Volume 697 Week 68 - Tuesday 18 March 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 697 Week 68 - Tuesday 18 March 2014[Sitting date: 18 March 2014. Volume:697;Page:16723. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 18 March 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersEconomic Programme—Progress1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that his approach is “to make New Zealand a better place for Kiwis and their families”; if so will he commit to building a high-value high-wage economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister)Yes the Prime Minister does stand by that statement and the second statement as well. He also stands by other statements in the speech from which the member is quoting: “The economy is growing. More jobs are being created. Family incomes are rising. Crime is falling. More elective surgery is being done in public hospitals. Long-term welfare dependency is falling. And we’re continuing to help families and older New Zealanders with generous income support.” New Zealand is on the right track.Hon David Cunliffe: How is his Government making New Zealand a better place when the number of long-term unemployed has increased from 14800 in December 2008 to 44600 in December 2013?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As has been pointed out in this House before on “Planet Labour” there was no recession but in the real world there was one. The best hope for those who do not have jobs is a strong economy generating new jobs and that is what is happening. Of course there is more to be done and if we persist with the Government’s current positive policies a good number of those people will get jobs in the next couple of years.Hon David Cunliffe: Why were 22.7 percent of young Māori and 20.1 percent of Pacific people aged 15 to 24 not in employment education or training last year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: One reason is that quite a few of them went through our schooling system when there was a Government in charge that thought that because they were low income they could not learn. That deprived many of those young New Zealanders of opportunities they should have had. The Government is working intensively on the pipeline into work for young people and is making considerable progress.Hon David Cunliffe: By what percentage did Pacific unemployment grow from December 2008 to December 2013?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot give the member the exact number but what we do know is it was too much and too many Pacific people do not have the jobs they deserve to have. But I can tell you that the Government is working very robustly to ensure that young Pacific people at our schools are treated with respect and as if they can learn and that they do in fact learn. If the member wants one measure in the last year the number of young Pasifika people achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 went up by 7 percent.Louise Upston: What reports has he seen supporting the Government’s approach to making New Zealand a better place for Kiwis and their families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Before I outline some of those reports I would of course emphasise to the member that the Government believes there is much more to do to ensure that people get jobs and have higher incomes. But the indications are promising. Consumer confidence is running at a 9-year high. Business confidence is approaching a 20-year high and that matters because it means businesses are more likely to invest capital in new jobs and in plant machinery which creates higher incomes. We are particularly pleased to see that manufacturing activity has expanded for 16 consecutive months and around 66000 extra jobs were created in the past year. The outlook is for further job growth.Hon David Cunliffe: Has productivity growth grown faster in New Zealand than in Australia in the last 5 years; if so why?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer that question in detail. What I do know is that the most recent figures—published I think today—had productivity growth at around 2.1 percent. We do not pretend it has been easy to turn round the damage done by the last Government; it has not. It has been quite difficult. A lot of New Zealanders are beginning to understand that putting the Labour Party back in power would give them 10 percent first mortgage rates.Hon David Cunliffe: As one example of productivity can the Prime Minister give us any rough idea of what proportion of New Zealand logs are being shipped overseas as raw logs rather than as processed timber or timber products?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I understand it it has been a growing proportion although I cannot give the member the exact number. I am familiar with that because a sawmill in my own electorate has gone into receivership. Fortunately job growth in the South Island and increasingly in the North Island is so robust that we would expect almost all of those people who may lose their jobs—if they lose their jobs at that sawmill—to be able to get other jobs.Louise Upston: What other reports has he received supporting the Government’s approach to making New Zealand a better place for Kiwis and their children?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some of the most satisfying reports are the anecdotal ones of parents for instance who are now pleased that their schools are required to inform all parents—not just the ones who turn up at the school—of the progress their children are making on achievement. The other reports are from older people who are now starting to understand that their community is safer because there is less crime and particularly less crime from younger people. But we are always trying to make New Zealand a better place for Kiwis and their families. For instance we would quite like to make the Labour Party caucus—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Cost of Living—Interest Rates Power Prices and Alternative Approaches2.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri)to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s economic programme helping to control the cost of living for New Zealand families?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The Government’s sound economic policy and maintaining of conventional monetary policy in the hands of an independent Reserve Bank have helped to control the cost of living for New Zealand families and are critical to controlling the cost of living for New Zealand families as the economy progresses with sustained growth. For example the Government is working hard at getting back to surplus next year containing Government spending and ensuring that we avoid the mistakes of the last cycle where big increases in Government spending put pressure on inflation and therefore on interest rates and therefore on New Zealand households.Hon Kate Wilkinson: How will expected interest rate increases from 50-year lows affect families and what steps is the Government taking to prevent interest rates reaching the high levels of 6 years ago?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Given that interest rates have been at 50-year lows it was inevitable that they would increase at some stage back to what have been the more normal levels for the New Zealand economy over the last 30 years. With average floating mortgage rates having fallen to less than 6 percent from almost 11 percent in 2008 economists now expect that rates could rise by around 2 percentage points back to more normal levels. But they do not expect rates to increase to anywhere near the levels of 6 years ago. So although mortgage holders can expect some rise in costs savers will benefit from a bit more interest income and slightly higher interest rates now will head off the possibility of sharply rising interest rates later and for instance 10 percent first mortgage rates such as New Zealanders enjoyed under the previous Government.Hon Kate Wilkinson: How have Government measures in the electricity sector helped to restrict increases in power prices and in containing the overall cost of living for households particularly compared with price trends in previous years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We need to keep in mind the proportion that electricity prices represent of New Zealand household costs. In the consumer price index the electricity sector represents 4 percent of the cost of living of households. Since 2008 the Government has made significant improvements to electricity generation and retailing sectors to increase competition. We have also invested heavily—following on from the previous Government—in transmission to improve the security of supply. These improvements helped to restrict price increases to around 3 percent in 2013. This compares with a 7 percent increase in electricity prices in 2006 a 6.5 percent increase in 2007 and an almost 8 percent increase in 2008. Overall electricity prices jumped 72 percent in the 9 years to 2008. Increased market competition is helping to slow down the rate of increase in prices. Consumers benefit from greater electricity market competition.Hon Kate Wilkinson: What reports has he seen on alternative approaches to monetary policy and economic management and what impact would they have on the cost of living for New Zealand families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have heard some confusing reports from some who believe that if the Reserve Bank does not put interest rates up then inflation rates would go higher and that somehow that reduces the cost of living for New Zealand households. That is pretty confusing—that we should change the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act to allow for higher inflation as a way of cutting inflation in household costs. I am still waiting for an explanation for that ridiculous policy position held by the Labour Party.Justice Minister—Visit to China3.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister of Justice: Does she stand by all her statements?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):Yes but I have acknowledged that some of my earlier answers could have been broader for which I have apologised.Grant Robertson: When she said that she “popped into Oravida to have a cup of tea on the way to the airport” was she referring to Shanghai Pudong airport?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I did not know there was more than one airport.Grant Robertson: Is she aware that Oravida’s headquarters are 30 kilometres in the opposite direction from her hotel and from where her business meetings were held and not on the way to Pudong airport at all?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No I have never been to Shanghai before except the transit lounge at the airport. So I had no idea where I was.Grant Robertson: Will she now advise the Prime Minister who repeated her claim that she had popped into Oravida on the way to the airport that she has once again misled him given that the visit required an 80-kilometre round trip starting in the opposite direction from the airport?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can only tell the Prime Minister what I know. I was being driven around and I was assured by the ambassador that we could pop into Oravida on the way to the airport or else I could have gone to the airport and I could have sat in the lounge for an extra long time.Grant Robertson: Who paid for her dinner when she dined with Oravida executives and a Chinese border control official in Beijing?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Neither Margaret Malcolm my senior adviser; the taxpayer; nor me but I do not know the answer.Grant Robertson: Is the reason that she will not identify who paid for the dinner that the official who was at the dinner was a very senior border control official who would have had some say in the entry of Oravida’s products into China meaning that this was a business dinner?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.Courts—Results of Reform4.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National)to the Minister for Courts: What progress can he report on the Government’s efforts to modernise and speed up the court system?Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts):I will put a focus on the courts turning round rising court wait-times because we simply accepted it takes a long time to get through the courts and we have done that for far too long. I am pleased to report that we are starting to see good results. Last year the courts managed to bring down the average age of cases before the District Court by 8.9 percent or 16 days. For criminal cases they are now 18.3 percent or 23 days younger than previously. Jury trial cases which by their nature are longer and more complex are finally being disposed of faster with the average age falling by 4 percent or 15 days last year. And the average age of Family Court cases is down by nearly 5 percent or 12 days. This is just a first small but positive step to deliver on our commitment to a faster and more effective court system.Paul Foster-Bell: What programmes and changes have created these positive results?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: These results have taken focused efforts from court staff as well as new policy settings. This Government has rolled out new technology into courts such as video links to allow prisoners to appear in court without leaving the prison gate which saves time and increases community safety. We have passed and successfully implemented the largest reforms in 50 years of the way our criminal courts work to simply speed up processes. Court staff are now focused on delivering quick customer-focused justice ensuring that their processes eliminate any unnecessary delays. The Ministry of Justice has set an ambitious target of a 50 percent reduction in court wait-times by 2017—a target it is well on the way to reaching.Paul Foster-Bell: How have others who play a role in the courts such as police lawyers and judges contributed to these results?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: The entire justice system is working together on this. Police who prosecute most people placed before our courts have embraced the new criminal procedure reforms. The legal community has also constructively engaged with these changes recognising that delayed justice benefits no one. The judiciary has lent its considerable authority and mana to this effort working with our court staff to prioritise older cases and prevent unnecessary delays. I want to acknowledge and thank all the other participants in the justice sector for joining in the team effort to deliver faster justice.Schools—Performance-based Funding5.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)to the Minister of Education: Is she considering a greater role for national standards and NCEA achievement data in school funding and teacher pay decisions; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):No.Chris Hipkins: Did she tell the Herald on Sunday that in her view the most successful education systems were those that “have strongly incentivised a focus on ‘What difference I have made in my teaching and learning in the 6-month period?’ not just ‘What’s the final result are these kids above or at the national standards or have these kids passed NCEA?’ ”; if so what incentives was she referring to if she did not mean funding?Hon HEKIA PARATA: What I actually said was: “Having had a look at a lot of the educational systems and wishing to cherry-pick characteristics that we might want to incorporate here systems that have been most successful in closing the equity excellence gap are the ones that have strongly incentivised the focus on ‘What difference have I made in my teaching and learning in a 6-month period?’ not just ‘What’s in my final result?’.”Chris Hipkins: Is she denying that she made the quote I just read to her?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am confirming what I actually said.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question to the Minister which she basically did not address. In clarity I then used a further supplementary question to get a more explicit answer to that first question. She has answered neither of those.Mr SPEAKER: Order! No there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the first question was adequately addressed. With regard to the second one I can understand why the member is disappointed. I think to move forward I will allow the member an additional question.Chris Hipkins: When asked by the Herald on Sunday if she was talking about performance payment for schools did she reply: “Well that’s what I’m saying—it’s complicated.”?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I gave a full interview to the Herald on Sunday and I gave them a full range of characteristics that would need to be considered in a funding system. To cherry-pick two words out of several pages is misleading and unhelpful. What I actually said was: “There is substantive and consistent feedback from the system that the decile funding system does not work for them.” That member knows that to be the truth because under the former Minister of Education a full select committee inquiry was held on the matter.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again that was actually a very specific question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That question was specifically addressed in my opinion. The member can carry on with further supplementary—Chris Hipkins: Well did she say it or not?Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants to ask a supplementary question I invite him to do it. Otherwise we can quickly move to the next question.Chris Hipkins: When she stated on Q+A last weekend in response to a question on how to determine whether a teacher was a good teacher or a bad teacher: “Well there’s two main ways. One is the actual results and the other is the value-add—the difference made in the actual teaching.” how did she propose to measure an individual teacher’s value-add?Hon HEKIA PARATA: What I was being asked I answered. There are two main ways. That is not to suggest that we have gone on to develop a funding system that reflects those two main ways. In fact our Government introduced national standards with the clear expectation that every 6 months at least plain English reporting to parents about the difference that has been made would be required. That is exactly what we are doing.Chris Hipkins: Will she now categorically rule out using student achievement data as a basis for school funding and teacher pay decisions; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No funding system is based on one characteristic alone. Indeed the decile funding system we have now is based on seven. So of course we are interested in how well students do as parents are because that is why they send them to school.Catherine Delahunty: Did she tell the Herald on Sunday that separate from the routine census decile ratings review she was in her words “particularly interested in changes to the overall funding mechanism that would fund schools according to which school is delivering achievement.”?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No.Catherine Delahunty: Can she promise kids in lower decile schools that aside from the routine post-census decile ratings review currently under way their school will not get less funding than other schools if it cannot meet any future achievement or progress requirements?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I can promise the member that this Government is committed to quality education for every child regardless of what decile school they are in. We will target resources to meet that need and that is why we are seeing achievement go up—Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question: can she promise the kids that the school will not get less funding.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister was attempting to answer it. The member cannot expect a categoric answer to a question like that.Hon Trevor Mallard: Who’s in charge here?Mr SPEAKER: Order! For the benefit of the Hon Trevor Mallard I was elected the Speaker of this Parliament if that is what the member is referring to.Catherine Delahunty: Will she promise to tell parents before the election whether any proposals she may be looking at would change the school funding system to peg funding to school achievement in any way?Hon HEKIA PARATA: My education agenda is clear and transparent and responsive. It is clear we want to review our professional learning and development we want to reduce the compliance on schools and we want to raise achievement for five out of five. Unlike everybody else on that side of this House we really do think kids are entitled to an excellent education and the opportunity to get that. We will target resources to get that outcome which is exactly what we are getting and I make no apology for that.Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you Minister but I did ask you—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was addressed. The member asked what the Minister would be telling parents before the election and she told her.Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just want to draw your attention. We got a large number of answers but the specific question was around pegging funding after the election. That point was not even addressed.Mr SPEAKER: Well I am not sure whether the member heard my rulings but I ruled that on the occasions when it was questioned as to whether the question had been adequately addressed it had been.Justice Minister—Visit to China6.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Minister of Justice: Does she still stand by her claim that Oravida business was not discussed at her dinner in Beijing at which Oravida personnel were present as well as a senior Chinese Government Customs official?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):Yes but I do need to correct the member’s question. As I have said before guests at the dinner included a senior Chinese Government border control official and Ms Margaret Malcolm.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can she confirm therefore that she and Margaret Malcolm are fluent in Mandarin and were therefore able to understand everything that was said during the dinner?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. I can however assure the member that I am fluent in English and I can understand when someone is talking to me in English—normally.Rt Hon Winston Peters: That being the case can she confirm that because the senior Government customs official—or border official as she says—did not understand English he said nothing to anyone during the dinner and just sat there mute the whole time?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The senior Chinese Government official did have some English but it was limited. I did my very best to talk about what a great country New Zealand is.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is she saying that there was a dinner meeting involving a senior New Zealand Minister an adviser a senior Chinese customs or border official and business personnel from Oravida which is having trouble with customs and entering China and yet not one person during that dinner mentioned that subject?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that she said that there were language issues at that meeting when the Prime Minister spoke to her on this matter did he question her public assurance that Oravida business and customs entry problems were not discussed knowing as he did that neither she nor Ms Malcolm speak Mandarin and therefore could not give such an assurance?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Given that it was a very short dinner—Hon Annette King: How short?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —well it was a very short dinner—and the language being spoken was English or forms thereof I actually can give that assurance to the Prime Minister.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the acknowledgment that the border customs official spoke little English at all is it not a fact that her claim that Oravida business was not discussed was false as is the Prime Minister’s claim of receiving such an assurance from her which means that both she and he—the Prime Minister—are knowingly involved in a cover-up of a serious breach of the Cabinet Manual?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I challenge that member’s assumptions and I would have to say that since I was there and he was not he should stop making it up.Grant Robertson: Why will she not reveal the rank or identity of the Chinese official?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because I have been advised by the Prime Minister’s office that we never reveal those matters.Maternity Services—Integration with Local Providers7.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua)to the Minister of Health: What announcements has the Government made to further improve maternity services?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):I think there are a couple of noteworthy announcements. Firstly the Government has allocated $1.5 million to assist communities to better integrate local maternity services. Three district health boards will work together as demonstrations with their local providers to evaluate the effectiveness of current services and to take steps to further integrate them. The second announcement is that I am sure the House would want to congratulate Simon and Natalie Bridges on the birth of their second child at Tauranga Hospital this morning. There was a suggestion that the baby would be called “J K” Bridges but I am advised that both baby Harry and mother are doing well.Dr Paul Hutchison: What is the purpose of today’s announcement?Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is keen to build on a more integrated maternity system that brings pregnant women into the system much earlier as recommended by the Health Committee report. This is about demonstrating at a local level some ways to do this. One great example is the new maternity drop-in centre in Tūrangi. The centre provides a range of assistance for mums and families including maternity child health and social support services such as Well Child / Tāmariki Ora and Family Start.Transport Funding—Roads of National Significance and Value for Money8.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green)to the Minister of Transport: Can he confirm that by the end of this fiscal year the Government will have spent $1.5 billion on work classified as having a “low” benefit to cost ratio under its roads of national significance programme?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport):The analysis the questioner relies on is provided by the New Zealand Transport Agency. The Government makes its own decisions though about value-for-money expenditure. It is not a slave to bureaucratic formula and therefore considers other matters in making its decisions. The Government considers the roads of national significance to be excellent expenditure.Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This was a question on notice and it was a yes or no question and I did not hear a yes or a no in the Minister’s answer.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again the Standing Orders are quite clear that no member can demand a yes or no answer. Again I can understand why the member does not feel that it was adequately addressed and I accept that. On this occasion the question in my opinion has been addressed but I will allow the member an additional supplementary question to try to tease it out to the member’s satisfaction.Julie Anne Genter: For clarity has he spent $1.5 billion on low-value work under the roads of national significance programme as stated in his answer to written question No. 813 and is he now trying to justify that waste by calling it strategic?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The question the member asked me to respond to indicates the benefit-cost ratio on both the 6 percent and 8 percent discount rate for a number of roads. The roads that she is most likely to be focusing on are the Waikato Expressway the Tauranga Eastern Link road and the Wellington Northern Corridor. The Government considers those to be very important. They are strategic and we most certainly do not agree with the Green Party that it is inappropriate or low-value expenditure.Julie Anne Genter: Given that none of the spending on the roads of national significance has been high value and that nearly half the spending on walking and cycling in the last year was high value would it not be a better use of taxpayer money to prioritise high-value walking and cycling projects?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: One of the problems the member would leave unanswered is what you would do with the volumes of freight that have to get moved around New Zealand if you required them to be moved by bicycle or pushcart.Julie Anne Genter: In light of the National Freight Demands Study released last week which shows that road freight has fallen since 2006 and that the expected rate of growth is less than was forecast when his Government began this roads of national significance programme is now not an appropriate time to reconsider whether spending billions of dollars on projects that his own Government considers low value is the best use of taxpayer money?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The first point is that I dispute the analysis that the freight volumes have fallen. What I would say is that vehicle kilometres travelled have fallen and that is largely due to a more efficient roading network which has an excellent outcome for greenhouse gas emissions.Julie Anne Genter: Does he stand by his reply to my question last week that the only reason he does not support the Greens’ plan to take a tiny amount of money—$50 million a year—from low-value projects and invest it in high-value walking and cycling projects is that “I am a member of the National Party.”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is a very very selective quote. I think it was most unkind of the member to throw that at me without the full qualification of what I actually said. That was that simply there is no Government in New Zealand’s history that has ever spent as much on walking and cycling as this Government and we will continue to do so where it makes good sense. But that will not mean that we stop building roads which drive the economy.Julie Anne Genter: So is the Minister really saying that he is going to continue to prioritise projects that have low economic efficiency rather than spending that money on projects that will have greater economic benefits greater transport benefits and greater benefits for the environment and public health?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No that is not the case. What we are doing is spending money to get an efficient transport network. We are also spending a lot of money to give people choice about their pedestrian and cycling options. No Government has ever spent more on that than we are. I do not know why the Greens cannot congratulate us on that.Julie Anne Genter: Does the Minister understand that duplicating motorways to the Kāpiti coast or Wellsford does nothing to alleviate serious congestion in our city centres—in fact according to the New Zealand Transport Agency they make congestion worse—whereas investing in smart projects like walking and cycling to school take cars off the road eases congestion and improves public health?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It also very seriously inconveniences the people who pay for those roads and their commitment to these projects will be seen at the ballot box.Julie Anne Genter: Is an accurate summary of the situation that the Government has spent $1.5 billion on low-value pet projects while underfunding high-value walking and cycling projects and dismissing low-cost high-value plans such as the Greens’ safe walking and cycling to school policy which is not only good for kids but good for road users because it is better value for money?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. The truth is that the Government is spending on the seven roads of national significance and has considerable public support for continuing to do so. The Government is spending an enormous amount of money on cycling and pedestrian initiatives and will continue to do so. It is a shame that the Green Party cannot see that the only way that you are going to get better environmental outcomes is to have a stronger economy which since Roman times has meant to have good roads.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table a report from the OECD that shows that there is no correlation between investment in motorways in New Zealand and economic growth.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it might be difficult for members to track that—[Interruption] The member wants to know from what year is the OECD report.Julie Anne Genter: It was from 2008.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a 2008 OECD report. There is objection.Housing Minister—Statements9.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū)to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by all his statements on housing?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Associate Minister of Housing)on behalf of theMinister of Housing: Yes.Phil Twyford: What impact has his use of a fake figure of a 26 percent rise in Auckland house prices under his Government had on the credibility of the Real Estate Institute and its statistical series when the real figure is 40 percent and will he apologise to the institute for embarrassing it and to the media and the public for misleading them by feeding out fake figures in a desperate attempt to cover up a failed housing policy?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No—in fact absolutely not. The reality is to put it quite simply for the member that what the Minister has done is he has actually taken the median price over a year. What the Labour Party has done is it has taken a point in time in a particular year. Anyone would say that our calculation of a median price over a 12-month period is far more honest. What I will say though and what the member is actually missing is that under Labour house prices went up significantly more no matter which median price you take than they did under National as did electricity prices.Phil Twyford: Why did he choose 2 random months out of a 5-year period in order to find the 26 percent answer and why did he feel the need to pass off such a poorly prepared table from his office as the work of the Real Estate Institute a table which on top of his errors in calculating the percentage change made such basic mistakes as getting the date wrong reporting an average as a median and putting in the wrong figure for Canterbury-Westland and is it because his track record on housing is so appalling and he is so desperate to cover it up?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Quite simply the member did not listen to the answer. What they did is they took the average median house price for 2000 2008 2009 and 2013 for the whole calendar year and worked out the percentage difference. That is how it was calculated. The member is saying a particular month was chosen. That is not correct.Phil Twyford: When he said that the Government was spending $2.7 billion over the next 3 years to improve State housing stock did he include the Christchurch insurance payout in that figure and can he confirm that no new additional money beyond that already in the Budget is included; if so how can he be sure that his numbers are correct after the Real Estate Institute fiasco or is it just another example of him playing fast and loose with the numbers?Hon PAULA BENNETT: To the second part of that question which I choose to answer quite frankly the member is incorrect. He has not listened to the original answers. There is no factual misconception of what those previous numbers were and he is just choosing to pick his own numbers throughout it.Primary Sector Development—Sustainable Farming Fund and Primary Growth Partnership10.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki—King Country)to the Minister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on innovation investment through the sustainable farming fund?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):The Sustainable Farming Fund which invests in grassroots innovation projects in the primary sector has now received $122.8 million in Government funding across 906 projects. An independent evaluation has shown that this programme has been a success leading to innovative approaches to environmental challenges while maintaining optimal production. The evaluation also shows that this programme has led to significant co-investment from industry and the development of new technology and environmentally sustainable practices. Overall it has contributed to protecting and growing the economic value of our important primary industries.Shane Ardern: What other progress has the Government made in increasing innovation investment in the primary sector?Hon NATHAN GUY: This Government has taken a long-term approach to innovation in the sector. That is why we have also introduced the Primary Growth Partnership. This initiative invests in large-scale game-changing innovative projects and has so far committed over $700 million of new spending by industry and Government across 17 projects. The Sustainable Farming Fund and the Primary Growth Partnership are just two programmes the Government is using to significantly boost innovation providing success across our primary industries.Shane Ardern: Why is the Government investing in primary sector innovation?Hon NATHAN GUY: The primary sector is the backbone of this economy and this Government has a goal of doubling primary sector exports by the year 2025. To do this we simply cannot continue with business as usual. We need to encourage more innovation and encourage the private sector to lift its innovation investment. This is why the Government is co-investing alongside industry to increase research and development get new products and markets and manage the impact of production on the environment.Pacific Communities—Employment and Wage Inequality11.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere)to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs: Does he have confidence that the Government is “achieving better outcomes for Pacific peoples in New Zealand”?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs):Yes I have great confidence that Pacific people are reaching their potential. The number of Pacific people employed in our nation has risen 10500 since 2009. Achievement of level 2 National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) among Pacific students has risen to nearly 72 percent—up 16.5 percentage points since 2008. This Government is also making a significant contribution to supporting the use of Pacific languages in early childhood education.Su’a William Sio: Does the Minister agree that Pasifika people have been left out of National’s promise of a brighter future with unemployment rising from 7.8 percent in 2008 to 13.7 percent in 2013?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No I do not agree with that. What I will say is that the figures that have come to hand to me show that since the fourth quarter of 2009 when the full effects of that Labour administration took their full force it was 14.3 percent. In the fourth quarter of 2013 it is 13.7 percent so we have seen an improvement since that administration left the Treasury benches.Su’a William Sio: Why has his Government failed to close the income gap with median weekly income for Pacific people falling by $74 a week since 2008 while income for European Pākehā rose by $51 a week during the same period?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I do not have those figures to hand but what I do have to hand is that there are 10000 more people working in quarter four 2013 compared with quarter four 2009 when that Labour-led administration left a mess of an economy to us the National Government.Su’a William Sio: If Pasifika people are doing so well under the National Government’s promise of a brighter future why did the Salvation Army give out nearly 5000 more food parcels in 2002 than in 2008 to Pasifika clients?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Well I do not take any responsibility for what the Labour Government did between 2002 and 2008. But what I will say is that $2.5 billion is spent every year on Working for Families $4.5 billion is spent on benefits $1.8 billion is spent on subsidising housing through income-related rents and all State houses under this Government the National Government are insulated whereas that previous Labour Government left that stock depleted and dilapidated.Su’a William Sio: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was supposed to be 2012 from 2008. I heard the Minister refer to 2002-08. The correct quote should be 2012-08. He did not respond—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I understand the point. [Interruption] Order! I do not need assistance. I understand the point the member is making but it does not change the fact as to whether the question has been addressed. In my opinion that question has been addressed.Carol Beaumont: Given that Pacific women are the lowest-paid workers in New Zealand what will he do to achieve better outcomes for this group of hard-working women?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As the Minister of Finance the Deputy Prime Minister has said the key to unlocking the potential of not just Pacific women but Pacific people is through education. On that front this National Government has improved access to and participation in early childhood education. It has improved achievement in NCEA level 2 for Pacific people—it is now over 70 percent—and it has improved the completion rates for Pacific people at university.Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was asking about wages paid to women who are in the workforce and what he was going to do to make a difference for that group.Mr SPEAKER: That is right and the Minister told you what he is going to do.Carol Beaumont: I seek leave to table a chart. This is women’s pay by ethnicity relative to other groups.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just need the source of the document.Carol Beaumont: The source of this is the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions submission to the minimum wage review.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it is not freely available to all members I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions presentation. Is there any objection? There is objection.Transport Infrastructure—High-productivity Motor Vehicle Routes12.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East)to the Minister of Transport: What progress is being made on the Government’s high-productivity motor vehicles routes programme?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport):Good progress is being made. The Government has invested $45 million in improving bridges nationwide so heavier loads can be carried on them. The first of a number of these have been completed on State Highway 1 near Whangarei. The Otaika Stream Bridge No. 85 and the Kauri railway overbridge are now operating as high-productivity motor vehicles routes.David Bennett: What are the benefits of the high-productivity motor vehicles routes programme?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It means that motor vehicles can carry more freight per trip. Accordingly they reduce the number of trips that need to be taken. For example the Otaika Stream Bridge took approximately 56 truck crossings a day 6 days a week making this part of a nationwide high-productivity motor vehicles route. It means that it saves about 14 truck movements a day. As well as productivity gains that is also good for the environment.Urgent Debates DeclinedSchools—Performance-based FundingMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received a letter from Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 an announcement of a plan to move toward performance-based funding in schools. For there to be an urgent debate the matter raised must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Although school decile ratings will be recalculated by the Ministry of Education following the census claims that the Government is looking to fund schools according to student performance appear to be media speculation and have been rejected by the Minister of Education. Media speculation can never give rise to an urgent debate. The urgent debate procedure is a means of debating matters that have occurred. It is not a means of debating matters that might or might not happen in the future. The fact that a Minister may have indicated “we need to be looking for something else.” is not on its own sufficient to constitute a case of recent occurrence. The application is therefore declined.Electoral Amendment BillThird ReadingDebate resumed from 13 March.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):In the prayer that starts every sitting day the words are “laying aside all private and personal interest”—laying aside all private and personal interest. The Minister in charge of the Electoral Amendment Bill is Judith Collins. Judith Collins has already been proven not to understand the meaning of the words “laying aside all private and personal interest”. The issue with this bill to which Labour takes such exception is the behaviour in the bill now that is required in order for people to turn up to a polling booth and vote. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Members leaving the Chamber should show some respect to the member addressing the House and all contributions will be made with respect shown to the traditions of the House as enshrined in the Standing Orders. That is why I am standing—because I represent those Standing Orders. I crave your respect for them and your understanding when a member is trying to address the House.Hon MARYAN STREET: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I was talking about putting aside all private and personal interest. Judith Collins the Minister in charge of this bill—which has come back to the House with provisions deleted that would have cemented in place the EasyVote card practice—is the one who also does not seem to understand the significance of the words “laying aside all private and personal interest”. Judith Collins had the opportunity to reinstate those words by agreeing to first an amendment put up by Holly Walker of the Green Party; second an amendment put up by Andrew Little of the Labour Party; and third an amendment put up by me. She turned down the opportunity each time to make it easy for people to vote. And why is that? All I can say about that is it must have occurred to National members that it is in their private and personal interest to make sure this piece of legislation does not make it easier for people to vote. In fact it puts obstacles in the way.This should have been a piece of legislation that was agreed on by the whole House. It could have been that. But now with the way it has transpired and with the Minister’s unwillingness to reinstate clauses that were deleted simply by agreeing to amendments by other parties we see a bill on electoral procedure that will advance the interests only of those for whom it is already easy to cast a vote. Those for whom it is not easy—those of different ethnicities those who are disabled who are unable to speak for example like the man I referred to when I was last speaking on this issue—now have to say their name and provide additional information to show that they are on the roll. It says that they must do both of those things. If they have a disability that prevents them from doing that then they must rely on another person. People want to get up and make their own votes. It is incumbent on this House to make it possible for them to do that and to make it as easy as possible. This bill does not do that.I would say that in another country behaviour of the Minister both the in her other portfolios and while in charge of this bill in particular might be called corruption. That is not too far from the truth. So this needs to be addressed. It should have been addressed by the Minister in charge of the bill and it is a shame that it has not been.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):It is a great pleasure to stand in the third reading debate of the Electoral Amendment Bill which is in the name of the very good and capable Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins. What a fine Minister she is to bring this piece of legislation to the House following the good hard long and deliberative work of the Justice and Electoral Committee. The select committee worked long and hard on this bill. We heard lots of submissions and representations from members of the public and interest groups. But listening to members of the Opposition one could easily be drawn to the conclusion that some huge awful attack on the basis of our democracy is being perpetrated here when nothing could be further from the truth.The Justice and Electoral Committee reported back unanimously on this bill without dissension and without a minority report. Something has happened in the time between reporting back and now when the Labour Party members have decided to change their minds. I wonder what could have caused a change of mind such that the Hon Maryan Street who was supportive and agreeable in the select committee could now be so vehement in her opposition to what is a very simple proposition put forward by the select committee. Really the only thing that one can draw from that change of heart is that there has been a change in management within the chief of staff’s office within the Labour Party. It is a hard move to the left and it is a move that is not doing the Opposition any good at all.So what does the Electoral Amendment Bill do? Well it does not extend the use of EasyVote cards. Listening to members of the Opposition one could be forgiven for thinking that EasyVote cards were somehow going to be removed or cease to be operative at all when in fact the situation will be simply this—the status quo for EasyVote cards will continue and will be maintained. What this legislation does not do is extend the role and use of EasyVote cards. The select committee came to a very good view—a consensus view a unanimous view—that to extend the use of EasyVote cards would have lowered the threshold for potential fraud. That is something that is very important because ours is a unique wonderful and precious little democracy and I for one think that we should be doing everything that we can to maintain and enhance the preciousness of our democracy.One does not have to look very far before we can find situations where there has been electoral fraud in our democracy and one Daljit Singh springs to mind. Daljit Singh was a Labour Party candidate in a local body election recently convicted of electoral fraud. What did he do? He enrolled 70 people at his one address—70 people.Louise Upston: Seventy.SCOTT SIMPSON: Seventy—that is right. The senior whip is telling me it is 70. It is absolutely right; 70 is the number. Seventy people were enrolled at that house. So you can imagine what might have happened—70 EasyVote cards could have arrived at that house. No one in their right mind would think that that is anything other than a lowering of the potential for fraud. This bill is a good one.Another point that is worth making is that verbal identification will be required. It came as a complete surprise to the select committee that verbal identification was not already required. The vast majority of voters actually do state their name when they go up to the deputy returning officer to get their voting papers in preparation to cast their vote. There has been an argument that somehow this puts people for whom English is a second language or who are disabled in some way at a disadvantage. There is already very comprehensive and existing legislation that protects them and ensures that adequate steps can be taken for people in that situation. So this comes as nothing of a surprise—other than that it was not there already.This bill is a very good bill. It is a well-considered bill. If we pass it today we will be ready for the election on 20 September. On this side of the House we are ready for that election. We are ready we are looking forward to it we have a range of policies that will be fit to take to the country in a very positive and good way and we have an excellent story to take to the nation. I commend this bill to the House I commend the Minister for bringing it to the House and I urge all members to support it.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise like my Labour colleagues to oppose this Electoral Amendment Bill. I oppose it regrettably because we simply do not need to be in this position. Electoral law should not be the subject of widespread divergence and disagreement between the parties. The convention generally is that the parties agree on what the electoral law is because the voting public expect there to be a consensus on our voting law and on the way people participate in our democracy. But we are opposing it because of the obstinacy and arrogance of the Minister of Justice.You see we have a deliberative process when we pass legislation in this House. The last member who spoke Scott Simpson may not have realised that the reason we have a first reading a select committee consideration a second reading and a third reading is that at every step of the way there is scrutiny and consideration of the legislation. At any one of those steps any member can point out that the bill does not meet the public interest test or does not meet some other important consideration or requirement—political or otherwise. The Labour Opposition and other parties in the Opposition have drawn the conclusion having considered and studied the bill as it emerged from the Justice and Electoral Committee that it now has a provision that far from being the status quo is now directly contrary to the status quo is positively harmful to many voters in this country and will be an impediment to their properly exercising their democratic rights. This is the provision that says that there must now be verbal confirmation of a voter’s details.The only out to that the only exception as the Minister of Justice patronisingly said in the Committee stage is that voters can flap their arms around and make a gesture. Apparently that is the way you can avoid the statutory and mandatory requirement to provide verbal confirmation. It is an ugly provision in a piece of legislation that should have the support of all voters and indeed all members of this House. That is what is wrong with this provision. Members in the Government in their typically arrogant sort of way may think that that is fine that the vast majority of voters are not affected by it as Mr Simpson just said—the vast majority are not affected by it. Well that is true. The vast majority do not speak English as a second language. The vast majority do not have a speech impediment. The vast majority do not have other aspects to them that make it difficult for them to fluently and fluidly provide verbal confirmation. This is an unnecessary provision in a very important exercise that we undergo every 3 years. That is why we are so opposed to it. It is totally unnecessary.Let us just recall how the original bill came about. It was through the typical and conventional processes of the Electoral Commission reviewing the election and the Justice and Electoral Committee reviewing the election to come up with those improvements and those changes that are needed to ensure that the conduct of the next election is good and to help things run more smoothly or at least to modernise the election process. That was the genesis of the bill—indeed of most electoral amendment bills.The bill that was introduced to the House and that went to the select committee had a comprehensive provision relating to the use of the EasyVote card or the enrolment confirmation card because prior to that there was no statutory recognition of the EasyVote card. It had come about through administrative provision and that is fine. That is all right. It was there but the reality is that the EasyVote card had demonstrated that it was as its name suggested. It had made voting easier for a lot of people who hitherto had found it more difficult who had hitherto found it difficult to confirm their details and go through the administrative process of collecting their ballot papers before casting their votes. That was why even the Electoral Commission said that it was time to have statutory recognition of the EasyVote card. It was a good mechanism.So the select committee looked at it. It was the Government members who ummed and ahhed and wrung their hands because they were concerned about electoral fraud but the reality is that the EasyVote card makes electoral fraud impossible because once you have used it and had the page number and the line number ruled off if you try to use it again you are going to be caught out straight away. You will be caught out. And all this hocus - pocus from Government members about fraud is just that. It is nonsense—it is nonsense.Scott Simpson: Daljit Singh.ANDREW LITTLE: They talk about Daljit Singh but the reality about Daljit Singh is the system was so robust that he got picked up before anybody cast a vote. He got picked up when the EasyVote cards were being delivered to the address. It was never going to work. It was a dumb thing to do and he is now being called to account. He has been called to account and he is doing his chips as he should do. Anybody who rips off our electoral system should face the consequences should face the music and he has done and that is the right thing. It has nothing to do with the EasyVote card. The EasyVote card is an anti-fraud measure.This Government does not care about the fact that the card has other useful aspects to it as well which are that it makes it easier for that small proportion of voters who feel intimidated by having to go through the palaver of having to provide verbal confirmation of their details. For some people that is a difficult thing to do. For some people that is a difficult thing to do and that is why we are so opposed to the bill. Our job in this House when we are considering electoral law should be to consider every conceivable way we can to make casting your vote easier. We should be looking at means of electronic voting but we sort of kicked that for touch as well. Well this Government its members have now created an impediment in our electoral law. That is the disappointing thing about it. This Parliament under the control of this Government this National Government will go down in history as the first to take our electoral law backwards by making it harder for people to vote.I want to conclude by making one other point and that is this: this legislation was a lost opportunity when there has been so much public consensus for there to be changes in the removal of the thresholds—the one-seat dog-wagging threshold—and reducing the 5 percent party vote threshold to 4 percent. This was the opportunity to do that. This is the same Minister of Justice who cannot remember who paid for dinner and who cannot remember where the place was where she had dinner. Thirty kilometres or 80 kilometres away from the Shanghai airport—she could not remember that. She could not remember actually that it was her job to go to other parties and find out whether there was a consensus to do this. She did not talk to a single other party and then she declared that there was no consensus when the only party disagreeing with it was her party—the National Party.As we now have come to see it is on the record that it is the National Party that stands in the way of progressive developments and changes to our electoral law. It is the National Party that does not want to make it easier for people to vote. It is the National Party that does not want to make it easy for people to choose between the parties and the individuals they want elected to Parliament. National maintains the fiction in order to look after its political mates—the one-party machines that jack up this Government to give it the numbers it has to conduct itself in the way that it does. It is a shabby grubby little Government now smeared and tainted with improper conduct by yet one more senior Minister. Never mind that it has got other Ministers in its one-man-band parties who themselves have fallen into disgrace.This a shabby grubby little Government propped up now by a continued electoral law that this House could have changed had we had a Government that was actually interested in real leadership. We do not have that. We do not have a Government that is interested in leadership. We do not have a Government that cares about good-quality democracy. We have a shabby little Government desperate to do whatever it can to hold on to the reins of power and not give the public of this great country the right to have the people it wants in this House or the right for voters in this country to vote in a civilised and sensible sort of way.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Holly Walker but could I just advise you to speak into the microphone. It is very difficult to hear.HOLLY WALKER (Green):I do not believe that the microphone was turned on Mr Assistant Speaker but thank you. The Green Party takes electoral reform very seriously. The fate of the MPs and the parties that are currently represented in Parliament may wax and wane but if the system for electing them is robust democratic and fair then we can all have confidence in our Parliament.In the Green Party we have always engaged constructively with any moves to alter this electoral system such as the review of MMP that followed the referendum and such as the inquiry into the 2011 general election which gave rise to this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill. We share the view that where possible changes to the electoral system should be made with a high degree of political consensus so that the public can have confidence that the electoral system and the changes to it have not been politicised. Unfortunately in the case of both the MMP review and now this bill that consensus has broken down.I sat on the Justice and Electoral Committee which conducted the inquiry into the 2011 general election. It was my first experience of a select committee inquiry. Although we got bogged down at times and it took probably longer than it should have I was very proud of the report that the committee produced. There was genuine cross-party consensus for the recommendations in that report and they were good recommendations. This bill before the House today as it was originally drafted was based on those recommendations and that is why we in the Green Party supported it. In particular we strongly support the move to full online enrolment which removes the considerable barrier for people to get on to the electoral roll and vote. Under the status quo although it is possible to update your enrolment details online you still have to sign and send back a form to complete that enrolment process. For many people the envelope gets lost in the pile on the kitchen table gets lost in the mail or the car or somehow falls through the cracks and it does not happen. So allowing full online enrolment using the RealMe electronic identification system would allow the full process to happen online. It is a really positive step towards maximising enrolment and voter turnout. We continue to strongly support it.We also strongly support the provisions in this bill to tighten rules around the disclosure of donations—specifically the new rule that loans to a political party or candidate will be treated as donations and disclosed accordingly. This removes the loophole that allowed donors to call their donation a loan in order to avoid disclosure but then to forgive that loan after the election meaning that it never got declared. Removing that loophole is a really important step towards transparency and open government.There are a number of other smaller changes in the bill that we also strongly support. But although we consider that much of this bill is positive we are unable to support it at its third reading today. There are two reasons for this. The first is the deletion of the clauses that would have modernised the use of the EasyVote card to streamline processes on election day. Secondly and more important is the inclusion of a requirement that a voter must make a verbal confirmation of their identity before they can vote. Both of these changes were made by the select committee despite the fact that the very same select committee albeit with slightly different membership had already agreed to the recommendations of the 2011 election inquiry. So effectively the committee reversed some of its own recommendations. I was not present for the committee’s deliberations as I was on parental leave during the last part of last year but my understanding is that these changes were made out of an apparent concern that the use of the EasyVote card on election day could contribute to an increased risk of electoral fraud. We have heard a little bit about that in this debate so far. This assumption is simply wrong. The EasyVote card as members know is a card listing the voter’s name address and the line and page number where their name appears on the electoral roll. It makes it easier and faster for polling booth staff to find them on the roll and to issue their voting papers on election day. For voters for whom English is a second language or who have speech hearing or other impairments it makes the process of voting much easier and less intimidating because all they need to do is hand over a card and their voting paper can be issued with minimal opportunity for stress or confusion.It is not an ID card. Yes it is theoretically possible that somebody could take an EasyVote card belonging to another voter along to a polling booth and use it to cast a vote in their name. It is equally possible that someone intent on doing this could go along to a polling booth and give someone else’s name and address. The risk is neither increased nor decreased by the use of the EasyVote card. The one example of electoral fraud that has been raised by Scott Simpson in this debate is not relevant to this debate for two reasons. First of all it applied to local elections not a general election and second of all and more important it was picked up by the processes in place to check these things and subsequently that person was prosecuted. In the minute number of cases when this happens it gets picked up by the Electoral Commission. If for example somebody took someone else’s EasyVote card along to a booth and tried to cast a vote in that person’s name it gets picked up when the genuine voter goes later on and casts their own vote and it is found that someone else has already voted in their name. There are systems in place. It hardly ever happens but when it does the Electoral Commission has robust processes in place to act and to deal with it.The proposal in this bill as it was originally drafted was to make the EasyVote card scannable so that the Electoral Commission could use it as a record of a vote cast and electronically cross the voter off the roll more quickly and easily—in fact making it more easy to pick up instances of fraud. That was a sensible change that would not have changed the use of the EasyVote card from the voter’s perspective at all. Therefore the fear that this bill would lead to the greater use of the EasyVote card and that this in turn could lead to greater electoral fraud is simply wrong. At best this was an erroneous fear that should have been corrected and people reassured at the select committee. At worst it is a deliberate red herring. Either way I and a number of our Labour colleagues realised this mistake and offered Supplementary Order Papers during the Committee stage to reinstate the clauses related to the EasyVote card and allow the Electoral Commission to proceed with its plans to improve its back-end processes on election day. These Supplementary Order Papers were rejected with no rationale provided by the Government and that is a real shame.Furthermore seemingly in response to the same fear about fraud a new requirement has been introduced that voters must verbally confirm their identity to polling booth staff when they hand over their EasyVote card. This is unnecessary. Again it neither increases nor decreases the risk of fraud because somebody set on committing electoral fraud could simply say that they were the person in whose name they were seeking to vote. But for those voters whom I mentioned earlier—those with impairments or those for whom English is a second language or those for whom simply getting out to vote and engaging with the polling booth staff is a scary prospect for whatever reason—this adds a barrier to voting. It is a completely unnecessary and useless barrier but it is a barrier none the less.For some voters the outcome of having to give that verbal confirmation could be that they choose not to engage with the system and that they choose not to vote. Some members of this House will roll their eyes and say that it is hardly a major barrier. This bill indeed provides for voters to use a gesture—a poorly conceived inclusion—to cover voters with impairments if they are unable to verbally confirm but I put it to those members that we as largely able politically engaged high-status individuals in this House are in no position to judge what barriers those marginalised citizens might experience when it comes to voting. It should be our role to ensure that our electoral law makes it as easy as possible for anyone and everyone who is eligible to vote to cast their vote and that means not adding a useless and frankly quite insulting requirement to verbally or by gesture confirm one’s identity at the polling booth. If even a handful of voters choose not to exercise their right to vote because of this additional barrier that we are putting in place today then that will reflect very badly indeed on this House.It is chiefly for this reason that the Green Party has withdrawn our support for this bill at its third reading. We continue to support many of its provisions especially for online enrolment and for the disclosure of loans as donations but we cannot support any legislation in this House that adds for some of our most marginalised citizens a barrier to voting and we are disappointed that this House did not see fit to work together constructively to remove that barrier before we reached the third reading today.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I take great pleasure in taking a brief call on the third reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill put forward by our excellent diligent and incredibly hard-working Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins. It has been a pleasure and a privilege to serve on the Justice and Electoral Committee chaired by the member for Coromandel Scott Simpson as we have gone through this legislation which is crucial to our precious democracy in New Zealand. I have served overseas working for the New Zealand Government in countries that do not have a stable and well-managed system of voting where you have integrity and measures to prevent fraud. I have seen people fighting on the streets in countries where elections are not free and democratic. It is very important that we protect the integrity of our voting system and take reasonable steps to make sure that fraud is not a feature of our country’s democracy so I fully support the position that the Government has taken.I should also point out that at the select committee there was unanimous support for retaining EasyVote cards as an administrative measure for the convenience of the electoral officials—to make sure it is quick and efficient to count a vote—but I absolutely oppose any idea that an EasyVote card can be should be or is capable of being used as a means of verifying someone’s identity or their entitlement to be able to vote. So it was a little bit rich to be lectured by previous speakers on this measure given that not only did all parties in the select committee unanimously support that recommendation—there was an absolute consensus on the committee—but also this legislation does not remove EasyVote cards which was the implication in some of the previous speakers’ speeches.In specific terms there are other measures that this bill implements that will be hugely positive such as party donations and the treatment of those. Interest-free loans that have some form of non-commercial terms being included as a donation is very positive because in the last few weeks we have seen how donations for electoral purposes be it at general elections or indeed campaign donations received by the Leader of the Opposition can be seen to be difficult non-transparent or problematic. Mr Cunliffe has yet to tell us who his two secret donors were who donated to his slightly tricky trust that he maintained. We would be very interested to learn Mr Cunliffe who those two donors were but this Electoral Amendment Bill makes sure that for donations to parties in a general election those transparency provisions are in place.I have one final point. I do take exception to the implication from Holly Walker the previous speaker in respect of the Supplementary Order Paper that Mojo Mathers put forward regarding assistance to people with a disability or who perhaps have English as a second language that those people are not being properly catered for. Once again there was unanimous support at the select committee for clause 24 of the bill which not only provides for people with a disability being able to use gestures to indicate their name on the roll but also provides for people who have a disability or English as a second language to take a support person to assist them when they are casting their vote. I have a mother who is hearing impaired and needs in some cases some assistance when it comes to interacting with people verbally. I absolutely support this bill as it stands. It will not interfere with her democratic right to cast her vote. Those provisions are in place and I hope the New Zealand public has not been misled by the incorrect statements of the Opposition.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):What is the most important part of this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill? It does a lot of good things and I supported most of them at the Justice and Electoral Committee but the most important part is in fact the part that is not there at all. We in New Zealand First are now opposing this bill not because of what it says and not because of what is in it but because of what it leaves out. The bill omits the need to end the coat-tailing provisions in the Electoral Act. It is high time that simply winning an electorate seat should not result in coat-tailing for whatever low percentage of the party vote currently enables a tiny and inconsequential party such as ACT or United Future to bring additional members into Parliament. This is a back-door method of getting around the 5 percent threshold for list seat representation. Polling shows that the great majority of people find this to be unacceptable and they want it changed. There should be only one threshold for list seats and that is 5 percent or more of the list vote irrespective of whether a party gets an electorate seat or not.We know of course why this is not being addressed and that is because the National Party desperately needs the likes of the one-seat wonders such as ACT and United Future each with an electorate seat plus any additional seats they may be able to bring in through coat-tailing. It is the only way that National will have any hope of keeping the Treasury benches in September. The Government knows that neither ACT nor United Future has any hope at all of achieving 5 percent of the list vote so Mr Key and his party will ensure that the several additional seats that National will need at the election in September will be achieved by National gifting an electorate seat to these tiny and otherwise irrelevant parties and then hoping for as many coat-tailing seats as possible.This Government is prepared to gerrymander the system and to do whatever is necessary to get enough seats in this way. So National obviously has no genuine respect for democracy in New Zealand—by failing to make the changes needed in this bill to bring an end to the hugely unpopular coat-tailing provisions. These provisions are making a mockery of the MMP system which has otherwise worked well in New Zealand. The Government’s claims that there was no consensus for the changes needed are utterly vacuous because it knows and we all know that no genuine attempt was made to achieve any consensus.Now John Key is further attempting to compromise the MMP system by claiming as an excuse for an early election that a period of up to 6 or 8 weeks is needed for negotiations to form a new MMP Government. He attempts to blame Winston Peters for this but the truth is that the last time Winston Peters was involved in such negotiations the actual period was less than 2 weeks in which New Zealand First was involved for just 3 days. So the Prime Minister is simply not telling the truth about this or alternatively he just does not know which seems a more likely explanation.Another thing that he and his Government are not telling the truth about on electoral-related matters is the constitutional review. This was a deal done after the last election to get the Māori Party into a coalition. The review then actually happened over the last 2 years but despite lip service being paid to consultation very few people actually knew that it was happening. But the most interesting thing is that the review panel has made absolutely no substantive recommendations. All it seems to say is that the conversation should continue—a conversation with practically nobody because the vast majority of the public did not even know that it was happening. Why is it that the report says only that the conversation should continue? It is clearly because the real decisions about the New Zealand constitution will be left until after this year’s election. What will happen then will depend on National getting the minor party seats it needs especially those of course of the Māori Party. Its price will be to push through the constitutional changes then which few people want including the incorporation of the so-called principles of the Treaty of Waitangi aimed at giving privileges to some that the rest of us will not have.So there is a secret agenda here and it is the gerrymandering of the electoral provisions concerning coat-tailing—which are not changed as they should be by the amendments in this bill—that makes all that possible and indeed likely. I see this bill as just the beginning of National’s gerrymandering. National will do whatever it takes to keep the Treasury benches and it takes the compromising of the electoral system to do it in the ways that I have described. For those reasons this bill cannot be supported not because of what is in it—there is nothing too much wrong with that—but especially because of what is not in it.The select committee’s and the officials’ recommendations about the changes needed to the broadcasting rules which I addressed in detail in previous speeches are not addressed at all in the bill as it has finally emerged. But most important the question of the coat-tailing provisions allowing list seats to arise from a party getting as few as only one electorate seat is also not addressed at all. It is bizarre that in an MMP system the winning of an electorate seat should result in the coat-tailing of list seats. The two things are not connected. The concept in our electoral system is to have either electorate seats or list seats. These two things should not be connected. One should not give rise to the acquiring of the other. That is fundamentally wrong. It has got to be changed. The people of New Zealand want it changed. This Government has seen to it that it will not change for only its own narrow political interests. If the people of this country see through it they will see to it that this Government does not get re-elected at the next election and they should particularly make sure that seats like Ōhāriu and Epsom are not used for the gerrymandering machinations of the National Party. That also is fundamentally wrong and it is time the people of those electorates put it right.The omissions in this bill totally compromise the integrity of the Electoral Act. The bill does not meet public expectations and it does not meet the demands of the public interest. This bill should not pass.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri):I rise to take a short call in support of the Electoral Amendment Bill. I want to refer firstly to what the Hon Maryan Street said. In this regard I actually have to agree wholeheartedly. What she said last week was that this is electoral law reform this is the modernisation of our electoral legislation and it should enjoy the support of the House. Well actually she is absolutely right but we have a select committee process in this country that I think is one to be admired and respected. In that select committee process we had the Justice and Electoral Committee comprising all the parties—the Green Party the New Zealand First Party and Labour—and we had what is called a unanimous report back. We have this copy here that says: “As reported from the Justice and Electoral Committee” “text inserted unanimously” and “text deleted unanimously”.We have had a bit of criticism about the EasyVote card. The bill says: “We consider that the proposed provision for a new process known operationally as EasyVote Express would in effect lower the threshold for casting a vote increasing the potential for fraud …”. The “we” that is referred to in the select committee report which was agreed to was the Hon Maryan Street the honourable Denis O’Rourke and the honourable Holly Walker—well it was David Clendon on her behalf. That is why we have a select committee process. Something obviously happened between the report back and later where they changed their minds. Maybe it is because it is election year and silly things get said and silly things get done. I am really disappointed that other parties are playing politics with our election law because I do not think that is acceptable.The other thing that I am disappointed about is the Hon Maryan Street. Do you know what she said? She said that the convention that all parties—or at least the vast majority of parties—would support changes to legislation was one that had not been broken until now. We all remember the Electoral Finance Act. It was broken then and it was a disgrace then. At least now we have a select committee process where all the parties are represented. They worked together collaboratively for some law that is actually an improvement and now they change their minds. There is a word for that. Unfortunately they are a disgrace to our select committee process but election year does actually throw up funny things. However this is good law. It is modernising the electoral law and I support it.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I listened in amazement to the speaker Kate Wilkinson—who could not go 3 minutes on this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill out of the 10 minutes allocated—when she said that this was a case of the Opposition playing politics. I will tell you who is playing politics. The party that is playing politics is the party that has removed the EasyVote provisions. That has made it harder for ordinary people to participate in the political system. That is playing politics. The party that fails to follow the Electoral Commission’s advice on removing the coat-tailing provisions that allow that National Party to rort our electoral system for its own self-interest—that is playing politics.The third thing about playing politics is that this bill in the midst of the scandals enveloping Judith Collins over Oravida and John Banks over Kim Dotcom does not do one thing to improve the transparency of money for favours or trying to make our system open transparent and honest. That party is the party that is playing politics with this system.Normally with electoral legislation we try to deal with it in a different way. We deal with it in a different way because it is fundamental to the operation of democracy and we deal with it in a different way because this is an instance where legislators are passing laws in which they have vested interests. That cannot be avoided but what you can do is two things. First you can endeavour to get bipartisanship which this Government has failed to do because every party on this side of the House is opposed to that party rorting legislation. The second thing you can do is you can try to get independent and objective advice on the laws you are passing. That is why we have got the independent Electoral Commission. So one—just one—National speaker should get to their hind legs and say why National ignored comprehensively the advice of the independent Electoral Commission when it comes to the rorting of our system through coat-tailing.I want to deal with each of those three areas now—first of all the EasyVote card. The EasyVote card was recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee which is chaired by whom? It is chaired by Scott Simpson who just spoke as an apologist for the Minister of Justice Judith Collins and her ripping out and stripping out the EasyVote provisions. Scott Simpson actually chaired the committee that recommended in the first instance that the EasyVote system was good and should be extended. But it is not all Scott Simpson’s fault. He is just a pawn. He does what his Minister tells him.The Minister of Justice in her first reading speech on this very bill said that putting in the EasyVote provisions was an important change in this legislation. That is what Judith Collins said in the first reading debate. Now she has stripped them out and National members have not given a single rational justification for why they are making it harder for people to cast a vote. Scott Simpson talked about fraud but in his committee’s report he said that electoral fraud is dealt with efficiently and is very rare at 0.01 percent. He said that we find the people they lose their vote and if they are compos mentis they are prosecuted for doing it. No excuse at all. Do you know the real excuse?The real reason why National has stripped out the EasyVote provisions is that the National Party has close close connections with the right wing of the Republican Party. It is called the Tea Party. National and the Tea Party are just like this. The Tea Party learnt one thing—the more people who participate in the vote the worse the result is for right-wing conservative organisations.Scott Simpson: Must’ve been an awful caucus.Hon PHIL GOFF: Listen to that again Scott Simpson. The more people who participate the worse the result for the National Party and that is why it has stripped out those provisions. National members are not interested in widespread participation in the electoral system; they are interested in stopping people from voting and allowing only the wealthy and the powerful and those they influence to vote. That is why National has stripped out the EasyVote provisions that were originally put in to this legislation. That frankly is a disgrace.The second thing is National’s failure to adopt the Electoral Commission’s recommendations on coat-tailing. Coat-tailing is what happens when a party does not reach the 5 percent threshold but gets one MP elected in an electoral seat. That allows the party to bring in more members as MPs proportionate to its vote. That is all very well but for one thing. The National Party discovered how it could rort this system. The seat of Epsom is a safe Tory seat. It does not come any safer. And in each of the last three elections the National Party has gifted that seat to the right-wing extreme party in this Parliament the ACT Party so that it can coat-tail other MPs in.I will tell you something. It is not just the Electoral Commission that said that that was a disgrace and that it should not happen. The public in every single public opinion poll has rejected coat-tailing comprehensively yet National persists in allowing it to happen because it legalises the rort in the political system that enables it to cling on to power. That is why it ignored the independent Electoral Commission and frankly that also is a disgrace.The third thing is the lack of transparency over donations. In any political system you have to worry when political parties and politicians get donations particularly big donations from wealthy vested interests. That then distorts the system and the party reflects the interests of the few rather than the interests of the many. We have seen that happen.The National Party operates something called the Waitematā Trust. The Waitematā Trust money-launders millions of dollars into the National Party’s coffers in a way that you cannot tell where that money came from. Do you know what percentage of donations to the National Party are identified by the donor? It is 7 percent. Ninety-three percent of the donors to the National Party are hidden. The National Party knows who they are and that they will return the favour but the public do not know and they cannot scrutinise what the National Party is doing why and for whom. That is a disgrace.There was one occasion on which the National Party was transparent. It did not mean to be. It was the Don Brash email leaks. The whole of the correspondence of the then leader of the National Party was leaked to the media —I think by Bill English actually whom he had deposed—and we saw for the first time what was happening in the National Party.Let me read one tiny extract from a book called The Hollow Men which is authenticated by the emails that were leaked. Listen to this—talking about the National Party—“The party was not only secretive and deceptive about its election finances; some of its activities appear to have breached both the electoral laws and the parliamentary spending rules and it seems to have been party to others’ breaches in election legislation.”The National Party time and again rorts the public because it pretends to represent the average New Zealander but is funded by the most wealthy people in this country and it returns the favour. That is what Oravida is about. That is why the Minister of Justice is in trouble right now in the House today. That is why John Banks from the ACT Party is being prosecuted under the electoral law provisions of this country. There is a lack of transparency—it knows where it got the money from but it does not want the public to know. That is an absolute disgrace.So in summary what we see in this bill is a lack of transparency and no ability to scrutinise what the wealthy and the powerful get in return for their donations. We have a lack of integrity with the removal of the EasyVote card which is designed to increase public participation and make democracy stronger. We see also a failure to adopt a provision that would stop the rorting of our democratic system.We expected so much from this bill. We were prepared to work with the National Party to get good electoral legislation to strengthen democracy. But there is no way that this Labour Party can support what the National Government is doing in this legislation which is not about the good operation of democracy but about rorting the system so that National can increase its grip on power. That is a disgrace.ALFRED NGARO (National):Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker. It is interesting that the Hon Phil Goff talks about democracy and the right of democracy and yet he will not talk about the Electoral Finance Act. That was not a right of democracy. That was not democracy in action. That is why he bows his head in shame; it is because he knows that when he talks about pointing fingers over here he has got four fingers pointing back at him.Scott Simpson: That’s right.ALFRED NGARO: That is right. But anyway he knows that he lives with that shame. The reality is we have an electoral process that has democracy. It is called a select committee. The Electoral Amendment Bill has gone through the Justice and Electoral Committee. As one of the longest-serving members of the Justice and Electoral Committee I can say that at one stage there was very robust debate. This is where it got to. It got to the point where even the Hon Lianne Dalziel drew a line in the sand. It was around the issues of closing the electoral roll 2 weeks out—2 weeks out—from the election. I can tell you this: there was wailing and the gnashing of teeth there was sackcloth and there were ashes. There was a lot of robust debate. We got to the point where we said: “Look let’s keep the status quo.”There was another point about the rosettes and the ribbons and the balloons. Again that was another difficult issue; robust debate was had there. People were drawing the line around those issues as well. We got to the point where we became unanimous to the point where we agreed with all things. I also want to acknowledge the honourable member over there Denis O’Rourke. The confirmation of identity the insertion of new clause 24 amending section 167 came from Denis. What a great and a brilliant idea. At one time in the select committee he introduced this and said: “Look we should do this”. Denis does not talk about this but Denis this is your proud work over here.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!ALFRED NGARO: I want to acknowledge that Mr O’Rourke. Thank you. But this is the thing I want to finally say on this: this has been a robust debate and process over a long period of time. We got to the point where we unanimously agreed with all the provisions that were included in this bill even around the confirmation of identity. Can I say this: with all due respect we know the importance of constituents of New Zealand voters making a vote. There is no issue where there is a barrier here from either the use of EasyVote cards or even the confirmation of identity introduced by Mr Denis O’Rourke where you will simply go up to the polling booth and be asked this: “Is this your name? Are you Denis O’Rourke?”. All he needs to say is “Yes” or nod his head. That is all there is. There is nothing there that is included to be a barrier in this regard for the voting of democracy for all New Zealanders.Can I finally say that this is a bill that has got to the point where we on the committee believed that it was unanimous right across the board—even New Zealand First even the Greens and even the Labour Party. There is only one conclusion that one can come to that is that they fell asleep at the wheel. People out there need to know this. Confirmation needs—for deliberation on each of these bills—to go back to each and every caucus. So the Labour caucus the New Zealand First caucus and even the Greens caucus would have had to have given confirmation and would have said to the members of the select committee: “We’ve seen the bill. You’ve reported back to us. We are good to go. We give it the green light thumbs up; go to the select committee and vote unanimously.”So where did democracy go wrong? Why are the speeches from all of these parties disagreeing with where we are now? This is a bill that has reached democracy. Unfortunately it is now in the realm of politics with the Opposition. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the honourable member Iain Lees-Galloway.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):It is like looking in the mirror Mr Assistant Speaker! Look the people of New Zealand are used to the National Party putting its own vested interests and its own self-serving interests ahead of the best interests of the New Zealand public. They are used to the National Party putting its own interests ahead of the interests of the people of New Zealand. They have seen it before. They saw it with the Exclusive Brethren with its shady back-room dealings with the National Party and not wanting to be transparent about its funding of its own crusade against the Labour Government and with the fact that that was an agreed strategy both with Don Brash and with John Key at the time. People remember that happening when the National Party put its interests—Hon Phil Goff: And Joyce.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: And Steven Joyce. That is right. Mr Goff is right. Steven Joyce was involved when the Exclusive Brethren cosied up to the National Party. So people remember that happening. They remember the Skycity deal where people who had good relationships with people in Cabinet were able to organise a deal that was in the interests of that Australian-owned gambling company Skycity. They remember the Warner Bros deal where people who work in the film industry no longer have the same working rights as people who work in other industries in New Zealand because of a cosy relationship between Warner Bros and people in Cabinet.They remember all the other deals and they will remember the day that the National Party passed legislation that does two things. It makes it harder for people to cast their vote particularly people at the margins of society and it fails to address the electoral rort that the National Party benefits from which is the coat-tailing provision that allows it to do deals with other political parties which are now essentially controlled by the National Party in order to stitch up additional seats for the coalition that the National Party wants to put together. That is the way this party operates. It does not operate in an open transparent and democratic fashion; it operates in a fashion that is behind closed doors that is made up of dodgy deals and that is done in the interests of the National Party and its mates. That is always its first priority put far far ahead of the interests of New Zealand. [Interruption]Scott Simpson has repeatedly said to me and to other speakers from this side of the House: “Tell us about the Electoral Finance Act.” Labour supported the repeal of the Electoral Finance Act. It was not the best piece of legislation. But—Hon Chester Borrows: You brought it in too!IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Listen—no no just be quiet for a second and listen. The values behind the Electoral Finance Act were the values of transparency and democracy and open government and they came from the deal that the National Party did with the Exclusive Brethren with people putting promoter statements on their material with the addresses of empty lots where nobody lived and where nobody had their offices. It was done to hide that money that was funding the National Party just like the Waitematā Trust is used to hide the money that funds the National Party. There is no belief in transparency from that party. There is no belief in democracy from that party.If it believed in democracy it would follow the recommendations of the Review of the MMP Voting System. The MMP review came out of the promise that the National Party made to New Zealanders that if they voted for MMP there would be a review and there would be changes made to our MMP system at the margins particularly things like the coat-tailing provision and where the party vote threshold is. New Zealanders spoke out. New Zealanders made it absolutely clear: 71 percent of New Zealanders want to get rid of the coat-tailing provisions. The MMP review—an apolitical review; it had no political persuasion whatsoever—recommended to Parliament that we get rid of the coat-tailing provisions.But that is not in the National Party’s interests. That is not what serves the National Party and the wealthy people who fund the National Party behind secret trusts. That is not in their best interests so they will not do it. Judith Collins now famous for being just another National Minister who does things for her mates and in her best interests not the public’s best interests blocked the advancing of the recommendations of the MMP review and that is what this National Party will be remembered for and what it is doing with this bill.MOJO MATHERS (Green):It is with a real sense of disappointment that I rise to speak to the Electoral Amendment Bill. I am particularly disappointed that National has reviewed and rejected the clause in the original bill with regard to having an EasyVote card. An EasyVote card would have brought voting into the 21st century. It would have modernised it streamlined it and made the process so much more efficient and user-friendly for everyone. It was the recommendation of the independent Electoral Commission and it seems incredible that the Justice and Electoral Committee rejected that.Not only did it reject the EasyVote card as a way of confirming your identity it has established an extra barrier making it harder for people to vote. This barrier basically says that “An elector who applies to vote must—(a) verbally … confirm his or her name; and (b) give … any other particulars [required] to find the elector’s name on the rolls.” That is a barrier to many people. It is barrier for people with a hearing impairment it is a barrier to those who use New Zealand Sign Language and it is a barrier to those with speech impediments. It is very very disappointing that the National Government has refused to adopt Supplementary Order Paper 416 put forward by Maryan Street which would have reinstated the EasyVote card as a way of confirming your identity. That is one that we supported strongly.This clause that requires verbal confirmation of identity or any clause in any legislation that requires someone to give verbal confirmation of their identity needs to be ringing alarm bells in any select committee process. We have over 6000 people in New Zealand who use sign language as their primary mode of communication and that needs to be recognised explicitly and considered in every piece of legislation that goes through the select committee process.There is an assumption that everyone in New Zealand communicates verbally but that is not the case. Some of us use sign language and some of us have to type on to iPads and use other ways of communicating. There is a provision in the bill though that says that the elector may confirm their identity by a “gesture”. That language is incredibly disrespectful. What does a “gesture” mean? If someone signs their name in New Zealand Sign Language is that a “gesture”? Will the returning officer actually understand what they are doing? Are we going to have sign language interpreters at every polling booth? And requiring someone who needs support to bring along a support person goes against the very spirit of being able to cast an independent vote. They should be able to engage in the political process independently. That is what the Government signed up to when it signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which it supported moving towards greater independence for people with disabilities. This bill moves us backwards by saying that it is OK to just require people to bring along a support person.It is not easy for lots of people to engage in the political process or to get to the polling booth and this is yet another barrier for some of the most disenfranchised and marginalised people in our society. I am very disappointed that that has not been rectified as it should have been at the Committee of the whole House when the Government was given the opportunity to rectify this error by the select committee.JOANNE HAYES (National):Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. I will take a short call on this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill. What I do not get is whatever happened to people standing by their word? From reading everything that I have read on this bill and hearing the discussions and deliberations that have gone on the 11 recommendations were unanimously agreed to by all of the Justice and Electoral Committee members. So where are the Opposition members standing by their word on this bill and supporting it? We are not taking out the EasyVote card; it is OK as it is. I can tell you now that it disappoints me that Opposition members have gone against their word of support for this bill.This bill is an excellent bill and it has been delivered by an outstanding Minister of Justice Judith Collins. I commend this bill to the House.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes65New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7.Bill read a third time.Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed from 6 March.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):When I last spoke on this bill I was acknowledging the chair of the Law and Order Committee Jacqui Dean who is a very very good chair of the committee. We worked well as a committee. I notice that when Mr Goff took his call he made it sound like it was an individual sport. It is not. It has been a real team effort so I would like to acknowledge all the members of the Law and Order Committee.The Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is a very important bill. I just want to refer to the last time the select committee sat. We were hearing submissions but it was actually about parole hearings. The committee heard from a young lady who had been subjected to a very serious and violent domestic assault. The offender in this case was still in prison but she felt distressed even thinking about having to appear at a parole hearing. That folds into these non-contact orders in terms of the amount of stress placed on victims when they know there is even a possibility that they could come into contact with or run into the offender or the person responsible for the attack on them. We were very very pleased as a committee to work on this bill.I will not mention all the main provisions but I would like to go through just a couple that really are the guts of the bill. The bill establishes a mechanism for a victim of a violent offence including offences of a sexual nature to obtain a non-contact order against the offender in any case where the offender has been convicted of the offence and sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years or more. We had a fair bit of debate in the committee about this. Originally it was not 2 years and we actually brought it back and brought it in line with other related legislation at 2 years which I think was a very very good change. I am very very happy to commend this bill to the House. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First will support the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. It is one of a number of moves needed to improve the rights of victims and to support them where they have been subjected to violence. Fear and anxiety about unwanted subsequent contact with the offender can be as bad as the offence itself and can impair the victim’s recovery and ability to enjoy a normal life.Concerning clause 5(1) which was mentioned by the last speaker Mark Mitchell this defines a “violent offender” as a person who “(a) has been convicted of a violent offence that affected the victim; and (b) has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of more than 2 years”. As introduced in the bill this was “5 years or more” and this was clearly too narrow. Instead of requiring sentencing to a period of 5 years or more I suggested at the first reading that it would be more appropriate instead to require only sentencing of an offence punishable by 5 years’ imprisonment or more. That would have broadened the scope of the legislation to capture offenders whose sentences were less than 5 years but who had committed an offence serious enough to enable the court to sentence them to 5 years or more. After all if the offence was so serious as to attract imprisonment at all then the victim should be able to use a new law such as this. The Law and Order Committee has now instead amended the definition to “more than 2 years”. I think my suggestion was better but this new provision substantially widens the offences to which the clause will be applicable and that is acceptable to New Zealand First.Concerning clause 7(1) as introduced this provided that a victim may apply to a District Court “for a non-contact order in respect of a violent offender” who had been convicted and that an application may be made “at any time after the offender has been released from prison”. The requirement that the application must be made after the release of an offender from prison was of course far too late. I said at the first reading that the victim should be able to apply for the order at any time after the conviction so that the court can make an order to have effect immediately from the date of release. My concern was that there was likely to be a significant delay between the victim learning of the offender’s release and the making of an order and its service on the offender. That would potentially be a period of high risk for the victim. This issue has been addressed by the select committee and the amended clause is therefore now acceptable to New Zealand First.Concerning clause 9 I still have some concerns about subclause (1) as I stated in my first reading speech. This subclause says: “The court may make a non-contact order if it is satisfied that—(a) there are ongoing effects of the offending for the victim;”. But I would have to ask why the court has to be satisfied that there are ongoing effects for the victim. What will the victim have to prove to satisfy that test? I do not think that the effects of the offending are really the issue anyway. It would be better for clause 9(1)(a) to be deleted and clause 9(1)(b) should be deleted too. It refers to the contact between the offender and the victim to possibly be detrimental to the victim’s ability to deal with the ongoing effects referred to in clause 9(1)(a).It should not be necessary for a victim to have to prove these things. Clauses 9(1)(c) and (d) by themselves are sufficient. That the order is reasonably necessary to avoid contact is what the issue really is for the victim so that is what this clause should use as the only test. Why should the court have to be satisfied that there are ongoing effects of the offending? It is not acceptable to New Zealand First that a victim should have to prove any more than that a sentenced violent offender’s contact is unwanted and that the order is reasonably necessary. That should be enough and that in my view is the only serious defect in the bill and I regret that the changes that New Zealand First suggested have not been adopted.With regard to clause 11 this clause sets out the effect of a “non-contact order” now amended to “temporary non-contact order”. Such an order prohibits the offender against whom it is made from any form of contact with the victim. In addition the court may prohibit the offender from entering living in or working in a specified area. The concern that I had about this at the first reading was that this clause clause 9(1)(c) “to and necessary for the offender’s employment” was problematic. I said that I would like the select committee to look at whether it was desirable to require as part of the clause that the court specify an area only as large as necessary to enable the offender and the victim to avoid contact with each other. I said that although we need to make the order effective we should also see that it does not unnecessarily cause problems for the offender in obtaining or maintaining his or her employment and carrying out his or her duties of employment.Clause 11(1)(c) has now been deleted and we now have a new clause 11A relating to the effect of the final order. New clause 11A has much more comprehensive and refined powers for the court to specify so that the effects of the order will be no more than needed to properly protect the victim. This new clause 11A is therefore very welcome as far as New Zealand First is concerned and similarly new clause 11B is welcome. That deals with the need for a final order to be directed by the court to apply to specified persons other than the person who was the offender and whom the offender may have encouraged or would encourage to engage in the contact behaviour that the offender might engage in.Concerning clause 15 I suggested at the first reading that the select committee look at whether the court should be required in this section in considering whether a discharge of the order should be granted to consider some specified matters such as the record of the offender in complying with the order; the behaviour of the victim because that is also relevant; and obviously the place where the victim and the offender then live permanently. I note that this clause has now been deleted and replaced with much more comprehensive provisions in new clause 15 and additional new clause 15A which address the sorts of issues that I suggested be looked at.So New Zealand First is happy to support the bill for the reason that those amendments that we sought have been made and have been so well made. New Zealand First also supports the addition of new clauses 15B 15C 15D and 15E which cover the rights to a hearing and the procedures around that. Lastly New Zealand First agrees with the deletion of clause 16 relating to vexatious proceedings which was unnecessary and with the other more minor amendments made.Overall although the bill does not include all that New Zealand First wanted it does adopt most of what we had sought and also adds some other worthwhile changes. In the end this is a good bill which New Zealand First will support as a means of improving the protection of victims against unwanted and potentially dangerous contact by violent offenders. As I have said New Zealand First wants this legislation and will vote for it to go further so that we can get the most effective law possible to protect victims from the ongoing risks resulting in unwanted contact from offenders.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):The Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill is another very good example of the work that is going on right across the whole justice pipeline—in particular when we look at the implications of crime to the victims. Victims through no fault of their own find themselves embroiled in events that will probably stay with them for the rest of their lives and that is perpetuated only in situations where those charged with offences against those victims are able to in some way shape or form continue to intimidate harass or otherwise affect that victim. This bill is very much about ensuring that the balance is achieved between protecting the rights of the offender to defend themselves against the charges and putting the victim absolutely at the centre of the justice system in terms of the protections that need to be afforded to them to ensure that their passage through the justice system is smoothly travelled and that they do not continue to essentially be violated.I just want to commend the Minister of Justice and the Law and Order Committee for the work that they are doing in this space. It is another good example of a raft of work actually going on that is reorganising how we deal with crime in this country. There is a 33-year low in reported crime and the best way that we can do right by our victims is to have less crime in the first place but this bill is another good step.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is right I think that before I begin I acknowledge the contribution that Law and Order Committee members as a whole have made to this process. As Mr O’Rourke pointed out there were a number of issues raised in the first reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill which were by and large subsequently addressed by the committee collectively. Mr Mitchell raised some questions over Mr Goff’s speech but I think it is only right that Mr Goff does take some credit for some of the changes that were made because he did pursue them feverishly at the select committee and the select committee agreed with him on a range of issues he raised.Probably one of the reasons I guess that Mr Goff was so vehement about increasing the range of people who would have access to this bill is that he as the Minister of Justice under a Labour Government championed victims’ rights through things like ensuring better support for Victim Support and its ability to do its job. It has now become a core component of our justice system. It is now not just a voluntary organisation but a part of the ingrained referral process from our local police. It is also trying to create a charter of victims’ rights as it were—what a victim can expect and should expect from our justice system. So that was really ground-breaking. These kinds of amendments to our law just take that a step further and acknowledge that there continue to be gaps in our system from the perspective of the victim.To put this particular bill the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill into context there are 1150 offenders who have committed serious or violent offences at any given time. If we take a snapshot of the 2 year period between 2008 and 2010 there were roughly 280 protection orders issued and 78 restraining orders. The reason I raise that is that the victims’ orders are intended to be another tool to be used by victims where they feel the same threat that might apply to someone who uses a protection order or a restraining order but in different circumstances. What I think those numbers demonstrate is that they are not used perhaps as frequently as they otherwise might be. That sends us a range of messages that I think we need to pick up on one of which is that there is a gap for some victims that was not covered by protection orders or restraining orders.As has already been mentioned the actual gist of the bill is that it allows the courts to issue a non-contact order which in essence is in the nature of a protection order under the Domestic Violence Act so it has a similar effect for a victim of a violent crime. That order can last for 2 years unless the court specifies a different duration. So it is 2 years if the duration is not specified. If it is left open-ended it will essentially lapse after that 2-year period but as I have said the court can specify a longer period if it so wishes.When the bill came to the select committee the criterion for a violent offence—because that is essentially what this hangs on—was that it had a sentence of 5 years or more. That is not to say that that was an offence whose sentence had a range of 5 years or more attached to it; the criterion was whether or not the prisoner received that sentence. Our concern was that that could lead to an anomaly—that you could have for instance two victims who experienced the exact same serious violent crime but whose offenders had two different sentences attached to them one which could put the offender within the threshold of having a victims’ order put on them the other which would not. We thought that seemed manifestly unjust.The easiest way to deal with that was to simply lower the threshold. Our view was that there was very little harm in capturing a wider range of victims because by definition alone they had had a violent offence committed against them and actually the sentence attached to that should not really be the prohibitive factor in whether or not they are able to access a victims’ order. So we had a good discussion about that and I think we came out on the right side by agreeing to reduce that threshold—because it was an arbitrary decision ultimately that had to be made—to a 2 year process.Mr O’Rourke has already raised what was probably the most significant second change that was made by the select committee and that was the point in the process at which a victim is able to access an order. When the bill came to us a victim essentially had to wait until an offender was released before they were able to seek through the courts for an order to be made. That did not seem to make any sense to us. It allows a gap as it were. If the whole purpose the intention of this bill is to give a victim a longer stretch of time in which they can feel whilst that offender is reintegrating back into the community that they have that extra set of protections around them why would you allow a gap upon immediate release where that protection did not exist? It did not seem to us that that was the intention of the Minister of Justice—perhaps it was just a structural issue. So that is why we made the sensible and necessary change that essentially these orders can now be handed down any time after sentencing so there is no gap between release and there is a wider scope to the orders than parole conditions could provide.That for us was also an access to justice issue. It makes it easer if a victim is able to deal up front all at once with all of the trauma that comes around court processes. Trying to consolidate that into one process was one of our aims. That does not mean that it is still not a prohibitive process. We were concerned that there is a cost attached for an application for this order because it is a civil proceeding. Yes you could use legal aid but unfortunately legal aid thresholds under this Government are such that very few people are eligible now. So we maintain that concern and it is one that we wish as a party to put on the record.One additional element that I think is important to raise—because it was not really the primary focus of the original bill—is the wider scope we wish these orders to have. When the bill came to us as a select committee it was heavily focused on putting restrictions around an offender and an offender alone. Submissions though demonstrated to us that actually even when offenders are in prison they are able to breach an order. They can do that in the examples we had raised with us by communicating with gang affiliates or family or friends and requesting that they engage in harassment of a victim or undertake certain tasks that could be deemed to be harassment because they were at the hand of the offender.We heard first-hand examples of where that had happened and it was our view that it would be sensible to allow for a protection order to extend not just to the offender but to their associates if it was under the offender’s instruction that they were acting. It was particularly alarming for us to hear that that was happening whilst offenders were in prison. So we felt justified in making that extension to associates of the offender in certain circumstances so that those penalties could apply to those associates who were acting knowingly against that order.All in all we support this bill. We think it enhances victims’ rights. We are glad we had the ability to I think improve the bill as a select committee and I look forward to further debate at the Committee stage.JOANNE HAYES (National):Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. I am pleased to take a short call on the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. We New Zealanders deserve to feel safe in our homes and in our communities. This Government is building a safer New Zealand and we have embarked on a comprehensive programme of reform to protect communities prevent crime and put victims first. We are staying tough on criminals we are keeping record numbers of police on the beat and we are ensuring that the justice system focuses on the rights of victims. I commend this bill to the House.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema o te Whare nei. It gives me a great privilege to stand with my Labour colleagues to support the second reading of the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill and to join with them and it sounds like all members of this House in supporting what I consider is one of those bills that is of a type that makes sense where we are putting victims’ rights at the centre of legislation. On that basis I do support the bill in its passage through Parliament.I am not a member of the Law and Order Committee but in my own little research on this bill I note that its purpose is to recognise the ongoing effects of serious violent offending on victims by giving them the power to apply for a non-contact order against the offender which prohibits the offender from having any form of contact with the victim. The orders can be temporary or final and aim to limit the chances of a victim coming into contact with a person who offended against them. There are other types of orders currently existing to protect victims but those orders have limitations.Having looked through the recommendations of the select committee I now acknowledge the work that the members on the select committee have done in providing their comments back to the House. I understand that there are a range of measures already in place—like the Domestic Violence Act 1995 and the Harassment Act 1997—but on researching them I found that there are some time-limit restrictions in terms of those particular Acts. So I understand that this bill is looking at ensuring that victims’ rights in terms of not having contact with the offender are protected and upheld.There are two parts of the bill that I want to highlight in my short call. The first one is clause 7 “Application for a non-contact order”. My colleague Jacinda Ardern mentioned it as I am sure other speakers on this bill did. That clause is about the tool that puts a non-contact order on associates. As we all know when offences have occurred and the offenders have been apprehended often in a lot of criminal cases they have friends mates or partners in crime who are not subject to charges. So our victims also need to know that they are protected from the associates. The amendments suggested by the select committee to clause 7 are actually doing that and I want to commend that work too in terms of amendments.The other two parts of this bill that particularly drew my attention were the two types of order: one is the temporary order and the other is the final order. Again this provision looks at imposing a temporary order to ensure that the victim’s rights are addressed and gives the offender the opportunity to be heard on those orders before moving into something final. In reading the recommendations from the select committee it is really clear that the intention of this bill is to be a protective bill versus a punitive bill. So like other members on this side of the House—and indeed the House—I acknowledge the work of the members of the select committee and support it in what I think is a very important and simple bill and one that makes sense. But for me it puts our victims at the centre. So without further ado I would like to commend and support this bill through the House. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. The Greens will be supporting this bill the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill albeit with some reservations as have already been outlined by my colleague David Clendon.Along with my colleague David Clendon and others on this side of the House I would just like to restate our belief in the need for a comprehensive review of all legislation and all of our practices around restoring and protecting victims’ rights especially—and I am adding this personally—in relation to domestic and sexual violence. They are the main drivers of violent crime in this country and we have not brought the numbers down. We know that the experiences of victims have not been significantly improving in recent times. This is an area of work that the Greens are really looking forward to working on next year when we have a new Government. We are very serious about ensuring that there is a demonstration of political will to reduce violence against women and children. Although as Rachel Hunter once said “it won’t happen overnight.” we know it can happen if we put our minds to it. Somebody in the community was suggesting to me just last week that if we really brought political will to bear we could see a really drastic reduction in crime against women and children within a decade if only we would commit to the measures needed.This bill was developed in response to the situation of a woman in Invercargill who was being harassed by her abuser post his release from prison. He had moved in next door to her and the police had been in for a chat with him and suggested that he move and he declined. They said that they could not do anything more unless he breached the indefinite protection order that was in place and breached the grounds for that order. There was also nothing that they could do to protect her from the harassment that she was experiencing from his friends. So that was the impetus for this bill and that is a good thing to respond to.While I have been out in the community I have also met a woman in provincial New Zealand who had had to send her young daughter of around the age of 12 away to the city to board because the man who had raped her daughter lived in their town and would still leer and make sexually suggestive comments to her when he saw her. There was nothing that they could do to stop that happening. My hope is that this bill will address that and enable those children to be able to stay with their families in their community and not to have to run away from abusers. We know that these two situations clearly represent many more. Kim McGregor from Rape Prevention Education has noted that there have been numerous cases of abusers moving in close to their victims. Clearly this does not represent justice or safety for those victims or for our communities.I would like to acknowledge that this bill is an attempt to ensure that victims can feel safe in their communities but I need to warn this House that we cannot tick off safety for these victims. This bill does not represent a whole solution. While we do nothing to improve the conviction rate from the pitiful one in 100 of sexual offences we leave 99 victims who are unable to get convictions without protection. We know that protection orders are only one piece of the puzzle. We need resourcing and training to ensure a consistent police and court response to breaches otherwise we are just creating a false sense of security as we have seen all too tragically in this country recently. Further those offenders who have been sentenced—and ideally those who have not—need treatment. Kim McGregor has noted that attending a treatment programme for 1 or 2 years reduces the risk of reoffending down to 5 percent. Yet there is a waiting list to get into the programmes within prisons and perpetrators have to self-fund programmes themselves after release if they have not been sent by a court. We need a whole-of-Government response to this to ensure safety for all.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):I commend the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill to the House.Bill read a second time.Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport)on behalf of theMinister of Transport: I move That the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I want to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their work on the bill. The changes proposed in the bill allow for the fair and practical application of road-user charges in a range of unusual circumstances. The bill will amend the Road User Charges Act 2012 and the Land Transport Act 1998. The Road User Charges Act 2012 provides for the regulation and administration of the collection of road-user charges or RUC for the use of roads and road wear. The Land Transport Act 1998 provides for a range of functions relating to land transport including the registration and licensing of vehicles.The main purpose of this bill is to address an anomaly for some vehicle owners who are required to purchase road-user charges for their vehicles but are unable to do so because their vehicles are not registered and not legally required to be. Its secondary purpose is to enable annual charges in lieu of road-user charges to be collected through registration and licensing processes for vehicles that are exempt from road-user charges. The bill also makes other minor changes to the Road User Charges Act 2012.Vehicles that are exempt from registration not required to be registered or operated under a trade plate in an unregistered state are subject to road-user charges unless they belong to a class of vehicle that makes them specifically exempt. However it is not possible to issue road-user charged licences to these vehicles because road-user charged licences are linked to a vehicle’s registration number. These kinds of unregistered vehicles make only limited use of roads and it is not cost-effective to try to collect road-user charges for them. The Road User Charges Act 2012 will be amended to allow regulations that exempt unregistered vehicles from road-user charges.Other classes of vehicles are exempt from road-user charges primarily because it is uneconomic to collect road-user charges for these vehicles. Also most of these vehicles do very little travel on roads. However some exempt vehicles such as fast tractors do a sufficient amount of travel on roads to cause road wear so it is fair that their owners should make a contribution towards the cost that they impose. This bill allows for the collection of an annual charge in lieu of road-user charges for these kinds of vehicles. By doing so it allows for the fair and practical recovery of costs where collecting them through the normal process would be impractical or uneconomic. The bill also amends the Road User Charges Act 2012 to add offence provisions where light vehicles conditionally exempted from road-user charges are operated in breach of those conditions.Finally the bill contains amendments of a technical nature that support the policy aims behind road-user charges and rationalise enforcement activity. These clarify that a person who has entered into an arrangement to pay overdue fees by instalment will not be subject to additional penalties allow the road-user charges collector to set a licence fee for one-off vehicles that are not covered by prescribed road-user charges types and make minor amendments that allow for the effective functioning of the road-user charges system. The bill will need to be divided into two separate bills at the Committee stage.The bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in August 2013. The committee considered five submissions and heard from three submitters. The committee has recommended three minor changes to the bill. These changes are necessary to improve the application of the bill. Under the Road User Charges Act 2012 if a vehicle subject to road-user charges is used on a road without a valid distance licence or being registered under an alternative payment scheme the only defence available to the operator is that they had a “reasonable excuse” to do so. One submission noted that this creates the undesirable situation where an operator must go to court to demonstrate that they had that reasonable excuse. Although it is always open to an enforcement officer to accept an excuse as reasonable there can be uncertainty where a vehicle subject to road-user charges does not display the correct road-user charges licence but the licence displayed is one for which sufficient payment has been made to cover the charges that apply to the vehicle. Subsequently the committee recommended a change to clause 6A to give clearer guidance to operators and enforcement authorities as to what circumstances could constitute a reasonable excuse. The amendment provides guidance to operators and enforcement authorities as to a particular circumstance that might constitute a reasonable excuse without otherwise altering the effect of the provision.The second amendment that the committee recommended relates to clause 8 with a new section 12A(2)(e) to remove the previous reference to the operator providing information to the regulator after the “completion of the operation of the vehicles concerned.” This amendment reflects the intention of the clause which is to provide correct information and the intention of the bill which requires information to be provided as soon as practicable once it becomes available. The amendment enables simpler compliance for a small number of operators.Lastly the committee recommends inserting the word “user” into section 57(1)(a) of the Road User Charges Act 2012. This would change the phrase “unpaid road charges” to “unpaid road user charges” making the Road User Charges Act clearer and more consistent. The proposed changes allow for the fair and practical application of road-user charges in a range of unusual circumstances and I commend the bill to the House.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):Labour is supporting the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. It is worth recalling that the first reading of this bill was held under urgency way back in August 2013. Indeed I remember speaking on this bill at a quarter to midnight in a little bit of a rant about fast tractors which seemed very amusing after we had had a very long long day in the House. So it is interesting that here we are several months later—it was so urgent but here we are on the second reading in March 2014.It is an unnecessary bill in the sense that it did not need to happen in the first place—that is we have this bill in front of us basically because the Government made a stuff-up when it brought in the original legislation the Road User Charges Act which was passed in 2011 and came into force on 1 August 2012 and left out a bit. So what the Government tried to do then—what Gerry Brownlee and whoever the Minister of Transport was at the time tried to do—was to get the Regulations Review Committee to cover up the gap by bringing in a regulation that would continue the exemption for farmers who operate light road-user charge vehicles for agricultural operations. These were vehicles such as tractors with limited on-road use. The Ministry of Transport decided to introduce this pending outstanding policy decisions. So in other words it put forward the regulation to the Regulations Review Committee even before the policy decisions had been made. In other words the Government had not done it in the legislation and it had not even thought about the policy. But the problem was that the regulation was brought to the Regulations Review Committee afterwards—afterwards. So the regulation was made in anticipation of the policy position the Government was going to take.Meka Whaitiri: Weird.DARIEN FENTON: Very weird—very weird. This bill has got quite a saga to it actually. The Government left that bit out. So it meant that those farmers with their mainly off-road vehicles carried on paying money—quite a lot of money actually—in road-user charges contributions yet the regulation was completely out of order. So the Regulations Review Committee moved that it be disallowed.What happened then? Well a decision had not been made. The officials had stepped into the gap and tried to cover up for the Minister of Transport and they put in this regulation. Charles Chauvel who was the then Regulations Review Committee chair got up in the House with the agreement of the Regulations Review Committee—remember this was right back in 2012—three of whom were National members who had actually agreed that this regulation to plug the gap in the legislation that the Minister had stuffed up in the first place way back in 2011 should be disallowed. But then the Minister decided that he would not allocate House time to debate the disallowance motion so the regulation was disallowed. In other words it just disappeared and ceased to exist. The regulation was overturned which is what should have happened anyway.But then what happened next is that the Minister was not satisfied with that. He reinstated the regulation. He had another go with the Regulations Review Committee to try to plug this gap—to try to plug this gap. The Regulations Review Committee which did an excellent job on this said that it was not any better the second time—it was not any better. It is a story of incompetence—Andrew Little: A comedy of errors.DARIEN FENTON: A comedy of errors and a story of incompetence. The Minister tried to introduce it the second time with no improvement. He should have amended the legislation but he did not. He tried to get it through the Regulations Review Committee again so another disallowance motion was moved because there was no improvement and it was no better than the first time. Finally as I said at the beginning on 27 August last year we had legislation introduced to fix this mess under urgency—under urgency. It should have been in place for 1 August last year but we had it introduced on 27 August. It has taken several months. Despite the fact that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is an excellent committee and did its best there was no way that it could work in the haste that was needed and in fact retrospectively pass this legislation so that we could cover up the Minister’s mistakes.It is a comedy of errors. It is a sad story about wasting Parliament’s time. It is a sad indictment on the Government because road-user charges are a very important part of our infrastructure. It is very important that we have road-user charges so that we can pay for the roads make sure our exports can get around the roads and make sure the infrastructure is safe and efficient. Also I think that there are some things missing in our road-user charges and our whole transport system that I just wanted to mention briefly if I can. Local roads are an example. Local roads have been completely underfunded by this Government. If you go to Gisborne and if you go to the electorate of Meka Whaitiri and talk to the forestry workers who drive logging trucks up and down those roads you will see that that is so dangerous. It is so dangerous now because funding for local roads has been underfunded. It is the same in Northland actually—Andrew Little: And State Highway 3 in Taranaki.DARIEN FENTON: And State Highway 3 in Taranaki as well. The Government has got the balance wrong. Even though we support road-user charges we believe that the Government has got the balance wrong when it comes to transport funding.Just talking about the bill for a minute the Minister has spelt out what it does. I will go over that. It amends the Road User Charges Act to enable regulations to be made exempting from road-user charges vehicles that are not required to be registered. We had five good submissions. It was very interesting. There was a long debate about farm vehicles and trailers on farm vehicles. There was also a bit of concern as I recall from the Road Transport Forum I think which was worried about tractors that were carting trailers along but not being charged road-user charges. It is fair to say that this is a reasonable thing to do because most of the vehicles covered by this bill make very little use of the roads and they make a sufficient contribution to the cost they impose on the road network through the vehicle licence fee.The imposition of an additional annual charge for a trade plate or vehicle licence is a cost-effective alternative to road-user charges. That is what this bill does. It amends the Land Transport Act to enable an annual charge in lieu of road-user charges to be collected through the registration and vehicle licensing system where it is deemed appropriate. Owners of light road-user charge vehicles that are operated almost exclusively off-road can apply to the road-user charges collector for an exemption under section 40 of the Road User Charges Act. However there are no offence provisions relating to the breach of conditions associated with section 40 and the bill proposes to amend that Act to add offence provisions to support the enforcement of those conditions.There were seven minor technical amendments. Going back to what I said at the beginning I say that Labour is supporting this bill. It is a necessary gap that needed to be plugged. It is just unfortunate that we had to go through such a long process and such an embarrassing process for the Government. Thank goodness we have such an excellent Regulations Review Committee whose job it is to scrutinise regulations and legislation led by that very able member the Hon Maryan Street who did an excellent job after she followed on from Charles Chauvel who also did a wonderful job. Thank goodness we have it there to keep an eye on the Minister of Transport when he tries to do things and tries to fix up problems without going about it the proper way. So thank you—Labour is supporting this bill.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):It is good to hear that the Labour Party is supporting this bill the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge the Labour members on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee who do such a fine job there—Darien and the others who have worked so hard on this bill. Thank you for your support for the Government on this bill.This bill has a somewhat chequered history as the previous speaker Darien Fenton has said. At the same time these areas of road-user charges are not the easiest to deliver rules and regulations around in the first hit. Even when this bill was being considered by the select committee the Road Transport Forum brought up the risk of tractors potentially using the road in a way that had not been anticipated or is not easy to accommodate through our road-user charges process. So it is still not 100 percent you could say in the sense that there may be opportunities for people to try to use their forms of transport to avoid the charges but that is the nature of these things. We have just got to do what we can under the rules in the way that we can. I appreciate the work the Minister of Transport has done in getting this bill through the House and the select committee.Also today we have had comments in this House from the Green Party about the roads of national significance. It is very disappointing to see those members attacking those roads which are so important for the structure of the New Zealand infrastructure and freight transport forwarding in New Zealand going forward. When we look at the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill we have got to remember that these things travel on roads and the roads of national significance are vital for the growth of this country. It would be good to see the Green Party actually supporting those roads rather than trying to decry them and reduce funding for them which no doubt the Green Party intends to do.This is a bill that is important in the sense that it clears up some of the anomalies in the road-user charge system. They are very simple changes but they are necessary to make that system more effective. We look forward to it passing through the House. Thank you.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):The Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill now in its current form as reported back from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee is the sort of bill you have when you have made so many mistakes in the previous legislation whether because of urgency or because of an inattentive Minister of Transport.Mike Sabin: Well the Labour Party is qualified to talk about making lots of mistakes of course.ANDREW LITTLE: The truth of this as Mr Sabin well knows is that we were landed with a piece of legislation for which we were told urgency was required. It was raced through its first reading in the dead of night only for us to discover that it was full of holes. It is interesting that this piece of legislation taken out of the context of errors and the haste with which the original legislation was passed looks somewhat reasonable. It adds a bit of flexibility.As the honourable member David Bennett has said road-user charges are very important. Where I think the Labour Party differs from the National Party is that the National Party thinks that there are six roads in this country that are significant whereas we think that there are a lot more roads that are significant. One of the roads in this country that is very dear to my heart—and I have been travelling a lot lately; you might or might not have heard of it—is State Highway 3 in north Taranaki. I can pinpoint it to the nearest kilometre. It is that stretch of State Highway 3 that goes from the borders of Waitara the lovely settlement of Waitara right up to the larger village of Te Kūiti the handsome little village of Te Kūiti which is so important to that area so important to the history of this nation and I might add so important to the history of the National Party. It is the heart of the King Country. The heart of the King Country is where a lot of sheep farming has been going on and it is also an area of New Zealand that not only has delivered up one of the longest-serving National Party Prime Ministers in the form of Jim Bolger but has been fraught with difficulty in other respects for a long time and it gave birth to a very important Māori movement the Kīngitanga movement.So we have the King Country and State Highway 3 is the road that links the important province of Taranaki to the important province of Waikato. I make no distinction in terms of the importance of either of them except that I do want to acknowledge in the context of this debate that as a result of decisions made in the wonderful province of Taranaki only last year the significance of Waikato to Taranaki is even greater because of the decisions of the Taranaki Rugby Football Union. It has now affiliated the good people of Taranaki with a Super 15 rugby team that is domiciled in the heart of the Waikato in Hamilton.It is for that reason that the stretch of road that I talked so longingly and lovingly about—that stretch of State Highway 3 between the delightful settlement of Waitara and the very important settlement of Te Kūiti—is so important. A lot more Taranakians will now be travelling that road in the months to come during the Super 15 season and it is for that reason that I want to see road-user charges being used for all significant roads in New Zealand including State Highway 3 which is why this bill affords—[Interruption] Well I look at the levies being extracted out of the region of Taranaki by this Government and indeed others and added to the coffers of central government—and I quibble not about that exercise; it is an important exercise—but I on behalf of the good people of Taranaki and particularly the people of New Plymouth simply say that we want our fair share. We want our fair share and we want the money that gets extracted from the province of Taranaki to go into the general coffers spent on the infrastructure of New Plymouth including State Highway 3.It is for that reason that we support this bill. Road-user charges are levied in a very flexible way under this bill. It allows specialist machinery requiring specialist operators—machinery that is not often found on the roads whether it is State Highway 3 or any other road in New Zealand—to now have road-user charges levied on it in a sensible meaningful sort of way and those levies can now be used for all the good roads of New Zealand not just the six roads that the National Government thinks are significant.So this bill creates that very important function for the Government of ensuring that there is now flexibility in the regime of road-user charges. It will benefit farmers it will benefit farm contractors and it will benefit the operators of specialist and sophisticated machinery that sometimes might travel on roads but spends most of its time on farmland or on forestry land or in other similar areas because that is what those vehicles are particularly intended for.The other thing that this bill does is correct an oversight in the Road User Charges Act 2012—in particular section 9. It now allows a reasonable excuse defence to be mounted for not displaying the correct road-user charge licence for the machinery. In fact it adds an interesting level of flexibility now. Clause 6A sets up a reasonable excuse defence but interestingly it adds new subsection (4B) to section 9 which means that any other excuse might be a reasonable excuse not just the fact that there is a levy being charged already on the vehicle even though it does not have the correct road-user charge licence displayed upon it.So this is the ultimate in flexibility and like all good legislation it has been scrutinised very carefully in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It has won a consensus of support at least from the Labour Party and it also reflects and recognises that we need to make sure that those who are the users of our roads pay towards them. But where it fails of course is that it does not go the extra step of ensuring that the use of the money collected and levied in this way goes towards all the roads that are important to New Zealand—every important regional arterial route not just the handful that some consider are important.Darien Fenton: Or railways.ANDREW LITTLE: Or rail—at least for those lines that can be used because not only in Gisborne but also now in Taranaki would you believe there is a rail line that is unusable because of a single washout. It is currently being used by a set of golf carts I might add to supplement the Forgotten World Highway. But notwithstanding that we support the legislation because—Hon Member: Very good.ANDREW LITTLE: —it does achieve a very important objective. It creates a sense of flexibility. It will be good and the next Government when it is elected on 20 September this year—the Labour-led Government—will make sure that the levies collected will be used for all the important roads in this country not just the small half-dozen that the members opposite in the Government think are important.David Bennett: Come to Hamilton and say that.ANDREW LITTLE: There will be levies that will be used beyond the Waikato Expressway. Even though there will be some Chiefs supporters from Taranaki using that expressway occasionally most of the Chiefs supporters from Taranaki would rather that most of the money went to only the delightful beautiful scenic and very important but currently unsafe State Highway 3.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call will be a split call. Julie Anne Genter—5 minutes.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):I rise to speak on the second reading of the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill as reported from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The Green Party has no reason to oppose this bill. It makes a number of technical amendments that fix up some of the mistakes that naturally happen when there is a good deal of reform as there was recently to the road-user charges system.For the benefit of those at home today I will just outline exactly what the objectives of the road-user charges system are. Road-user charges are the fees that are paid by those using heavy vehicles in lieu of paying a petrol tax. Road-user charges contribute about 30 percent to our transport budget as a whole. Since the National Government came into power in fact the share being paid by heavy vehicle users has declined quite significantly and the amount being paid by users of petrol cars through petrol tax has increased quite a bit. So there is a greater portion of the transport budget being paid for by users of light vehicles—petrol vehicles—than there is by users of diesel.According to the documents that were provided by the Ministry of Transport the objectives of the road-user charges system are to support economic efficiency to recover the costs that road users impose on the road network and to be equitable between road users. I have to say that what is really missing from this bill are changes to the road-user charges system that would actually give effect to these objectives. The reality is that at the moment the road-user charges system is not direct—it does not directly charge cost to users in a way that would most directly support economic efficiency—and certainly the way that the transport budget is being spent is not equitable to all road users. It does not take the cost from those who are actually going to be using the road. It does not take the money from those road users and put it into the projects that are being funded.As an example Mr Bennett said earlier in this debate that the roads of national significance were good for the economy and that they were a fair use of road users’ money because it was being used on roads. What he did not say is that the Government’s main priority—these five or six motorways that are yet to be built—carry only a tiny percentage of all daily vehicle trips. So 75 percent of the transport budget is being used on less than 5 percent of vehicle trips. That does not seem like a fair allocation of resources because it is not.In fact road-user charges and petrol tax are not the right way of assessing user charges. Basically the way it works is that the Government sets its priorities based on what its election promises were because it wants to build some shiny infrastructure so that some people in a few smaller towns or rural areas will vote for the National Party. The Government then prioritises and puts all the money into those projects saying that they will be good for the economy even though it has not done any economic analysis. Once the economic analysis shows that the projects are incredibly poor value the Government goes ahead and builds them anyway. The users of the roads are not the ones paying for it. It will be people driving cars and trucks all over New Zealand who will be paying for these motorways that are used by only a tiny percentage of road users.What is really sad about this is the lost opportunity. If the transport budget was allocated in a way that got the most bang for its buck it could reduce transport costs across the board in New Zealand and it could improve choices for people so they had alternatives rather than having to rely on a car for all trips. Also road freight users are actually massively disadvantaged by this system because most of the problems with peak congestion on a State highway network are caused by commuters who have no better option than taking the car. So it is the road freight users who are paying. They are less than 5 percent—less than 5 percent—of the vehicles on those roads at peak time. We have got plenty of roads to move the freight that needs to move on our roads; the problem is that the roads are congested with commuters because they do not have cost-effective alternatives for getting to work. And the road freight users have no choice but to pay because the Government is going to put up the fuel taxes and road-user charges to pay for the projects that it is building now. In the future we will be paying more for these projects and we will not have any choice but to use cars.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is an absolute privilege to follow Green member Julie Anne Genter our transport spokesperson. I am proud to rise to support this bill the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. This is a small technical change to the way we earn income from the road-user charges for the National Land Transport Fund. We would like to thank the committee that heard the submissions the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. We would like to thank the submitters and the chair.We are facing a time of rising greenhouse gas emissions from transport a billion-dollar blowout when it comes to transport funding and National having to put up the fuel taxes. We see an $8 billion annual fuel import bill. Kids feel unsafe cycling to school yet National is not giving them solutions. Despite all these massive transport challenges facing the country National a few months before the election wants to focus on a few technical amendments to the road-user charges. It wants to exempt fast tractors from road-user charges and it wants to exempt all unregistered vehicles—vehicles exempt from registration because of the nameplate system. This is National’s priority in transport. National has made a mess of it so it would rather hide it and focus on these technical amendments.This is not the only road-user charges legislation that we have had in front of us this Parliament. We also saw another bill that changed the way the calculations were met. At a time when we have fantastic IT solutions—computer technology is fast cheap and efficient—they are not being used to calculate road-user charges on a fair cost basis. You would think that the National Party would be supporting a fair user-pays system. No instead we are turning back closer to the past with a paper-based overly complex very expensive to administer old-fashioned way of dealing with it. It is no surprise that New Zealand is the only country in the world that uses such a cumbersome old complex system to calculate its diesel-based levies in the way we fund our roads and public transport.So this election is all about transport choice because over on one side you see a very clear vision—a vision rooted in the 1950s and 1960s a vision that does not give people choice.Mike Sabin: There have been roads around for longer than that.GARETH HUGHES: We hear all the jokes from the National members but it is not about choice. What they say is: “You’re going to use our mega-motorways and you’re going to pay for them. And even if we don’t get enough funds we’re going to put it on the credit card.” Despite 75 percent of the money going there these roads are for only 5 percent of the people. What the Green Party is about is choice. We want you to be able to safely cycle to school if you want. We want you to be able to take a good efficient affordable bus. We want to give you public transport choices like a central business district rail link to unlock Auckland’s potential. It is about choice because what we are seeing is the lion’s share of the transport budget being blown on these so-called roads of national significance. What New Zealanders are not getting is choice.Secondly we are going to give Kiwis a choice around economic outcomes. What we heard from the Minister of Transport in question time today in relation to Julie Anne Genter was the Minister say that economic analyses and reports were overly bureaucratic and they are not what he makes his decisions on. At a time of considerable fiscal challenges facing our country it is outrageous that we have a Minister overseeing a $20 billion National Land Transport Fund who is making decisions based on the politics on what he thinks the strategic fit is not on the New Zealand Transport Agency advice. What we know is that a huge chunk of that very expensive taxpayer spend is going on motorways with very low benefit-cost ratios. What we know is that the freight industry is crying out for alternatives—things like effective coastal shipping. We see our regional railways close as we heard from the member Andrew Little and we see our climate change emissions going through the roof despite all the talk about them.So in summary this is a good bill. We support it. It is very modest in its intent and technical. But what we need are greater solutions to the road-user charges problem. What we support is a smarter fairer system where if you damage the roads—and when it comes to heavy vehicles it is the weight of the vehicle that has a disproportionate impact on road wear and tear—we think it is fair that you should pay your fair contribution to upgrading our roads. Road-user charges are around 30 percent of our National Land Transport Fund income so they are an important part of that and it is worthwhile looking in the future to IT solutions. In summary what we are going to focus on in Parliament if we get the privilege of being in Government is not minor technical amendments such as these. What we are going to focus on is providing Kiwis with choices better public transport safer walking and cycling and real economic outcomes for taxpayers.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I think the member Gareth Hughes just dashed his opportunity to raise his party’s vote with that particular speech. If people at home wake up now that he is finished what they will find is that roads are actually quite important to the economy in this country. The point that Andrew Williams made was a very very good one—that all roads are important. No one on this side of the House would disagree that all roads are important. But the Greens have their fanciful wish list and would just tax people significantly greater amounts to pay for more access for schoolchildren to walk to school and for more cycleways and so forth. I do not believe that it is actually a case of either/or; it is one of and/and. As Gerry Brownlee the Minister of Transport said today this Government has spent more than anyone on the sorts of things that the Greens talk about but hopefully will never get a chance to do.But if we think about the road network as we think of the human body and if we think about the difference between veins and arteries that is simply what the road network comes down to. There are some areas of the network or the body where it is far more important that we have flow and that there are no encumbrances to that flow and that is what the roads of national significance programme is all about. Admittedly that is a policy decision on behalf of the Government and although the Greens can stand in the House and talk about low cost-benefit ratios I can assure the Green members 100 percent that there is a far greater cost-benefit return to this nation in having efficient freight movement—in particular around the more congested areas of this country—than there is in having more cycleways and opportunities for children to walk to school.I do not know—I am an old-fashioned sort of a guy. I sort of think that if children want to walk to school actually they probably can. They have been doing that for a long time and it is not the case that this Government just ignores that; it is a case of prioritising. It is almost like the Greens have forgotten about the fact that they have gone away from this idea of printing money and like they have got some magic wish list of opportunities in the transport sector that they would pay for but like they have somehow forgotten about the fact that you have got to have an economy that is performing to actually do that.Simon O’Connor: How’re they gonna move the money?MIKE SABIN: Well exactly—ironically how will they move the money? How are they going to move the logs? How are they going to move the milk powder? How are they going to move all the other produce that this primary producing country ultimately produces? What are they going to do? Are they going to have a team of people with unicycles wandering down cycleways to get it to market? How about the buses that they talk about all the time? Oh that is right. They use roads as well. I have not seen them hovering above the earth any time recently.This Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill has some minor technical amendments. But in all seriousness what we are actually dealing with here is a very complex system for the road-user charges. The anomalies that sprang up have been dealt with in this legislation. Although it affects only a small amount of people a lot of those people are in my electorate. A lot of them are farmers and a lot of them are people who work in the rural economy. That is right. They are the lifeblood of this economy. So although the Greens can trivialise that fact and ask why we are dealing with this bill now the bottom line is that if we were not they would be criticising us for not dealing with it.This Government just gets on and does what the community and what the voters expect of us. This is another good example of it and another really good example from the Greens of why they should never occupy the Government benches.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a call in the second reading of the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supported this bill going to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. My colleague Denis O’Rourke indicated at the time back in August of last year that the changes brought about by the bill were largely technical in nature and largely acted to correct anomalies in the existing legislation. A bill to correct stuff-ups—that was how my colleague described it. Mr O’Rourke is an eloquent man a man of letters a learned barrister and solicitor well schooled and well skilled in the ways of the law. He is capable of a quite melodic turn of phrase when the fancy takes him but on that occasion I believe he was being very deliberately blunt.He was followed by Mr Auchinvole from the Government side of the House the retiring list member from the West Coast—not retiring as in shy and retiring. I did not mean to intimate that Mr Auchinvole is the shy and retiring type—quite the opposite in fact. Mr Auchinvole is nothing if not flamboyant. But I digress perhaps just a little. Mr Auchinvole proceeded to castigate my colleague in what I can only assume was a grudging attempt to indicate his appreciation for our support of the bill whilst still desiring to have a dig at Mr O’Rourke in the process.David Bennett: Well Denis isn’t going to be here.RICHARD PROSSER: He then went on to talk quite a lot about tractors Mr Bennett about which I am certain he knows a great deal. I know a thing or two about them myself. I have driven many a tractor in my time in my life prior to coming to Parliament. In one previous incarnation in fact I sold tractors for a living—Massey Ferguson and Samay. Tractors are relevant to this bill because they are one of the types of vehicle with which it is concerned. As vehicles that are almost—Hon Annette King: Ask Shane Ardern about them. He knows a bit about a tractor.RICHARD PROSSER: That was a very fine example of a Massey Ferguson tractor—an oldie but a goodie. As vehicles that are almost never used on the roads and therefore not required to be registered tractors may be exempted from the requirement for road-user charges to be paid under the changes that this bill brings about. That is a good thing in our estimation. They will incur a small annual charge instead as contribution for the very minor wear and tear that tractors inflict on our roads—all very fair and above board.The bill was returned from the select committee the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—that fine and august body of men and women from across the House of the people. It has been returned with a small number of minor amendments suggested. They are minor technical changes to what is a minor technical bill. It is nothing earth shattering. This bill will not cause mountains to move or civilisations to fall. It is very necessary. It is a necessary part of the machinery of government grinding away largely unseen beneath the foundations of society. But it is not likely to be a central player in the upcoming election campaign which we all face—all bar Mr Auchinvole of course who is retiring and one or two others from the benches opposite. There are 14 in total I believe. And who knows? There may yet be more. Mr Auchinvole is exempted from the rigours of the campaign. He will not be joining us on the hustings. Instead he will be retiring to the West Coast—and a fine place it is to retire to—doubtless to write the first of many books about tractors.In closing I will say that New Zealand First will continue to support this bill. There will be great relief about that on the Government side of the House I am sure. Those members can rest assured that this bill will continue its passage through the parliamentary process and into law. We will enable it so. Thank you.Dr CAM CALDER (National):What an extraordinarily perceptive contribution from Mr Prosser expounding at length on the mellifluous oratory of his colleague Denis O’Rourke and the merits of Massey Ferguson tractors. It followed on a beautiful segue from the peroration of the bucolic charms of “Taradise” from the member Mr Andrew Little and the charms of State Highway 3. What an extraordinary contribution. I was thinking that it might be 5 to 6 on a Thursday but it is not. I look at the clock and it is 25 past 5 on a Tuesday. I wonder what we are in for later on this week.I must say this bill the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill is small and perfectly formed. It amends primary legislation to enable exemptions from road-user charges for vehicles not required to be registered for use on roads such as the many by-ways and highways of Taranaki. I commend this bill to the House.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):Thank you very much—Hon Maurice Williamson: See if you can top those last two speeches.CAROL BEAUMONT: Oh I do not even want to begin to try to do that. I am rising as my colleagues have to speak in favour of what is a very sensible piece of legislation the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. Its history is not so sensible but what is in here makes sense. This bill makes amendments to both the Land Transport Act and the Road User Charges Act and in doing so its primary purpose really is to enable regulations to be made exempting road-user charge vehicles that are not required to be registered from road-user charges. That is vehicles that are exempt from road-user charges make very little use of roads but make a sufficient contribution to the costs they impose on the road network through the vehicle licence fee. However some vehicles are likely to impose higher costs on the road network than are covered by the standard licence fee. That is the situation that this bill seeks to rectify. There has been quite a lot of conversation about tractors and fast tractors and that appears to be the main vehicle concerned in this situation.The bill also looks at offence provisions to breaches of conditions associated with section 40 of the Road User Charges Act. It proposes to add offence provisions to support the enforcement of conditions associated with exemptions under section 40. That is all very interesting. Then there are seven minor technical amendments to the Road User Charges Act to improve the operation of it. That may sound quite boring but as probably everybody in this House would agree road-user charges are important and it is important that we get this right which leads me to the very interesting history of this bill.Others have mentioned it but I took the step of reading the first reading speeches—or at least some of them—on this bill because I thought gee it is interesting what people were saying there and what a fascinating history it is indeed. It does show me as a member of this House the real value I guess of the Regulations Review Committee because what happened in a nutshell was that the original road-user charges legislation actually did not get it right. The Government did not get it right.Hon Trevor Mallard: Again.CAROL BEAUMONT: Well it did not get it right a few times really. I looked at Maryan Street’s speech because she made a very interesting contribution in the first reading talking about how delighted she was to see this piece of legislation come before the House even under urgency—even under urgency which as other colleagues have mentioned did seem a somewhat strange thing—because she was the chair of the Regulations Review Committee and had seen all the to-ing and fro-ing that took place leading up to this bill.Basically what happened was that officials decided to try to fix up problems with earlier legislation by regulation. The Ministry of Transport decided to introduce regulation “pending outstanding policy decisions on how best to manage” these exemptions. As she said: “In other words the Government had not done it in the legislation.” What happened as was quite correctly pointed out was that the officials did not have the power to do that. That was pointed out by the Regulations Review Committee. It is very interesting that instead of trying to deal with it properly it was disallowed—I believe that that is the term. I am just trying to find it again—yes disallowed. Charles Chauvel moved that. Instead of trying to get it right properly the Minister of Transport just had another go at trying to do it by some sort of back-door means. That is quite interesting. The Minister concerned was Gerry Brownlee. So it is actually again interesting.I want to quote Maryan Street’s first reading speech. She said: “What happened after the disallowance of the regulation? The Minister reinstated it. It was not any better the second time—it was not any better. So we have a complete litany of ineptitude—a complete litany of ineptitude.” That was the Minister Gerry Brownlee. I do not want to be unkind but I am aware that if Christchurch colleagues were with me in this House right now they would say that that sort of description of that Minister is probably not too far off the mark. [Interruption] Oh there is a Christchurch colleague here right behind me. Poto Williams is indeed confirming that in terms of the behaviour of that Minister and the way that he has managed the situation in Christchurch perhaps that same description—“a complete litany of ineptitude”—may well apply.Getting back to what happened with this bill and the regulations and so on leading up to where we are today I want to say that the legislation was wrong in the first place. Regulation was put in place that was not allowable. It was disallowed. Then because there was no debate on that there was further regulation that was disallowed. Then finally there was legislation introduced and we have the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill. I think members throughout the House and anybody listening to this will find that quite interesting. I do not know how common that sort of farce is but I found it very interesting.Just going on to the detail really and why this is important I think it is important that we have a modernised and simplified road-user charge system that has appropriate provisions for compliance as well as appropriate monitoring mechanisms. This bill seeks to do that. Also the Government needs to ensure that the road-user charges are fair and reflect the amount of time the vehicle is actually on the road. This is where we talk about these high-speed tractors. I notice in looking at first reading speeches that there appears to have been quite a lot of conversation between some members on different tractor brands. I do not intend to get into that having no strong view on the matter.On a more serious note Kiwis are being hit in the pocket by increasing petrol tax and increasing road-user charges so that the Government can pay for its gold-plated roads of national significance. I think it is important as politicians that we think about transport infrastructure in a much more comprehensive and strategic way than this Government appears to have been doing. What sort of transport system do we need in 20 years’ 30 years’ and 50 years’ time? We do not believe that the roads of national significance will deliver on that. We need a much more strategic approach to transport direction and in fact it needs to be part of a strategic approach to economic development. That is something we are not seeing from this Government.I do want to note that I thought the contribution from the MP Mike Sabin was interesting. He talked about roads and why we needed roads. He talked about logs and milk. Well yes logs and milk are very important in our economy—Hon Trevor Mallard: Ask Judith.CAROL BEAUMONT: That is true. Judith Collins will certainly vouch for the milk part. But we do need to get past thinking about our economy as solely logs and milk. We need to be looking at the value-adding. We need to create a smart economy. We need a manufacturing base in this country. This Government fails to deal with those sorts of questions. It fails to look at the role of Government working in partnership with business and in partnership with unions to develop a comprehensive economic development strategy for our country where we can create really good-quality jobs that deliver decent incomes to our people instead of what is happening at the moment where wage rates are an absolute disgrace. People cannot live on wages in many many cases. The wages are simply insufficient to meet their costs—the family’s costs. That is just wrong and that has not always been the case in this country. Some people maybe think that it has been. We have not always been a low-wage economy. We have at times in fact had very similar wage levels to our Australian compatriots. Coming back to the bill I want to say that we do need a strategic approach in transport and a strategic approach in the economy to ensure that we get those better wages.A couple of people have talked about local roads and I also would just like to comment that local roads are a critical part of our infrastructure as well and are essential for regional development. But the other thing—and something that the Government seems to have a lot of problems with when it is focused solely on its roads of national significance—is the importance of our rail network. The rail network should be the backbone of our transport system because we know that the problem with roads is that they get full very quickly. All these roads—we build them they are OK for a while and then they get full. What do we do? We build more roads. We need to ensure that we have a rail network that actually can support our economy including our manufacturing industry.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I think this has been a great example listening to the Opposition members of the green tail wagging the red dog—the belief that if you use words like “strategic” and “planning” and all of this somehow it will just come to pass. They are talking about that then with the roading network—that somehow you know we are just going to value-add to things like logs and the fisheries and so on without actually taking in the fact of whether anyone is going to buy them and ultimately how you are going to transport them.If you live up in Whangarei like I used to where there are huge logging issues you want these roads of national significance opened up. That is why colleagues like Mike Sabin and Mark Mitchell are supporting the Pūhoi to Wellsford highway and why we are trying to open up areas like the Waikato Expressway. It is to make this economy work more efficiently and faster.So this legislation the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill here in its second reading is an attempt—a small attempt but an attempt in the wider scheme of things—to make the transport system in New Zealand far more efficient. We are committed to an economy that is fast and flexible and that is why we move towards a fast and flexible land transport scheme. I commend the bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call—Hon Trevor Mallard: No I don’t think it is.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It is not? OK—Hon Trevor Mallard: No no. I think the Greens have been kind enough to say that they would like to listen to me for 10 minutes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well we look forward to 10 minutes from the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and I would like to say that I am starting this call in some anxiety. Looking around at my colleagues in the House I have a feeling that I am missing the men’s caucus of the Labour Party which could well be meeting at the moment. I am slightly worried about why I might be excluded from that group.I would like to start by saying that I have some experience of vehicles of this type and know a little more than I used to 40-odd years ago about which vehicles should be driven across roads and which should not be. I had a very bad experience on the county roads of Taumarunui with a D7 bulldozer where I discovered that even when you have the blade up when you go across the tarseal road it does tend to make quite a difference to the surface as the D7 grips and rips it up. So I do know that even if they are vehicles that are not generally driven on roads they can cause damage quite a lot of expense and in this particular case annoyance to the county clerk of the Taumarunui County Council at the time.I listened with great interest to the speech of Simon O’Connor and he was saying that The Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill was a small but important step towards having a more efficient roading system. This bill is no such thing. It is no such thing at all. This bill—and I have been here looking at it very carefully for at least 20 minutes now—appears to be something that is only fixing up a mess that is the responsibility of a National Government Minister of Transport. I cannot tell from reading it whether it goes back to Maurice Williamson whether it is all Gerry Brownlee’s work or whether “Mr Fix-it” or “Mr Not-quite-fix-it” Steven Joyce was the person who—from Maurice Williamson’s smile I can tell that it was Steven Joyce not Maurice Williamson who was the person responsible for making this mess originally and then Gerry Brownlee tried to fix it up twice. So what this bill does is try to correct some errors in transport legislation.I know this is an unusual thing to say but I am actually feeling slightly sorry for the National Government Ministers in this particular area because I think it is fair to say that there are two areas of legislation especially for minor legislation and regulation where you are not that surprised when it is wrong. They are agriculture and transport. That does say—[Interruption] Sorry?Hon Member: Agriculture?Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes agriculture and transport. They are the ones that most often have to come back with amendments to amendments to amendments in order to try to get the legislation right. That probably does go over a period of years—although I do not want to criticise the Public Service—to the quality of the recruitment and the payment of the people and as a result of that some of the legislation that we have had out of those agencies frankly has not been that flash. This Parliament has wasted a lot of time on going over it and over it and over it in trying to get it right.I will be interested to hear from the next National speaker a better explanation around combination vehicles. Is a combination vehicle something like a truck and trailer that are only sometimes put together? Is it a truck that has the basic trailer attachment but it is not on it at the current time? Or is it something that very very rarely gets put together in that combination? The requirement to apply for a certificate at a point soon after using it is something that is important. If there is a requirement to do something rapidly one would assume that it is an unusual combination. I presume it does not apply when it is a combination road-user charges thing. It is not the diesel land cruiser giving the other diesel land cruiser a tow over the Wainuiōmata Hill because one of them has run out of diesel. Clearly they run out of road-user charges fairly often but they still go when they run out of road-user charges but not when they run out of diesel. Is a combination road-user charges vehicle one land cruiser diesel towing another land cruiser diesel or not? Is that what we are referring to as a combination vehicle? And if a vehicle is not actually using its motor when it has a motor at the time it is being towed is it subject to road-user charges or not?I know that members opposite are looking carefully across the legislation and even if they cannot tell us now I am sure that as we work our way through the long and extensive Committee stage especially on Part 2 of this bill—it is a bit sneaky really. It pretends to be other minor amendments but actually there is quite a lot in here. If we look at new section 12A “Agreement to pay road user charges in relation to combination of vehicles” in clause 8 I think there is room for more explanation there.The next thing is “or carried” in display of a road-user charges licence. The deal around road-user charges licences is that you normally need to be able to see them. So what does “or carried” mean? If there is a combination of vehicles and there is a road-user charges licence can someone keep the road-user charges licence in their pocket rather than displaying it as is normally required? It appears to be what we are permitting now. I am quite surprised frankly because I would have thought that for a Government that is working hard to get the road-user charges revenue it is pretty hard to get that revenue if the road-user charges miles or kilometres I suppose they are called now are kept—[Interruption] Well it used to be miles back when I was in Taumarunui county. [Interruption] Metrics—it is a new thing. To be fair that was in the days of 60-mile-an-hour limits. That has changed.There is new section 38A “Exemption of RUC vehicles not required to be registered” in clause 11. This appears to give to a Minister quite a broad power as to what is to be licensed or not. If you look at new section 38A(1) it can be “(a) all RUC vehicles that are exempt from registration under the Land Transport Act 1998; or (b) 1 or more classes of RUC vehicles …”. The Minister can specify that all road-user charges vehicles or a particular class of road-user charges vehicles are exempt. [Bell rung] Is that 8 minutes already Mr Assistant Speaker? No that could not possibly be. I had 10 minutes not 5.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I gave you 10 minutesHon TREVOR MALLARD: I had not even got on to the bit about the spooks. If one goes to page—[Interruption] No absolutely. The member in front of me—the Minister to be—says that it is not in this bill. Actually this bill does relate to the Search and Surveillance Act 2012. Who would have thought that there would be a sneaky amendment in relation to the ability to search and surveil hidden away in something called the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill?I bet that the Prime Minister who is in charge of the Government Communications Security Bureau knows nothing about this. It is another attempt to use the Maxwell Smart approach on the part of Gerry Brownlee and to not let the boss know what is going on. It does involve getting warrants. It involves getting warrants under the Search and Surveillance Act. Well do we really want such serious legislation—such serious legislation—to be used to find out whether someone has got a road-user charges ticket in their pocket? I mean the idea that some of the most serious legislation in the country which is very very controversial and something that is up for amendment could be brought into force in order to search for a bit of paper on road-user charges is just disgraceful. I look forward to a lot of discussion on this particular point in the Committee stage.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany):I commend the Land Transport and Road User Charges Legislation Amendment Bill to the House.Bill read a second time.Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development):I move That the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. The bill is about protecting the integrity of the welfare system and it is about ensuring that it is there for those who are genuinely in need. It is just one of the steps the Government is taking to ensure that those who rip off the welfare system are held to account. We know that the overwhelming majority of people receiving welfare assistance genuinely need it. They follow the rules. They are honest with Work and Income and receive the help they need. The bill targets the tiny minority who take money they are not entitled to.The changes are designed to be sensible fair and practical. The premise of the bill is simple. Relationship welfare fraud claiming a single or sole parent rate of benefit such as sole parent support while being in a relationship takes two people. The fraud occurs only when a partner is there to create it yet in most cases only the beneficiary is held to account when a fraud is discovered. Their partner who has created the fraud facilitated it and benefited from it gets away with it and that is not fair. That is why this bill will hold to account partners who knew of the fraud or who were reckless as to whether there was a fraud. It will allow for the recovery of money from the partners who knew or ought to have known they were part of a fraud. It means that one partner usually the woman will no longer have to bear on her own the consequences of that offending of two people.As well as this the bill makes important changes to ensure the Government’s continued ability to recover fraud money. Taxpayers expect that when money is taken from the Government it will be recovered if at all possible as long as it is in the public interest to do so. This bill will ensure that that occurs subject to appropriate directions in the way the money is recovered.As a result of the select committee processes there have been a number of recommended changes to the bill and I want to acknowledge the work of the Social Services Committee. Although no issue before this House is ever entirely free from politics I understand that members have engaged on this bill in a frank and constructive manner and I thank them for that. I want to thank both Government members and members opposite. I also want to thank and acknowledge the individuals and organisations that made submissions on this bill. The feedback from submitters was insightful and helpful. The majority of submissions were supportive of or recognised the fairness in what the bill aims to do.The Social Services Committee has recommended a number of small sensible improvements to the bill and one of the recommended changes clarifies the new offence provision. It clarifies that to be liable for prosecution a partner is not required to know the precise entitlement or the precise nature of the excess amount the beneficiary was receiving.A small number of amendments were also recommended around the debt recovery provisions. Some submitters voiced concerns that the bill could be read as going against New Zealand’s international human rights obligations. In response to this the committee recommended a change that ensures that staff take into account all relevant matters when determining the rate and method of recovery therefore ensuring greater consideration of people’s circumstances. Again I want to thank the Social Services Committee members for their time and effort.I would like to take a moment to address some of the concerns raised in the minority report from the select committee. Holding people criminally liable for activities they were reckless to is not new in the law and I am happy to point members to any number of provisions in the Crimes Act and Summary Offences Act that do this. I also reject the concern raised that we should require a positive action by someone before holding them criminally liable for their fraud. That ignores the nature of such welfare fraud that the partner can deliberately by omission create facilitate and profit from that fraud.The concern over changes to allow the Ministry of Social Development to receive information without first seeking it from the beneficiary is misplaced. It ignores that this change was made at the start of 2013 and even before then in 95 percent of cases the information had to be sought from other parties only after a month’s delay because the information was never supplied. To suggest that it might lead to human rights and privacy violations and corrupt practices by officials is a slander to the many dedicated and professional investigators employed by the Ministry of Social Development.I take offence at the contention that some parties opposite seem happy to repeat and that is that the Government focuses on welfare fraud and ignores tax fraud. The numbers show this statement to be misleading. The Government spends more than four times as much on tax compliance as it does on chasing welfare fraud and overpayments. This Government has invested almost $200 million of new funding into fighting tax avoidance and evasion yet no new funds for chasing welfare fraud and in 2011-12 the Inland Revenue Department imposed more than $600 million in penalties and interest for failure to pay tax compared with only $124000 in penalties imposed on those who took money from Work and Income that they were not entitled to. It all leaves me wondering why some members of other parties are so reluctant to discuss welfare fraud that they seek to detract from the topic whenever it arises. Is it because they are ashamed of the casual disregard their party showed taxpayers and their money when they were last in Government? Or is it because they cannot bring themselves to admit that this Government has come up with a simple fair and sensible solution to ensure that welfare spending goes to people based on need and not greed?Finally I would like to touch on other work going on around this bill which is just one part of our welfare fraud reforms. We have increased information sharing between Government agencies so that fraudsters are picked up early. At last count this had resulted in over 5300 illegitimate benefits being cancelled worth at least $56 million per year. We have set up a team working across social sector Government agencies to take an all-of-Government approach to address and to identify fraud committed against Government agencies and we are placing those who have previously ripped off the welfare system under greater scrutiny as the public would expect us to do. These people will have to prove to us that we can trust them before these restrictions are removed. We are ensuring that the ministry can prosecute people who abuse the welfare system including through this bill those who sit back reap the benefits and know that their partner is defrauding the welfare system. The changes in this bill are needed and they are fair. I commend the bill to the House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I am pleased to be able to follow the Associate Minister for Social Development the Hon Chester Borrows and just flesh out some of the accusations—for want of a better word—that were made about members on this side of the House and the way that they have approached the legislation he has brought before us. The take-home message overall from Labour members obviously given that we are supporting the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill is that of course no one on this side of the House believes that we should ever condone or facilitate or allow individuals to defraud the welfare State. It is an incredibly important principle for Labour because we do not want anything to undermine the importance of social security in New Zealand. We established it. We believe in it.We worry however that the language that sits around the welfare State has slowly chipped away at New Zealanders’ notion of what it is and whom it is there to serve. Our concern has been that the continual approach of generally assuming as the first principle that most people on social security potentially do not need to be there or are abusing it in some form erodes the very purpose of that safety net in the first place. That is the kind of language we hear from that side of the House all the time. So that is why we generally approach proposals like this with a very sceptical eye. We want to do everything we can to prevent fraud yes but will it be the overwhelming way in which we frame and discuss social security? No because overwhelmingly people who access it are not defrauding it. They are in genuine need but every time—every time—the front agenda about welfare is about fraud or is about the Minister’s social obligations.If we want to recap the last changes Minister Bennett the Minister for Social Development made to the welfare State said that you can have your benefit docked if you do not enrol your child in school if you do not have your Well Child checks for your child if you are running from the law or if you fail a drug test. Look in and of their own right some of those may have some merit to them but what message does it send New Zealand? What message does it send New Zealand if the only time we hear the Government talking about social security is to say that people who are on it are potentially running from the law smoking dope not enrolling their children in school and by the way are probably defrauding it as well? No wonder we are a bit cynical every time the Government raises proposals because that is the context in which it talks about social security.So yes we want to prevent fraud but no it is not our overwhelming perception that that is the biggest issue facing social security. Yes we have raised welfare fraud in the context of tax fraud—rightly so. The scale of tax fraud in New Zealand should cause all New Zealanders concern and should be fought with the same vigour as those who defraud the welfare State. But there is a difference. Relationship fraud in New Zealand costs us about $20 million as taxpayers. We should pursue that. Tax fraud tax discrepancies amount to $1.2 billion a year—that is an estimate as close as we can establish. Annual tax fraud the established tax fraud that we know about is $141 million at an absolute minimum. Yes we will call on the Government to do more about tax fraud because as far as we are concerned Government members spend far less time in this House talking about what is a much more costly problem. Victoria University has I think done us a great favour in raising to the fore that tax evasion is up to 150 times more likely than benefit fraud and also that the Inland Revenue Department is more likely to write off what could be considered tax fraud or discrepancies than it is for benefit fraud and yet the dollar values attached to each are often significantly different. A much higher value is often written off in the tax domain.Yes we will raise this and we will keep raising it because we think it is a valid point. We will raise it in the context of the way that these changes work too because what the Associate Minister has ultimately done is change the threshold for when a partner can be brought in to relationship fraud. I think it is fair to ask that if we are going to change the threshold of knowledge or even the test for benefit fraud why do we not change it for tax fraud? Clearly when tax fraud occurs it often benefits a spouse. It can certainly raise questions in a household. You could argue that a partner ought to have known that tax fraud was occurring. That is the test we are introducing for welfare fraud. Why are we not introducing it for tax fraud as well? In fact we sought for this bill to be able to consider that extension for tax fraud all in one go. Unfortunately my understanding is that it was a request that was turned down.I think my time is about to expire. I look forward to coming back and sharing my further views in the remainder—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Keep going.JACINDA ARDERN: Oh you are not going to stand up. I will just keep going. Just to go into a little more detail on the test that the Associate Minister was talking about where he claimed that we were not doing anything particularly new—Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The House has resumed. Members the House when it rose for the dinner break was debating the second reading of the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. Jacinda Ardern has the call. She has just over 4 minutes remaining.JACINDA ARDERN: I will use my 4 minutes as wisely as I can. Before the House rose I was beginning to talk about some specific elements of the bill—in particular the fact that we now have an amendment to the legislation that means that a spouse of someone who is accused of welfare fraud who has not undertaken what could be considered a positive act can be held liable for that fraud also. This is a point that was particularly raised by the Law Society. Its argument its contention was that a positive act is normally required in order to establish criminal liability.Just to be really clear it is not as if a spouse of someone who commits welfare fraud—in particular relationship fraud—cannot be held liable currently. I would not want anyone to be left with that impression. In fact they can if for instance it could be established that they agreed with the person who ultimately committed the fraud that that is what they would do and that they would be complicit in it; that they encouraged or assisted them to make false statements in order to commit the fraud to obtain a benefit or a rate of benefit they were not entitled to; that they themselves made false statements by asserting for instance that they were not in a relationship when they were; that they omitted to inform the Ministry of Social Development of information when asked; or that they attempted to conceal any particular information. So there are a number of ways that if an individual is committing welfare fraud through relationship fraud the other spouse can be held liable as well.What this bill does is say that actually if none of those things is present this spouse can still be found liable if they “ought to have known” that they were in receipt of a benefit fraudulently. That is quite a hard test and so it was probed to quite a high degree I understand by the Social Services Committee. Two of the questions we still came away with were to what degree that test could be applied to other forms of fraud and whether it should be. If we are going to raise the bar on welfare fraud—and yes there may be an argument to do that or there may not—why are we not raising it on tax fraud? I still maintain that that is an absolutely legitimate question to raise. As I said in my first contribution of course we are opposed to welfare fraud because it undermines the social security system as a whole—it adds a negative perception of those who genuinely require the welfare State—but in this House we are constantly debating welfare fraud when tax fraud is of a much higher value to the taxpayer.One final statement I wish to make is that it has been seen from this side of the House that the Government tends to talk about welfare overpayment as being welfare fraud. It is not the same thing. In fact a large bulk of the money that the Ministry of Social Development is often trying to recoup is not fraudulently obtained welfare payments; it is payments made in error. It is overpayments because people are in precarious work and unfortunately their hours which they have to report in weekly are not always in alignment with the hours that are on their payslip because they are having to guess before they have a payslip in front of them. That is a flaw of the system not necessarily of the individual. But I look forward to debating that in greater detail at the next stage of this bill.Debate interrupted.Amended Answers to Oral QuestionsQuestion No. 11 to MinisterHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs):I seek leave to make a personal explanation to correct an answer to question No. 11 today.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. In response to a supplementary question to question No. 11 today I stated to the House that there were 10000 more Pacific people working in the fourth quarter of 2013 compared with the fourth quarter of 2009. In checking my figures again the correct answer should have been “compared with the second quarter of 2009”. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The record will stand corrected.Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed.MELISSA LEE (National):It is a great pleasure to rise in support of the second reading of the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. The National Government promised to clamp down on benefit fraud and we are delivering on the promise with this Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. Welfare fraud is a crime often committed by people for their own benefit at taxpayers’ expense and there can be no excuse for it.Before I go on I would like to address some of the rhetoric from the member who spoke just before me Jacinda Ardern from the opposite side who tried to paint us on the Government benches as the nasty people who want to believe that all beneficiaries are committing benefit fraud. That is far from the truth and she knows it because it has always been clearly stated that the vast majority of beneficiaries are honest people who do the right thing. Often people end up in difficult situations where they have to rely on the State for support and we on this side of the House completely accept that and support that. We are not ogres who oppose welfare. What we are opposed to is the activity of people who purposely and knowingly commit a crime—in this case welfare fraud. Relationship fraud in 2013 cost this Government more than $26 million—cost taxpayers $26 million. Relationship fraud cases made up one-third of all welfare fraud prosecutions. In most of these cases one partner usually the woman is left carrying the debt that it actually took two people to create. We are fixing that so that it is not just the woman who carries the burden of the debt. I would have thought that all members in this House would agree that that was actually a fair way to deal with it.Miss Ardern also commented on how this Government was treating welfare fraudsters in a way that is more punitive than for tax fraudsters when there are more tax frauds being committed. I would like to respond by saying that no one in this House—no one—disputes that tax fraud is a bigger issue than welfare fraud. The Government’s priority reflects that. Over the last four Budgets this Government has invested more than $200 million in new funding for tackling tax fraud but no new money has gone into fighting welfare fraud. The Inland Revenue Department has an enforcement budget of $142 million whereas the Ministry of Social Development has only $30 million. This Government has a duty to ensure that taxpayer money is not being taken illegitimately and to suggest that we turn a blind eye to tax fraud or any other criminal activity is very irresponsible of that side of the House.This bill makes spouses and partners jointly liable for debt where they knowingly benefit or should have known they were benefiting from welfare fraud. If a person is in receipt of a single living alone benefit like sole parent support but living in a marriage-like arrangement with a partner or spouse it is common sense—it is clear to everyone even in this House—that they are clearly committing a crime and that it is in fact fraud. Now they can be fined up to $5000 or given a jail term of up to a year. Prosecuting partners who benefit from welfare fraud will ensure that both parties who profit from the crime are punished and will help taxpayers recover the lost money faster.During the select committee process there were some concerns raised in the Social Services Committee regarding women in violent relationships who may be inadvertently affected by this amendment bill. The law is very very clear that for welfare purposes a violent relationship is not treated as a relationship when assessing their entitlement for benefits. That is very important to all of us in this House as we do not want to remove from women in domestic violence situations financial support that might actually help them get out of the abusive relationship. Ministry of Social Development investigators are extensively trained to spot signs of a violent relationship and will respond appropriately. It is important that the public has confidence in the welfare system and these measures along with a range of smaller initiatives included in the package will give the ministry the tools it requires to achieve that outcome.We have formalised information sharing like links between ACC the Inland Revenue Department Housing New Zealand New Zealand Police and the ministry. Information sharing between the Inland Revenue Department and the ministry so far has identified and stopped more than 5300 illegitimate benefit payments. This bill brings in new tools to prevent and detect welfare fraud and brings the welfare system into the 21st century. I commend this bill.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):It is a pleasure to speak on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. Clearly it is this type of bill that demonstrates the difference between the philosophical position of this side of the House and that of that side of the House. Before I get into that it is clear that we on this side of the House are supporting the bill in order to demonstrate that Labour is not in the business of supporting those who defraud our system. So for that reason we are supporting the bill. But in supporting the bill there is every need to demonstrate the basic difference between the two sides and the way this side of the House looks at those who are vulnerable those who are poor and those who are forced into a stage in their lives where they are dependent on welfare and their right to be treated fairly. There is nothing that demonstrates that difference more clearly than the language that has been used by the two sides of the House. We can listen to the language of the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows when he said “rip-offs” for example. The moment that that kind of language is used as a justification for a particular piece of legislation it is clear that it is designed to summon all of the negative beliefs one has about welfare. I want to put on record—Tim Macindoe: What do you call the actions of those who have been convicted of fraud?Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I say to Mr Macindoe that there are a lot of people who are very wealthy and who have also been defrauding the State for years. Some have been caught but many have not. I do not see that member standing up and arguing against them. The member does not. The member is very clear—Tim Macindoe: I want you to answer my question. The question was what do you call those people who have been convicted of fraud?Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I know that that member came into this Parliament for one sole reason by his own admission—to fix up welfare fraud. That is in Hansard. That is in his speech. That is a pathetic reason to be in Parliament and if that is all that that member has to go by to be in this Parliament and the only contribution that that member wants to make for the vulnerable in New Zealand society then I just hope that that member does get in touch with his own soul and that his relationship with the most vulnerable—Tim Macindoe: I’m in touch with my soul; I’m just asking you a question.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I am not so sure Mr Macindoe that you have done that yet. Coming back to the point I am making—Tim Macindoe: I’m in touch with my soul thank you very much.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: If the member wants to interject I shall take him downtown as well so I suggest he listens a bit—Tim Macindoe: I beg your pardon? You’ll what?Dr RAJEN PRASAD: I will—well figuratively speaking of course Mr Macindoe. I have been with you downtown and I would not want to talk about that here but the member knows what I am talking about.So when Government members talk the language of rip-offs they are conjuring up that negative impression of those on welfare and the Government has been doing that for 5 long years. That is the Government members’ raison d’être. They are very quick to pull up all of the ladders that they have to get to where they are but never to give them back to those who deserve them. Of course there is any amount of jargon and spin that that side of the House actually proposes to justify its position but none of it cuts any ice. In the end these kinds of proposals are quite heartless. They are heartless because of the way in which the Government gains purchase for its argument. The way in which it does that is to undermine a particular section of our society. It undermines the poor and the vulnerable in this particular area. That is not to say that this side of the House condones even for a minute those who defraud the system. But this side of the House would want all of those who defraud the State to be beneficiaries of the same standards as the poor. They are not.What we do find is that this Government for 5 long years has perpetrated a whole series of legislation based on this notion of welfare dependence which is its own creation and based on this notion of lifetime costs of welfare which is its own creation. Paradoxically the savings the Government makes are based on that particular calculation. Well nobody on this side of the House is duped by that rhetoric at all. We are still saying very clearly that those who abuse the State ought to be brought to justice. But I ask whether this is the way of doing it—by first conjuring up that image of the poor and the vulnerable because this is who they are—and I do not think that anybody living in the upper-class suburbs of our society are the targets here.The targets here are those who have probably got into a position by unfortunate circumstances whereby they have become dependent on somebody else who has taken advantage of them. These are the people who are our beneficiaries. What the State ought to be doing is showing an exceptional understanding—sorry Mr Deputy Speaker? OK? I thought that he was giving me a signal. Is it in order for the Deputy Speaker to give me a signal? I suppose it is yes. I think he was agreeing with me by shaking his head from side to side. I am happy for the Deputy Speaker to support what I am saying. That is much better. Would it not be better for us as a society to show a real understanding of those who are vulnerable and for those who find themselves in a position often bringing up children of being dependent on the State for a period of time to be extended the largesse of our great democratic society and the reasonably enormous wealth we have to ensure that those people and those children get the best start in life and that they make something of themselves which is what the system is designed to do? It was designed by my forebears on this side of the House and now over the last 5½ years or so it is being systemically demolished by members on that side of the House. This is another example of where they are trying to do that. But we on this side of the House will still not tolerate those who defraud the system.There are many many approaches that the State can take to be kind and generous and at the same time expect the standards that it deserves. This bill does not do that. In fact the regulatory impact statement alludes to that. There are a number of ways in which those who get caught in these types of confused relationships and in defrauding the State as well can be uncoupled assisted and regularised and for money to be recouped from those who have taken it from the State. There are much more humane and reasonable ways of doing it. The Associate Minister and that side of the House know how to do that. But that does not give them the political purchase that they require for their own supporters because their own supporters have been socialised into—and now have internalised—the language of welfare dependence and welfare fraud.It is not a huge sum of money that the Associate Minister Chester Borrows is trying to recoup through this mechanism but what will be its consequences? Those consequences have not been factored in. I just want to talk about this one point. What is a person—say a woman with two children—to do when they are totally dependent on a benefit and they are at the stage in life where they get into relationships and they get into friendships? The friendships develop into relationships. What if they make mistakes and somebody has taken advantage of their own status? How long are we as a State to allow them to have the space to have relationships that might be regularised and then become a conventional family if you like? What this bill does is actually point in a sense a negative finger at those families—in particular at those women I would imagine—who are trying to make something of themselves and who require the largesse of the State. They require understanding and they require an environment to be produced where the children will become good citizens and where they will get a good start in life. But no what we are trying to do in this bill is criminalise those offences. A $5000 fine and 12 months in jail for a mother with two kids who has made some bad decisions—that is the bottom line in this particular bill. How can that be a reflection of our collective soul in this particular State? It is not.So although we support this bill because of the message it gives about fraud we do that with a heavy heart. We do that with enormous reservations. We have not been able to convince the Government to do much other than make some provisions in this particular bill where the Ministry of Social Development is at least required to consider all factors. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green):I am proud to rise and speak on behalf of the Green Party on this second reading of the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill and to express our opposition to this bill which is an unqualified opposition to the moral redundancy that we see in this bill. We are working for a social security system that provides everyone with enough income to fully participate in their community and to live safe healthy lives. This would be what a real investment approach would look like and it would save us money in the long run. We support policies that are sufficient to ensure that vision simple to understand and access universal in their application and equitable within a wider social context. We oppose this bill because it is not consistent with these values or this vision. This bill will we believe further stigmatise the most marginalised people in this country and put more barriers in the way of people trying to get out of poverty. We currently have a system that identifies fraud and debt and has options for redress. You can believe that you want to maintain the integrity of this system and fight against fraud and oppose this bill—we do.Part of the motivation for this bill has been to remove the uncertainty around debt recovery that has been raised by court rulings that have highlighted human rights concerns. This bill removes some of the leniency that exists within the system in relation to debt recovery which will result in less money in the hands of the poorest New Zealanders. It will treat debtors to the Ministry of Social Development more harshly than debtors in other parts of our system despite many people being in debt because the basic benefit levels are too low to enable them to provide the very basics of life.This bill imposes a new obligation on the ministry to take all reasonable practical steps to recover debt. Over two-thirds of the debt that the ministry recovers is not a result of fraud. Let me say that again. Over two-thirds is not a result of fraud. Much of it is a result of administratively created overpayment. It is the interface between beneficiaries who are working part-time and reporting that work and the systems through the Inland Revenue Department. A significant amount of debt is actually created by a mismatch of those systems rather than by any doing of the beneficiaries.Even more worryingly for me much of the debt is created because benefit payments are too low to enable people to live a normal life and to weather those normal shocks that many of us manage in our daily lives—like an appliance breaking down or a family crisis—and the basic benefit levels are not enough to provide some very basic things. Often advances are given to people to pay for some of the absolute essentials in life including things like washing machines fridges school uniforms sanitary items attending a family funeral or even food and the list goes on. This is what we are talking about when we are talking about debt.I just want to give one example to try to make this real for the House. A woman with her two primary school - aged children ended up on the sole parent payment because when she left her violent partner her children were so unsettled that she needed to leave her job because she did not have enough leave available to be able to be there for them when they needed her. She had lost most of her furniture and most of her personal possessions when she had left that relationship. So she was starting again without a job trying to ease her children through this transition. She got an advance to get some of the most essential items that she needed to set up her house. That money the repayment of those costs in setting up her house came off her benefit each week which in turn meant that she was struggling even more to keep the heating on and to put food on the table. When the children got holes in their shoes she had to tell them that those holes might just make them run faster to help them cope with the new reality of their lives on a benefit in this country.Although she was really struggling because this was defined as debt and it was being recovered even if there was a discretion she would not have challenged it because she saw that as valid in the system. We do not. We believe that those children deserve better and taking away the ability of the department to have discretion around the recovery of that debt is I believe morally bankrupt. Our children deserve better. We have enough in this country to make sure that our children have shoes. We have enough in this country that we do not have to take money out of a tiny budget for those families who are struggling enough already. If we put more money into the system those families would have a chance to survive. They would have a chance to recover and rebuild themselves and we would all be better off in the long run.The rhetoric around this bill seems to have compelled most people to start their comments with the moral acceptance of the need for beneficiaries to repay such debt. The Green Party questions the legitimacy of this when discrimination is built into the system as it is at the moment and so many of our children are living in poverty as a result. We do not support law change to strengthen the ability of the Government to reclaim money from the poorest families who are just trying to provide the very basics for themselves and their children.We have been advised that there have been some amendments from when the bill first came into this House and we are grateful for those. I do need to acknowledge that when the bill first came into the House there was no ability for the chief executive to consider factors outside of ministerial discretion in determining the rate and method of debt recovery. It is pleasing to see that that has been built in but it does not change the fundamental principle. We have been advised that these amendments will protect against breaches of international human rights obligations specifically those of economic social and cultural rights. But we are still concerned about this and do not have confidence. Part of the reason for that is noting the Human Rights Commission submission to the Universal Periodic Review which noted “at present economic social and cultural rights are not recognised as fundamental justiciable rights.” and therefore we would argue that explicit protection in this bill is required. The refusal to consider the insertion of a clause to guarantee these rights is of considerable concern to us. Being told that the legislation will enable future Ministers to insert such a clause in the directions is not a comfort.On another point this bill also allows the ministry to recover a debt from the partner of a beneficiary when that debt has arisen from fraud where the person knew there was a risk that they were benefiting from that fraud. On this point we are ambivalent. We believe that the current system of reclaiming the entire debt from the beneficiary usually the woman even when the partner has benefited from the money directly or indirectly is unjust.We are also concerned that currently violent partners regularly use the threat of informing on a woman as a tool of abuse. This is easy for them because currently the consequences fall entirely on the woman holding the benefit. However a significant number of submissions raised concerns around domestic violence in relation to this bill. Although we have had previous Government members assure us that the system is well protected to protect victims of domestic violence that is not the experience we have had conveyed to us. We oppose this bill with pride.ALFRED NGARO (National):I want to take up the comments that were made by the honourable Jan Logie when she talked about our children deserving better. Absolutely our children do deserve better. Unfortunately it is not the children who are at fault. Sometimes—not all the time—adults through their behaviour cause the incidences where our children do suffer. The target of the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill as Dr Rajen Prasad said is fraud. Absolutely unashamedly this particular bill is about fraud but the overall vision of the welfare reforms is a welfare system that supports our people in our community who are in need. That is the intent of the vision. So although the bill is focused on fraud there is a broader vision that this Government has of ensuring we have a system of welfare that does support our people who are in need.The comment by Dr Prasad was about the target being fraud. I want to read from the Labour Party minority report: “While Labour supports the intent of this bill to hold those responsible for committing fraud within our benefit system to account and stopping them from undermining the entire system for those who need it the most”—and I will finish off the sentence—“we do so with grave reservations.” But the part I want to highlight is about ensuring that we have the resources for those who need it most. I have had constituents who have come to my office in Māngere and who have talked to me about how they are in a situation involving this exact issue around benefit fraud. Again it was an oversight that they had made. In that sort of situation absolutely I supported them in the process of ensuring that they would get help and that there was discretion in the way that Work and Income dealt with them.It is not true to say that this Government is a Government that does not care. In fact it does care. We care every day. We want to make sure as the minority report from the Labour Party clearly said that we hold those people to account. Well it could be the Labour department. It probably feels like that some days I am not sure. Anyway the intent of the bill is to ensure that those resources will go to those people who need them most. We do not disagree with that. Absolutely that is the intent of what this bill does.I also want to pick up on the points that were made by Jan Logie around discretion because I think they are really important. I think it is important that when we deal with this issue it can be sensitive. For those who have unfortunately made some decisions and made an oversight we want to make sure that we do care for them and do help them through this process. Therefore to ensure effective debt recovery and to address the effect of those court decisions this bill will amend the Act as follows. Firstly it imposes a duty on the Ministry of Social Development to take all reasonable practical steps to recover the debt. Secondly the Ministry of Social Development has discretion—and I will repeat that: discretion—to determine case by case the method and rate of recovery. Thirdly in exceptional circumstances the Ministry of Social Development may defer temporarily the recovery of debt. Fourthly the Minister responsible for the Act is required to issue directions identifying the exceptional circumstances in which recovery may be deferred temporarily and identifying the considerations to which the Ministry of Social Development must have regard in setting the rate and methods of recovery of the debt.I just want to highlight the point that it is important that we are showing discretion and that we do care. This is not about turning round and heavy-handedly going out there and taking from those who unfortunately through their oversight have made a mistake. But those who are committing fraud behaviour—and we all agree in this House because the bill has come back with the majority agreeing—should be held to account. They should be held to account and that is the intent of this.I have one last comment before I finish and that is that Ms Ardern actually talked about the issue of finance and ensuring that we are balancing our view as a Government. Well we do know that South Canterbury Finance is currently in the dock before the court being held to account. This is a Government that is fair. It wants to ensure that those who most need the resources that are needed do receive them but those who have committed fraudulent behaviour will be held to account. I commend this bill to the House.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First):Welfare fraud is a serious issue. It does not recognise integrity which was actually mentioned by the Associate Minister for Social Development Chester Borrows in his speech earlier tonight. New Zealand First agrees with those who are voting in support of this bill the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First agrees with making accountable those who take money they are not entitled to. We need to ensure that by making them accountable they are held responsible for taking something that does not necessarily belong to them.New Zealand First has always been at the forefront of addressing welfare initiatives that will promote the well-being of our people. New Zealand First has a record of course of helping New Zealanders regardless of their race the colour of their skin the language they speak or their age. That is right—that is New Zealand First especially with regards to the SuperGold card and free healthcare for under-6-year-olds. It is no secret that New Zealand First backed KiwiSaver. We did indeed. It is no secret that New Zealand First put more policemen in the police force and more funding towards Māori wardens.Earlier today the Minister said that he was offended by those who raised tax avoidance or tax evasion in their minority report. We did not put forward a minority report but we do have a very strong view in this area. The Minister ought to accept that there is more money owing on tax evasion or tax avoidance and his Government should do something about it. Five billion dollars is a lot of money as a result of that. Interestingly enough we have been waiting for the Government to get on with the job of sorting out the loan sharks. These are the people who have been preying on our vulnerable families and leading them into further debt.This bill the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill must deliver for those who are abusing the system. We agree that the Government must be responsible with taxpayers’ money. Why should we not? The Government has a responsibility to ensure that the funding allocated to those who need it the most is administered properly. The welfare system is a safety net for those who need it the most. It is supposed to be a safety net. We totally agree with this.Sadly it is true that some dishonest people are treating welfare like a fishing net and they are taking more than they are entitled to. It is vital that New Zealand welfare reaches the people who actually need it instead of the criminals or the greedy partners who would continue to take what they are not entitled to and in many cases use the funds to feed their drug addiction or gambling problem. But this is always easier said than done. After all Minister Collins could not even confirm whether she should be taking up sign language if she was not able to communicate in the Chinese language to confirm who paid for the dinner in China.Let us be clear here. We want to ensure that the intention of this bill will be implemented appropriately and with suitable mechanisms in place to ensure that it is carried out properly. This bill aims to make criminally liable the spouses or partners of those committing benefit fraud. “Liable” is actually the critical word here. We accept that. We believe that that is fair. It will lead to a fine not exceeding $5000 or imprisonment not exceeding 12 months. Ordinary Kiwis out there would like to see that the penalties contained in this bill are sufficient to deter potential fraudsters from committing benefit fraud. Ordinary Kiwis out there would like justice to be done and everyone in this House is responsible for passing legislation that delivers justice for all not just for those on that side of the House.This bill has identified important areas in current legislation that need strengthening. Relationship fraud is one of those areas. When relationship fraud is involved in more than half of the total debts from welfare fraud it is clear that something needs to be done. The report from the Social Services Committee stated that the amendments are designed “to make clearer the criteria for liability on the part of a beneficiary’s spouse or partner who knowingly or otherwise benefits from an amount obtained by fraud.”The select committee gave this bill serious consideration around its implementation and definitions. The report continues: “To be liable the spouse or partner must know or be ‘reckless’ as to whether the amount obtained is in excess of what the beneficiary is entitled to and that it is being fraudulently obtained. The bill as introduced is unclear about whether the spouse or partner would also have to know the exact amount involved or the precise way in which it was obtained. The amendments would make it clear that the spouse or partner would not be required to know the exact amount obtained by fraud nor the precise way the beneficiary obtained it.”There are frauds and more frauds and many frauds and uncontrollable frauds. As the Minister himself said it takes two to tango and we acknowledge that the bill is providing a way to share accountability among both parties involved in a relationship who intentionally defraud the system. This bill will strengthen the current legislation which often unfairly punishes just one person. If fairness is expected when the Government is assisting people according to their needs then it is only reasonable to expect fairness from people when their situation or their circumstances change and improve.We cannot afford to allow people to exploit the system. There has been too much of that lately in recent weeks in this House by many of those on that side of the House. But in saying all this it is important to point out again that relationships are never simple and straightforward particularly for people in broken homes. The bill must be sensitive to this. The changes must not disadvantage women in violent relationships. I am pleased that the Hon Chester Borrows gave an assurance on this during the bill’s first reading. If only the rest of his team and his colleagues would do the same.The select committee’s reported stated in terms of amendments to the debt recovery provisions: “We believe that this would ensure that the amendment did not undermine the general public law principle that decision-makers must take all relevant considerations into account. It would also alleviate any concerns about the legislation breaching New Zealand’s international human rights obligations by ensuring that matters pertaining to such rights could be taken into account where necessary.”The Government has stated that it is making significant savings by preventing welfare fraud. Yes savings reached $109 million in the 2012-13 year. This is a welcome result especially when debts owed to the Ministry of Social Development stand at over $120 million. However we must always be mindful of being overzealous in searching for savings because it will almost undoubtedly come at the price of helping someone in genuine need.We must acknowledge the idea that most New Zealanders would not cheat the system if they felt like they did not need to. The simple fact is that desperation often pushes people to behave in this way. To address this we have to acknowledge the deeper social problems that rely on the welfare system and rely on welfare fraud. There are no jobs and many families struggling on low incomes are battling against the high cost of living. Many of those who would be first-home buyers are actually struggling to save the 20 percent deposit on a home or to pay for their children’s schools and uniforms. We have to be sure that targeting the small number of people intentionally taking advantage of our welfare system does not have a wider negative impact on those who are in genuine need. It will be a difficult balancing act. However the overall intention of the bill ought to be supported and New Zealand First will support the bill in its second reading. Thank you.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei):Welfare will always be there to support the people in our community who need it for as long as they do need it. That is why we have worked hard in the last 5 years to bring the welfare system into the 21st century and to make sure that it is better targeted to those who are in need. Many needed it during that period of the recession. As we have climbed out of the recession of course we are now seeing economic growth and it is a good thing that that system was there.However as part of our reforms we did promise to clamp down on welfare fraud. This Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill is what focuses our attention on the few that small percent who do owe debts to the taxpayer and who continue to undertake fraudulent practices. I think that people have a lot more understanding of how fraud can be frowned upon when you look at the State housing system. We clamped down on fraud in State housing where people would receive a State house courtesy of the taxpayer they would not live in it but would live in a house elsewhere that they had not declared and they then sublet that other property as if they were the landlord and collected the cash.Under the previous Labour Government none of those people was picked up. Oh actually I believe that over several years it caught 10 people. In recent years—in 1 year in fact—we got between 300 and 400 State house tenants who were fraudulently subletting their State houses. Labour ignored that; we are focusing on it in the same way that we are focusing on our welfare system outside State housing but within welfare. We need to do that. We need to do that for the few people who rip off the system for those many who need it from time to time. I support this bill.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):I am a member of the Social Services Committee but unfortunately I cannot remember hearing the submissions on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. I was not in the select committee at the time but it is my pleasure to inform the House that Labour does support the bill which is having its second reading. But we have grave reservations. I want to pick up on what Phil Heatley the previous speaker said which was that we need a welfare system that helps people when they are in need. We actually see this bill as beneficiary bashing and I will provide a context not only for the House but for the people at home who are listening.When you look at the problem definition in terms of this piece of legislation it seems that the problem is that there is $20 million of spouse/partner beneficiary fraud in New Zealand—so that is the context. From our perspective we have looked at I guess a parallel issue which is tax fraud which is a deliberate act and that totals $141 million. So we question why this Government always seeks to attack and criminalise those who are the most vulnerable which is the point that my colleague Rajen Prasad raised earlier. So from our perspective this is a piece of legislation that is going to target and stigmatise those who are the most vulnerable. Picking up a statistic from my colleague Jan Logie who also sits on the Social Services Committee we are talking of about a third of the fraud that is committed within the social welfare budget.One of the big issues that we have—and I would like to quote from our minority view in the select committee report and it actually comes from the New Zealand Law Society—is that “it is fundamentally unjust for a beneficiary’s spouse or partner to be liable for the full excess amount that the beneficiary obtained by fraud regardless of the spouse or partner’s benefit and that limiting recovery to the amount by which the beneficiary’s spouse or partner benefited would provide a more equitable outcome for relationship fraud.” From our perspective to link the fraud of an individual—because in New Zealand only an individual can receive a benefit—to fraud perpetrated by that individual’s spouse or partner is fundamentally unjust. We say that it is fundamentally unjust because it actually departs from general principles of criminal law. So from a legal perspective there has to be a positive act to then determine that a criminal activity has taken place and there has to be knowledge of or failure to report another’s offending which is another ground for it to be seen as a criminal offence. Our contention is that there are already a number of existing criminal offences that cover the criminal liability of spouses or partners of beneficiaries.Some of the things that beneficiaries’ spouses or partners have to do in terms of that positive act include agreeing with the beneficiary that the beneficiary will commit a fraud. So we are actually talking about collusion between two people for a fraud to take place. They have to encourage or assist the beneficiary to make false statements in order to obtain a benefit or rate of benefit by fraud. They have to make false statements for the purpose of assisting the beneficiary to obtain a benefit. They have to omit to inform the Ministry of Social Development when questioned on matters.This then points to the submission by Kay Brereton who is the co-convenor of the Beneficiary Advocacy Federation of New Zealand who said: “While we support the idea of making both parties to a fraud liable for any debt relating to fraud where a relationship in the nature of marriage is proven we are very concerned at the removal of the requirement for investigators to first seek information from the parties under investigation.” So in terms of a natural justice perspective we are really concerned that there is no investigation now. If we deem that benefit fraud has taken place and if you are the partner of the beneficiary who has committed that fraud you are all of a sudden linked to that crime and you have no recourse. The presumption of innocence actually is a legal principle so I do want to highlight that in terms of my kōrero tonight—that the burden of proof should be on the ministry not on the person who has been charged with the criminal offence.This for us is a deterioration of the relationship that the State has with beneficiaries. People who seek assistance from the State do not do so I believe because it is a lifestyle choice. I believe that they need support from the State because they find themselves in circumstances beyond their control where they need income so they can pay their rent put food on the table and fundamentally look after not only themselves but in many instances their children. This piece of legislation I contend should not have been a priority of this Government. It would have been a much better prioritisation of this House’s resources if we had actually looked at the $141 million in tax fraud that is committed every year. That is a deliberate act by wealthy people to not pay their fair share.The context of this piece of legislation is the most vulnerable people who are receiving support from this State being penalised for circumstances that they find themselves in. I think that is the biggest critique of this piece of legislation. The biggest critique I can make about this Government is that it likes to kick the most vulnerable. It likes to stigmatise them traumatise them and make them feel like they are undeserving.Tim Macindoe: You know that’s not true Louisa.LOUISA WALL: It is actually—it is. If you look at whether it is a just treatment of beneficiaries or whether this process creates a genuine respect for the people who find themselves needing welfare the answer is no. It is absolutely no. So the prioritisation of this Government always should come into question when pieces of legislation like this come into the House.It seems to me that if we wanted to pursue fraudsters we would go after those who are committing tax fraud. But that is not a priority of this Government because that would be a lot of people it knows—wealthy people—Hon Trevor Mallard: Their mates.LOUISA WALL: Its mates—that is right. And that is the issue that I have and that our side has with pieces of legislation like this. At the end of the day people in need need to be supported. People in need do not need to be further traumatised and stigmatised through pieces of legislation like this. So I will continue as a representative of communities most in need to ensure that we have respectful working engagements with them.We as a Labour Party are supporting this bill because we believe that those who commit fraud should be held accountable. But the equity that we seek in terms of holding people accountable should extend to the fraudsters who are committing tax evasion. Kia ora. Thank you.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West):My integrity and motives as an MP were attacked earlier in this debate by Dr Prasad. In response to his criticism of this Government and this bill the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill I asked him a simple question and that was what we should call those who steal from New Zealand taxpayers by committing fraud to obtain welfare payments to which they are not entitled. Dr Prasad chose to attack me personally rather than answer that question and his abusive comments are on the record in Hansard.I want to make it clear to everyone who may be listening that I have always defended our welfare State and argued that it should treat all who genuinely qualify for welfare assistance and their dependants as compassionately and generously as possible. I have always done that. There is nothing punitive or heartless about that position Dr Prasad. And yes thank you I am at peace with my soul about my concern for everyone in that difficult position. But nor is it punitive to take appropriate steps to detect and prevent planned and intentional fraud. That is not stealing from the nebulous concept of the State as Dr Prasad would put it but from every honest taxpayer in this nation many of whom are also struggling to put a roof over their family’s heads and a square meal on the table. That Dr Prasad is what is morally indefensible. This bill strikes a fair and just balance and I am proud to support it.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):Kia orana Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you very much. It is my pleasure to take a short call on the second reading of the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill which we support with some reservations. We have reservations because of course we are hoping that at some point this Government will realise that the recovery needs to be shared out amongst our people—that we all deserve a fair share of these prosperous times the Government is telling us about.I believe it is important to be very clear about the principles and the values that you stand on when you debate a serious issue like this. I want to state categorically that fraud and in this case fraud of taxpayer-funded institutions is abhorrent. When fraud is proven those most at fault must be punished. It is important to remember that as a general principle and that it should be and could be applied in other areas where the taxpayer can be impacted. It is the most basic form of accountability back to the New Zealand taxpayer—that their hard-earned money is being used appropriately and wisely. Thank goodness we have a backstop when we are vulnerable when we are unable to manage with our current resources when we need a helping hand. Some of our people need more help than others and I for one am very happy to live in a country where the vulnerable and those who are having a difficult time are supported. However we do need a certain level of accountability about how we use State support. When we misuse it and when that is discovered and proven then we must ensure that those involved experience the full extent of punishment to remedy the situation.I want to quote back to Melissa Lee when she spoke a little earlier this evening when she talked about domestic violence being one of those things tested for. That would mean that people in domestic violence situations if they come up for these particular offences will be tested and not have these cases charged against them. Melissa Lee also said the Ministry of Social Development was competent at testing the women who would come under the domestic violence provisions in order to recognise domestic violence. Well I would want to know what that test actually looks like. Women who present with domestic violence issues are very vulnerable and potentially can be revictimised if they are required to sit a test to prove they are in a violent relationship. I would hope that this House would relook at this particular test and see it as continuing to victimise women who are already under pressure of domestic violence.I want to quote what the Social Services Committee said. I commend the select committee. It would have been interesting being on the select committee and listening to the submitters who presented. The select committee stated that the amendments were designed “to make clearer the criteria for liability on the part of a beneficiary’s spouse or partner who knowingly or otherwise benefits from an amount obtained by fraud. To be liable the spouse or partner must know or be ‘reckless’ as to whether the amount obtained is in excess of what the beneficiary is entitled to”. That requires a certain amount of knowledge and when I go back and quote situations where people are potentially in domestic violence situations I would challenge that that is actually a test that could be met by many of our families.The bill also presupposes that some administrative error or similar has not occurred and caused the beneficiary to be put in a position of being overpaid. We have already heard several members in this House talk about that situation happening and I understand that the level of administration work required to ensure that the declaration of income data for part-time work is adequately captured in a timely way is actually quite huge. So how can we ensure that beneficiaries are not inadvertently thrown into an overpayment situation? The beneficiary advocate Kay Brereton was quoted as saying that currently the majority of people being punished for relationship fraud were women. I have to go back to my previous statement about how we are inadvertently victimising a section of our community without having good tests to prove that they are actually not being overly pressured by the men in their violent relationships. I want to also quote the Minister Chester Borrows from February 2013—JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):I rise to speak on the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill. I have to start by reiterating what my colleague Jan Logie said earlier this evening. The Green Party is working for a social security system that provides everyone with enough income to fully participate in their community and to live safe healthy lives because ultimately giving people that freedom and security is going to help us have a more prosperous and sustainable society and country in the long run. We support policies that are sufficient to ensure this simple to understand and access and universal in their application. It is incredibly important that they are equitable within the wider social context and we need to be mindful of that. We are not starting from an even level playing field. A lot of people are disadvantaged to begin with and policy needs to take that into account and find ways to build them up and give them opportunities.This bill unfortunately is going to further stigmatise the most marginalised people in this country and in some cases further entrench poverty and really for very very little gain. If I was to ask people at home what they thought the Government should be spending the most time and effort trying to track down in terms of revenue they would probably think that it would make more sense to put the focus and effort into getting the $1 billion to $6 billion that is estimated to be owed because of tax avoidance—so that $1 billion to $6 billion is money we are not getting because of tax avoidance—or perhaps the $2.6 billion that is still owing in child support. There are 800 fathers in the country who are earning more than $100000 a year and there is $2.6 billion owing in child support. There was $591 million that was tracked down in unpaid fines over 3 years. So we have got these huge sums of money that people are not paying because they are cheating the system and they are cheating their fellow New Zealanders of their contribution.In many cases the people who are avoiding taxes and the people avoiding child support are actually people who are pretty well-off and have means to pay and to give their fair share to the rest of New Zealand and yet this Government is putting all this effort into chasing down a tiny amount of money owing in benefit fraud which is literally less than 5 percent of the money that is not paid due to tax avoidance. We are not condoning benefit fraud but let us put it in perspective. Let us put it in perspective and be rational about where we put our efforts because it is not fair that high-income earners are not paying their fair share and instead we are going to go and target and put all this effort into the small number of people who are committing benefit fraud.What is incredibly concerning is that during the select committee—I was not on the Social Services Committee for this but I have got the report here from my colleague Jan Logie—from what she was told the fraud investigation system is still quite imperfect and quite fraught. Officials said that the evidence they are using is often unsubstantiated. And we are hearing from women in violent relationships that they often feel persecuted through the system as it is at the moment. Previous speakers this evening on the Government side have stressed that victims will be protected but in fact we have very good reason to believe that that is not the case. This bill is not going to protect victims of domestic violence who are not in a position to report on benefit fraud because of their partners. The Green Party believes that the Government needs to develop a policy or legislative response to these problems based on the experience of women and beneficiaries who have been affected that also involves the Women’s Refuge. That is how we are going to get an approach that is fair and that ensures the safety of all involved.We are particularly concerned and we share the concern of the New Zealand Law Society about joint liability which means that both partners will be liable for the whole debt should both parties be accountable for the debt arising from the fraud. The New Zealand Law Society told us that it believes that this could lead to unfair or disproportionate outcomes. In its view liability should be shared on the basis of attribution of benefits as per the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009. This has been dismissed in part due to cost and a potential increase in reviews and appeals but the Green Party believes that it is essential that our laws are fair and proportionate and open to appeal.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I just want to correct the record. One of the previous speakers Poto Williams said that Melissa Lee the chair of the Social Services Committee had said that there was a test for domestic violence. That is an entirely incorrect statement. The member never said that at all. I am sure my friends from Hansard will make note of that. Make no mistake about it—Hon Trevor Mallard: No no you can’t correct a statement.MIKE SABIN: Well they are recording what I am saying Mr Mallard so I am sure they will.Let us make no mistake about it most of the people who are on a benefit are actually doing what they should be doing and fitting within the rules but let us also accept and not beat around the bush that there are some—and they are the minority but there are some—who abuse the rules and take for granted what the State is doing for them and therefore what the taxpayer is doing for them. There are unfortunately some who believe that they have some God-given right or some ability that others do not have to take something that they are not entitled to and do it in a fraudulent manner.This bill the Social Security (Fraud Measures and Debt Recovery) Amendment Bill is very much about addressing those people because those people out there know exactly who they are. They know exactly who they are. They know when they are doing something that they should not be doing and they know when they are actively defrauding the taxpayer. And what New Zealanders expect is that people like us actually do something about that. To raise the argument that white-collar crime is going on so we should not pick on the poor beneficiaries who are defrauding the taxpayer is an absolute nonsense. It is not an either/or; it is an and/and and that is exactly what the Government expects of us.So the sort of politics being played out by people like Julie Anne Genter over there and her friend from the “New Zealand Something Party” is just absolute rubbish because the reality is that if they took some time to get out into the real world and see what is going on there there are people in this country—Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is the rule in this House that people should be referring to a party’s name by its correct name. I have just heard the member saying just before the “New Zealand Something Party”. It is not very—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it was not levelled at any individual.Hon Judith Collins: They didn’t mind calling my husband by different names.MIKE SABIN: That is right. I will finish off here because much has been said about this. It is actually a good piece of legislation. It sends a message and actually all people need to do if they want to avoid the long arm of the law in this legislation is I do not know follow the rules and not try to rip off the taxpayer.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes102New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes18Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Question agreed to.Bill read a second time.Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs)on behalf of theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: I move That the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill be now read a second time. This is an important bill that implements the legislative changes required following a policy review of industry training. It complements the operational improvements to industry training that are already under way many of which came into effect on 1 January of this year.By way of background Government expenditure on industry training more than trebled from $64 million in 2000-01 to $204 million in the 2009-10 financial year. In 2011 there were approximately 154000 trainees and apprentices enrolled and this included 14300 modern apprentices compared with an average of 25000 per annum before 1992. However performance as measured by qualification completions and credit attainment was poor. Less than a third of trainees achieved a qualification 5 years after starting their industry training programme and typically over 50 percent of industry trainees and over 30 percent of modern apprentices achieved no credits between 2002 and 2010. This situation was obviously unsustainable and the Government took quick and decisive action. Our operational changes have led to significant improvements in both qualification and credit attainment. That work is ongoing and it has freed up funding for reinvestment into the system.The next step was to take a more fundamental look at the industry training system. In 2011 we initiated a comprehensive policy review to assess whether the current model is fit for purpose. The Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill implements changes arising from that review that require legislative change.The bill will first establish a comprehensive apprenticeship system that provides the same level of support to all apprentices regardless of age. Secondly it focuses industry training organisations or ITOs on two key functions: setting skill standards for the industries and arranging training. Thirdly it clarifies the functions and powers of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority or NZQA in relation to those industry training organisations. Fourthly it includes criteria relating to quality assurance and the process by which the responsible Minister recognises an organisation as an industry training organisation.The bill’s reforms to apprenticeships are important. A big part of the vocational training story in New Zealand has always been apprenticeships. However the importance of apprenticeships slipped over the last 10 years in favour of more generic industry training. This in many cases involved a lot of short courses and very low levels of completion. The bill enables the establishment of New Zealand Apprenticeships a comprehensive apprenticeship system that provides the same level of support to all apprentices regardless of age. Submitters to the Education and Science Committee were supportive of this objective. The bill repeals the Modern Apprenticeship Training Act 2000 and amends the Industry Training Act 1992 so that legislation relating to industry training and apprenticeships is located in one modern piece of legislation. The apprenticeship reboot has been under way for a year now and the first 10000—and later extended to 14000—new apprentices enrolled since March 2013 have been eligible for a grant of $1000 towards their tools and off-job costs or $2000 if they are in priority trades with the same amount paid to their employers. Since the reboot started over 11000 apprentices have been signed up.I want to thank the members of the Education and Science Committee for their diligent consideration of the bill. I especially want to acknowledge the chair Dr Cam Calder. I also wish to thank the 30 organisations and individuals that made submissions on the bill.I will briefly cover the substantive amendments that the committee has made to the bill. The amendments illustrate that in its deliberations the committee has been particularly mindful of the status of industry training organisations as industry-owned and industry-governed bodies and I thank it for that. The committee has amended clause 11 new section 5 of the bill so that the Minister may impose or amend only conditions on the recognition of an industry training organisation that are “reasonably necessary to maintain the quality and effectiveness of industry training …”. I welcome the committee’s amendments to the provisions concerning the Minister’s power to impose conditions on recognition. Conditions on an industry training organisation’s recognition are intended to be the penultimate response before cancellation of registration for serious poor performance or non-compliance with lower-level quality assurance interventions. It is therefore appropriate that any such conditions are subject to a test of reasonableness and are limited to maintaining the quality and effectiveness of industry training.Clause 16 of the bill which inserts new section 13B gives the New Zealand Qualifications Authority the power to prescribe quality assurance requirements for industry training organisations using rules made under the Education Act of 1989. The committee has amended the bill so that quality assurance requirements may relate to an industry training organisation’s ability to hold approval by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority for the industry training organisation’s programmes or training schemes and to assess students against skill standards.The committee has also amended the bill to limit the extent to which quality assurance requirements may relate to the governance of industry training organisations. This amendment improves the bill. Industry training organisations are industry owned and governed organisations but it is important that industry training organisations are subject to appropriate quality assurance. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has a valid interest in the governance of industry training organisations but only to the extent that it is assured that the industry training organisation has the ability to carry out its core functions and the committee’s amendment ensures this.I welcome the committee’s amendments throughout the bill to clarify that industry training organisations are responsible for maintaining skill standards as well as developing them. This is an important change to the bill which will have a real impact on ensuring the skill standards that industry training organisations set are responsive to the rapidly changing needs of industries.The committee has made several other amendments relating to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority’s powers under the bill. It has made amendments to address the fact that the bill as introduced did not include any consequences when an industry training organisation fails to address a quality assurance improvement notice. The committee has also made amendments so that the annual fee prescribed by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority may cover the cost of issuing quality assurance improvement notices and so that the bill references the relevant statutory powers under the Education Act 1989 for the authority to charge fees to industry training organisations.The bill enables the Minister to issue by notice in the Gazette an apprenticeship training code covering the responsibilities of apprentices their employers and organisations that arrange apprenticeship training. The bill’s provisions relating to the code generally re-enact provisions of the Modern Apprenticeship Training Act 2000. The committee has amended the bill to specify that before issuing a code the Minister may consult any person or organisation that the Minister considers appropriate. The committee has also made amendments to clarify the code to state that the code is intended to be mandatory and to require the Gazette notice to specify the date the code comes into force. The Government intends to support the amendments recommended by the committee.In summary the bill is a vital part of the Government’s comprehensive reforms to industry training to achieve better performance for employers for trainees and apprentices and also for taxpayers. I now commend the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill to the House.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central):The Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill is one of those bills where there was an opportunity to get agreement across the House for support for the initiatives that lie behind here. There was a willingness or an acceptance in the Education and Science Committee that some streamlining was needed in our apprenticeship system that industry training organisations had needed to reform themselves and that there had been a period of time in which industry training organisations have themselves identified that things got a bit out of control in terms of the way they went about their work.There was the opportunity to put a piece of legislation in front of the House that came up with a consolidated clear New Zealand apprenticeship system that is supported by all parties in the House and also to ensure that industry training organisations are running effectively and efficiently and are governed in a way that is acceptable to the industries that they serve. Those were shared ideas across the committee but unfortunately Steven Joyce and the Government’s commitment to two silly ideological pieces of policy means that on this side of the House we cannot support this bill. I will come to those two pieces in a minute.In order to talk about the process of industry training and apprenticeships we need to take a couple of steps back. I welcome the fact that National has latterly worked out the importance of apprenticeships and industry training. This is the party that in the 1990s dismantled the apprenticeship system. It said: “We don’t want the apprenticeship system any more. We will get rid of it.” The damage from that decision has been felt throughout our trades and throughout our businesses in New Zealand over the last two decades because National dismantled the apprenticeship system. This is the system that brought people through businesses as a young apprentice. They learnt a trade which they then took out to the world. That went in the 1990s.Labour came in in the 2000s and we brought in the Modern Apprenticeships scheme. I am proud of that scheme. But I also recognise that the time had come to create a more coordinated system of apprenticeships. We had created a system where over 15000 people were in Modern Apprenticeships and from the 2009 Budget through to the beginning of 2013 2000 apprentices were lost in the system—2000 apprentices. Finally National had its apprenticeship reboot and finally it got some runs on the board. I congratulate National on catching up with that idea.But the reality is that unfortunately this legislation still bears the hallmarks of a party that does not properly get apprenticeships and industry training and that is what we see in the National Party. The two significant issues that prevent Labour from being able to support this bill are what is contained in new section 11 in clause 15 which is in fact the de facto privatisation of industry training. These new sections open up funding for industry training to non - industry training organisation bodies. Industry training organisations have been established in order to provide some kind of industry-wide qualification—something that is applicable across an industry. It is not about funding a business-specific skill or training. That should still be the job of a business. Just because industry training exists it does not abrogate the responsibility of an individual business to ensure that its workers are capable of doing the tasks that are in front of them.What industry training is about is making sure that we are equipping workers with skills that are applicable across an industry. What this new section does is open up the ability to directly fund bodies other than industry training organisations to organise and deliver industry training and that is de facto privatisation. It means that those businesses will be directly funded not only to arrange the training but to deliver it as well and that compromises it. But it compromises the whole point of industry training which is to provide those industry-wide qualifications.We also heard from the officials at the select committee that there was a desire for flexibility for employers in terms of industry training. That already exists. It is already completely possible for a business to move from one industry training organisation to another. In fact in the reorganisation of industry training organisations that has recently taken place there has been a significant amount of that. The flexibility is already there. That is a red herring. What this opening up of funding beyond industry training organisations will do is undermine those industry training organisations themselves. The people who will be able to go off and deliver industry training themselves are the big businesses. It is the small businesses left within the industry training organisations that will be weaker and that in turn will undermine their ability to deliver training. It is another example of National favouring big business against small business. It is favouring those members’ kind of idea of what a business is as opposed to the small businesses in New Zealand which actually need the support of industry training organisations.It was unbelievable in the select committee and I thank the Minister Sam Lotu-Iiga for mentioning the 30 submitters because all bar one of them said they did not want a bar of this opening up of the funding—all bar one. We were faced—Dr Megan Woods: Who was it?GRANT ROBERTSON: We will come back to who the one was. We were faced with the somewhat unusual situation of the Contractors Federation sitting down at the table after the Council of Trade Unions had given its submission and saying: “We agree with everything that the CTU has just said.” There was virtual unanimity that this opening up of industry training organisation funding to non - industry training organisations would undermine industry training.But there was one organisation that sort of came out for this. Business New Zealand is normally regarded as a great friend of the Government. This was its ringing endorsement of the opening up of funding: “Business New Zealand is cautiously supportive of proposed new section 11A … However such an approach must be independently evaluated to ensure that it results in learning outcomes linked to industry needs … The ability of ITOs to provide sustainable services to employers and apprentices must be maintained and enhanced …”. Business New Zealand really did not like it either. No one wanted this but this arrogant out-of-touch Government said: “We don’t care. We’re going to press ahead with this even though the entire industry training community said it did not want this.”This is a very bad idea and it is driven by ideology. It fits alongside Steven Joyce’s approach to the rest of the tertiary education portfolio—level 1 and 2 courses competitive tendering and extra funding for private training establishments while other parts of the system are not getting money. Steven Joyce ideologically does not believe in public education and unfortunately this is an extension of that. So we cannot support that part of the bill.The other significant area where Opposition parties have been unable to support this bill is the elimination of the skills leadership function from industry training organisations. We were told at the committee that the reason that this function was being taken away from industry training organisations was so that it would not be the responsibility of one part of the system but the responsibility of all those in the system except no one would actually be given the role of making sure it happens. A number of submitters came to the committee and said that the skills leadership role is important. Skills leadership is about identifying what the future skill needs will be and making sure that we are training people for the jobs that need to be done in the future. It is a vital role. Industry training organisations are brilliantly placed to play the leadership role there. No one really wanted it taken away but the Government is getting rid of it for some kind of nihilist fantasy whereby somehow there will emerge skills leadership.The Careerforce industry training organisation came to the committee and gave a great submission about what it had been doing in terms of skills leadership. It had just recently been working with Health Workforce New Zealand on the development of an unregulated health worker workforce strategy. That was it getting alongside the Government and saying: “This is how we will make sure that there is a future workforce in the health area that works for us.” It has been leading the review of qualifications in that area of the unregulated health workforce. That is its leadership role. It was mandated to do it in law and now that has gone away and we know and we heard at the committee that if industry training organisations are faced with restricted budgets and it is not in their mandate to do it they are not going to be able to do it and so skills leadership will go. On the grounds of the opening up of funding beyond industry training organisations and the lack of anyone being responsible for skills leadership we cannot support this bill. The Labour Party stands for a strong apprenticeship system and good-quality industry training. National does not.Dr CAM CALDER (National):Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call on the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge the nature of the Education and Science Committee. The Opposition members have made it clear that they oppose this bill but I do want to acknowledge the fact that they cooperated to allow the amendments that are contained within this legislation to be reported back to the House and that is appreciated.The background on this bill is that the Government reviewed industry training over 2011-12. This review found that changes were needed to ensure the industry training system is well connected to industry with high employer buy-in is educationally sound and is coherent with the wider tertiary system. It also has to deliver value for money for employers and the Government. The bill makes the amendments required to implement the findings of this review. I notice that some of them are opposed by the Opposition and I will come back to that. The main provisions of the bill are that it will establish a comprehensive apprenticeship system that provides the same level of support to all apprentices regardless of their age and I think that is a crucial component of this bill and one that I think we all had buy-in about across the committee. It focuses industry training organisations on two key functions: setting skill standards for the industries and arranging training. It clarifies the functions and powers of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority in relation to industry training organisations and includes criteria relating to quality assurance in the process by which the responsible Minister recognises an organisation as an industry training organisation.We heard from the previous speaker Grant Robertson about some of the concerns that the Opposition hold. Members opposite expressed concern for instance about the provisions in the bill making it clear that non - industry training organisations can receive funding for industry training and apprenticeship training. Some submitters contended that funding non - industry training organisations risks fragmenting the industry training sector and will lead to the funding of training that is solely to an employer’s benefit. Submitters were also concerned that non - industry training organisations did not appear to be subject to the same quality assurance requirements as industry training organisations.In my view these concerns are misplaced. Allowing non - industry training organisations to be funded for arranging training and apprenticeship training activities will strengthen the incentive for industry training organisations to provide excellent service to employers and trainees. The review of industry training in 2011 found that a significant number of employers thought that their industry training organisations did a poor job. I understand that that was a couple of years ago and that there have been changes since but having this option available as an alternative for employers will encourage industry training organisations to provide quality service to their employee clients at all times.Second I would be surprised if many employers actually take up this option for their apprenticeship training in practice. Only $10 million—I say again only $10 million—of funding for non - industry training organisations is available in each of 2014 and 2015. That is about 5.5 percent of the total funding for industry training and apprenticeships. It is worth remembering that participating employers must have at least 40 trainees each year and that the programmes and qualifications that are eligible for industry training funding are the same for industry training organisations and non - industry training organisations.Finally the monitoring and assessing of the arrangements of non - industry training organisations for training will have to be acceptable to the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Furthermore the funding determination specifies that in order to receive funding non - industry training organisations and industry training organisations must ensure any programme in which a trainee is enrolled meets the quality assurance requirements of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. In practice and as a matter of policy the Government funds only industry training that leads to transferable qualifications for the employee. That policy will apply to non - industry training organisations in the same way as it applies to industry training organisations. There will be a level playing field. I commend this bill to the House.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):For a moment I thought the whole conversation about this very important Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill was going to draw to a very rapid close so I appreciate the call. New Zealand First did support the bill with the amendments from the Education and Science Committee. The select committee is a very collegial select committee. It is well chaired by Dr Cam Calder. The members try very hard to work together to create legislation to have things that come out of the select committee that are to the benefit of all New Zealanders. So it was very unfortunate that at the end of the day there were two main pieces inside the bill that we could not support.We are happy to see the amendments made around the New Zealand Qualifications Authority. Of the submitters who provided verbal submissions to us as well as their written submissions there were several who had major concerns about the New Zealand Qualifications Authority because the way that the bill was written in the first instance meant that the authority could possibly start making some dictatorial comments or have influence over the people inside the governance structure of the industry training organisations.It was made very very clear to the select committee that the industry training organisations must be governed by people who come out of their industries. They must be directed by and have that continual link back to the industries that they are providing the training for. So the amendment was made to make sure. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority was I believe very supportive of the amendment. It was not the authority’s intention to get into the area of trying to hand-pick people who should govern but merely to make sure that the structure of that governance is solid so that the qualifications and the service delivered by the industry training organisations can be relied upon and can be a high-trust model for parents for apprentices and for the businesses for which they are training the future workforce.It was very interesting. For a moment there when I was listening to the new Minister of Pacific Island Affairs Sam Lotu-Iiga read from his prepared notes I thought I was losing my mind but I am pleased to have been supported by Grant Robertson in the fact that actually that was a very clever spin. There was a very clever spin inside the Minister’s speech there—I give him many many points for that—around the skills provision. It was around the industry training organisations retaining the other area that we have been unable to support the skills leadership function being stripped away. I say “stripped away” because of course the industry training organisations can still do skills leadership if they want to but nobody’s name is on it as a responsibility under this legislation. The argument on the Opposition side is that if nobody’s name is on it whom are you going to hold accountable? The only thing we could find out during the conversation at the select committee was that there was some form of cost saving there. We cannot find any other reason.Colin King: That’s a negative thought to have.TRACEY MARTIN: Perhaps Mr King when he stands to take a call—Colin King: I most certainly will.TRACEY MARTIN: That would be really constructive for the rest of the House. Why have we decided to make nobody responsible for skills leadership now? It was never forbidden for anybody else to do skills leadership but the role was deliberately given to the industry training organisations that they must do some skills leadership work inside those industries.The other area where we have been unable to support the bill is around the direct funding for industry training. It is actually another situation and another solution that nobody wanted. Nobody came to the select committee to submit that that was something they wanted. It was one of the recommendations out of the 2012 review. Many of the recommendations out of the 2012 review have been implemented and the select committee recognises that. The industry training organisations recognise that there has been some substantial improvement in the whole area of industry training provision and again I believe in the trust model being developed through more cohesive industry training delivery by organisations private training establishments and the industry itself. But not a single submitter actually came to ask for direct funding. Even the officials mentioned a trial that had been put in place with some businesses where not one of those businesses at the end of that trial had put their hand up to continue because it is so complex and because it is not actually something they wanted to get into.So again if nobody wanted it why does the National Government believe it needs to be put inside this piece of legislation? Dr Calder actually alluded in his short comments on this bill to the reasons we see it in there. No. 1 is that yes it did come out of the review. But just because something comes out of a review where you have got 13 recommendations and you have implemented 12 of them that does not mean you have to implement the last one just for the hell of it. Dr Calder said it would provide a “threat”—and I actually think that is the only word to use—to industry training organisations to keep them in line. This is a provision that could be used by a business if an industry training organisation does not pull its socks up and make sure that it stays on the mark.The fact is that those businesses can already complain to the Minister responsible and that those businesses can actually already change providers if they are unhappy with them. There are mechanisms that are currently in place. It is a little bit like charter schools. We are having the same conversations we had around charter schools. All that flexibility is still there inside the existing legislation. We do not need another piece of flexibility there—there are already solutions to this particular problem. It was the view of New Zealand First that these particular changes needed to be held out of legislation. Let the massive changes that have taken place to industry training organisations around this provision of delivery bed in. If we need to there is nothing to stop the House 2 or 3 years after a review of the current changes to industry training organisations from actually going back and saying: “OK that didn’t work. Let’s add something else.” But there has already been a massive restructure.There is not much else to say really about the bill. We are very very pleased to see the removal of ageism in the bill. We commend the Government for that stand. But we are disappointed that there is no recognition in this legislation or in any legislation coming into the House that there is actually still a major barrier to taking on apprentices for small and medium sized businesses. Small and medium sized businesses are the backbone of the New Zealand economy particularly in rural areas. I am referring to the fact that a hairdresser for example has a $500 fee per year per apprentice that they must pay for the privilege of actually taking on a young person—or a person of any age now—and training them into that industry.New Zealand First would have liked to see some more conversation some more incentives and some more discussion around how—if we are asking for more and more of our student body and more and more of our community to be able to go out and be educated inside the workforce thereby gaining less debt at the other end—we can just through small provisions that remove barriers like that fee incentivise small and medium sized businesses particularly to take on more apprentices. It is our view that those businesses in those communities particularly rural communities very much want to participate in the Modern Apprenticeships scheme particularly in hard times—as the Government keeps pointing out they have been hard times—but this $500 fee per year per apprentice is a continual barrier. That is just one of the industry training organisations and one of the apprenticeships that this barrier applies to and there are a variety of fees across the board. So unfortunately no matter how collegial the select committee was those two things make it impossible for New Zealand First to support this bill.DAVID CLENDON (Green):I am pleased to take a call on the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill. This is a bill that the Green Party would have liked to support. We supported it at the first reading through to the Education and Science Committee. We would have liked to see it right through with our support but unfortunately as with our Labour and New Zealand First colleagues we are unable to continue to support this bill for reasons similar to those we have heard already.We liked the bill initially because it did remove the age restriction on apprenticeships. That was something that was long overdue and that has been Green Party policy for a very long time. The days when people would go to school then go to some form of training or education as teens or young adults then go into a career a profession and stay there until they got their gold watch at 65 are long gone. We need to take every opportunity to accommodate the modern reality which is that people will change careers often a number of times in their lifetime. That is not a bad thing. That is something we need to encourage and enhance given that a lot of the jobs available to people today probably did not exist 30 or 40 years ago and that we do not know what career paths will look like even 10 years into the future. So to the extent that we can open up the apprenticeship pathway or model to a wider age group that is a good thing. It is an important benefit that will come from this legislation.Mr Calder made the point that we were able to get unanimity at the select committee around a number of the amendments. That is simply because they were good amendments not least of all the amendment that put some reins on ministerial discretion. The bill as first drafted gave the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment pretty much open slather in a number of important provisions. We like others thought that was not a good idea and that is one of the amendments we are very happy to agree to. But such is the nature of a select committee—people come along and make submissions we read them we discuss them and there are always different points of view. But it is extraordinary that for this particular bill—and the point has been made by Mr Grant Robertson I think—there was almost unanimous condemnation of one particular provision. There was not an enormous number of submissions—30-odd from memory—but they were well founded. They were well informed. They were from people and organisations actively interested in participating in the area of industry training. They were substantive submissions.I read the Business New Zealand case which Mr Robertson made reference to slightly differently. Business New Zealand did give very qualified support to the notion of allowing organisations other than industry training organisations access to the public funding but it put two quite clear conditions around that. One of those conditions was that there ought to be independent evaluation to ensure that learning outcomes are linked to industry needs; the other was that the needs of small to medium sized enterprises—those employing fewer than 20 staff—should be met. Nowhere in this legislation do I see those two qualifications those two criteria met. So to me that would put Business New Zealand in line with all the other submitters opposing the idea that public funds can go to organisations other than industry training organisations. The obvious danger is then that a large industry will get access to that funding and simply train people to work within that industry. It will not give them the range of transferable skills that are the logic and the intention of the learning outcomes for industry training organisations. I think Business New Zealand picked up on that very well.This bill has made some rather strange bedfellows. One does not often see Business New Zealand and the Council of Trade Unions allied in their opposition to a bill. They and the New Zealand Industry Training Organisation—the peak body the umbrella body if you like—and the Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation all very strongly opposed the notion that the Government funding should go to organisations other than industry training organisations. It is worthwhile just reiterating some of the reasons they found for that. The New Zealand Industry Training Organisation for example questioned whether organisations other than the industry training organisations that may get access to this funding would face the same compliance conditions that are perhaps a necessary burden on industry training organisations. They wondered whether giving this funding to specific export industries could in fact compromise New Zealand under some of the fair trade arrangements. It could very clearly be seen as a direct subsidy if the Government is funding the training of people within a company that is then exporting the product made by those people. That could very easily be read as a subsidy. I am sure it is not the intention of the bill but it certainly does create the potential for a hiccup further down the road.The Council of Trade Unions strongly opposed the amendment on the basis among other things that one could suggest that the intention of the change is to encourage a level of competition within industry training organisations. But that does actually already exist. The performance of industry training organisations has increased dramatically in recent years. There was a need for some change for restructuring and for upping the game frankly. We have seen evidence of that in recent years. The industry training organisations are uniformly committed to continuing to do well and to continuing to do better. So making funding available to non - industry training organisations really is a retrograde step. It fails to reward industry training organisations for the significant improvements and the efforts they have already made.There is of course the question of flexibility as I said. Employers can switch industry training organisations if they are not getting the service the satisfaction or the learning outcomes they require for their particular industry. It is important to keep coming back to the point that industry training organisations are obliged to equip their trainees—people who come under their umbrella—with transferable skills so that people can be an asset across a range of companies and indeed give those individuals more opportunity for employment.Along with the other Opposition parties we point to the matter of the opportunity for skills leadership to be picked up by somebody other than industry training organisations. There is a pious hope embedded in the legislation that some organisation or group of organisations will fill the gap that is left when the statutory responsibility of industry training organisations to provide skills leadership is taken away as this legislation does. There is no evidence to suggest that this will be picked up by industry training organisations.The Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation is a very significant body given that we are in very serious need of tradespeople around the construction industries. In Christchurch and Auckland we need lots of buildings built relatively quickly. It would be most unfortunate if we continued to have a high level of youth unemployment and an unnecessarily high level of adult unemployment and were needing to employ tradespeople to rebuild Christchurch and to build the housing stock we need in Auckland. The Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation pointed out that in its particular industry something like 90 percent of apprentices are trained within companies that are small to medium sized enterprises that employ fewer than 10 or 20 people and in many cases fewer than five people. That is by definition a very diverse and dispersed industry. Where is the skills leadership likely to come from within that? There are very few large players in it. Well there are some but the likelihood of the breadth of that industry collectively providing skills leadership is very very remote and very distant. The Building and Construction Industry Training Organisation picked up on that issue very clearly.One of the things as I said that we did like about the bill was the dropping of the age restriction. We also liked the fact that it required industry training organisations to give particular regard to the needs of Māori and other priority groups in line with the existing tertiary strategy. Of course the recently renewed or refreshed strategy specifically mentions Māori and Pasifika youth as two of those population groups. It is a good thing that industry training organisations will be obliged to lend some focus to them. What this bill unfortunately overlooks—and I think it is a gap—is that there is no reference to women as being a priority group that we need to encourage into apprenticeships. We know that the gender balance in trades is very very unbalanced. There is a pressing need to encourage more young women into trades and that is a missed opportunity. It is something that could have been included in this legislation and has not been.So as I began by saying this is a bill that we would have liked to support. It makes some useful changes but unfortunately because of those two specific flaws in the bill it is something that we will have to amend when we have a more progressive Government that is more willing to listen to the overwhelming number of submitters to follow their guidance and to follow best practice. We look forward to the opportunity to do that. Thank you.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):The last speaker David Clendon mentioned a progressive Government. One of the great problems with progressivism is that there have to be winners and there have to be losers. They are arbitrarily chosen by certain individuals. That is something that people like myself and I suspect colleagues on this side of the House want to avoid because like this bill the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill it is about trying to help all people—all Kiwis—who want to move into the training space and particularly facilitating that through industry training organisations.I think our work in the Education and Science Committee was very collegial in working with submitters to bring this bill to its second reading now to a stage that is going to support industry training organisations to be even stronger but acknowledging too that there are other options outside the industry training organisation framework and being able to support in particular our young people—of all genders—to move into the training space where we need them the most. I commend this bill to the House.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill and set out again why it is that Labour cannot support this piece of legislation. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Education and Science Committee. If this was the Academy Awards I think you would be handing out an award for courage under fire to the Government members of the select committee. They had to sit there while submitter after submitter from industry training organisation to industry training organisation—and the Industry Training Federation and the Contractors Federation agreeing with the Council of Trade Unions—all traipsed in one after the other and consistently told the Government members of this select committee exactly what was wrong with this legislation how it was not going to work and how it was not going to fulfil the aims and the purpose of what we need in New Zealand with regard to putting strong and coherent legislation in place around how we fulfil one of the most important tasks which is that of ensuring that we have a trained and skilled workforce that is fit for purpose to work in New Zealand jobs.This bill is simply not going to do that. The Government members of the select committee were told time and time again but the tragedy is that these messages did not get through. The Government was simply not willing to listen. Government members were arrogant and out of touch. They knew best about what was going to work. It did not matter that industry representatives were coming up and telling them: “No no I’m sorry—what you’re saying isn’t going to work. This isn’t going to be fit for purpose for how we train apprentices.” To hear Government members of the select committee like the previous speaker Simon O’Connor describe this as a collegial environment is somewhat surprising. I guess it was collegial in that all the submitters agreed. They agreed that this bill will not achieve its aims. But Government members sat there and they hardly asked a question because they knew that the legislation that they were hearing submissions on at the select committee and that they were going to have to bring back to this House simply would not work.What was it that Government members were told about this legislation? When submitters came in it was very much what the other members of the select committee also thought. First of all they were told that this legislation was nothing but a continuation of this Government’s privatisation agenda within the education skills and training sector. We have seen it with charter schools we have seen it with public-private partnerships in our secondary education system we have seen it with the competitive tendering of level 1 and 2 qualifications within our polytechnic system and now we are seeing it within our industry training system. What we are seeing is that agencies other than industry training organisations are going to be eligible for direct funding from the Government to fulfil training requirements.This legislation is not what is going to achieve the aims of the Government. It allows these organisations to get direct funding. We see this as nothing short of an ideological commitment from this Government to make sure that it privatises privatises and privatises every bit of our education system that it can get its hands on. It is this ideological blinkeredness that meant that Government members of that select committee sat there and had to listen to submitter after submitter telling them how just giving money out willy-nilly without some kind of a more strategic approach to this was not going to fulfil the aims of what was needed for industry training in this country.Other speakers have talked about the other major problem that stops us in Labour from being able to vote for this legislation and that is the removal of the skills leadership function from industry training organisations. Industry training organisations are not simply organisations that are put there to channel funding through and to come up with standards. We think that actually there is a really important leadership function for industry training organisations and what they can do for industry in New Zealand. Other speakers before me have talked about the impact that this will have on small and medium sized enterprises and a number of organisations that are wanting to undertake industry training organisations actually fall into that category.Another element that was brought up is that the changes contained within this legislation are going to water down the ability for pastoral care within industry training in and within our apprenticeship system. Pastoral care and the ability to deliver pastoral care are an absolutely critical part of any successful industry training or apprenticeship scheme. My PhD thesis was about Māori trade training during and after World War II. The absolute success of that scheme was premised on hostels and it was premised on the matrons and the staff who were in there providing the young trainees with the care and the pastoral guidance that they needed through their time as trainees. You remove this element from our system of training at your peril in terms of course completions and in terms of people getting the kinds of skills that we need.The tragedy for us on the Labour side and I think the Opposition side of the select committee was that it was not any great surprise that National was taking this approach to this legislation. It was a disappointment because we saw a real opportunity to do something here but it was no great surprise because this is the Government that scrapped apprenticeships in the 1990s. There are often shrieks from Government members when you talk about how National scrapped apprenticeship training in the 1990s but it happened and it took the incoming Labour Government of 1999 to reintroduce something and to step up to the plate and put something in place.This is also a Government that has absolutely dragged the chain when it comes to skills training to rebuild Christchurch and to address the housing crisis in Auckland. John Key talked a big game before the last election in 2011 about how we were going to seize the opportunity how we were having Skills for Canterbury and how there was $42 million put aside and this was going to be dedicated. It took this Government nearly 2 years to start spending the money. It sat there unused because this was a Government that has absolutely no commitment to skills and apprenticeship training—too little too late. We are now 3 years into a rebuild. We could have had more New Zealanders with the requisite skills and training working on that and we have lost and squandered that opportunity because this is a Government that just does not believe in this as part of what a vibrant future for New Zealand looks like. That money sat there. Government members are shaking their heads. Well I am sorry; the facts are straight. The money sat there and the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment Steven Joyce claimed that he was not going to “frogmarch” people into training situations. This is while there was very little effort to get people into those schemes.We need to think creatively we need to think differently and we need to think beyond the narrow ideologically blinkered piece of legislation that we have on the Table before us. I have a member’s bill in the ballot which I sincerely hope will get drawn one day that picks up a piece of Labour Party policy from the last election. It is about using the money that we pay to young people in terms of unemployment benefit as a payment to employers to offset some of their cost of taking on more apprentices. The tragedy is that if we had actually adopted some of these pragmatic and very very sensible solutions we would have had more young people 3 years through their training who were able to take a really active part in the clamour for skilled labour in Christchurch that the city is experiencing at the moment. This is the kind of lack of thinking the lack of clarity and the lack of creativity we are seeing in this area. Instead what we are seeing is a desperate clinging on to the need to privatise yet another bit of our education system. Not content with our primary and secondary schools and our polytechnic sector now the Government’s sights are set very firmly on the industry training sector.There are real concerns about this bill. We are very disappointed that Government members of the select committee did not take the opportunity to listen to the people who are on the ground who are involved in industry and who know what it is really like and what is needed out there but instead clung to their very very narrow beliefs and produced a piece of legislation that Labour cannot support because it is to the detriment of apprentice and skills training in this country. For Labour skills training and the kinds of commitment we give that are absolutely vital to our future.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura):It is a pleasure to speak on the second reading of the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill. May I start by saying that it is a bit rich to be lectured by the Opposition about industry training when Labour presided over the most wanting and wasteful situation around industry training. One of the Modern Apprenticeship coordinators only ever graduated one Modern Apprentice. The cost for that service was a quarter of a million dollars—and it only ever graduated one Modern Apprentice. One of the enduring indictments on the Labour Government was that waste of opportunity and waste of money.Just going back to the bill in the 2002 amendment where the leadership role was given to the industry training organisations by the Labour Government it was never ever defined. All it achieved was it created a greater tension between the Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics and the industry training organisations. What has occurred within this bill is a correcting of that bad behaviour that was encouraged under the Labour Government. When we actually look at the feedback from the industry the industry itself said that it required more input into the training qualifications. If you look at the 2012-13 review that is what comes out of there. When you look at new section 11A inserted by clause 15 of this bill it talks about opening it up to non - industry training organisations. That also came from the industry. There were five industry sectors that submitted in that 2012-13 review that said that they would like to have more options. Rather than preaching over there in a self-righteous way take a serious look at yourselves while you are in Opposition.Thank you—it is a pleasure to support this bill.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):If we are talking about preaching let us just get on the record that across the House sits the party that got rid of apprenticeships from our country and that led to us having massive skill shortages in trades and technical areas. So when that member Colin King says that the Labour members should not be lecturing National I think that that is something well worth remembering. We have struggled to actually bridge that gap—the gap that was caused by the lack of investment in skills and apprenticeships by a former National Government.This bill the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill in my mind is a real lost opportunity. This could have been an opportunity to actually get some consensus and to get an agreed position on something that is vitally important to our economy and that is industry training and apprenticeships. This is an area that—like my colleagues who have spoken tonight Grant Robertson and Dr Megan Woods—I feel passionately about. This is an area that I have done a lot of work in and I know how much difference this makes for individuals for families for workplaces and for our economy.The bill was an opportunity. We supported it in the first reading to go to the Education and Science Committee. We wanted to see what was possible to achieve jointly on this issue because we do actually accept that there were things that needed to be improved and we acknowledge that there have been some improvements in recent years in terms of industry training. This bill could have been something that was shared and agreed across this House but we will be opposing this bill now.I am going to talk as others have about the two main reasons. That lack of consensus that missed opportunity has big consequences for our economy because we still have major gaps. We have many many New Zealand - qualified tradespeople and technicians living in Australia. We have the absolute obscenity that we do not have enough people in the construction industry to rebuild Christchurch. We have to have numerous immigrant workers coming into this country because we failed to step up and do something to ensure that we had people to do the construction work in Christchurch. When Labour is elected and when we start our KiwiBuild programme we will find that we will not have enough people in construction as well because we will be picking up from this Government which has failed to ensure that it plans ahead. That is part of what this is about.The two main areas that we are concerned about include the fact that the Government does not seem to think that it has any role in any forward planning in any area—no strategic analysis of what is needed—and that it is somehow miraculously going to fall out of the sky. Miraculously we are going to know the number of carpenters builders plumbers fitters and all of those other trades groups that we are going to need. It is just going to miraculously happen by the invisible hand. Well it does not. It requires a strategic approach. When National was elected there was a skills strategy in place that had been developed by business by unions by Government agencies and by industry training organisations working together. One of the Government’s very first acts was to throw that skills strategy right out the window.Going back to this bill the two main reasons we are opposing it are first and foremost the privatisation by stealth through allowing organisations other than industry training organisations to be funded directly by the Government to organise and undertake industry training. The second reason is the removal of the skills leadership function of industry training organisations.If we look at the first of those reasons in the very early days of industry training organisations I was involved with the board of an industry training organisation. At that time it was only major companies that were involved. Most of the funding actually went to those major companies. I can see that that is precisely the route we are likely to go back to if we go down this line. As Grant Robertson mentioned small businesses are the big losers in this. If industry training becomes something that individual companies can get funding from in order to do the training that they want for their own particular workforce and their own particular needs that has the risk firstly that the trainees do not get a qualification that is recognised elsewhere is portable and is complete—they might get bits of qualifications—and secondly that in fact many employers will miss out as well. These are small employers which as we know are a vital part of our economy.That is something that is deeply troubling to us—that particular ideological drive about sitting down and saying: “Oh well we can’t have this money just going to industry training organisations. We’re going to have to let our mates in the big end of town actually access this money as part of what the Government is doing here.” This is despite the fact that actually the submitters—except for one which seemed to be as Grant Robertson has already outlined somewhat nervous about its support. But apart from Business New Zealand every other submitter opposed what was happening here: the de facto privatisation of industry training.I just really want to reinforce the importance to our economy of having skills that are transferable. It is so that we can have some confidence that we have people who are qualified to do a complete role rather than having particular employers accessing money to train to their own particular specifications.Actually they have a responsibility. Industry training was never about saying that the Government will provide all of the money for all of the training that employers should do. That is ridiculous. The company-specific training was always meant to be something that an individual business took up and all of the research shows that that is sensible business practice anyway because the returns from investing in training are really high—research report after research report. We could go out there and we could ask employers directly. There is no question that one of the things that has the biggest impact on lifting productivity is investing in training. So businesses do need to do that and they actually get an immediate benefit from doing so.The second reason for our opposition is around the skills leadership part—this is the planning bit. There seems to be an almost pathological fear of planning on the other side of the House. It is kind of like those members saying: “You know if we just leave it up to individual businesses or individual people it will all work out in the end.” but actually we need to be analysing where we need people; where we predict that we will need people in 3 years 5 years or 7 years; what the health workforce looks like at the moment; where we will need people in the future; and what the construction industry looks like.If we have a manufacturing industry left in this country after the economic sabotage from across the House the manufacturing industry will absolutely need skilled technical people—tradespeople. If we want to have good-quality jobs for people who may not want to go down the academic route but whom we need to play an important role in our economy and if we want well-trained people providing the sorts of skills we need in manufacturing construction and infrastructure then we need to plan for it. It does not just magically happen.That skills leadership function is an opportunity for those employers collectively in an industry alongside the unions in those industries and alongside some of the relevant Government agencies to sit down and work those things out and to look at what is needed based on their own knowledge and experience. I think it is just unbelievable that the Government would dispose of that in this bill. It does not make any sense.Finally I want to go a point that David Clendon touched on which was the issue of priority groups for industry training. Something that I personally have been quite vocal about is the appalling lack of numbers of women in many of the areas where industry training is in place. This bill was an opportunity potentially to have a look at that as well. But when you look at the numbers and you look at things like trainees in building construction 1 percent are women in joinery it is 6 percent in electricity supply it is 7 percent in the motor industry it is 3 percent and in infrastructure it is 6 percent. This is just appalling. Women are obviously missing out on the opportunity to get into some areas that may well best suit their interest that may well provide them with the best kind of job for their skills and that our economy needs. So I think that that is another failure of this bill—to not add women to that list of priority groups. Thank you.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West):The member Carol Beaumont who has just resumed her seat is correct that expenditure in this area did increase under Labour—in fact it virtually trebled during its time in office—but she is quite wrong in saying that the results were pleasing. In fact they bordered on abysmal. Not even a third of those who were studying under that scheme under Labour completed their qualifications. After 5 years many of them had nothing to show for it. That is totally unacceptable. The taxpayer of New Zealand rightly demands much greater performance than that and the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill will deliver a much better regime.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):I am always disappointed not to hear more from that member Tim Macindoe but perhaps he feels that there is not much more worth talking about in the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill. And embarrassed he might be because this is a bill that once again sees small businesses being squeezed. As Labour’s small-business spokesperson I feel strongly about industry training organisations being undermined through the de facto privatisation of industry training that takes place in this bill. As many of those who have contributed this evening have noted there was virtually no support for this proposal from the submitters to the Education and Science Committee and we believe that it has the potential to damage the provision of quality industry training in New Zealand.This is a Government that is out of touch. It is looking out for the few at the top.John Hayes: Read the Tui ad: “Yeah right!”.Dr DAVID CLARK: It is arrogant. And Mr Hayes yells “Tui” across the House. He is not listening. That is illustrative of the exact point we are making—dismissive cursory one-liners. He is no longer engaged in what is going on in real New Zealand. That member is willing to dismiss the arguments willing to dismiss the submitters and willing to abuse the submitters I was just representing with a quick one-liner.An economic recovery in New Zealand should not benefit only the few; it needs to benefit all of New Zealand. Industry training with its skills leadership provides support to those small-business people who risk their shirt every day who struggle out there to make ends meet and who want to pay their workers a living wage but are squeezed by the bigger players in town who have scale and who often have fancy tax arrangements to avoid paying their fair share. The ordinary Kiwis out there who struggle day after day after day after day putting their mortgages on the line to fund their small businesses find that another plank of support is ripped out from under them with this bill.Direct funding will work for large businesses that are not interested in looking after the few employees they have got. They can buy the cheapest CD-packaged course from a non-accredited agency and not be concerned about skills leadership. But industry training organisations in their existing form have a concern for their own reputations. They have a passion for their industry they have invested in their industry and they have a background that leads them to be strong providers. There has been a big restructuring in this sector and I have heard no one from this side of the House argue strongly against that. That restructuring is making a real difference to the performance of the industry training sector and the services that are on offer but putting in place a system that will undermine these changes is short-sighted and would likely in my view erode the growing confidence of businesses in industry training organisations.When every man and his dog and every woman and her cat can go out produce a CD and market it as a course or skills training that will appeal to the lowest common denominator. That will appeal to that group of employers who are not particularly concerned about skills development in their workforce but are more concerned about getting wealthy off the back of cheap labour. And those who wish to support their workers who wish to strengthen their skills and who wish to grow value businesses—moving along the chain from volume to value—will struggle because the quality industry training organisations will be undermined by this new structure.So the skills leadership function being removed as a purpose from the industry training organisations is something that we strongly oppose on this side of the House. Now no one will be responsible for skills leadership in this sector. We learn in this bill that now everyone all at once is somehow responsible.Dr Megan Woods: No funding—none.Dr DAVID CLARK: Well if I have learnt one thing during my time at Treasury it is that clear lines of accountability matter—clear lines of accountability. To be able to go back and say: “This person is ultimately responsible for that happening.” is an incredibly important management principle. Saying that everybody is responsible for making it happen devolves it down so that no one takes responsibility.As my colleague Dr Megan Woods pointed out there is no funding there as well. Once again another important principle I learnt at Treasury or had reinforced there was that incentives matter. If there is no funding there is no incentive to develop quality training and that is not good for industry. It is not good for the future skill needs of our people. It is not good for the small businesses that rely on the industry training organisations. It is not good for our ability as a nation to be flexible on our feet to scale up to meet needs. I think of the marine sector where the industry training organisations meet—if you can excuse the pun—these bits of business that come in waves. Sometimes there are a whole lot of ships that need building; sometimes there are few. Those industry training organisations know how to scale up and know how to scale down. They are concerned with quality provision and meeting the needs of a high-value industry.If we have players that fly by night that undermines those industry training organisations that are concerned about quality provision and we as a country might lose them. Once they are gone they are gone. Then we have people with uncertain jobs who are there responding to the incentives to make a buck and provide the provision that ticks the box for the employer. Sadly that undermines the skills leadership function that has been developing so strongly in recent years and particularly through the changes that have been brought on through the restructuring which no one on this side of the House as I have said has opposed.The shortage of skilled tradespeople in New Zealand is a serious concern which National has exacerbated by failing to invest in apprenticeships and industry training. This is not a new phenomenon. People watching at home should know that from 2009 to January 2013 there was a 20 percent drop in the number of Modern Apprentices and a 37 percent drop in the number of industry trainees. That is a very very sad record for this Government.Labour is committed to ensuring that New Zealand has the skilled workforce it needs. Labour wants New Zealanders to have jobs and opportunities and to ensure that the Government cannot sit on its hands as this National Government has done and continues to do. After coming into office National oversaw that loss of thousands of apprenticeship positions—Dr Megan Woods: Shameful.Dr DAVID CLARK: —a shameful loss to oversee—and by the time it finally woke up the skills deficit had been created. Now we see further steps to undermine the industry training sector to undermine that skills leadership function which potentially will lead to higher costs for small businesses over time as you lose that regular training and you have to invest heavily from time to time.Dr Megan Woods: Privatisation.Dr DAVID CLARK: We have got privatisation in the sector. Once again we are seeing that this economic recovery that is being talked about is going to benefit only a very few at the top.Labour stands for opportunity for all New Zealanders. We support skills training. The OECD is very clear in its work on economic development that the best way to raise GDP growth in a country is to start with the low-skilled workers in the regions. The model of hubbing of bringing together the highest skills in the big cities has been pushed over many many years and it has its merits. There is agglomeration. There are benefits in that way of doing things. But the OECD has produced research that says that actually now the low-hanging fruit is not about having one or two more highly skilled people in those bigger centres but about raising the skills of the lowest-skilled workers in the regions. That is where 60 percent of our workforce is already and raising those skills will make the biggest contribution to GDP improvement.So it is logical that industry training organisations should be strengthened and not undermined as this bill is suggesting. That is the way to make sure that the benefits of any economic recovery are shared fairly so that the gap between rich and poor does not continue to grow and we know that that gap is at the highest level it has been in recorded New Zealand history. That is the shameful record of this Government: the gap between rich and poor continues to grow and it does nothing about it. We know that so much of it goes back to those 2010 tax cuts where the top 10 percent got 40 percent of the value of the tax cuts. The bottom 20 percent of New Zealand earners got just 2 percent of the value of the tax cuts and of course that was swallowed up in GST.That gap between rich and poor could be addressed by good policy on industry training organisations ensuring that skills training is available to everybody that evidence-based learning is followed and that the benefits of those industry training organisations that have contributed so much are built upon rather than undermined through a de facto privatisation of the industry training sector.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National):I support the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Industry Training and Apprenticeships Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Bill read a second time.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.