $3.9 billion that year and Treasury told us that we faced never-ending deficits under the previous Government’s policies. So yes forecasts can move around a lot but this Government is making good progress on fixing up the hash of it that Labour made.Andrew Little: Why is he trying to minimise the importance of achieving a surplus this year when he has made it a core part of his Government’s credibility for the past 4 years; why can he not just admit he has failed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We are not trying to minimise it. We are pointing out that there are a number of factors that make it a little bit trickier—and that is for instance that inflation is so much lower which is great for consumers and that there are a number of areas where there has been a re-evaluation by Treasury. But if we just take a step back for a moment and say that in 2011 what the deficit was the answer was $18.4 billion. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update forecast for this year’s deficit is $585 million. I will point out that every single attempt to either raise revenue or cut expenditure by this Government has been opposed by the Labour Opposition.Andrew Little: Does he accept that he would now likely be on track to surplus if his Government had not spent $36000 on sending Ministers to Northland had not wasted tens of millions of dollars on Novopay had not lost hundreds of millions of dollars in dividends due to the asset sales and was not blowing the Budget on everything from charter schools to Inland Revenue Department computers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. I will point out that Novopay was something that came along under the previous Labour Government. When it comes to the hundreds of millions of—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I cannot hear the answer with that sort of noise.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When it comes to the hundreds of millions of dollars more that we might have got under the mixed-ownership model that was money that was literally blown by the reckless policies of Labour so firmly rejected by the New Zealand public.Andrew Little: Why does he say that low inflation is to blame for his failure to reach surplus when low inflation saves the Government money just as it saves the taxpayers from paying more tax; why does he always greet failure with excuses rather than fronting up?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am hugely fearful that the Leader of the Opposition is getting his economic advice from Grant Robertson. He needs to go and read a decent speech on economics and he would see one from the Minister of Finance where he quite accurately pointed out that because of lower inflation over the next 4 years the Government’s revenue will be $15 billion less and the tax revenue the Crown receives will be $4.5 billion less. Low inflation is great for consumers great for business; it just ain’t great for Government revenue.Andrew Little: When will he admit that his Government acting as a bystander at the dairy auctions rather than building a more diverse economy is the real reason his economic promises are falling away as fast as the milk price?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know whether I misinterpreted the question from the Leader of the Opposition but he seems to be saying that the Government should be in there buying milk powder in the auction. If he is that is an interesting use of Government resources.Budget 2015—Minimum Employment Standards7.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill)to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How will Budget 2015 help strengthen compliance with minimum employment standards?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety):Today I announced that Budget 2015 will invest $32 million more over 4 years to support employment relations services to help strengthen compliance with minimum standards. It will boost the labour inspectorate strengthen education and information services and address breaches of employment law. The funding will see six new labour inspectors for Auckland building on last year’s Budget which funded six more in Christchurch. The latest boost shows that the labour inspectorate staff numbers comprise a 57 percent increase on the size of the 2008 inspectorate that this Government inherited.Sarah Dowie: How does this announcement build on other work the Government is doing in this area?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: This funding will support the recently announced package of measures to strengthen the enforcement of minimum employment standards including tougher sanctions. A bill to put these measures in place is expected to be introduced mid-year. It also follows the passing last week of the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) which imposes heavy penalties on employers exploiting migrant workers including 7 years’ imprisonment and a $100000 fine or deportation. This Government is committed to protecting the integrity of the labour market and ensuring fair and productive workplaces. Budget 2015 will provide an excellent example yet again of that commitment.Iain Lees-Galloway: How will the fact that he has allowed migrant workers to work in New Zealand for 6 months without the protection of New Zealand employment law and supports labour inspectors being told to “butt out” when they try to enforce the Minimum Wage Act impact the ability of the six extra labour inspectors to strengthen minimum employment standards?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As the member knows it is the Minister of Immigration who has allowed those workers to come in under special purposes but I stand by the labour inspectorate’s investigation into the welfare of those workers. Their welfare has been well supported and I accept that.Finance Minister—Statements8.KEVIN HAGUE (Green)to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Yes in the context in which they were made.Kevin Hague: As the Minister is happy to have the problems of success as he told the TheNation television programme on the weekend could he tell the House whether it is a mark of this Government’s success that the homeownership rate is at its lowest since 1951 and whether he is happy about that?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know the Greens do not like any kind of economic success; they regard it as an attack on the environment. But we think that on balance it benefits most people so yes in answer to your first question we are happy to have the problems of success. Secondly with regard to homeownership rates the member may not be aware of the HomeStart programme launched on 1 April—I hope he is advising his constituents about it—which will assist particularly young New Zealanders into homeownership. The steady decline in homeownership since the late 1950s tells us I think a bit more about demographic change—the change in the nature of households and so on; particularly say for instance in the fast growth in the sole-parent household—and is probably a stronger explanation than some others that the member has in mind.Kevin Hague: Is it another mark of this Government’s success that the median house price in Auckland has now reached $753500 with an average sale of more than $800000 and is he happy about that?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I am not happy about it and I am particularly unhappy with the kind of planning approach that the Greens advocate which is part of the cause of the rapid escalation in house prices. The Greens have advocated anti-growth and anti-densification policies for years. They have been far too influential and that is cutting low and middle income Aucklanders out of the possibility of decent housing or of owning their own house. I hope that the Greens will change their views and help us to change the Auckland Council’s views so that we can allow Auckland City to grow and to have affordable housing.Kevin Hague: Is it a problem of this Government’s success that its housing accord partner the Auckland Council has put the building of 2000 to 3000 supposedly fast-tracked homes on hold around Huapai because the Government refuses to properly fund much-needed transport links to this area?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure that there will be ongoing discussion with the Auckland Council but my understanding is that quite independent of the Government it appears at least to have reduced its own infrastructure budget at a time when the city is under pressure to grow. That is a wee bit hard to understand and I am sure we can have further productive discussions with the city but it should be clear—as the Greens should be clear—that the long-term answer to affordable housing in Auckland is more houses on the ground faster and the Government will relentlessly focus on that objective.Kevin Hague: Is it a problem of success for this Government that the Auckland Council is actually caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to housing with Auckland ratepayers being the rock and working with this Government being the extremely hard place?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Auckland Council would not have to work with the Government if it built enough houses fast enough for the people who want to go to Auckland and pay rates. But it is also caught with dealing with community groups fostered and encouraged by the Greens to oppose new building of houses in Auckland communities when we need them.Kevin Hague: Does it make the Minister happy that he and his Government wilfully ignore the advice of organisations such as the OECD and the Reserve Bank and rule out introducing a capital gains tax to curb property speculation which is driving up house prices in Auckland?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be aware that New Zealand already has tax law that taxes gains from speculation as if it is income at the marginal income tax rate. So no I am not unhappy to be considering OECD or Reserve Bank advice and not necessarily taking it because what we have discovered in this whole process is that planning law—such as that advocated by the Greens—that tries to restrict the growth of Auckland creates inequality for low and middle income households that cannot afford housing and it creates very high and volatile house prices. We will continue to work hard to undo the damage of the previous 20 years when that philosophy was put in place. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I am just waiting for Mr Twyford.Kevin Hague: Is it not insulting to tell young Aucklanders who are desperately trying to buy a house and are being outbid at auctions week after week by property speculators that this Government’s policies which do absolutely nothing to address the demand side of the housing market are a success?Hon BILL ENGLISH: What would be insulting to tell young Aucklanders is the Greens saying to them that they should have cheap houses but the Greens are opposed to roads to cars to digging up the ground to creating subdivisions and to building houses. That is what is insulting to young Aucklanders. It is Labour and the Greens saying: “You should have cheap houses but you’re not allowed to do any of the things that ensure that more houses get built faster.”Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that that answer does not fulfil the requirements of the Standing Orders where ministerial answers are concerned. It was all about some other party’s so-called stance—totally irrelevant to the question being asked.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion when I consider the start of the question “Isn’t it insulting” the Minister I think has addressed the question. It would have been helpful if he had not used it as an opportunity to attack the Green Party to the extent he did. I accept that point.Health Services—Elective Surgery9.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Health: Are New Zealanders who require elective surgery receiving it in a timely manner?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):Yes the number of elective surgeries has increased by 44000 a year in the last 6 years under this Government—a remarkable turn-round given that elective surgeries fell by 2000 between the years of 2000 and 2006. By doing more and more operations the number of New Zealanders waiting over 6 months has reduced from nearly 7000 New Zealanders in 2006 to a handful today.Hon Annette King: In light of that answer why did Dr John Cullen a highly respected clinical leader at Waitematā District Health Board tell the chief executive officer less than 1 month ago that in addition to raising the threshold at which people can get an operation that leads to clinical risk “The situation is controlled by the use of a suspended list.”?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: If any member reads that article in the New Zealand Herald on Saturday morning they will know that Mr Cullen then retracted his statement. Over the last 6 years at Waitematā District Health Board elective surgery has increased by 51 percent. That is a total of 6500 more operations every year 21000 extra operations for people in that district health board area in total and we have delivered more than 13000 more first appointments there. The answer to increased demand is to do more operations and nationally we have done 44000 more operations and delivered 50000 more first specialist appointments—a lot better than that person’s record when she—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from Dr John Cullen clinical leader Waitematā District Health Board dated 10 April 2015 entitled “An impossible situation” setting out why the management of both elective and acute surgery is increasingly difficult.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. It is a letter by Dr John Cullen. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: Why did Dr John Cullen send an email to the chief executive officer of Waitematā District Health Board on 10 April 2015 saying that the operations manager of orthopaedic surgery is concerned at the potential adverse publicity following the return of patients to their general practitioner even after they were given certainty for surgery?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member would have to ask Mr Cullen that but he has actually since retracted his statement. What we do know is that those people who were sent back to their general practitioner went back because there was incomplete information in the referral because more testing was needed and also very importantly because surgery was not appropriate. This member is trying to make something out of nothing but what remains is that we are doing more surgery at Waitematā District Health Board and providing more appointments whereas that member actually provided fewer.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the email from Dr John Cullen dated 10 April 2015 raising concerns about sending patients back to their general practitioner after being given certainty—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Annette King: Is he aware that district health boards are either raising the threshold at which patients can get surgery or introducing measures such as suspended lists and patient pathways in an effort to meet the Government’s targets which are virtually impossible to meet with the financial resources they have?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look that is completely incorrect. The information I have is that there are no hidden lists. What I can tell you is that people go back to their general practitioner because surgery is not appropriate because the referral is incomplete or because they need more testing. But we are doing 44000 more operations and 50000 more appointments so more surgery more appointments—a lot better than that member’s record.Hon Annette King: Is another way to manage the waiting lists to refer patients back to their general practitioner like the Taranaki District Health Board which has increased the number of people refused an orthopaedic first specialist assessment by 142 percent under the last 3 years of this Government?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I do know is that that data is very incomplete. But what is a fact is that there have been 1216 more electives performed in Taranaki under this Government and there has been a 5000 cumulative increase in first specialist appointments unlike when Annette King was Minister when—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has completed his answer as far as I am concerned.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act release from the Taranaki District Health Board dated 19 March 2015 showing a 142 percent increase over the last 3 years of letters refusing first specialist appointments for people wanting orthopaedic surgery.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act release. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I seek leave to table a document showing that we are doing 1216 more electives a year in Taranaki and delivered—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need the source of the document and the date.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This is current information compiled by health officials. You will not find it anywhere else so I suggest—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it very recent information?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Very recent.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave.Hon Members: What’s the date?Mr SPEAKER: It is very recent. That will do on this occasion. [Interruption] Order! The members themselves can decide. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table this—[Interruption] Order! Leave is sought to table this particular information from the Ministry of Health of a recent date. Is there any objection?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is compiled by health officials including advisers and the date is today.Mr SPEAKER: That is of assistance. We have now dated it to be today. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption]Hon Annette King: You show yours and I’ll show mine.Mr SPEAKER: I have no intention I can assure you.Sign Language Fund—Sign Language Week10.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura)to the Minister for Disability Issues: How is the Government’s investment in the New Zealand Sign Language Fund helping sign language users to promote and maintain the language during Sign Language Week?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister for Disability Issues):Sign Language Week is a chance to celebrate one of New Zealand’s official languages. It is a language that is spoken by over 20000 Kiwis every day. The Government has invested $350000 to raise awareness about this unique language during Sign Language Week 2015 and provide all New Zealanders with an opportunity to get involved and connect with the Deaf community. This is in addition to the $11 million the Government has invested over 4 years to support deaf children and their families by helping school-aged and preschool children learn sign language and provide more sign language support and tutors in schools.Stuart Smith: How can New Zealanders take part in New Zealand Sign Language Week?Hon NICKY WAGNER: Hundreds of events are taking place across New Zealand this week. There are tours of galleries and museums with sign language interpreters comedy shows pop-up sign language cafes and over 745 New Zealand Sign Language taster classes being available. Raising awareness of sign language helps the Deaf community and other users of the language to connect with all New Zealanders. I encourage us Kiwis to get out and give it a go. Happy Sign Language Week.Climate Change—Indigenous Species11.EUGENIE SAGE (Green)to the Minister of Conservation: Does she agree with Professor Mark Urban that New Zealand’s indigenous species are at greater risk of extinction from climate change than species in many other parts of the world; and if not why not?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation):Yes.Eugenie Sage: Has she ever tried to convince her Cabinet colleagues to protect our native species at risk of extinction from climate change by adopting policies that reduce New Zealand’s emissions; if not why not?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I have spoken to my Cabinet colleagues and caucus and this House on many occasions about the need to preserve and protect more of our endangered species. In terms of the climate change part of your question that is best directed to the Minister for Climate Change Issues.Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister accept that if New Zealand contributes to a more than 2-degree warming of the planet by our emissions increasing by 50 percent over the next 10 years as the Ministry for the Environment predicts this will increase the extinction risk for our indigenous species?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: I refute the so-called facts in that member’s question and disagree with them.Eugenie Sage: Well how can the Minister as the Minister of Conservation stand by while climate change increases the extinction risk for our threatened species to 14 percent as Mark Urban predicts?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: This Government and I as the Minister of Conservation are certainly not standing by. An example I would draw the member’s attention to is the Battle for our Birds which was a direct response to what happened with a masting—that is a very extensive seeding of the beech trees. Many people understand that the reason that triggers the mast of a beech forest is to do with temperatures. Warmer temperatures mean higher seeding which means plague proportions of rats—25 million. We planned for that we analysed it and we unrolled a strategy called Battle for our Birds which resulted in the successful turn-round of the decline of at least 12 of our native species. It was a highly successful campaign.Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus12.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “returning to surplus and repaying debt are among the most important things the Government can do to ensure New Zealand can withstand future shocks and build a more competitive economy based on exports and new jobs”; if so will there be a surplus for the 2014/15 year?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):In answer to his questions yes I do stand by my statement and no there will not be a surplus for that year. But I want to thank our public servants for their role in the very substantial progress the Government has made on getting back to surplus. They have worked hard to provide more for less and despite the fact that for many public services there has been no new money public trust in public services is higher than it has ever been—certainly it is higher than the period when the previous Labour Government was pouring cash into every service.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer why did he make the promise to New Zealanders in September last year that No. 1 of his five fiscal priorities for the next 3 years was “Return to surplus this year and maintain surpluses over the next 3 years”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because it still is our very high priority to get back to surplus. The analogy I used the other day was if you set out to lose 10 kilos and you lose 9.9 kilos you are almost there and we are almost there with the surplus.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer from the Minister if he was trying to lose 10 kilos to fit into a suit for his brother’s wedding and he lost only 9.8 kilos he still does not fit into the suit and is that not a failure?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well—Tim Macindoe: He can just borrow one of yours.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. It was my niece’s wedding and the suit was a bit tight but I wish I had borrowed the member’s.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer and as someone with some knowledge of weight loss in recent times can the Minister finally admit that he has failed to meet the promise he made to New Zealanders at the last election to get into surplus this year and will he finally ditch the excuses and front up?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are no excuses. I mean before Christmas the Government published the updated forecast which showed a deficit. The member might have only just figured that out but that was actually 6 months ago. So in 2014-15 we will not quite get to surplus. In 2015-16 and the following years the member will just have to wait for the Budget. But we are on track. Actually I have a much easier life than that member who gets up in the House every day saying the surplus should be bigger when all his caucus are saying that we should spend more money.David Seymour: Can the Minister confirm Treasury reports that this Government will be in surplus every year from the mid-2020s for decades and is that a greater priority than making surplus this year; if so what is the Government doing about it?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English—any one of those three supplementary questions.Hon BILL ENGLISH: I admire the way the member makes us all look very “short termist” here. We are focusing on a surplus now but the member is quite correct to have understood that the Government is making decisions particularly around the way it is approaching long-term welfare dependency that will be having an impact on surpluses in the 2020s. For instance the number of sole parents under 20 has dropped by 40 percent in 3 years. New Zealand will be making savings because of that intervention for the next 20 or 30 years.Grant Robertson: Can the Minister guarantee a surplus for the 2015-16 year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait for the Budget. But I can anticipate that in the Budget whatever the operating balance is the Government will be pointing out that these numbers move around according to economic conditions. What is under our control is Government expenditure and that is certainly on track.Questions to MembersNew Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—Submissions1.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South)to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill have asked to be heard by the committee and of those how many has she requested to attend to give evidence?JACQUI DEAN (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee):The committee has received 256 submissions on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill which includes one form submission. The committee has agreed to hear 34 oral submissions.Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she before she exercised her power to decide whether to call witnesses read the submissions she has described as form submissions to ensure that all former service personnel and individuals who had made distinct and different arguments are heard; if not why not?JACQUI DEAN: It is normal established committee practice to treat large volumes of submissions that are identical or nearly identical as form submissions. A sample representing these submissions is placed on the committee record as representing the views of all those who submitted in this way. This by the way is a process that has been followed for other bills such as the marriage equality bill.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I think was quite a simple one. It asked whether she read them. I do not think that was addressed.Mr SPEAKER: If the member had made it a simple question like that it might have been easier for the matter to be addressed. It was not as simple as that but I will ask the member to simply answer whether she has read all of the form submissions.JACQUI DEAN: The committee treated some 1500—Hon Trevor Mallard: Has she read them!Mr SPEAKER: Order!JACQUI DEAN: Will the member give me a chance to answer? The answer is I sampled as did the clerk of the committee a number of the form submissions. It was determined that the vast majority of those 1761-odd submissions were either similar or essentially the same. That is why they were treated as form submissions.New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—Submissions2.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South)to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: How many submitters to the committee on the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill requesting a yes/no vote has she requested attend to give evidence out of those who made submissions on this point?JACQUI DEAN (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee):The committee will be hearing from 34 submitters a number of whom have indicated they will be speaking on the yes/no vote and some of whom we heard from last week. We will also be hearing from that member who will be speaking on his yes/no vote petition to the bill when the committee sits on Thursday.Hon Trevor Mallard: Is there anything preventing her from exercising her power to request further submissions from the 747 individuals who have asked to be heard including former servicemen who have yet to hear from her to give evidence; if so what is it that is preventing her from doing that?Mr SPEAKER: Either of those supplementary questions Jacqui Dean.JACQUI DEAN: It was the committee’s decision not to hear oral evidence from those who submitted a form submission.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance. A member has conveyed to the House a decision that was made by the select committee and that is in itself a question for you to consider. But she has also incorrectly conveyed that it was a decision made by the committee as a whole when that was not the case. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has raised a point of order. She knows very well the procedure if she feels an incorrect answer has been given in this House.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In light of the answer given by the chair of the committee can I ask you to consider a ruling about whether it breaches privilege to pass that answer on to the submitters who are apparently not to be heard but have not been told?Mr SPEAKER: The member is asking me to give consideration to the question that was asked and the answer that was given. I will do so.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I am very pleased to rise to take a call in the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill on behalf of New Zealand First. I want to pick up on a couple of points that Mr McKelvie made earlier and one of them was actually about pest control. He talked about the pest species of animals that we have in this country. It is quite interesting that at this time the subject of 1080 is topical because 1080 is actually an extremely inhumane form of pest control. It is curious in fact that it was not included in the ambit of this bill but perhaps that is a question for another day. It is something we can revisit.Mr McKelvie also spoke about the export of live animals for slaughter and Mr O’Connor touched on that and the Minister has said a word about it as well. I want to talk primarily about the export of live animals because it is probably the major lingering concern that New Zealand First still has with regard to this bill. During the first reading I expressed some reservations that New Zealand First held regarding the export of live animals for slaughter. Of course under the existing Act this is prohibited unless it is specifically authorised by the Director-General of the Ministry for Primary Industries. We asked at the time whether or not that being the case this bill presented an opportunity to do away with that provision altogether.New Zealand used to export animals for slaughter on quite a large scale and the practice was brought to a halt by Parliament some years ago for what were very sound reasons at the time. There were and are of course other reasons as well economic reasons but the motivation at the time was primarily centred on the conditions the animals were subjected to while they were being transported to other places and the conditions that they were subjected to when they arrived at the other end.New Zealand First has got no objection to the export of live bloodstock because we understand full well just how valuable the thoroughbred industry is to this country. We know that our bloodstock is highly regarded and highly sought after internationally and that many thousands of jobs and literally hundreds of millions of dollars are generated in the economy through the export of live horses. But horses are treated in an entirely different manner from sheep and cattle intended for slaughter in the way they are transported and cared for.Horses are airfreighted to their destinations in pressurised air-conditioned comfort. They are housed in safe secure environments while on the aeroplane and they have veterinary care. And of course on arrival their fate is not to be taken to the nearest abattoir but rather to a training track or a stud farm. These are valuable animals and they are cared for accordingly. Breeding heifers are similarly afforded a better lot than the cattle and sheep that left these shores a decade or so ago destined for the slaughterhouses of distant places. New Zealand First does not believe that we should be exporting such animals either but we recognise that while it is legal there are people who will see it as good business and who will look to profit from it.We are opposed because we believe that such practices are short-sighted and as I have said in debates on other legislation notably the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act we believe that business activity of this type will come back and bite New Zealand. The reason for that is that one day the dairy bubble is going to burst. We have allowed ourselves in this country to come to the belief that because we hold such a major position in terms of global cross-border trade in dairy products we are somehow significant in terms of world milk production and we are not. New Zealand produces only around 3 percent of the world’s milk.Most dairy produce worldwide is consumed domestically in the country of origin and international trade comprises only a very small proportion of the total. At the moment there is a shortfall between supply and demand and it is this that allows New Zealand to profit from being in a position to supply from our disproportionately large dairy production relative to our population and domestic demand to buyers from overseas. But in helping to grow production overseas through joint ventures and by selling heifers to foreign dairy producers we are only hastening the arrival of the day when demand for dairy products in the countries that are presently our export markets will be met from production in those countries. For that reason we do not believe that it is sustainable or even a good idea to export live dairy cows regardless of the conditions under which they are transported.Of course New Zealand does also export other animals for breeding purposes including cattle sheep goats deer and even chickens. Our animals are very much sought after worldwide because they are known to be for the most part from very good stock lines and are for the most part free from any of the nasty diseases that are endemic in some other parts of the world. Again animals that are exported for breeding purposes are treated better and transported in far greater safety and comfort than those that are destined for the pot.The issue of live exports for slaughter has not gone away. In fact it raised its head only last week with the Prime Minister’s efforts towards securing a free-trade deal with the nations of the Middle East’s Gulf Cooperation Council. This deal has been on hold since 2009. Coincidentally one of the sticking points is the fact that New Zealand halted live sheep exports in 2004. Apparently an investor from Saudi Arabia lost quite a bit of money as a result of the cessation of exports and we are told that the Saudis are still a wee bit sore about that. But that aside these exports were put on indefinite hold at that time for very good reason.As a nation we have engaged in live export for slaughter for more than 20 years prior to that but in 2003 something like 5000 sheep died on one ship under what can be described only as quite horrific conditions while being transported from Australia to Saudi Arabia. They died from heat stress overcrowding and a lack of food water and sanitation during a sea voyage that had lasted something like 2 months longer than it should have. New Zealand First is very much concerned that such exports may be resumed and that the provision for their resumption still exists under the bill.We are concerned on a number of fronts but they all come back to animal welfare in one way or another. Obviously we are concerned that if live exports for slaughter were to be resumed we would be faced with a return to the very same conditions that led to their being curtailed in the first place. It is hard to see how that can be avoided because these things are driven by money. Sheep are crammed into overcrowded boats because the cost of transporting them has to be kept down. A live sheep being exported for slaughter is not worth very much. In fact it is probably the lowest return for both the farmer and the nation that can be received for a sheep that has been grown for consumption.We do know that things have not improved very much in that regard in the last 10 or 15 years because live exports from Australia have continued pretty much unabated since that time and the standard of transport today is much as it was then. In fact collateral losses for sheep exports from Australia to other parts of the world are running at about 7 or 8 percent—maybe a little bit less than that but it is still too much by any measure. It is the minimal value of the animal and the minimal return to the farmer and to “New Zealand Inc.” that we oppose and for the same reasons we do not wish to see any part of our primary sector reduced to a simple exporter of bulk commodities.The second concern that we have is around the conditions that might meet livestock exported for slaughter when they arrive at the other end of their journey. We know that the Director-General can grant an exemption if he or she is satisfied that the abattoir in the destination country meets the standards that we demand here but the reality is that in too many cases live animals are sought in other parts of the world for reasons of ritual slaughter in accordance with the requirements of various religious and cultural practices. These practices by their very nature are not able to meet the minimum standards of animal welfare that we demand of our own meat processes. Animals are required to be fully conscious when they are put to death which is at odds with our own requirement that they be stunned first. They are frequently transported in the boots of cars even in the back seats of cars. They are not properly restrained. They are subjected to quite brutal and stressful treatment prior to slaughter.We have an objection also to the granting of the exemption being placed in the hands of the Director-General however professional he or she might be. The practice of exporting live animals for slaughter was stopped by politicians through the parliamentary process and we believe that if it is to be resumed then that decision must be made in the same way. We do not believe that it is good enough for a Minister to be able to hide behind a bureaucrat if and when this decision ever is to be made. Governments need to take responsibility for changes of this magnitude and we believe that if a Minister wishes to restart the export of live animals for slaughter then he or she should be required to put their money where their mouth is stand behind that decision and stand up for it if and when necessary. And whether it is necessary is a salient point because over the last decade or so we have shown that exports of live sheep for slaughter from New Zealand are not necessary.The New Zealand farming sector has got on quite well without them for the last decade and it appears that customers in the Middle East have got on quite well without those exports as well. So it is simply not necessary and we ask again why it has not been removed altogether and why we did not make provision for prohibiting it in total when the bill went through. But all that said on balance this is still a very good bill which will deliver very much better and improved outcomes for animal welfare in New Zealand and New Zealand First continues to support it. I commend it to the House. Thank you.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country):It is a pleasure to be speaking this afternoon on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. To begin I will make just a couple of comments about comments made by the member for Hutt South the Hon Trevor Mallard this afternoon about the Ministry for Primary Industries and about it perhaps not being out there doing its job in the field. I have to say that in my experience—prior to my becoming a member of Parliament I did substantial work with the Ministry for Primary Industries on various committees in the area of animal welfare—a lot of work has been done with industries to help them to improve the practices in which they partake in order to earn an income.Although there has been some reference today about this bill having been around for a long time—and as one of the newer members of the Primary Production Committee I will acknowledge those who have gone before me—that does not mean actually that nothing has been happening out there. People who farm animals are really keen to make a difference. They know what the market perceptions are. They know what people are saying about their practices. There is a lot of work constantly going on all the time to make sure that they are upholding the best practices that they possibly can.We have heard a bit today about the 16 codes of welfare that are covered under the Act and of course these codes will be strengthened by the new regulations. In recent weeks I have been lucky enough to see some good presentations from people in the likes of the poultry industry who are actually transitioning to a phase where they are looking at moving from cages into colonies. So they are looking at actually taking the animals in that process out of those cages as fast as they economically can. Sometimes it is economically difficult to do some of those things in a hurry. But I am really heartened by the attitude of that industry in terms of being able to effect some change.There was a reference today about sheep shearing. In Te Kūiti in the heart of my electorate of Taranaki - King Country we have just had the New Zealand shearing championships. I have seen some of the graphics that have been coming out of Australia as well. I have to say that I did not see any sheep in distress and there were hundreds—probably thousands—of sheep shorn over that weekend. Those people are professionals who know the technicalities of shearing a sheep. I am sure that if I got hold of a sheep and tried to shear it it would probably panic but when you watch the likes of a champion like David Fagan shearing a sheep it is very professionally and very well done.We have also heard this afternoon about animals being outside rather than inside. I think I will be really interested to see what happens there. Some of the latest requests out there in terms of getting rid of our pests in New Zealand have been calls from some people in society to keep cats inside. So it is going to be really interesting because we have got people asking to get farm animals outside but then to keep cats inside.It is surprising to me in this bill that it has taken such a long time for us to realise that animals are sentient beings. Even though we know it it is going to be nice actually to see it finally written in legislation. I would also like to commend Mojo Mathers for her clauses around banning cosmetics testing on animals.What I would really like to highlight this afternoon is the fact that we are talking about being productive and competitive—and trade is very important to this country. Yes there is a need to have high standards. We are in a transition phase with a lot of industries. Earlier this year the Government released the New Zealand Animal Welfare Strategy. This sets a direction. It sets a vision. I think we would be arrogant to think that we in this House are the only people who are the experts on animal welfare. Industries have the ability to debate to construct evolving standards and to work with the Ministry for Primary Industries. People who work with animals do care about animals. The proposals in this legislation have been through rigorous consultation. They are set to act at a pace that our communities can live with. I think it is really important that this legislation has made that clearer and more transparent and that we can navigate our way through this legislation much more clearly than we could before.There is also one thing that I would like to point out around trade and biosecurity and that is the move to avoid unnecessary delays in urgent national biosecurity responses. Clause 5 inserts into section 3 of the Act the new subsections (2A) (2B) and (2C) to provide for exemption from the requirement to seek approval from an ethics committee before killing an animal in such circumstances. Sometimes we just do not have time to go through big long rigorous processes that could end up being substantially more dangerous to society than to the animal or animals concerned in those situations. So I am really really pleased to see that that is changing in this bill.This bill also clarifies what constitutes a significant surgical procedure that can be carried out only by a vet without defining it so narrowly that farmers cannot do routine procedures. So that is just another clarification that means people will not be able to say: “I did it because I didn’t know.” Things are unclear in the Act and people go ahead and do things and then find out later. So it is really important that people do know exactly what is in the legislation and exactly what they are allowed to do.The other thing is that there will be greater sanctions for those who mistreat animals. I think that is really important because at the end of the day we do have laws to protect us from those people who perhaps do not see things in the same way as the rest of us. That is not only farmers; that is pet owners and a whole raft of other people. We have also included wild animals in this. It is really important that just because they are not pets or owned by somebody they are not protected under our law. I am pleased to see that there are greater sanctions for those who do mistreat animals because for those who watch not only the daily 6 o’clock news but also social media which is a classic these days there are people showing pictures of mistreated animals so it is certainly important to get on top of that one.Under this legislation the vast majority of New Zealanders who take care of their animals very well will not see any major changes in terms of the way they are expected to behave towards their animals. I think it is going to deal with those people who as I said really do not have the feeling for animals. We need to deal with those people because one thing is for certain: those people in society who have trouble respecting animals often have trouble respecting people as well. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Steffan Browning—5 minutes.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I am pleased to be able to speak to the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and congratulate those involved with getting the improvements into the bill particularly my colleague Mojo Mathers. What I want to see when this legislation is fully enacted is other elements of animal welfare law that are already enacted put into practice by this Government. I am thinking particularly as I speak tonight of the hundreds of cows that died from the herbicide-tolerant swede issue in Southland the many many more that were visibly ill and the many many more with subclinical issues. So poor was the condition of some of the surviving cows that there was a question of their suitability as culled cows for processing.I have been looking at some Official Information Act material on this. There is what they call a natural toxin that seems to be the cause of the distress of these cows. This was a serious animal welfare issue. Was that product which clearly is at the base of this issue withdrawn? Was it banned? Or was there a cover-up? There was a cover-up. We still do not have a proper report on what happened last winter and into early spring to those cows in Southland. The only way we can find anything is through Official Information Act material and in that I find the very valid questions that I put to the Minister and I see how they were treated as just generalisations. It says that if the group is asked about this it should just stick to these messages and not go down the track of trying to answer any questions.There is a chemical involved here as well. It is not just the glucosinolates—we call them GSLs for short as everybody else does for good reason. A glucosinolate is natural toxin. It forms in the leaves of swedes and other brassicas. It can get to quite high levels and under certain conditions it can get to a toxic level. But what we find here is that the herbicide-tolerant swedes have way more than the non - herbicide tolerant swedes. The glucosinolate levels are 4 to 16 milligrams per kilo in the leaves—the bulbs are lower down on the ground 1 to 4 milligrams per kilo—but non - herbicide tolerant ones are just 1 milligram. Something is going on in PGG Wrightson’s Cleancrop system with swedes at least and we are not too sure about the turnips rape and other products under that system. It cheated New Zealanders and it cheated farmers by going down a system of production of those herbicide-tolerant ones and by dodging the genetic engineering route that it already had for that same product through a chemical mutagenesis thing—just as much a DNA muck up—so that it did not have to go through the Environmental Protection Authority and be open to submissions and testing for safety. PGG Wrightson dodged it and this Government has let it dodge it.This is an animal welfare issue. It is also an issue for the people who consume the products from those animals and for the other animal products in this country from animals that are fed products containing lots of herbicides whether it be glyphosate or whether it be chlorothalinol which is in these herbicide tolerant swedes and is banned in China. In here in the Official Information Act stuff I find that they are saying: “Is there enough other herbicide if we move away from these crops?”. They are so locked into PGG Wrightson’s crop. We have got to change the way we farm. We have to go down the organic route and this Government has got to help with regulation for the organic sector. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Sue Moroney—5 minutes.SUE MORONEY (Labour):It is a pleasure to rise and support the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill at its third reading on behalf of the Labour Party. I just want to note for regular viewers of and listeners to parliamentary debates that they will have noticed something a little different happening in the House this afternoon. It is a Government day where Government measures are going through the House and the Government members are making very fulsome contributions to this debate. It is good to see that occur but of course it is a sign that the Government is not that keen to get through all this legislation very fast because it does not have much legislation on the Order Paper at the moment. That is because the Government has run out of ideas so it has finally found its voice and is wanting to talk rather a lot about its legislation one piece of which is the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill and that is what is consuming our interest today for the next little while in the House.Labour is supporting this bill and we are very pleased to do so although we wish it went an awful lot further and we wish that the measures came in more quickly. Once Parliament determines as it has that certain practices are harmful and are not in the interests of animal welfare then our question is: why wait 15 years to bring in those measures? If we have determined that these practices are harmful we should act as soon as we can. I noticed that the last Government member who spoke on this bill used a phrase where she said that people were doing this “as fast as they economically can”. That is a phrase that I have not heard used a lot before but I think it is very telling in terms of where the priority lies in this regard. I would prefer and the Labour Party would prefer that the welfare of the animals was the priority and that people were urged to treat animals in a more respectful way much more quickly than taking 15 years for those harmful practices to be phased out. So that would be our criticism of this bill. However we are pleased that there is some progress being made.One of the most important reasons that personally I am pleased to see some progress made on animal welfare is the very close and now well-documented link between those who are prepared to abuse animals and be harmful towards animals and those who therefore turn out also to be abusive towards fellow human beings. There is now actually a lot of evidence that tells us this. The young men whom I think were eventually caught undertaking that heinous act of clubbing the seals to death down south—this happened about 18 months ago maybe 2 years ago now. Actually when people show a lack of empathy towards animals in that way—albeit these animals were out in the wild not someone’s pet—they almost certainly have that same lack of empathy towards others in vulnerable situations like children like other fellow human beings like women in their lives as well.So I think it is very important not only for the issues of animal welfare which in its own right is very important and for the issues that many other members have pointed out about how we are placed within the international market and how animal welfare is seen in those terms but it is also important because we know of the impact and the direct correlation and relationship between people who get a buzz out of hurting animals and how that probably means that they get the same buzz out of hurting and have the same lack of empathy for their fellow human beings. I am not going to take up too much more of Parliament’s time. This is an important measure not only for animals but for people. It is important for our place in the international market. Labour supports its passing.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I just find it absolutely amazing that when Opposition members speak in support of a Government bill they make such good sense. So I just want to commend Sue Moroney’s on some of her thoughts there and also—Sue Moroney: Oh be careful—be careful.JONATHAN YOUNG: Yes be careful. I have been warned to be careful. That is right. You will not get any more credit from me.The Animal Welfare Amendment Bill is a very important bill I think for most New Zealanders—well all New Zealanders—and certainly for those who have a kind consideration and thought towards animals. In fact about 70 percent of New Zealand households have a pet and I was just thinking about the pets that I have had throughout my life. I started off with tadpoles. I am sure that everybody else here might have had a tadpole in their room in a little jar with a bit of oxygen weed. Then I had guinea pigs cats and calves. I had a pet pig once called Patsy. I had lambs horses and dogs of course. All of these things I think—Sue Moroney: Horses in your bedroom?JONATHAN YOUNG: —have made me a very empathetic person. Thank you very much Ms Moroney.I think that there is some validity in the comment that the way we treat our animals is indicative of the sorts of attitudes we have towards ourselves—human beings—and it is always good to see animals treated with respect and care. I think that in our country we are horrified when we see abuse and cruelty to animals. It comes across our TV screens far too often and there is an outcry when despicable things are done. I think it is indicative of the fact that New Zealand is by and large a very decent society. So it is no wonder that we are bringing through the House this piece of legislation by and large with support right across the House wanting to improve the state and the being of animals. I am sure that there are going to be differences on some finer points—as different members have spoken about—but by and large we are together on this.One of the things that my colleague Barbara Kuriger said—she understands animals very well she being from a dairy background—was that this bill talks about the sentience of animals: their ability to feel to perceive and to experience. I think that the more science reveals this the more of an obligation there is upon humanity to deal with animals in a very humane way. I think also that the comments made by Damien O’Connor are pertinent in that we live in a world that consumes protein. So that is the other balance of it. There are some people who abhor the thought of a steak or a ham sandwich or you know sausages on a barbecue. But you would say that—Kris Faafoi: Oh!JONATHAN YOUNG: It would not be Mr Faafoi by the look of it. He is a man who would like a beautiful lamb curry no doubt and also a steak on a barbecue or a beef sandwich.But the other side of it is that we understand that animals whether they produce dairy products wool milk or meat have contributed to our way of life and to our economy here—to the point where each year around 50 percent of export earnings comes from animals and animal products. I think that is the reality. For myself whenever I go to the supermarket I always buy eggs that are free range. That is because I believe in animal welfare and also because they seem to be the biggest and the nicest eggs. I think there is something in that; that we can have not only a reputation around positive animal welfare but also products that are far superior because of it. I think people in the industry need to realise that they will not be hurt by the transition but that actually they will end up with products that are far superior. Having minimum standards is an important aspect of this.We pride ourselves on our place in the world with regard to animal welfare. There is a global charity called World Animal Protection that recently ranked 50 countries across the world on their animal welfare standards. This index placed New Zealand in first place alongside the United Kingdom Austria and Switzerland. That is good to see but we cannot afford to be complacent just because we might be top-ranking. We must always look for improvements. One of the things Mr Mallard said was that this transition away from caged hens is taking far too long—15 years. Well in the bill it is 10 years. Yes there is an opportunity for a person to apply for a one-off exemption of 5 years but for the vast majority the strong expectation is that it should take no longer than 10 years. I believe also that over that period of time you would have to have a good reason for why it was going to take that long. There is no reason why people cannot be proactive in moving ahead.It is not just legislation that controls this; it is also market appetite. It is what the market wants. Increasingly we will find not only in New Zealand but also around the world that the market is deciding its food products and the products that animals produce—milk or whatever it may be—based on ethical farming. That is the way the world is going. People are listening to that message. If they are interested in staying in business they need to listen.It has been 14 years since there was a review of the Animal Welfare Act so this bill is long overdue. It is a very important piece of legislation. This legislation will update and strengthen animal welfare in New Zealand. This bill is the result of a comprehensive review of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. It was found that although the principles of the existing legislation are sound the time is right to update and improve how it operates.In that regard I want to put a shout out there for my former parliamentary colleague from Taranaki – King Country Shane Ardern who was the Chair of the Primary Production Committee. He did a tremendous amount of work on this bill. We are very pleased now to have Barbara Kuriger who is the member for Taranaki - King Country. That electorate starts in Taranaki and ends nearly in South Auckland. I think it is a nation-size electorate.Jacqui Dean: A townie.JONATHAN YOUNG: Yes that is right. And she is a townie in a dozen towns up and down our country. Barbara has a tremendous knowledge of and experience in animal welfare and it is great to have her in our caucus.Minimum standards are important. Sometimes it is a real shame that you have to legislate for minimum standards. You would hope that people would always all the time be seeking to be the best and to develop and promote excellence in their industry. But minimum standards of animal care do change over time as scientific views lift on what animal management practices are and on what is acceptable. An example of this is of course what has recently captured the attention of New Zealanders through campaigns and that is the use of sow stalls and battery cages—both of which are being phased out. I think that is an important point to make.When transitioning from one type of farming practice to another we have to acknowledge that it is an expensive process. We have put into this bill a transitional period of time. The purists might be upset at that and they might say: “Do it tomorrow. Do it whatever the expense is. You just have to do it.” Not only do we need to consider the well-being of our farming and poultry industries but we also need to understand that the way of life that has been passed on to New Zealanders is something that we need to protect. These transitional measures are being put in place because we do expect a transition but we are not going to do it just tomorrow although we expect the industry to be proactive in this and make every effort to do it in a very timely way. Thank you.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):Kia ora Mr Speaker. I am pleased to make the penultimate contribution in the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. Even though I am not a member of the Primary Production Committee I know that this is a very very important piece of legislation that we are debating in the House today. It further enhances our reputation as a quality food-producing nation and exporter to markets around the world. It is a very important piece of legislation.We have heard in previous contributions that we as Kiwis feel very deeply about animal welfare and that is true. We have heard that two-thirds of households have pets. We have heard that our export industries are largely underpinned by our food production and our food product exports. I need not go into the detail of how important it is in terms of our way of life and our standard of living that we do have strong primary industries. We are fair-minded as Kiwis. We do like to see our animals treated well. We are horrified when we see examples of abuse conducted on animals whether it be on farms or in other situations. All of those matters are sought to be addressed through this bill. We are supporting this bill based on that underlying principle and policy.Again we have heard numerous contributions from the Government side of the House about the importance of animal welfare in terms of our primary industries but again it has failed to even mention the importance of the seafood industry to our country. I repeat that the seafood industry is very important. It is a $1.5 billion export industry and it is very important in terms of the communities that it services. I think of communities in my own electorate such as Bluff or Kaikōura or even over on the Chatham Islands. It is a very important industry.Animal welfare under the application of this bill is equally important to the seafood industry. The No. 1 export product in the seafood industry now is live lobster. The very fact that our lobster which is potted here in the waters of Aotearoa has to live in a tank in a restaurant principally in North Asia is incentive enough for the industry to ensure that the animals are absolutely treated with the highest standards of handling and transportation all the way from—dare I say it—a rock over on the Chatham Islands through to their handling on the plane to Asia.The seafood industry has come about only in the last say 15 to 20 years. It is an industry that has flourished and now the No.1 product in our seafood industry is lobster and that is principally based on animal welfare handling and the catch methods that are applied to live lobster. I am very pleased to say that the fishing industry has a very good relationship with the Ministry for Primary Industries in terms of the protocols or codes of practice that are in place for example for live lobster. I would imagine that the industry is looking forward to those codes of practice eventually being put into regulation again because the value lies in the very fact that the product has to be live. That is where the value lies and that is where the premium is paid to our exporters. Ultimately the returns flow back to our fishing industry our fishers and their families through the very fact that that lobster is handled and is received live by our customers.It does not really stop there because opportunities abound for further live exports. We know that there are small bits of trade that are happening around live pāua exports. We have significant live shellfish exports that take place. All of these are enhancing the value that we are earning as a seafood industry which ultimately benefits our country. The one area of opportunity that is yet to be developed is in the live fin fish export trade. If you go into any restaurant in North Asia in China and southern China especially live fish is a very much highly prized dish in the Chinese market. If we are able to actually export live fish that can turn a low - value species fish in New Zealand into a high-value fish just by ensuring that we look after that fish or that animal and making sure that it is delivered in good condition to the customer.It not only goes to the fact that the fish is alive but it goes further in terms of the appearance. Our customers in North Asia like colourful fish. They like stripes; they like distinctive looking and highly prized fish that will end up on their plates. Opportunities abound for our seafood industry and I know that it will be working with the Ministry for Primary Industries to ensure that there are very appropriate regulations or codes of practice put in place to ensure that we can unlock the value to generate further foreign exchange earnings which will ultimately benefit our nation.This is a very important piece of legislation. I do though want to take issue with the Minister for Primary Industries because I do believe he was being slightly disingenuous in his comments about how the Government is doing so much to support animal welfare and enforcement. The Minister mentioned that there have been extra front-line animal protection officers appointed or put on to the job to ensure that there would be on-farm inspections compliance and the like. But that is not entirely correct because a fair portion of the actual animal welfare inspectors that the Ministry for Primary Industries does engage at the moment or employ are actually fisheries officers. They are those good men and women whose job is to actually detect and investigate breaches of our fisheries legislation. Yet those fisheries officers are now being shifted into roles that require them to be animal welfare inspectors as well or biosecurity officers to investigate incursions that take place. Again the fact that the Government is sort of fudging the numbers in terms of what is actually going into the front line is slightly disingenuous.Finally can I also say that the Minister has talked about the fact that resources are going into animal inspections. Can I say that when it comes to fisheries the fishing industry pays over $35 million each year in cost-recovery compliance and $10 million of those cost-recovery levies that are imposed on and paid by the fishing industry is supposed to go on compliance. Unfortunately now we are finding that the fisheries officers are having to be animal welfare inspectors as well. It is easy to take money from an industry but the Government needs to make sure that it is actually delivering services to that industry for those costs. Thank you.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):I am very pleased to stand in the third reading of the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill. When I was contemplating what I would say in my contribution to this third reading I went back as always to my electorate which is a large southern rural electorate that is a big producer of a number of commodity products which are duly exported overseas.This led me to think about an occasion when I was in Hong Kong. I was taken to a wet market and then to a dry market and supermarkets to have a look at primary produce particularly New Zealand beef and lamb at the time. I was very kindly chaperoned by a local gentleman who was an importer of New Zealand beef and lamb products and who was a local representative of Beef and Lamb New Zealand. Many tourists go to the wet markets because you can see chickens being slaughtered right there and there are concrete floors. People go to the market and buy each meal because of the culture and because they like the freshest of food. We went from the wet markets on to a supermarket where New Zealand beef and lamb—in this instance lamb in particular—was packaged for Hong Kong consumers as it is packaged for Singaporean consumers European consumers Chinese consumers or wherever it is in the world that New Zealand exports its animal products.A couple of things struck me and I reflected on a couple of aspects that I think relate to this bill. One of them was the context around the meat product—and it was lamb in this case. It was that the offering on sale was a package maybe twice that size and there were little slithers of thinly sliced lamb that were being sold. I was thinking: “Gosh that doesn’t look like a leg of lamb.” which is what I’m used to buying or growing. But it is the form in which the Hong Kong consumer buys the lamb for the dinner that night and it might end up being a hotpot which from memory is one of the dishes that New Zealand lamb is used in. So I noted the differences in expectations of the different markets for our product and I also noticed when I was looking at the labelling that New Zealand sells itself on having not only a wonderful environment and a clean green environment—which I have to say this Government—Stuart Nash: Has destroyed.JACQUI DEAN: —is doing a lot to enhance. You see there we have the Opposition because it is the Opposition and it can only think to oppose saying “destroyed”.Let me say to that member of the Opposition that this Government has done much more to enhance the quality of our environment—and particularly of water—than any. In fact if I recollect the Labour Government in the previous term had its water plan of action. Does anybody who has been around here for a while remember Labour’s water plan of action? Well it was so bad—so bad—that officials at the Ministry for the Environment termed it in public the water plan—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I am relating this to the bill because of our international reputation in terms of quality. Although we do have some parties in the House that would seek to destroy New Zealand’s international reputation this Government is working very strongly to enhance our international reputation and this Animal Welfare Amendment Bill certainly adds to our reputation.I know when speaking to some of our vets for example in and around the Waitaki district that they have long been concerned—particularly those who are involved in the export markets and who service the farmers farming operations and freezing works that export internationally. They are absolutely aware of and support not only New Zealand’s efforts to enhance our environmental reputation—because this is “New Zealand Inc.” after all—but also the need for us to maintain our reputation for good animal husbandry standards. And I believe we do.What I have also seen over the years particularly around the Waitaki Valley is the expansion of dairying as a result of irrigation—another wonderful initiative of this Government in supporting this development. It is not only supporting it but also providing incentive funds and research and development funds for the development of irrigation which is increasing productivity and jobs in the regions. Particularly I want to zero in on the Waitaki Valley because we now have irrigation from the top of the valley—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): This is a third reading speech.JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. What that has meant is that we now have dairy farming expansion along the main road. When you have dairy farming expansion along the main road the travelling public—both visitors and New Zealand citizens alike—get to see farming operations up close. In fact people will often stop and park their cars to take photos of dairy cows and sheep when they can find them—there are fewer sheep in my area than there used to be. One of the consequences of having dairy farming on show is that animal husbandry as of necessity needs to lift its game consequentially—not just because it can be seen from the main road and it is New Zealand’s reputation at stake but also because farming has lifted its game substantially over the past few years and that is just my observation.I did not sit on the select committee that considered this bill—I know that a number of members here did—so I have not had the opportunity to scrutinise fully this bill. But I am pleased that one of the objectives of the bill is to provide for clear and enforceable standards of animal welfare. In that I do hope that attention was paid to the growth of smallholdings and hobby farmers in New Zealand. I think that Federated Farmers have often raised the point that small farmers also need to have a high standard of animal husbandry. It may not be that they are exporting—probably not; the likelihood of small farms exporting is probably pretty low—but none the less even if those animals are being raised for home kill or on-farm killing or for sending down to the local abattoir to be killed and then dressed at the butcher and then sent home again which is what we used to do when we had a small farm the level of animal husbandry needs to be maintained by that sector as well.I did a visit to Alliance Group’s Pukeuri freezing works some years ago—probably 4 or 5 years ago. This was just as the local MP because I was interested in the export of lamb and they tried to play a trick on me at Pukeuri. We went right to the top of the chain—and it is quite a long trek from the bottom where they cut up the cuts with the saws all the way up back to the kill. This is a halal plant and so the sheep were killed very humanely. In fact they had no idea what was coming—so it was a very humane kill—and then they proceeded down the line. I could see the workers looking at me—a local sheila turning up—and thinking: “Who does she think she is—the local MP? I know we’ll get her.”As the sheep was coming down the line it came time to top the sheep’s head off. What the freezing workers did was pop it on the ground looking at me with the hope of my saying: “Oh isn’t it awful. It’s a sheep’s head.” Well little did they know that we had been involved in home killing down on the farm for 20 years or so by that stage so that did not work. But I have to say that I know a lot of the freezing workers out at Pukeuri which is probably why they played the trick on me. I have to say that I know Pukeuri freezing works very well. I also know Silver Fern Farms up at the northern end of my electorate. I have met with the management. I have met with the freezing workers. They do uphold the highest standards of animal welfare because they have to. They understand that for the animals’ sake it is important and also that in terms of our international reputation and our export markets it is critical. Thank you.Bill read a third time.