Volume 690 Week 44 - Wednesday 5 June 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 690 Week 44 - Wednesday 5 June 2013[Sitting date: 05 June 2013. Volume:690;Page:10713. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 5 June 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Points of OrderElectoral Act—Registration and Recognition of Political PartiesHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to refer you to the Standing Orders Committee report 2011 and in particular the new Standing Orders 34 and 35 which go to the recognition of parties. I will be relatively brief because I know it will be a matter you are thinking about and you may want to come back to. Standing Order 34(1) goes to the registration of parties and the requirement for them to be registered. Standing Order 34(2) goes to members who cease to be members of a party for which they were originally elected. I tend to say the mirror image of that would be members of Parliament who become members of parties that are no longer registered under the Electoral Act. But really the most important Standing Order here is Standing Order 35 and under 35(1)(c) a party must inform the Speaker of its parliamentary membership.It has become apparent through the news media that the United Future party no longer is a party registered under the Electoral Act. It is my submission to you that there is an obligation on Mr Dunne to inform you of that and then for you to inform the House of that because there are flow-on things that happen to do with the order of the House like questions and other matters. It may be that the National Party can cover Mr Dunne as far as his front-bench seat is concerned. That is something that it can grant in terms of one of its spots. But my request is how you are proceeding with this matter which has the potential to be a matter of order.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The Hon Trevor Mallard raises an obviously interesting and topical point. You will recall that these changes were made to the Standing Orders at the conclusion of the last Parliament and were trying to tidy up circumstances that had come about through preceding Parliaments most notably the Parliament between 1999 and 2002. It seems to me that when you are making your considerations around these matters it is Standing Order 34(1) that needs to be most focused on where it does appear to have quite a bit of clarity at the present time by stating that if a person is elected at a preceding general election or any subsequent by-election under a party banner then that party is entitled to be recognised. What I think the rest of it does is try to work out what happens if there are groups of MPs who defect from their party as we saw between 1993 and 1996 and then again between 1999 and 2002 and form into new groupings and then desire to be recognised by the House. The condition then would be that there is a party formed outside the House recognised by the Electoral Commission. I think the salient point is that if a party has MPs coming into the House and is recognised because they were registered prior to the election where those people were returned to the House then that would seem to me to prevail for the entire term of the Parliament.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): To the member—I mean I agree with the background. The unsatisfactory position when the Alliance broke up I think caused this although there were some New Zealand First defectors where there was not quite the same problem. But we did have previously what might be described as a “don’t ask don’t tell” policy and what this did in Standing Order 35(1) was to place a requirement on the member to inform you of a change in circumstances and my submission is that Mr Dunne should have done that already.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speaking to the point of order—Mr SPEAKER: I will hear briefly from the Hon Trevor Mallard.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I would prefer if you called me Gerry Brownlee actually.Mr SPEAKER: Sorry—I withdraw and apologise absolutely and immediately! I hope I will be forgiven.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are some identity crises I would willingly engage in but that is not one of them. The point made by the Hon Trevor Mallard was that there was at the conclusion of the Parliament that ended in 1999 a breakup of the New Zealand First Party and there was also a breakup of the Alliance during that time and there were in the end some 17 independent MPs who had their votes cast vote by vote—a most interesting situation. Although there were a number of parties that were formed out of that that contested the 1999 general election the real point is that a party has to be registered prior to an election to be recognised for parliamentary purposes in Parliament and you would assume that that would continue for the period that the party was elected. That is my simple point.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): With respect—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh real experience.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes well experience is important. First of all there was of course a significant desertion from the National Party between 1993 and 1996 but I do not want to labour on that. My real point is that Mr Gerry Brownlee’s proposition is certainly not a meritorious one. It has the same effect of somebody holding a passport whose country ceases to exist. That person becomes Stateless. If a party member in here no longer has a party that is outside there under the Electoral Act then he ceases to be a leader of that political party. Mr Brownlee is asking you to say that something is set in stone as of the last election day. I think sadly for Mr Brownlee because he usually tries to be informed in these matters he is wrong this time.Mr SPEAKER: I thank all three members for their contributions. For the first time a party that is recognised under the Standing Orders has ceased to be registered under the Electoral Act 1993. Recognition and registration are quite different things. Registration concerns the general membership of a political party; recognition concerns the parliamentary membership of a party. In general the House is not concerned with the membership of political parties; it concerns itself with parliamentary membership of parties that are recognised for parliamentary purposes. But since 2011 the Standing Orders have required a party in whose interest a member was elected at a general election or a subsequent by-election to be registered under Part 4 of the Electoral Act 1993 if it is to be recognised by the Speaker for parliamentary purposes.Where public funds are involved there needs to be transparency and accountability. There needs to be some certainty about the arrangements behind a party that seeks to be recognised for parliamentary purposes. This is what the requirement for registration under the Electoral Act achieves. The United Future party was recognised at the commencement of this Parliament. Parties are recognised by informing the Speaker of their leadership office holders and memberships and any changes thereto. As of yesterday I have written to Mr Dunne concerning the ongoing registration of the United Future party and I will await a response to that letter before I further consider the matter.MotionsRome Statute of the International Criminal Court—Ratification of Kampala AmendmentDr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate to note Germany’s ratification of the amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and to move that New Zealand become one of the founding 30 ratifying countries needed in order to implement this amendment.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to move that motion. Is there any objection? There is none.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I moveThat this House note Germany’s ratification of the amendment to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court adopted in Kampala in 2010 accepting the criminalisation of acts of aggression arising from the illegal use of force in international relations note that this brings the number of States parties ratifying the Kampala amendment to six and urge that New Zealand move to become one of the founding 30 ratifying countries needed by 2017 in order to implement this amendment.Motion agreed to.Questions to MinistersInformation Security—Government Agencies and Ministers1.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.David Shearer: Does he have confidence in himself given that on 26 March in this House he said that privacy breaches were inevitable and a result of human error with regard to our Government agencies yet the Government Chief Information Officer’s review that he received in December last year showed there was systemic failure?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: To quote the Deputy Prime Minister: “He’s never been short of that.”—“he” being me of course.David Shearer: I do not think I got an answer. Why—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary question David Shearer.David Shearer: Why when he had already received a report into privacy breaches and had a Cabinet discussion on the report did he continue to mislead the public that there were no systemic failures of Government information systems?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not. If the member is talking about the Government Chief Information Officer’s report that has been released it looked at public-interfacing systems of which there were 215 across 70 agencies in which there were 12 breaches. What that also showed was that that is quite a different issue actually from someone making a simple human error and mistake like sending an email with the wrong address.David Shearer: Does the report into privacy breaches show that 87 percent of public sector agencies have no formal security certification and accreditation processes and 73 percent have no formal security policy; if so does he not think that is a little beyond human error and actually amounts to systemic failure right across our Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well the member is confusing two different issues. One is public-facing—[Interruption] Well he can choose to if he wants to but one is public-facing issues and the second is whether someone sends an email by mistake. In the case of the point I was referring to which the member quotes from it was where someoneused an email address and sent to the wrong address. That is human error. What the Government Chief Information Officer’s report today shows is that yes there is room for improvement and yes the system is being improved and our Government will be the first Government that actually has a chief technology officer who will have wide-ranging powers as a result of the changes we have made and a number of other systems improvements that we have enhanced in the last 6 months.David Shearer: Does he now consider in light of the Government Chief Information Officer’s report that there were systemic failures across our Government in regard to information systems?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not think there is systemic failure. I think what there is in those public-interfacing systems is room for improvement and as I said that is why the Government has been developing an information and communications technology assurance framework that is why the Government is upgrading the powers of the Government Chief Information Officer and that is why the Government commissioned the work that has been going on. It is inevitable actually as we move into the digital age—I know the Labour Party is in the dark ages but the Government is actually moving into the digital age—that these errors will occur.David Shearer: Why should the public trust him to implement the recommendations of the Government Chief Information Officer’s report when he actually denies that there is any systemic failure?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is confusing two completely different issues. If the member wants to do that then he is going to carry on talking the way he talks under his invisible cloak.David Shearer: When his Minister Peter Dunne was questioned four times by David Henry as part of the Kitteridge report leaking inquiry something that no other Minister underwent was that questioning under oath?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have details about the inquiry because the inquiry is ongoing. But to the best of my knowledge no information was not taken under oath.David Shearer: Given that the witnesses questioned as part of the inquiry into the leaking at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were questioned under oath does he not consider it is a double standard not to question those suspects in the Kitteridge inquiry under oath?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.David Shearer: Given his statement to TV3 that he was sceptical about finding the leaker does he really want to find the perpetrator; if so would he not therefore insist on those people being questioned being questioned under oath?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: To the best of my knowledge over the course of many Governments there have been inquiries. Very few of them are taken under oath. Some are. Very few of them are. If the member is saying that they have to be taken under oath is he then saying that the inquiries that were held under the previous Labour Government that were not undertaken under oath were therefore just made up?Economy—Reports2.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to theMinister of Finance: Since the Budget on 16 May what reports has he received on activity in the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I have seen a number of reports that point to the economy building momentum following the reasonably strong growth of 3 percent that we saw in 2012. ANZ’s regional activity index shows increasing economic activity in the first quarter of this year with 12 out of 14 regions showing back-to-back quarterly increases. Statistics New Zealand reports that building consents rose to a 5-year high in April. The BNZ-Business New Zealand Performance of ManufacturingIndex remains in positive territory. As Business New Zealand has pointed out manufacturing has been growing this year helped by strong activity for new orders—not exactly our definition of the crisis that the Opposition says exists in manufacturing.John Hayes: In light of building momentum in the economy what recent reports has he received on business confidence and how will this impact on economic activity over the coming year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen one recent report on business confidence which shows that confidence across the business sector remains high. I am looking forward to another report on economic activity being the report of the Opposition inquiry into the crisis in manufacturing which started out with a hiss and a roar last year but seems to have disappeared probably because manufacturing is growing not shrinking.John Hayes: What international reports has he received on the New Zealand economy and the Government’s economic programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: This week the OECD has released its economic survey of New Zealand for this year. It says that the New Zealand economy is beginning to gain momentum with growing business investment increasing household spending and Canterbury reconstruction all contributing. It says that the macroeconomic policies strike the right balance between supporting the recovery and ensuring sustainable medium-term growth. It also says that a return to fiscal surplus is appropriate so that the Government can pay down debt which will raise national savings and prepare the Government for future cost pressures. This follows a similar positive assessment of New Zealand by the International Monetary Fund.John Hayes: In its report on New Zealand what did the OECD say about its views on the tax system in this country?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The OECD believes changes should be made to the tax system although it acknowledges that our recent changes in 2010 were appropriate. It has suggested a capital gains tax on all assets including the family home; it has suggested also a land tax; and it has suggested that rather than this revenue being spent this revenue should be used to reduce other tax rates like the top income tax rate and the company tax rate. The Government does not support this policy.Capital Gains Tax—Housing Market and OECD Report3.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Has he read the OECD advice that introduction of a capital gains tax would “make the tax system more conducive to both growth and equity”; and that “the lack of a capital gains tax in New Zealand exacerbates inequality”; and “reinforces a bias toward speculative housing investments and undermines housing affordability”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes I have read the report and I disagree with it. In the first place the member has left out its recommendation that the capital gains tax should tax all homes and not exempt the family home and secondly that the revenue should be used to cut income taxes. In respect of inequality we have decided to approach the problem from the cause of inequality. One of the causes of it is planning laws that limit the supply of housing which favours existing and higher-value home owners over poorer New Zealanders who want access to the housing market. I am pleased the Labour Party is supporting our legislation to achieve that.Hon David Parker: Well is he surprised to learn then that of the 30 countries in the OECD that have a capital gains tax only Switzerland has no exemption for the family home?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I am not surprised. That is the weakness of capital gains taxes all around the world. If you say a capital gains tax is going to bring the housing market under control but then you exempt most of the housing market it is unlikely towork and it has not worked as a method of controlling housing markets anywhere in the world.Maggie Barry: What measures has the Government taken in recent years to ensure property investors pay their fair share of tax?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well of course we do have a capital gains tax on people who trade property. The Government has moved in recent years to give the Inland Revenue Department the resources to ensure that those people who trade in property and are subject to capital gains tax actually pay their tax. We have also abolished depreciation on investment property. This is expected to raise $3 billion in tax revenue over 4 years much more than any proposal we have seen for a capital gains tax that excludes most houses so we are collecting more revenue from the property sector than would any proposal for a capital gains tax we have seen.Hon David Parker: Why does he continue to refuse to adopt a capital gains tax excluding the family home when it is clear it would reduce inequality it is clear it would take the pressure off house prices and it is clear some people would pay their fair share of tax and at the same time it would improve the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: If a capital gains tax had all those magical powers then you would not see a whole lot of developed country economies on their knees because of excessive housing markets. We have not implemented it for a couple of reasons. One is that we believe the other tax measures we have taken which are collecting $3 billion in tax revenue over 4 years are more effective and secondly we believe that changing the planning laws to allow more supply of houses will have a much bigger impact on fixing wealth inequality than a capital gains tax.Rt Hon John Key: Has he seen any reports about a period of time between 1999 and 2008 when there was a substantial increase in the housing market in New Zealand and when there was a major amount of work done to extent that half of the work of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was about the housing market and by the way was there a recommendation for a capital gains tax that was adopted in that period of time?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is funny you should mention that. Some of the things the last Labour Government did were sensible. In 2001 it commissioned a tax review—a comprehensive review of New Zealand’s tax system. That review concluded that a capital gains tax that exempted the family home would not be effective. Faced with the fastest-rising housing market in New Zealand’s history through the mid-2000s the previous Labour Government in which most of the Opposition’s current front bench served did not implement a capital gains tax.Hon David Parker: Is the lack of a capital gains tax not one of the reasons why fewer young New Zealanders can afford to buy a home especially in Auckland?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No the main reason young New Zealanders cannot afford to buy houses in Auckland is that the supply is unreasonably limited and that has pushed the prices up to unreasonable levels. We have been negotiating intensively with the Auckland Council to fix that problem and we are pleased that the Labour Party is supporting the Government’s legislation to increase the supply of housing and reduce the asset inequality that is generated in New Zealand from restrictive planning laws.Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Minister confirm that the last official organisation in New Zealand to recommend a capital gains tax was in fact the Brash committee chaired by Dr Don Brash in 1989 that the Labour Government of the time rejected that report and that subsequent Governments have also rejected that report?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I believe that the member is right that the last time a review of the New Zealand tax system recommended a capital gains tax was in the late 1980sunder Dr Don Brash and since then every single review of our tax system has rejected a capital gains tax and every Government has taken that advice.Hon David Parker: Is the truth of the matter not that Mr English and his colleagues stopped the Savings Working Group and others looking at a capital gains tax by putting it out of their ambit and is it not the reality that National’s refusal to introduce a capital gains tax is because it does not suit the vested interests of its backers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well with I think 47 percent of New Zealanders voting for the National Government in the last election we are very pleased to represent a very broad range of backers—in fact a much broader range of New Zealanders than the Opposition Labour Party which claims to represent everybody. No the reason we have not implemented a capital gains tax is that when you exempt most of the housing market it becomes a tax purely on successful profitable businesses and that would be bad for growth. We are addressing the problem of rising house prices by addressing the real issue of the lack of supply particularly in Auckland.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have just pulled out the 50th Parliament allocation of supplementary questions for oral answer and I see on that that there is no allocation for Mr Dunne. I just wanted to check that as with Opposition members the rules are being applied evenly and that Mr Dunne was allocated questions and you were told in advance before the session started of the change of allocation towards Mr Dunne who of course even before he becomes an independent does not have a supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: I am advised that there has been an arrangement made with the ability for the United Future member to take one question a day if he so wishes and that arrangement is formally with the National Party.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that mean that if other parties wish to enter into agreements whereby they take a supplementary question up to one a day without notifying you they can enter into that sort of arrangement? If that is the case the allocation becomes stupid.Mr SPEAKER: Order! It does not mean that.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not think it is reasonable for Mr Mallard to start trying to put some sort of a formulaic arrangement over this. We would welcome for example the Labour Party giving Mr Harawira a question a day; that would be most entertaining for the House. The point of order is simply this: each party has its allocation but each party has the ability within its own agreement to transfer those allocations. We have an arrangement with Mr Dunne which is notified to the Speaker so that there are no surprises for the Speaker should that question be asked.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Again Mr Brownlee seriously—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just address the point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well I am addressing the argument that he put and showing why it is defective because as you well know such an arrangement is not discouraged but it requires prior notice to you which is a point you made. Mr Brownlee is about to invite you to depart from a well-laid-out procedure.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I may not have made it clear enough. There is a permanent arrangement of which I am aware for United Future to take a question from the National allocation and that is permanently based. The very significant point here is that the Opposition every day very effectively utilises its allocation of questions. On most days this side—the National side of the House—does not.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just get this absolutely clear. It is OK for the National Party to enter into a permanent arrangementwith another party for the transfer of questions but it is not an option available to the Labour Party.Mr SPEAKER: No no. I am sorry. If the Labour Party wants to approach me with a permanent arrangement of a permanent transfer on that basis I am very happy to consider it. I see no reason why that should not be granted. But to the best of my knowledge the Labour Party attempts to very effectively use every one of its supplementary questions and in fact on occasions uses some others that are allocated to other parties.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you this question: is the arrangement that you say you have already been made aware of an arrangement that as you said was made with United Future or was it made with now Mr Peter Dunne? Because frankly you are well aware of the circumstances whereby he ceases to be by law the leader of United Future.Mr SPEAKER: I addressed that matter earlier. The arrangement was made with United Future. As to the other matter that has arisen over the last few days I have adequately addressed that at this stage.Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If National would give me those questions I would use them.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not sure what that point of order is.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I cannot believe what I just heard.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—[Interruption] Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Would the member please come to his point of order immediately and would there be no further interjections.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The problem with the circumstances that you have laid out is that you were going to invite—and you had invited—Mr Dunne to communicate with you. If he does not communicate with you this month next month or any time soon then how can that actually be a ruling that now binds you?Mr SPEAKER: Because as I have said earlier I have written to the member and I have invited him to—I want to know the scale of the problem and until I receive a response to that I do not intend to take the matter further.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you might have just made it quite seriously worse because you indicated that you wanted to know the scale of the problem.Mr SPEAKER: That is right.Hon Trevor Mallard: The party is either registered or it is not. The fact that it is not registered—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have addressed the matter. I am aware from the media that the party is now no longer registered but I am unsure as to when it might possibly be re-registered.Hon Trevor Mallard: No no but it is gone. If it is gone it is gone.Mr SPEAKER: I know that. I am aware of that. I have written to Mr Dunne. I am seeking an explanation from Mr Dunne and I will not take the matter further until I have received that response from Mr Dunne.Budget 2013—Early Childhood Education4.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to theMinister of Education: How does Budget 2013 progress the Government’s early childhood education priorities?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Budget 2013 provided a further $173 million for early childhood education bringing our total investment to a record $1.5 billion. That is 74 percent more funding than the previous Government’s funding. Of this $39 million provides for a universal subsidy increase for all early childhood education centres and a further $41 million provides equity funding targeting our more vulnerable children. The funding will continue to provide for increased participation and our latest data shows that our focus is working with around 95.5 percent of children now starting school having participated in early childhood education.Tim Macindoe: What is the Government doing to increase the participation rate of more vulnerable families in early childhood education?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The most recent data shows increased participation—from 94.1 percent to 95.5 percent. A pleasing element of this is the increase in participation by both Māori and Pasifika children. It has increased to 92 percent for Māori children and around 88 percent for Pacific Island children. We are working hard to address barriers for families to access early childhood education. We have established an early learning task force that is working with communities to apply or develop models that will work for them and we are taking early learning opportunities to families to whānau to aiga to communities that most need it. Thank you.Schools Primary and Intermediate—Nurses and Provision of Health Services5.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Health: How many decile one two and three primary and intermediate schools have their own school nurse funded by the Government?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I am advised that there are around 680 decile 1 2 and 3 primary and intermediate schools. District health boards currently employ 280 fulltime-equivalent public health nurses who provide nursing services to all of these schools. These nurses are employed by district health boards not the schools themselves. How the needs of each low-decile school are best met is organised on a local basis and additional services are provided in many cases—for example as part of the rheumatic fever programme in 198 schools. But I have to tell the member that this is not the only good news. There will be 670 social workers—Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just as questions are required to be succinct so are answers. I think the Minister has talked a lot. I will certainly be making a point of order as to whether he answered my question but he is simply going nowhere with his current answer.Mr SPEAKER: Is the member saying she is satisfied with the answer? We can move to the next supplementary question.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has not answered my question.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister was attempting to but it is very difficult for the Minister to address the question when immediately upon answering it the member starts to dispute the answer. I invite the Minister if he so desires to continue his answer.Hon TONY RYALL: As I said district health boards employ 280 fulltime-equivalent public health nurses who provide nursing services to all these schools. This is not the only good news. There are 670 social workers in all low-decile primary schools by the end of next term and I am advised that virtually all schools have a named public health nurse who works with them.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question has been put on notice for some hours now—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Minister has quite adequately addressed the question. The member now has some supplementary questions if she wishes to use them.Metiria Turei: How many decile 1 2 and 3 primary and intermediate schools have a nurse based permanently in their school?Hon TONY RYALL: I do not have information on how many because—[Interruption] What I can tell the member is that—and I do not think that the member was aware of this when the Green Party policy was announced—public health nurses are allocated to every school in New Zealand and those services are provided by the public health nurses to all those schools. Matching those public health nurse services for all those schools are 670 social workers by the end of next term. It is this combination of school nurses and social workers that has proven to be most effective.Metiria Turei: How many decile 1 2 and 3 primary and intermediate schools have a nurse who visits more than once a month?Hon TONY RYALL: Quite a lot actually. While I have been talking around the countryside it has become quite clear that most decile 1 2 and 3 schools will have a very regular visit from their public health nurses. I talked to a couple of schools today who had a visit at least once a week and all these nurses are available on referral by the school.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very precise. It asked how many decile 1 2 and 3 primary and intermediate schools had a nurse who visits more than once a month—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I invite the member at the conclusion of question time to study theHansard.Metiria Turei: If the Green Party’s proposal—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member start again. I cannot hear the question; start again.Metiria Turei: I cannot hear anything either. If the Green Party’s proposal for a dedicated school nurse in every decile 1 2 and 3 primary and intermediate school was already happening as the Minister has said why then is KidsCan having to embark on a major school nurses programme of nearly $2 million to “plug holes” in school health services?Hon TONY RYALL: I have not got the full details of what that member is alleging but what I can say is that we are providing nurses in schools. Virtually every school has a named public health nurse and there is a much better coverage. I saw a report earlier today that said there used to be one public health nurse for 13 schools in Porirua in 2002. What I know is that now all the four or so schools in Cannons Creek are receiving regular nurse visits every week for a significant number of hours. In the Capital and Coast District Health Board area for example some schools are allocated 20 hours a week of public health nurse time. The Green Party was unaware that public health nurses were active in schools.Metiria Turei: If the Green Party’s proposal for a dedicated school nurse in every decile 1 2 and 3 primary and intermediate school was already happening as the Minister said why has the principal of Papakura’s decile 1 Kelvin Road School said in a written email to me that they have had only one visit from a public health nurse last term and only one visit from a public health nurse this term?Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to check the detail of that case but I would say I do not think many people think it makes a lot of sense to have one nurse allocated to a school of only 40 children. That does not make a lot of sense because what will the nurse do all the time with one nurse for 40 children in a school? What this Government does is have 280 public health nurses working every day with schools up and down thiscountry which is a fact that the Green Party seemed to be completely unaware of when it announced its policy on Sunday.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just for the sake of clarity the Green Party had asked a question on notice about how many of the school nurses in decile 1 to 3 primary schools were funded by the Government. The Minister mentioned that there were many nurses. Clearly he did not have an exact figure. I just wanted to seek clarity as to whether or not it is actually up to the district health board’s discretion—Mr SPEAKER: This is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order! That is not a point of order. The member will resume her seat.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table an extract from the email to me from the principal of Kelvin Road School who says that—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the email from the principal of the school. [Interruption] Order! The House has heard enough. Leave is sought to table that email. Is there any objection? Yes there is.Dr Jian Yang: Has the Minister seen a report that says there are no health services between before-school checks and nurses in secondary schools and a claim that says that there is a gap in school-based health services programmes in primary schools?Hon TONY RYALL: Yes I have seen a report that says there is no national framework for school-based health service programmes in primary schools. This is simply incorrect. It appears that the writers of this report were completely unaware that we have significant numbers of public health services in primary schools delivered by public health nurses especially in low-decile schools. The writers of this report said that there were no health services before before-school checks and before secondary schools. The writers were well and truly behind the eight ball and the report came from the Green Party of Aotearoa.Metiria Turei: If the Green Party’s proposal for a dedicated school nurse in every decile 1 2 and 3 primary and intermediate school was already happening as the Minister has said in his last answer why then has the principal of Hamilton’s decile 3 Rhode Street School written to me to say that his school has had to employ its own nurse with funding diverted from his school’s operation grant because “Many of our tamariki were missing school due to preventable illnesses such as glue ear school sores and head lice.”?Hon TONY RYALL: Of course I would have to check the full circumstances of what the member says but I understand that in the Waikato they employ 36 public health nurses who regularly visit schools. I think that if the member had taken the time to talk to some decile 1 2 and 3 schools she would have found out that public health nurses are regularly visiting those schools. They can take referrals from those schools. They are working actively with those schools with Child Youth and Family and with hospital and general practitioner referrals. It is quite clear from the Green Party policy announced on Sunday that it did not realise that public health nurses visit primary schools regularly.Metiria Turei: If the Green Party’s proposal for a dedicated school nurse service in decile 1 2 and 3 primary and intermediate schools was already happening as the Minister keeps repeating wrongly why then did a principal write to me to say that a public health nurse tried to help where she could but was spread between too many schools and was often seconded by the district health board to deliver other programmes?Hon TONY RYALL: Of course I would have to be able to check the details behind that. But what is absolutely clear is that we have got 280 public health nurses who are regularly visiting and supporting schools. They are also working closely with thefamilies based on the referrals that schools make. This is a valuable service that is already being provided. It is absolutely clear in its discussion document and its policy that the Green Party was completely unaware that the school-based health service is provided by public health nurses up and down the country. It is rather embarrassing for it I would have thought.Metiria Turei: Will the Minister address the reality of the situation and concede that school principals are right when they say that there is a glaring gap of nurses in primary and intermediate schools right now and that the pay-off of a comprehensive service in these schools is improved academic results better school attendance millions of dollars saved from avoidable illness every year and most important better lives for around 120000 New Zealand children—lives that he is not providing for because there is no comprehensive public health service in primary and intermediate schools—[Interruption] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not expect the Minister to stand up and begin answering the question before I have even finished it. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! It would be helpful if the Minister did not rise until the member had finished. But equally it was a very very long question.Hon TONY RYALL: What I would say to that member and in response to that question is that members can ask as many questions as they like but it will not cover the fact that the Green Party was unaware that for example in Gisborne primary schools there in the high-decile areas are visited three times a week and more often when need is there that in Northland—Hon Member: The high decile in Gisborne?Hon TONY RYALL: —rather the low-decile schools in Gisborne—and the low-decile schools in Northland are visited on a weekly basis including 19000 one-on-one consultations between the public health nurse and the school student. Whatever that member says it cannot hide the fact that the Green Party did not know that the public health nurse services were provided in primary and intermediate schools.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question Brendan Horan. [Interruption] Order! I have called Brendan Horan.Brendan Horan: Are school nurses able to provide care for every child that is insulin dependent and has type 1 diabetes in decile 1 2 and 3 schools and are these nurses aware of the problems these children and their parents are reporting with CareSens meters and faulty scripts?Hon TONY RYALL: I am sure the school-based public health nurses are aware of the needs that any school wants to draw to their attention but I have to say in respect of that matter of the diabetes switch-over led by Pharmac that actually the vast majority of consumers have made the switch and it is progressing very well.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a summary document prepared by my office of extracts of emails from nurses and from principals talking about the issues of having no nurses available—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is enough of an explanation: a summary document prepared by the member’s office summarising the issues. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is.Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table correspondence from Mrs Sarah Jane Mills regarding problems experienced by a registered nurse to test her primary school - aged son’s blood sugars using a CareSens meter.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Are you speaking to that point of order?Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am speaking to the point of order. My point of order is to ask whether this disclosure is being made with the consent of the correspondent.Mr SPEAKER: That is a reasonable point. Could the member Brendan Horan confirm that the disclosure would then be made with the permission of the patient he is talking about?Brendan Horan: Yes I believe it is.Mr SPEAKER: OK leave is—[Interruption] I think that unless the member is sure he would be better not to be tabling the document. That would be my advice.Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table correspondence to me from Helen Lockley of New Plymouth whose diabetic son—Mr SPEAKER: Again the same issue. Is Mrs Lockley aware that you are attempting to do this?Brendan Horan: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: OK. Leave is sought to table that correspondence. Is there any objection? There is.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table two documents. Both are communications to me the first from the New Zealand Nurses Organisation and the second from the New Zealand Educational Institute supporting a policy of comprehensive health services in decile 1 2 and 3 primary—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two pieces of correspondence. Is there any objection? There is.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of the question because I did not want to interrupt the member’s questions but I want to raise with you a recurring issue in the House and that is the inconsistency of the quality of the sound system. During that question we could barely hear Metiria Turei and I could tell that she was speaking quite loudly. We could hear very clearly both the Minister and Brendan Horan and others who were speaking quite quietly. It does seem to be that some of the microphones in the House are very loud and others are not. Sometimes sure the level of interjection impacts on that but clearly there were points when the House was very silent while Metiria Turei was speaking and I could still barely pick up what she was saying.Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly look—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not want to prolong things. I would have to agree that it was pretty hard to hear the member. It is probably because of the location of the microphone. With all due respect if it was on the other side of that desk and she was speaking directly to it it would have been in a better position to hear what she was saying. But it was actually quite pleasant.Mr SPEAKER: That is not helpful either. I will—[Interruption] Order! I am ruling on this first. In answer to the point raised by Chris Hipkins I will certainly have another look at the quality of sound. It is not helped by noise coming from any part of the House when members are attempting to ask questions.Brendan Horan: I seek leave to table a series of photographs showing the results of dual testing using the same drop of blood—Mr SPEAKER: No. That is not going to be of any value to the House.State and Social Housing—Response toHome and Housed Report6.ALFRED NGARO (National) to theMinister of Housing: What progress has the Government made in implementing the recommendations fromHome and Housed: A Vision for Social Housing in New Zealand?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): The major recommendations of the report which included the Salvation Army the Auckland City Mission and the Housing Foundation were that New Zealand needed to develop a broader social housing sector. Its 19 recommendations included growing the community socialhousing sector to 20 percent transferring the housing needs assessment from Housing New Zealand to the Ministry of Social Development enabling access to the income-related rent subsidy for community housing providers and introducing new tenancy agreements focused on providing support to those with the highest need for the duration of that need. Good progress is being made on all those recommendations with funding changes in Budget 2013 and the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill now before the Social Services Committee.Alfred Ngaro: How much new funding is the Government putting into implementing the changes recommended in theHome and Housed: A Vision for Social HousingNew Zealand report?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has set aside $139 million for the Social Housing Fund. It has already committed $60 million enabling 422 additional housing units to be built in Northland Auckland Waikato the Bay of Plenty Hawke’s Bay Gisborne Wellington Nelson Christchurch and Otago. It has budgeted $31 million for the transfer of the housing needs assessment to the Ministry of Social Development and for extending income-related rent subsidies to community housing providers. A further $47 million has been budgeted for renewable tenancies to fund the increase in income-related rent subsidies as families of higher need move into social housing.Alfred Ngaro: What changes is Housing New Zealand making to the management of its housing stock in response to theHome and Housed: A Vision for Social Housing in New Zealand report?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The report expressed real concern that historically Housing New Zealand has been excessively focused on just the number of State houses rather than ensuring that they are in the right place that they are of the right size and that they are of good quality. In response Housing New Zealand has embarked on a major programme of reconfiguring its housing stock with a record investment of $2.9 billion over the next 3 years. This involves insulating every State house capable of being insulated—an initiative taken by my predecessor Phil Heatley—spending $377 million on adding 3000 additional bedrooms to existing houses and building 500 new infill houses in Auckland as well as the massive programme of rebuilds and replacement in Christchurch. There is also a housing warrant of fitness that is going to be introduced for Housing New Zealand properties—Hon Annette King: Being considered.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —no it is going to be introduced—to make sure that we actually focus on the quality of them unlike the Labour Party which has a disgraceful record in terms of the quality of our State housing.Teachers and Support Staff Payroll—Minister’s Decisions and Advice Received Regarding Novopay System7.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to theMinister of Education: Does she stand by all her decisions as Minister of Education; if not are there any particular decisions she now regrets?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes in the circumstances and the advice received at the time and the decision I stand most by is the decision to invest $9.7 billion into education in New Zealand the most ever invested in education in this country.Chris Hipkins: Did she ask for or receive any further details about the 147 known defects in the Novopay system that she was made aware of in the 5 June written briefing she received from officials prior to giving her final approval to Novopay going live; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I asked for advice from those whom I was entitled to rely upon whether or not that rate was well within the acceptable level and I was advised byofficials that it was. In terms of the 5 June decision to go live I was advised that three members of the information and communications technology approval council had approved the go-live and that confidence point two had been met in all criteria. I now know that not to have been the case but at the time that was the advice and it was in that knowledge that I approved the go-live.Chris Hipkins: Did she specifically ask for any further advice about the 147 known defects that she was advised about?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I have already responded to that member—well I should make it clear. I am not an IT expert so I relied on the advice that the IT experts gave me which was that the criteria for confidence point two which included those particular runs had been met and the advice from all of the officials and the independent advisers was that we should proceed to go live.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Both the first supplementary question and the second supplementary question were actually very specific about the 147 known defects that were reported in the briefing that the Minister received on 5 June. I asked her specifically whether she had asked for advice on those specific defects. She has talked about a number of other things she asked for advice on but having—Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion I think the Minister has adequately addressed both questions. The first one was certainly addressed. In terms of the second one as to whether she specifically asked for additional information the Minister responded by saying that she was not a technology expert; she relied on the information that was given to her. I think that—Chris Hipkins: Yes or no?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has no right to demand a yes or no answer. The member has further supplementary questions if he wants to use them.Chris Hipkins: Did the advice she received on 5 June indicate that confidence point two had been met but also indicate that it had not been met; if so why did she sign off on Novopay’s implementation given that she was receiving clearly contradictory advice?Hon HEKIA PARATA: On 5 June with the go-live decision the advice that I was clearly given both by the information and communications technology advice council and in terms of whether confidence point two had been met was that it was appropriate for me to sign and approve and it was on that advice and my asking for information and assurance that I signed the go-live.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked her specifically—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again can I invite the member to look carefully at theHansard as indeed I will. The member from memory asked three supplementary questions. The Minister has very adequately addressed one of those.Chris Hipkins: Did the advice she received on 5 June indicate that there was at least one medium-security vulnerability and one low-security vulnerability within the Novopay system; if so did she ask for any further information on the nature of those security threats before she signed off the implementation?Mr SPEAKER: Hon Hekia Parata—either of those two supplementary questions.Hon HEKIA PARATA: In respect of the decision made on 5 June the advice put to me based on the knowledge of all of the information that applied to meeting confidence point two was that it was satisfactory that Ministers could rely on that advice. Assurances were sought they were given and on that basis—relying on people who know about IT far more than me—I signed the advice.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have the advantage of being able to read the question that my colleague asked. It does have two parts—Mr SPEAKER: Yes.Hon Trevor Mallard: —and I put it to you that neither of those was answered. The first part asked whether the advice she received on 5 June indicated that there was at least one medium-security vulnerability and one low-security vulnerability. She did not answer that. She was then asked if that was so whether she asked for further information on the nature of those security threats. She did not answer that.Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister could attempt to answer either of those supplementary questions I would be grateful.Hon HEKIA PARATA: The advice that I was given by officials by independent quality assurers by people with significant IT expertise was that within the expectations of the project at that time it was satisfactory to go live. I relied on that advice at that time.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I could read the question out again. It did have two parts and neither of those was addressed by the Minister’s answer.Mr SPEAKER: The best way forward is to invite Chris Hipkins as the original asker of the question to repeat the question.Chris Hipkins: Did the advice she received on 5 June indicate that there was at least one medium-security vulnerability and one low-security vulnerability within the Novopay system; if so did she ask for any further information on the nature of those security threats before she signed off implementation?Hon HEKIA PARATA: My clear recollection is asking officials whether they could give me assurance that notwithstanding those particular elements of the project at that time it was satisfactory within the context of IT projects to proceed. The advice was and I can rely only on the advice of experts in the IT field that it was satisfactory that confidence point two had been met and that the independent advisers who had been retained specifically for this purpose agreed that the go-live should occur. On the basis of that advice which I had complete confidence at that time that I could rely on I approved the go-live.Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table the advice the Minister received on 5 June.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that advice. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Flu Vaccine—Numbers Vaccinated and Targets8.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to theAssociate Minister of Health: What reports has she received regarding the number of New Zealanders who have been immunised against the flu this year?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health): The Ministry of Health recently reported to me that the Government’s target of immunising 1.2 million New Zealanders against the flu this year has already been reached. This is the largest number of Kiwis ever vaccinated against the flu. This was an ambitious target but thanks to the hard work of health professionals around the country we have reached our goal more than 2 months earlier than anticipated which is great news because now more people are immunised against the flu less flu is circulating in our community leading to greater protection for us all.Shane Ardern: What is the Government’s goal now for the flu immunisation programme?Hon JO GOODHEW: Our aim now is to continue the momentum and immunise as many people as possible. In particular we want to see more of the fully funded immunisations for which around 1.1 million people are eligible. This includes peopleover 65 years old pregnant women children under 5 who have significant respiratory illnesses and people with ongoing health conditions. So I encourage people who have not already had their immunisation to check with their health professionals to see whether they are eligible.Government Communications Security Bureau—Investigation into Review of Compliance Leak9.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to thePrime Minister: Has he recently taken steps to ensure that his confidence in all his Ministers is rightly placed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No. I have confidence in all of my Ministers. They retain my confidence unless I have reason to lose that confidence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he confirm that the Kitteridge report was classified information at the time it was leaked and caught by section 78 of the Crimes Act?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not believe I am in a position to confirm that. It may well be correct but I would need to check it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister dismissing as “an indiscreet comment” a leak to a journalist who wrote on 9 April—and I am using the very words of that article that that journalist wrote—“The revelations are contained in the report prepared by Cabinet Secretary Rebecca Kitteridge and seen by Fairfax Media.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I thought the reference I made yesterday that the member was referring to—I may be wrong—was in relation to another detailed leak or a leak from the Intelligence and Security Committee meeting. I am pretty sure that was actually the reference the member made yesterday. I may be wrong. If that was the case the member might like to know that the committee clerk wrote to all members after that leak emerged and reminded them of their obligations and to be careful.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister dismissing a most serious leak as “an indiscreet comment”—not to do with anything other than the matter of the leak I am referring to—when the leak to the journalist was of a full report which enabled the journalist to describe key details such as the 71-page length of the report the recommendation of “an immediate overhaul of the law” criticism of a former Government Communications Security Bureau deputy director under-resourcing of the Government Communications Security Bureau deputy director’s office culture problems at the agency and many other very substantial issues all in a long report by that journalist?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I say I can go back and check yesterday’sHansard. I may be incorrect or talking at cross-purposes but the member is talking about the leak of the Kitteridge report. That is a serious matter subject to an inquiry by David Henry. When that inquiry is complete the report is finalised and I have had an opportunity to read it and digest it it will be released. That was not actually the reference that the member was talking to yesterday from memory. It was about another leak that came from the Intelligence and Security Committee which I think at the time actually was an indiscreet comment as opposed to a leak. I may be wrong but that is my understanding.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why when there is an inexplicable connection between one Minister’s phone calls and information leaks exclusively to one journalist is he showing such little interest in these phone records?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I thank the member for playing super-sleuth but maybe he would like to do what I am doing and that is wait for the David Henry report.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not obliged to wait for the David Henry report. I am obliged to do my job as an Opposition member and ask questions. My point is that the Prime Minister—Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’d be sensible to wait.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Do not get excited chaps.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants to make a point of order he will concentrate—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes well my point of order is that I am asking questions legitimately of the Prime Minister about a certain Minister’s phone calls and the coincidence not pure serendipity of information by way of an exclusive leak to one journalist which everybody in the press gallery knows about. I am entitled to ask that question and not be fobbed off by being told to wait until some other later report may come out.Mr SPEAKER: As I recall the question it certainly had an opinion that was delivered within the question that was the opinion of the member and the Prime Minister adequately addressed that question. The member can ask a further supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why when affected parties shown the Kitteridge report had their phones removed were escorted into the room and were kept under constant surveillance because they were seeing classified information caught by section 78 of the Crimes Act is he now covering up the leak which involves a serious crime punishable by 3 years in prison?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is just being ludicrous. We have commissioned a report. David Henry is writing the report. I do not have the report. The report in the fullness of time will be received will be read and will be released. There is no more that I could do as Prime Minister. Some time ago that member said: “I deal in the facts.” Well so do I. When I have the facts I will share them.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You can see what is going on here. The Prime Minister—[Interruption] Oh do not worry.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! It is a point of order—well I hope it is a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes exactly. I recognise a hysterical laugh when I hear one. The plain fact is that I am entitled to ask the Prime Minister about a certain Minister’s phone calls and the connection between that Minister and exclusive leaks that are covered by the Crimes Act. I am entitled to ask the Prime Minister whether he regards that leak as a crime and instead I am being told to wait around when we all know there is a leak so we know that a crime has been committed—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard sufficient. I have heard sufficient. [Interruption] I have heard sufficient. [Interruption] I have heard sufficient. The member is entitled to ask the question and the Prime Minister is expected to answer it and he has done so. The member now has one further supplementary question if he desires it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Tell me Prime Minister: have you spoken to the Hon Peter Dunne about his phone records and the pure connection by dates of exclusive leaks shortly after those phone calls and other communications that are a crime under the Crimes Act because the information is classified?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No because if I did that I would be doing the job of David Henry. I am not the person responsible for the inquiry.Crime Victims—Support Services10.KATRINA SHANKS (National) to theMinister of Justice: How is the Government continuing its support for victims of crime?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Through our levy on offenders I am pleased to announce increased funding and support for victims of serious crimes. In future we will be funding Victim Support to pilot an enhanced homicide supportservice introducing a crime scene grant to support victims with accommodation costs where their residence cannot be used because it is a crime scene increasing funding for rape prevention education increasing funding for families of victims killed by a criminal act and increasing funding for victims of crime travelling to New Zealand from outside the Pacific to attend court hearings.Katrina Shanks: How else is the Government supporting victims of crime?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Ministry of Justice currently employs 70 court victim advisers who help around 40000 victims each year. It recently rolled out an enhanced victim advisory service for sexual violence victims and established the Victims Centre to ensure victims are aware of their rights and the range of support available. The ministry also runs a helpline for victims and funds a range of services including a 24-hour crisis support line in addition to in-person support. The Victims of Crime Reform Bill will introduce a Victims Code and a register of victims’ complaints. The justice sector is continually reviewing ways to provide more support for victims of crime to strengthen our communities and ensure people feel safe.Broadband Initiatives and Cybersecurity—Involvement of Huawei Technologies11.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Clare Curran: Does he stand by his statement to this House on 4 April 2012 that he is “comfortable with the arrangements that we have with Huawei.” and in light of this is he aware that Chorus has rejected Huawei’s bid to provide fibre equipment and services for the major contract for taxpayer-funded ultra-fast broadband in New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to the first part of the question yes.Clare Curran: Has any Government agency that he is responsible for recommended against Chorus accepting the bid from Huawei to provide equipment and services for taxpayer-funded ultra-fast broadband?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not my policy to talk publicly about the advice I receive from the Government Communications Security Bureau and I will not be doing so this afternoon.Clare Curran: Is he aware that three of the four New Zealand security Echelon partners have outright rejected Huawei’s involvement in their Government broadband roll-out while the fourth the UK now bitterly regrets approving a contract with the Chinese company after a forensic audit costing more than £20 million uncovered thousands of bugs in the telecommunications system?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot speak for other partners that New Zealand has but in relation to the last part I do not believe that would actually be right. But what I can say is the Government takes network security seriously. It protects network security where it believes possible and where appropriate and if the member wants to vote for the legislation that is currently going through the House that will strengthen network security that would be great. But guess what? The member will not.Clare Curran: Given the UK Government communications headquarters has an agreement with Huawei that allows it to vet Huawei devices and source codes for bugs and that covers British Telecom is there a similar arrangement between the Government Communications Security Bureau and Huawei in New Zealand?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said earlier I am not going to discuss specific providers and either what advice or measures the Government Communications Security Bureau gives the Government or the Government follows because I do not believe it is in the national interest to do so. What I do believe is in the national interest is to strengthen thelegislation in this area. I invite the member’s party to do so. I am sure she will not but I invite her to do so. I stand by my earlier statements that I am comfortable as Prime Minister with the steps this Government has been taking.Clare Curran: Has he at any time discussed with the Government Communications Security Bureau Huawei’s bid for the ultra-fast broadband contract with Chorus?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For the third time this afternoon I do not talk about the discussions I have with the Government Communications Security Bureau in relation to this matter or other matters unless there is specific reason to do so. That is a longstanding position by the way that the former Prime Minister Helen Clark adopted.Clare Curran: Does he now feel embarrassed that having invited Huawei into New Zealand and virtually offering it contracts on a plate in 2011 he is now being forced to keep it out of the major contract following the persistent concerns of all our major security partners?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is deliberately attempting to mislead the House. I did not invite Huawei into New Zealand.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you know that the Prime Minister cannot say that.Mr SPEAKER: It would be helpful if the Prime Minister did not suggest that the member was deliberately misleading the House. It is certainly in order for the member to dispute the supposition raised. It would be helpful if the Prime Minister in future would not accuse another honourable member of deliberately misleading the House. [Interruption]Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You just asked the Prime Minister to not do that in the future and I would question whether or not he should have been made to withdraw and apologise but immediately following your making that ruling the Prime Minister repeated it and said: “She is.”Mr SPEAKER: Well if the Prime Minister did interject that it would be useful if he now stood withdrew and apologised to the member.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw and apologise.Clare Curran: I seek leave to table a list of contracts related to the ultra-fast broadband roll-out that the telecommunications company Huawei has in New Zealand.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? There appears to be none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Oil and Gas Exploration—Tax Concessions and Consultation with Iwi12.GARETH HUGHES (Green) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: Does he agree with the OECD which recommends the removal of tax concessions for petroleum exploration; if not why not?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): No I do not. I do not believe that the OECD gives sufficient weight to the challenge of developing New Zealand’s petroleum resources or to this Government’s commitment to ensuring that we receive a fair return from petroleum resources. For the record I am not aware of another industry in New Zealand that contributes as much of its profits as a proportion to the Crown—42c in every $1; $700 million to $800 million a year. That is something we should celebrate.Gareth Hughes: How is it that the Government can find over $46 million in support for an already wealthy industry to extract more fossil fuels to lead to more pollution and it can muster only $1.9 million to feed our poorest kids breakfast?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The amount the member talks about is exceptionally small in comparison with the $700 million to $800 million per annum we currently receive in taxes and royalties. As I say I would like the member to see whether he can think of another industry that delivers that sort of money as a proportion of its profits to the taxpayer’s coffers.Gareth Hughes: So what is the Minister’s rationale for supporting tax breaks for the profitable petroleum sector and not similar tax breaks for industries like maybe the clean-energy industry which international studies show has got four times the job-creating potential and even agencies like PricewaterhouseCoopers say could be a potential $22 billion industry for New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well there is no rush. I can tell the member that we met last week with the head economist of the International Energy Agency the premier energy agency in the world and the first thing he did was to congratulate us on being world leaders when it comes to fossil fuels subsidy reform—and we are world leaders in that area.Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora tātou. Is he aware that Ngāti Kahungunu wrote to the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment in January 2013 supporting the recommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal relating to the petroleum management regime; if so what efforts will he make to follow their call for adequate communications standards to be enforced by the Crown between petroleum companies and iwi and hapū?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am aware of that letter; indeed I have met with that iwi a couple of times in Hawke’s Bay in relation to issues that they have about the sector. I can tell the member that when we reformed the Crown Minerals Act earlier this year we formalised consultation processes between the Crown and iwi and indeed between iwi and industry. Now it is the case that industry in relation to tier 1 permits at least must supply annual reports to the Government on its engagement with iwi or hapū whose rohe intercepts the area of the permit or who otherwise may be directly affected by the Crown. Of course what is also true is that this is an industry that can deliver great gains and jobs for Māori in places like Northland and the East Coast and bring them home from places like Western Australia and Queensland. So I think the benefits from this industry can be felt disproportionately and favourably for Māori and iwi.Gareth Hughes: In regard to the last answer does the Minister want New Zealand to walk the walk on international fossil fuels subsidies and will he recommend the removal of all tax breaks for petroleum exploration given that the OECD says they counteract New Zealand’s efforts to address global climate change and distort investment decisions away from more sustainable sources of growth?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: We walk the walk and we talk the talk in a world where there are hundred and hundreds—probably trillions—of dollars of subsidies for fossil fuels. The fact of the matter is we are one of the cleanest greenest little countries in the world.Urgent Debates DeclinedSocial Development Ministry—Report on Information SecurityMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Clare Curran seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the report of the independent review of the Ministry of Social Development’s information systems security. The release of the report is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The review identified a small number of potential vulnerabilities and that the level of security management was lower than would be expected. The vulnerabilities are being looked into. However thereis no evidence that they have led to another privacy breach. The review considered only publicly accessible systems provided by Government agencies and further wider reviews are now likely.A work programme is under way to ensure improvements are made as a matter of priority. The issue of public trust in Government agencies’ ability to handle private information appropriately is increasingly important but given the ongoing nature of the Government’s response I am not convinced that there is the element of urgency necessary to justify setting aside the business of the House today when the Budget debate provides another means of discussing the matter. The application is therefore declined.Budget DebateDebate resumed from 4 June on theAppropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): Budget 2013 was a very good Budget—a very good Budget—for New Zealanders. It confirms that New Zealand is on the right track it forecasts economic growth for New Zealanders it forecasts more jobs for New Zealanders it forecasts rising wages for New Zealanders and it forecasts a return to surplus for the Government’s books by 2014-15. They are all the issues that matter to New Zealanders right across the country all the issues that this Government has been talking about for the last 4 years and I have to say all the things that the Labour-Green Opposition has consistently opposed at every opportunity. The Budget builds on the momentum created over the last 4 years as this Government has grappled with probably the deepest depression in the economy since the 1930s—the global financial crisis—and the dreadful earthquakes that have wreaked such havoc in our second-largest city the beautiful city of Christchurch.In order to rebuild this country’s economic performance this National-led Government has set four priorities: firstly to responsibly manage the books and it is clear from the Budget that we are doing an excellent job of that; secondly to build a more competitive and productive economy and again the Budget shows that we are doing exactly that; thirdly to rebuild Christchurch and with an $18 billion investment from this Government we are certainly working hard to rebuild that city; and fourthly to deliver Better Public Services and the Prime Minister has set 10 targets across a range of ministries in order to deliver those services to New Zealanders. It is that latter point that I want to focus on today.If we look at all three of the portfolios that I have responsibility for—police corrections and the Serious Fraud Office—they have certainly had an outstanding year. Corrections was named as the department of the year at the end of last week by theTrans-Tasman. Recorded crime is at its lowest rate in 24 years and reoffending rates have fallen by nearly 9 percent. Budget 2013 provides the platform to continue to see lower crime and further reductions in reoffending and that will enable the portfolios that I have responsibility for to achieve their Better Public Services targets. Budget 2013 makes $10 million available from the Justice Sector Fund over the next 2 years to establish new services to support prisoners on their release into the community and in the next couple of weeks we will be making announcements about the details of this. We have rolled out the expanded programmes within corrections both within our prisons and for community offenders of increased educational opportunities increased skills training and dramatically increased alcohol and drug rehabilitation available to offenders. There is the transference of three prisons into working prisons where prisoners will have a very structured 8-hour day of both working and training. We have revamped youth prisons so that again those young people have a very structured daythat revolves largely around education and gets them into the normal habits of ordinary young New Zealanders to help them when they go back out into the community.It has become clear to us as three-quarters of our prisoners do return to our communities that the next area that we have to focus on is what sort of support we give to those people when they have completed their sentences and are returning to their homes and their families and their communities. So those are simple things like connecting them with the social service agencies that they are going to need to support them through the next few months. As much as we might try to get them all some form of employment that is not always possible. So they do need to have some assistance. They need accommodation. Corrections tells me that several hundred prisoners could be released much earlier into the community if there was accommodation available to them but of course unfortunately many people do not want to have a newly released prisoner living in their street so accommodation becomes very difficult.We do want to provide employment. It is very clear that if we can get ex-offenders into employment as quickly as possible on their release then they have a much better chance of not returning to prison of not breaking the law. Of course for many of them they need ongoing assistance around just plain basic living skills—how to budget how to manage a bank account how to keep themselves and their families clean and well-fed and living normal lives. So we are certainly looking at how we can provide those services to prisoners as they are leaving prison in particular and whether that sort of programme needs to be extended to some of our more high-risk community offenders.It is interesting when you look at the results that corrections has seen over the last 4½ years that we are starting to see that drop in reoffending rates—nearly 9 percent. We have set a target of 25 percent by 2017. When you consider where corrections came from—when this Government took office the probation service had been run into the ground. Under the previous Labour Government it was seriously understaffed and seriously underfunded. This Government injected $255 million into the probation service alone to try to get it back into some shape so that it could deliver services to do the job that New Zealanders expect it to do. The result of that now 4½ years later under this Government is that the Department of Corrections has been named the department of the year.Even though the day after that came out we did experience a group of prisoners—29 prisoners—in Spring Hill Corrections Facility running rampant it was interesting to me and heartening to me to see that the response from the corrections officers was absolutely perfect. They followed their professional code to the letter. They showed that the extra effort and resources that we have put into safety training have paid off. They followed those procedures and protocols exceptionally well but more important when it became clear that fire—which is the worst possible danger in a prison where you have and we did have many prisoners who had locked themselves in their cells rather than participate—was involved those prison officers then risked their lives to go in and save the prisoners who had set fire to their own surroundings. They were very brave actions and fortunately for me as Minister I would say that we are very lucky that we had no serious injuries out of that for either our officers or any of our prisoners.Budget 2013 has set us up in police corrections and the Serious Fraud Office for another exceptional year as part of the justice sector that this Government is ensuring is effective and is delivering good public services to New Zealanders right across the country.JAN LOGIE (Green): Mr Speaker this is a split call with my colleague Steffan Browning. This year is the 120th anniversary of women gaining suffrage in this country. It is also the 80th anniversary of women entering Parliament and the 20th anniversary of women first taking leadership of a political party in this country. I think it is particularlyimportant this year and especially this week following the death of Dame Margaret Shields to consider how our political system is doing for women and how this Government in particular through this Budget is delivering for women. Of course we have made really significant progress since the 1970s but there is a sample of measures that tell me we have still got a long way to go. In this speech I would like to look at just one of those measures which is around the gender pay gap.We have an entrenched gender pay gap and according to some measures it is growing. Other measures tell us that it may be narrowing because male wages are declining. So what is this Budget offering us as women in terms of making some fundamental change in the inequality that exists for us in this country? According to the Minister of Finance one of this Government’s priorities with this Budget is to build a more productive and competitive economy. Well that should really bode well for women you would think especially in light of the Goldman Sachs research last year that showed that closing the gender pay gap could increase productivity by 10 percent. That is worth over $20 billion a year to this economy.Surely for that kind of outcome it would be worth actively and strongly pursuing a policy towards that end. Yet the Budget announcements relating to promoting a productive and competitive economy have been devoid of gender analysis. The Minister is focused on increasing tourism with $20 million a year; marketing education overseas with $10 million a year; and providing $25 million a year on new research and development. It is not that I do not believe in any of those initiatives but I really struggle to see how they have got the potential that is held within measures that would reduce the gender pay gap.So what is the Government doing to close the gap? My temptation honestly is to say “nothing”. It has said it is not going to put anything into extending paid parental leave and it has threatened to use its financial veto against the will of this House despite the fact that extending paid parental leave will strengthen women’s attachment to the workforce and the loss of that contributes to the gender pay gap.Further it has legislated against paying family carers their legal entitlements which would have significantly helped with the gender pay gap. Further it has not acted on the Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner’s recommendations regarding pay for aged-care workers—another core factor in the gender pay gap. And when we look at non-Budgetary measures we see that it has refused to pick up my member’s bill which just provides a technical tool to enable women to argue their case.Those are four distinct things that this Government could be doing to radically increase productivity in this country—and it has done nothing. But if I am being truly fair I have to acknowledge that it has increased funding for the Ministry of Women’s Affairs and that that ministry is responsible for monitoring the gender pay gap. That is particularly important now that nobody is actually responsible for lowering that gap.So how will the ministry deliver for us women in New Zealand? Last year the Human Rights Commission critiqued the ministry saying that women are being short-changed by those setting targets on their behalf and it criticised the ministry’s pale ambition for women’s progress in New Zealand.Well I would expect as I am sure a Minister of Finance who cared about productivity would expect that ministry to have taken those criticisms on board and to have radically strengthened its targets. But no. Actually the ministry has watered them down. From a target of having 47 percent of appointments to State sector boards in 2015 now we find its target is to continue to increase from 41 percent in 2015 and a web page dedicated to gender pay gap just justifies the use of its measure. This year it has put out six media releases and has contracted one piece of research. That is this Government’s pitiful commitment to gender pay inequality.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green): I rise to speak on the Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill in terms of biosecurity in particular. On the surface in this Budget it appeared that there was a $5 million to $7 million drop in biosecurity funding and we certainly commented on that. The Minister said: “No no no. That was a reshuffling of figures between 2011-12 and this current Budget and that is all that is.” But what is actually very very clear is that despite the increasing risks to biosecurity because of staff cuts and increased trade this Government has not given an appropriate increase to biosecurity funding. There has been some talk of increased staff but that is actually just a drop in the bucket compared with the staff drops and cuts since 2008. This Government is not addressing biosecurity adequately at all.This week as we speak there is a conference on bees in Queenstown. Federated Farmers are talking on bees down there and very soon there is another conference for the National Beekeepers’ Association. I know that that industry has come to the Minister it certainly has come to the rest of us and it is wanting assistance around biosecurity. It has been under continued threats under continued impacts from the lack of biosecurity controls in this country. We all know about the varroa bee mite and that varroa got away and that now all beekeepers effectively are having to deal with varroa. They are having to go through some quite significant control methods to keep varroa from taking out their hives because if they do not the hive perishes. New Zealand is already all the worse for the feral hives being totally decimated. We now rely totally on kept hives and the controls in them.So that is just one example. Another bee diseaseNosema ceranae a small unicellular fungal parasite of bees came in and showed up when Psa showed up in kiwifruit. Although it does not seem to decimate the hives to the same degree if we get a particular virus in which would be very easy with this open border approach by the Government the combination will decimate hives. We need to not allow that. The fact is that that bee disease is here. We will deal with it or it is being dealt with through hive management as best as possible.There are other factors potentially impacting on our bee health including neonicotinoids or neonics for short. These are synthetic pesticides that have been shown to affect bee numbers. They are used as a systemic poison in seeds that expresses out through the pollen in things like corn and other flowering plants like brassicas. That needs to be pulled in immediately. We need the Environmental Protection Authority to reassess them but it actually should be stopping the use of them immediately until it does reassess them just as the EU is doing. Neonics as I say need to be reassessed. The only reassessment of pesticides as such at the moment is of the organophosphates. The Government is not putting enough into reassessments of either those or new chemicals. We get tons of new chemicals being allowed in each year and yet reassessments of existing ones are woefully slow.Just back into the biosecurity issue and the open border approach the Government intends to allow honey imports from Australia too and yet we have this lack of an increase in biosecurity funding to actually control the potential diseases that will come from the open border approach. Another aspect of the open border approach is the raw pork imports but that can be for another speech. Thank you.Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): Budget 2013 has I think to be seen against the background of its predecessors the economic challenges facing New Zealand and in particular the quite extraordinary challenges facing other developed economies of the OECD. Shortly after the Minister of Finance introduced this Budget into the House I—like other trade Ministers from New Zealand over the last 10 years—had the privilege of representing New Zealand at the OECD ministerial meeting. Going from New Zealand where I think there is growing confidence that we are indeed on theright track into the heart of Europe and the heart of the problems of the eurozone was very striking indeed. To say that the mood was sombre would be considerably understating the case. I mean forget the outlier countries—the countries in serious trouble like Greece Portugal and Spain. We just got news on the eve of the OECD ministerial meeting that the youth unemployment rate in Sweden—a country that I am sure most members of this House would consider is one of the most cohesive and successful societies in the world—is 25.1 percent. There is 25.1 percent youth unemployment in Sweden with riots taking place in Stockholm as a result of the frictions that this inevitably causes. So I think that people need to wake up and smell the roses here when they sit down and see the enormous progress that New Zealand has made under the superb leadership of the Minister of Finance Bill English.I had the privilege of speaking to a leader of one of these countries who asked me: “Well Mr Groser what are the big numbers in New Zealand?”. And I said: “Well the big numbers Prime Minister are these. We have growth of 3.1 percent. We have inflation of 0.9 percent and 0 percent on food prices. We have unemployment still higher than we want but trending down and currently at 6.2 percent. We have seen household income rise 20 percent in the last 4 years. And as for our debt”—and remember this: the average gross Government debt to GDP in OECD countries is well over 75 percent and for many of them it is above 100 percent—“we are trending just above 30 percent at the moment from memory and we will be back below 30 percent in a year or two. We will return to surplus in 2014-15 which has been much improved by the latest statements coming out of Treasury a few days ago.” This Prime Minister said to me: “My God I wish we had numbers like that.” And I bet that most of those countries would wish that they had numbers like that; they wish they could tell their young people that there is a future for them in their countries.The achievement of this Government is quite considerable and I sense a growing realisation in New Zealand that we are turning the corner. When we set this against the background of the numbers that we inherited—let me reel off just a couple of them. Inflation—Dr David Clark: Five long years.Hon TIM GROSER: —you can check it yourself if you think it is a lie—to November 2008 was 5.1 percent which is five times the current rate of inflation. We had huge debt growing because the Labour-Green Government of the previous 3 years lost the plot completely just throwing money at every problem that arose in the belief that that would solve the problem. There was no prospect of returning to surplus at all. There was not even a date out there—no prospect of returning to surplus. When you think about the turn-round between those two sets of numbers and also factor in the extraordinary additional challenges of the biggest natural disaster to hit New Zealand for 70 years which cost $40 billion and the collapse of our finance companies through the greatest financial crisis in the last 70 years I think this Budget and the achievements of the Minister of Finance and his senior colleagues in steering New Zealand to this position is nothing short of remarkable.Looking at this Budget I will pick out just a few issues at random. Look at the position of health. I think it is important to look at these issues given the absurd critique that somehow this Government is focusing on—what do they call it—rich mates. Is that not the rhetoric that is used—rich mates? Let us look at just the facts. This is a National-led Government. We are working for the nation. Let us look at some of the data in this year’s Budget to uncover the real truths here. In health a portfolio that Minister Ryall has handled with outstanding professional ease the way that Mr Ryall has managed to move this whole debate forward in such a positive direction is extraordinary. We have allocated in this Budget over the next 4 years an additional $1.6 billion for dementiacare for more elective surgery for better treatment of diabetes and for more screening for adult health.We have allocated an extra $900 million that is carefully targeted at early childhood education at primary education and at social education. And as for poor families—just to return to the theme of the absurdity of this critique that we are trying to look after rich mates—we are interested in all New Zealanders particularly people who are hard-pressed by economic conditions. The first thing is that we believe absolutely—and all the empirical evidence tells us this—that the most important assistance you can give somebody is a paid job and we have created 50000 of those new jobs in the last 2 years. We are going to insulate a further 46000 homes mostly for people on low incomes because the evidence tells us that warm homes are a crucial ingredient in the health and educational performance of young children in low-income families. We are going to allocate an additional $21 million to deal with rheumatic fever one of the childhood problems that have plagued these people over many years. This is what this Government is interested in: all New Zealanders—the nation.But this has not been a Budget just conceived on its own; we have also pursued a rigorous plan through the Business Growth Agenda. Much of this has been implemented through previous Budgets. If we look at the fantastic tax reforms the fiscally neutral tax reforms introduced in the 2010 Budget by the same Minister of Finance we can see the benefits of this already coming through. The figures that came through in terms of fiscal balances this week showed increased tax revenue as a result of the structural changes the Minister of Finance introduced under some of the most difficult economic conditions that the world has seen in 70 years. And we will see also as this economy continues to move in the right direction the effects of incentivising middle-income New Zealand to the point where 75 percent of New Zealanders are paying the top tax rate of 17.5c. We are going to see the structural policies that we have introduced over the last four or five Budgets start to impact on New Zealand’s long-term and medium-term prospects.And all of this has been done under a coordinated plan called the Business Growth Agenda which covers broadly speaking six headings: innovation capital markets skilled and safe workforces management of our natural resource base more effective use of our infrastructure and investment in it and close attention to export markets which is the portfolio obviously of greatest interest to me in terms of the Government’s structural plan. We can see elements of Budget 2013 in moving forward all of these agendas. Let us just look at innovation for example. This Budget has allocated an additional $96 million for further investment in public services. We are going to invest $106 million over the next 4 years in research and development assistance to business and new start-ups. So I think that this Budget as with its predecessors is placing New Zealand in an excellent space so that in the second decade of the 21st century New Zealanders can look forward with great confidence to a future in this country.Finally to conclude I am going to award first prize for the most ridiculous comment made in the context of this Budget to the co-leader of the Green Party Dr Russel Norman or as I call him “Dr No” since he is opposed to any policies that would raise growth or create employment. You may recall that Russel Norman likened our current Prime Minister to Rob Muldoon. Having been in that Prime Minister’s so-called think tank for 3 years—2½ years under Muldoon and 6 months under David Lange—unlike an Australian schoolboy I actually knew Muldoon’s personality. I would argue that I have never met two people more unalike than John Key and Robert Muldoon.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): On behalf of New Zealand First I would like to welcome the wandering minstrel of a trade Minister Tim Groser back to this countryfor a rare visit to this Parliament. Unfortunately he needs to get—he is leaving the Chamber now—Mr SPEAKER: Order!ANDREW WILLIAMS: —his facts right. Mr Groser the previous speaker made the comment in the Budget debate that he was just recently in Sweden—on one of his junkets to try to get a job with the World Trade Organization spending $250000 of taxpayers’ money trying to get a job for himself. He said that in Sweden he was told that its youth unemployment rate was 25.1 percent and that Sweden was appalled by that and so envious of New Zealand.Well I have got news for Mr Groser and I have got news that is hard facts. He needs to spend a little bit more time in this country and a little bit less time on junket trips around the world. The unemployment rate for 15 to 19-year-olds in this country according to the New Zealand household labour force survey of March 2013 is—guess what. Guess what the percentage of unemployed for the 15 to 19 age group is. Do any of the National Party members know what that is? Would you take a guess? Would it be close to the 25.1 percent of Sweden? Would any of you know? Well actually the figure in New Zealand is 25.6 percent—26 percent of 15 to 19-year-olds in New Zealand are unemployed.So here we have Mr Groser going on about how terrible youth unemployment is in Sweden—it has a rate of 25.1 percent—and saying how wonderful New Zealand is when in actual fact New Zealand’s youth unemployment rate is higher. So Mr Groser I suggest that you spend a little bit more time in this country and a little bit less time wandering around the world and learn about the facts of your own country. In terms of unemployment in the next age group 22 to 24-year-olds it is 10.9 percent and for 25 to 29-year-olds it is 7.1 percent. This is appalling. This means that you are talking about one in every four or five of our young people in this country being out of work. That is appalling.If you look at the regions around this country—Northland with an average of 10 percent unemployment; the Bay of Plenty with 8 percent unemployment; Gisborne - Hawke’s Bay with 8.4 percent unemployment; and the Manawatū-Wanganui area with 7.7 percent unemployment—you see that these are not good figures at all. We constantly hear the National Government saying that it is trying to get unemployment down when in actual fact out in the provinces things are pretty grim. It is even worse if you are a Māori or a Pasifika person or if you are from Middle Eastern Latin American or African areas. Māori are currently 13.9 percent of our unemployed people in this country. Pasifika people are even worse off at 15.2 percent. Those of Middle Eastern Latin American or African origin are 10.9 percent.It was interesting that a survey of National Party voters in the paper on the weekend said that they were not that affected by unemployment. Not many people in their families were affected by unemployment. They did not know too many people suffering from unemployment. It was interesting that the favoured few—the rich cats who were referred to before by Mr Groser—seem to be exempt from this. It does seem that the anointed ones—those who support the National Party—certainly seem to be doing well out of this Government while the middle-class everyday good hard-working average Kiwi is not.There is nothing to promote growth in this Budget. There is nothing for jobs or to lift incomes for good hard-working Kiwis. This Budget does nothing for provincial New Zealand. In fact it attacks provincial New Zealand. We heard last week that provincial New Zealand will be paying an extra 3c a litre from 1 July which will rise by another 3c for the next 2 years to 9c a litre. So people in the likes of those areas with high unemployment—in the likes of Northland in the likes of Gisborne - Hawke’s Bay inthe likes of Manawatū-Wanganui and the Bay of Plenty—are not going to be seeing anything for their extra 3c to 9c a litre on their fuel tax. They are simply just going to be paying more money to put petrol in their family car and in their work vehicle each week to get to and from work or to take their family out and about. They are not going to see anything more from it because all the “roads of National Party significance”—all the “roads of National Party significance”—happen to be north of Hamilton in the main.Hon Anne Tolley: That’s not true.ANDREW WILLIAMS: They are. They are apart from a little bit in Wellington and a little bit in Christchurch. In all those provincial areas hundreds of kilometres away they will see next to nothing.What have we had from this Government apart from 5 years of tinkering around the edges? We have had a lot of broken promises. For example in July 2007 the then Leader of the Opposition John Key said: “That would be a fundamental purpose of our Government to narrow the wage gap between ourselves and Australia and to grow local wages in New Zealand.” That is what he promised as the Leader of the Opposition in July 2007. The reality today is that the wage gap with Australia has increased by $58.18 a week. So 5 years later he has not followed through on his promises as the Leader of the Opposition. In fact we are worse off compared with Australia.On 27 November 2007 John Key still the Leader of the Opposition said: “We’re here today at Westpac Stadium.”—and many of you will recall him standing in the middle of Westpac Stadium—“It holds nearly 35000 people. And believe it or not the equivalent of this entire stadium—and more—leaves every year to permanently live in Australia.” And then Mr Key went on to say: “I’m convinced we can give them a reason and a purpose to stay in New Zealand. And that’s why I want to be New Zealand’s next Prime Minister.” That is what he said. Well what happened?This was also the promise: “We’ve got an agenda which is about the economy it’s about building opportunities it’s about stopping 80000 people leaving a year to other parts of the world.” That is what he said on 27 August 2008 leading up to the election. The reality 5 years later is that 126669 New Zealanders have left for Australia under John Key. So his promises as the Leader of the Opposition and coming into Government have not been fulfilled.As to asset sales much of this Budget was built on the sale of assets trying to balance the books and trying to come into surplus in a few years’ time. On 12 October 2008 Mr Key releasedMy key commitments to you. These were his commitments to you. He said: “I’m not interested in selling assets—I’m all about building assets.” So is it not interesting that in 2008 he talked about building assets but in actual fact the whole agenda was to sell assets?He then went on to say on his personal commitment card: “I personally guarantee that we will maintain and build New Zealand’s asset base by … not selling Kiwibank or any other state-owned company.” The reality however was that National has sold off Mighty River Power selling nearly half of something that all New Zealanders including every person in this room already owned and it has moved it over to the wealthy people who could afford to buy the shares and 2.5 percent of New Zealanders are now better off as a result.Mr Key said on 30 January 2007: “I have no intention of being a Prime Minister who tackles only the easy and convenient issues … But I can tell you that dealing with the problems of our growing underclass is a priority for National both in opposition and in government.” He said that as the Leader of the Opposition. The reality today under this Budget is that the underclass has grown with 32873 more children living in benefit-dependent households during the time of this Government than when National comeinto office. This Budget has not delivered for the underclass and it has not delivered for low and middle income New Zealanders. This is a very disappointing Budget.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Ka nui te mihi ki a tātou. Talofa lava. There is a saying in Maoridom that goes something like this: Tama tū tama ora; tama moe tama mate. Loosely translated it says something like: “Those who are productive will survive and those who sit back will die or perish.” It is a message that has been widely reflected I think in Budget 2013. It reflects the thinking that our whānau will reap the rewards of security in jobs and increasing the income that comes into the homes and that is important. It is the concept behind Whānau Ora; that together we can achieve the transformation we need to stand on our own two feet and craft our future. But it also could apply that those of us who turn up to Parliament each day and focus on making gains for our people can expect to see results.This Budget is a pragmatic Budget driven by the needs of the people. It is a Budget that allocates resources that matter; resources to enable our whānau to stand tall and to stand strong. I want to focus on three themes that represent the gains that we of the Māori Party have fought so hard for in this year’s funding—namely opportunity support and sustenance.The Māori Party has a track record of seizing opportunities taking big decisions quickly and grabbing the moment to make the difference. We have been elected into this place to make everything count to open the doors and to ensure that the voice of tangata whenua is interwoven throughout every vote every departmental balance sheet and every ministerial portfolio. So this Budget builds on that powerful precedent established by Whānau Ora to do what is right for all of our whānau.A basic moral test for any Parliament is how our most vulnerable members are faring. The Māori Party has always taken steps to protect those of our whānau who are facing challenges te pani me te rawa kore and this Budget is an opportunity a good opportunity to put resources where they matter most: in our homes in our kōhanga in our kura in our marae in our daily lives.One of the highlights for us is in the dedicated investment in Māori and Pasifika trades training. It is not just about the $43 million—and that is absolutely sizable. It is also about the focus of working in partnerships with iwi with hapū with Māori and Pasifika communities the community groups and with the employers and the tertiary education organisations. Everyone will be in the same room talking to one another making sure that Māori and Pasifika learners have the support of vocational training apprenticeships qualifications and even perhaps the cost of the tools themselves. We have another saying that goes something like this: Mā tōu rourou mā tōku rourou ka ora te iwi.[With your food basket and my food basket the people will live.]Working together we can make it happen. That collective and collaborative approach which Whānau Ora has delivered on and He Kai Kei Aku Ringa the Māori economic development strategy is built upon comes together in the form of Marae CBD. This I believe is a fantastic initiative one that the Māori Party campaigned on in the 2011 elections and I have to say it is revolutionary in its making.What we see occurring with Marae CBD is the opportunity to restore our marae to thriving hubs of social cultural and economic activity to their whānau. It is a great day indeed when $1.2 million is set aside to invest in the entrepreneurship that is marae-led and marae-based. We have worked hard to make sure that we provide all of our children with the best possible chance of success and it starts from participation in early childhood education.This Budget delivers $172 million in new investment in early childhood education with the funding targeted to support our most vulnerable communities and it is focusedon making a big impact amongst Māori and Pasifika communities. That is an opportunity not just in setting a pathway of educational success for our mokopuna but also to improve upon quality and leadership to make sure that all of our babies are equipped for a brilliant future.Of course an opportunity can be realised only if we have the courage and the strength to actually last the distance and that is why a second policy plank for our Budget pledges this year has been on support. We knew that to achieve our aspirations to lift whānau incomes it is not just about jobs and training and further education it is about the dollars and the cents coming into the household.There are two particular packages that we are proud of having pioneered and that is the emphasis on microfinance and the support for financial literacy. This Budget brings with it a commitment to pilot a partnership with NGOs and financial institutions. In my electorate of Waiariki the AWHI Credit Union has been working for years to help its own families help themselves. It is about mutual self-help.Today we welcome the move to support the provision of low or no interest loans for low-income borrowers. Too many of our families have been caught in a stranglehold of loan sharks who strip them of their dignity and rob them of their finances. I am sure you in your electorate Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson recognise some of that. This Budget hopefully supports them. Of course our biggest hope was that we could act on lifting the minimum wage but unfortunately the Government failed on that account—unfortunately yet again.Perhaps the highlight for us in this year’s Budget has been in the practical support we have pushed for in the area of housing. I want to congratulate our co-leader Tariana Turia on the massive $100 million of home insulation and particularly its focus on low-income households and those with children or high health needs. We are also excited about the commitment to trial a warrant of fitness for Housing New Zealand properties and to then see that trial leading on to other social housing providers. I believe it is a genius idea promoted by the expert advisory group on poverty and it is about supporting our families to thrive in a warm dry home.This Budget also attempts to address overcrowding or more to the point to support so many of our whānau who know the value of living collectively and choose to live together. Project 324&5 putting another 2000 extra bedrooms on to existing homes is a novel approach I think of responding to the needs of whānau. Of course one of the obvious reasons we have focused on healthy homes is to deal with some of the appalling health indicators that have beset Māori and Pasifika communities and whānau for far too long. It beggars belief that despite 9 years of plenty the Labour Government did nothing to address the rates of rheumatic fever.This Budget almost doubles what we originally achieved with the $24 million signed up to in the relationship accord with National. Tariana Turia has gained another $21 million for rheumatic fever prevention and all credit to her for that fight to keep our children alive. Another boost and another important health announcement—which took place today I believe—was the $35 million boost of new funding to prevent diabetes and heart disease.When we are talking about survival that brings me to the third major platform of the Māori Party influence on Budget 2013 and that is of course Te Reo Māori me ngā tikanga. From unlikely quarters one of the first tweets this afternoon was from Morgan Godfrey celebrating the fact that papakāinga housing and Te Reo Māori had been increased.For the benefit of Mr Harawira who has clearly has not read the Budget let me count a couple of things that he should have noted: $12 million to support and retain teachers in Māori language immersion education $8 million for a new Māori languageresearch fund $5.9 million for priority learners to gain National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2—that is Māori—an increase of the Mā Te Reo funding of $2.5 million 30 new scholarships to attract Māori and Pasifika candidates into the teacher education area and funding for new kura with $134 million for capital funding announced by the Associate Minister of Education Nikki Kaye. It is one of the most dedicated announcements of funding for Māori medium education that we have ever seen in many years and all credit to my colleague Dr Sharples.In closing it is not all good news. Of course we have asked for a lot more and we still stand resolute in our opposition to the sale of State assets which has bankrolled this Budget. We have some real issues around the welfare reform work stream and we are deeply concerned at the lack of emphasis on wise environmental stewardship kaitiakitanga. That aside this Budget is still about whānau and we hope that it does produce the benefits that we set out in negotiating with the National Party. Ka nui te mihi. Kia ora tātou.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Budgets are about priorities and Budget 2013 writ large once again that tertiary education is not a priority for this National-led Government. It is a slow and painful attack that is changing the way we view and approach tertiary education in this country. It is a long and steady shift. It is a long and steady shift from public provision to private provision. It is a long and steady shift from backing our students to study to not backing them and to not investing in our future. This Budget missed the opportunity to invest properly in tertiary education and in New Zealand students in the process. This is yet another anti-education Budget like those we have seen in the last 5 years from this Government—that education is a cost to be cut and not something to invest in. We have seen this in so many areas and notably we have seen it in the area of tertiary education.But this really is not surprising given that the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment Steven Joyce sees tertiary education as something that needs to be dampened down. Tertiary education is not something that he sees as positive for the future of our country any more; no we have a Minister with the self-declared aspirational aim of dampening down demand. He is a Minister who thinks that success in his portfolio is turning students away from our tertiary institutions rather than enrolling them and empowering them with the skills and the learning that a tertiary education can give to people. This is what aspiration for New Zealand has come to mean under this Government: cost cutting and turning people away. We saw it in the last Budget when we limited access to education by cutting student allowances for postgraduate students. This Government might talk big the rhetoric of the fact that we need to be an innovation-led economy that innovation is our future and that we need research and development but it turned off the tap of that innovation incubator that is postgraduate study. We have seen this Government and this Minister have to concede that his moves in the last Budget have meant we have fewer postgraduate students in this country now as a consequence. This is something for which we will pay the price for a long time to come.What did we have in this year’s Budget? What group did the Minister turn his guns on to dampen down demand for education? Those over 40. As a 39-year-old I take great umbrage at the fact that this Minister does not think that someone over 40 can learn anything else. This is a Government that is really taking literally the idea that you cannot teach an old dog new tricks. This is a Government that is ready to throw anyone over 40 on the scrap heap and tell them that they are not worth investing in that they have nothing to offer the nation and that we as a nation will not get any benefit from retraining them. The Government is telling people over 40 all over this country “We don’t need you.” By limiting student support and student allowance to 120 hours forthose over 40 we are denying ourselves as a country opportunities in so many areas. This is a Budget of lost opportunity. You know National Governments past and the National Party used to believe in the notion of lifelong learning. Even while we were chasing Lockwood Smith out of windows at the University of Canterbury in the 1990s he still did believe in the notion of lifelong learning. He still thought that people whatever their stage in life had something to offer and something to contribute.But what we have seen in terms of tertiary education in Budget 2013 is once again National’s commitment to the two-speed economy—the two-speed economy in relation to geography. This is a Government that when it comes to tertiary education has given up on the regions. It has made funding decision after funding decision that is leaving the regions cold—Hon Anne Tolley: Rubbish!Dr MEGAN WOODS: —in terms of the provision of tertiary education. It is a Government that simply does not believe in it. Members opposite are telling me “Oh this is rubbish.” and Anne Tolley in particular is calling out something. Well I am going to talk about the Eastern Institute of Technology in that Minister’s electorate and what the Eastern Institute of Technology has lost under her Government. The fact is that levels 1 and 2 provision has fallen all over New Zealand and most notably in the regions. When that Government made a decision to competitively tender out levels 1 and 2 foundation tertiary education it made a decision to do national provision. The national provision has meant that regions all over New Zealand are suffering.Anne Tolley instead of barracking across the House might like to give some thought to what it is that the region that she represents has lost. What has the Eastern Institute of Technology lost since her Government has been in Government? Well it lost $2.3 million in 2013 as a result of that competitive tendering. That is right—$2.3 million cut from the Budget and fewer students in that part of the country who can stay in that region and receive their tertiary education. All this is at a time when 2574 people from Gisborne and the Hawke’s Bay have permanently migrated from that area to Australia. This is not a Government that is willing to back our regions. This is a Government that has seen apprenticeships in that Minister’s area fall by 40 percent since 2008. This is not a Government that is backing the skills training and the education of our young people while all the time Hawke’s Bay has had a skill shortage in the area of industrial electricians welders and precision engineering—all things that could have been taught at the Eastern Institute of Technology if this Government had not decided to slash funding and slash costs.But it is not just Minister Anne Tolley’s area that has lost funding. Canterbury Gisborne as I mentioned Hawke’s Bay Nelson Marlborough the West Coast Otago Taranaki Waikato and Wellington have all seen a net loss of levels 1 and 2 provision in their regions because of the cuts this Government has put in place. What we have seen is $51.6 billion less going into our polytech sector since Budget 2011. A further $38 million was put out for this private provision and where did this $38 million go if it did not go to our polytechs? That is right it went to private training enterprises. Again it is continuing the theme of moving from public to private provision of tertiary education in this country. This is something that this Government cannot be proud of. This is a Government that is letting down its young people and is not properly providing tertiary education opportunities in our regions. In so many areas this is a Government that has no plan for and has given up on regional New Zealand. Tertiary education is just another area where that Government has done it.It is time that we had a new approach. Labour is proud of its history from Peter Fraser right through to the last time when we were in Government in the way in which we have backed tertiary education. We democratised it and we allowed people to enterit. It is time that we got back to that. The world is changing. The merchant bank approach to our economy is no longer enough. We need a Government that knows that skills and a productive economy are absolutely central to our future. This is not a Government that believes in that; instead it is a Government that sees the training of our young people and the tertiary education of our young people only as a cost to be cut. This is not something that can continue. We look forward to a time when we have a Labour Government that will deliver a Budget that sees tertiary education as an investment and will back our young people in that.Dr Cam Calder: This principled pragmatic—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I have not called the member yet but he can stand and ask.Dr Cam Calder: Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Cam Calder.Dr CAM CALDER (National): Enchanté. Merci. The principled pragmatic Government continues to work relentlessly for the betterment of every New Zealander. It is working and succeeding in cushioning vulnerable New Zealanders from the ongoing effects of the worst financial conditions in decades. Whilst in Spain the unemployment rate is in excess of 25 percent and that of the US is in double figures here in New Zealand the household labour force survey shows very encouraging job growth with the unemployment rate dropping from 6.9 percent to 6.2 percent in the March quarter. There were 38000 more people employed in that quarter. This result puts New Zealand in 11th place in the OECD. Our participation rate grew to almost 68 percent and remains higher than that of Australia which rests at around about 65 percent. Our growth in GDP at 3 percent is higher than for most other developed countries.Wages have increased by 22 percent since 2008; 22 percent is twice the rate of inflation. House mortgage rates are at the lowest in 50 years. Annual inflation is running at 0.9 percent. The cost of living increase is the lowest in decades and we have heard that Standard and Poor’s has endorsed the Government’s approach by placing us in the world’s 10 least risky economies. Just yesterday the good news continued. Further positive signs of a stronger economy underpinning the tax revenue and combined with responsible control over spending kept the operating balance before gains and losses—the OBEGAL deficit—below $4 billion which was $664 million less than was forecast.The Government’s economic management has been widely praised over the last few years by a variety of international pundits of impeccable economic credentials. Most recently the IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde praised the Government’s economic policy and Business Growth Agenda. She described the economy as being very stable very promising and a lot better than in other parts of the world. Imagine what her comment would be should the New Zealand economy be managed by a dysfunctional pick-up team of an anti - free market Labour Party and the red-green money-printers. The IMF in the report issued only yesterday endorsed New Zealand’s balanced and pragmatic economic management and confirmed that the Government’s economic plan strikes the right balance between supporting growth and limiting public debt. The IMF stated: “The benefits of the plan are many. First it withdraws fiscal stimulus at the right time by making room for the expected increases in private sector and earthquake-related construction spending. Second it has improved the macroeconomic policy mix by reducing pressure on monetary policy. Third it creates fiscal space to help the country deal with aging and health care costs that are expected to increase over the long-term and to cope with any negative shocks that may cause a sharp reduction in domestic economic activity or potential liabilities associated with thebanking sector. Last it could help raise national savings reduce the current account deficit and limit the increase in foreign liabilities.” It is a resounding vote of confidence in this Government’s proven prudent financial management a safe pair of hands and a stark contrast to the reincarnated 1970s Labour Party in coalition with those of a red-green hue.Our economic programme includes a large number of measures aimed at improving the competitiveness of businesses including increasing our exports and infrastructure and innovation improving skills deepening the capital markets and sustainably developing our natural resources—interventions vehemently decried by Labour and the Greens. It seems they truly do believe that all they would have to do should they ever find themselves on the Treasury benches is press a button and print money. Hopefully that is a clarion warning call to all thinking New Zealanders mindful of their children’s and grandchildren’s future. This Government is encouraging investment right across the New Zealand economy as we know that nothing creates jobs and grows income for New Zealand families better than economic growth. A growing healthy productive economy allows us to invest in infrastructure better public services security education and health.No Government has ever spent more on health. Let us look at the facts. We are making $1.6 billion available over 4 years boosting total health spending to a record $14.7 billion—$14.7 billion. While many developed countries around the world are freezing or even reducing their health funding National is growing and protecting our public health services.In my maiden speech I spoke of my wish to see a campaign for men to raise their awareness of the need to take responsibility for their prostate health. Budget 2013 delivers $4.3 million over 4 years to raise awareness among men of the need to look after their prostate health. Each year about 3000 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer and more than 600 die of the disease. A prostate cancer awareness campaign will ensure men get better information will get better care and will ultimately enjoy better survival rates. This Budget is great news for Kiwi blokes and their families.We are combating the high rate of obesity in New Zealand by significantly increasing funding to raise the number of people getting heart and diabetes checks. That is a national health target. We are doubling the funding for Green Prescriptions at a cost of some $7.2 million. Green Prescriptions see general practitioners or nurses prescribe exercise and improved diet to patients and their families which is a proven way of increasing physical activity and improving health. We have extended the Fruit in Schools programme. Last year over 18 million individual pieces of fruit were delivered to pupils in low-decile schools. Over 100000 students in 484 schools across our country benefited.Sadly New Zealand faces an increase in dementia as people live longer. This Budget invests $17 million in aged-care and dementia services including improved home support services trained health care workers and increased funding for dementia care workers and bed subsidies. We have targeted $100 million to meet population changes and cost pressures in disability support services. We are investing $48 million in elective surgery such as hip replacements and for cataracts and more than $21 million to reduce the incidence of rheumatic fever among our most vulnerable which is particularly apposite in our schools in Manurewa in Māngere and in Manukau East in parts of the far north in Flaxmere and in Porirua. I was visiting Ngā Iwi School just last week delivering a certificate to the principal there for its hard work in reducing the incidence of rheumatic fever by swabbing the throats of vulnerable kids.No Government has ever spent more on education—no Government has ever spent more on education. National’s targeted spend across the entire education sector for2013-14 will be $12.4 billion. Ensuring every child gets a good education we believe is the most crucial intervention we can make to raise living standards unlock the potential that lies within all our young people and allow them to realise their dreams and aspirations and to create a more competitive and productive economy. We are spending over $1.5 billion on early childhood education. Our education investment in early childhood education and in primary and secondary schooling is 7.2 percent of our GDP which is well above the OECD average of 5.8 percent. This is a huge increase up from the $860 million spent on early childhood education in 2007-08 yet only a few weeks ago the New Zealand Educational Institute president had the barefaced effrontery to rail against cuts in early childhood education.We are spending $5.67 billion on primary and secondary schools and over $4.2 billion on tertiary education but unlike with the previous Government this spend is targeted and we expect results from the money invested. All up our spend on education is well over $12 billion as I mentioned. We are demanding outcomes from our spend and are setting ourselves targets. We make no apologies for wanting all kids to leave school with the tools and skills they need to unlock the potential that lies within all of them. That means intervening early with those being left behind and lifting them up and encouraging those who are doing well to do even better. We know that quality early childhood education sets a child up for life and we are aiming in 2016 to have 98 percent of all entrants in school having participated in early childhood education.We have invested over $48 million in the Targeted Assistance for Participation fund which will mean that vulnerable communities Pasifika and Māori many of whom are in the south of Auckland—Manurewa Māngere Manukau East—will benefit and be engaged in early childhood education. This is a prudent compassionate Government delivering a fiscally responsible Budget for the betterment of all New Zealanders.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I rise to speak today on this Budget 2013 because it has been a really important Budget. It is Bill English’s fifth Budget and the fifth in a series of Budgets that has taken us through the worst global recession since the 1930s. It is one of the five Budgets that have allowed us to invest in our communities to support jobs to protect our most vulnerable and now to chart a path to pay off debt and to get back into surplus by 2014-15. It is a big ask but we are getting there. We are on our way.It was good to see that the OECD in its economic survey just recently has confirmed that we are absolutely on the right track that this Government is improving productivity to support long-term growth that our banking system is in good shape and that it applauds the fact that we are on track towards a Government surplus. The report also notes that the economy is gathering momentum. It is gathering momentum through the post-earthquake reconstruction of Christchurch and Canterbury through business investment and through increased household spending. This is all good news from this Budget.Of course as the MP for Christchurch Central I am mostly interested in what this Budget does for Christchurch. Supporting the rebuild of Christchurch and Canterbury is one of the four pillars of this Budget. It is one of the four along with responsibly managing our finances building a more productive and competitive economy and delivering better public services. I have always been very grateful that the Prime Minister comes from Christchurch that he was educated there and that he began his working life there because I know he understands us. I know he understands the value of our city and our province and that he and this National Government support the rebuild 100 percent.We are second-largest city in New Zealand. We are the gateway to the South Island. We are the first stop for tourists to the area. We are the hub for businesses and thetransport centre for exports. It has been really good to see that despite all the damage from the earthquakes the port of Lyttelton has exported record tonnages over the last few months. Of course we are the home of the Crusaders. Without doubt Canterbury and Christchurch are the economic powerhouses of the South Island and this rebuild is the biggest economic undertaking in New Zealand’s history.For the people who live in Christchurch and Canterbury for our economic influence and for our national pride it is enormously important that this city gets rebuilt. And it will be rebuilt. It will be rebuilt safer stronger more people-friendly more sustainable and even more beautiful. We are on our way to create a 21st century city and to position ourselves in the world as a great small city and a place where people will want to live will want to visit and will want to invest. This is a one-off opportunity and we have to make sure that we all make the very most of it.I am really pleased that Budget 2013 has increased the Government’s commitment to fund that rebuild by a further $2.1 billion. The total cost of the rebuild which will include funds from insurance from investment and from local and central government is now estimated to be about $40 billion. We had thought $30 billion but it has now escalated to $40 billion and this Government’s contribution will also increase from about $13 billion to $15 billion. It is a huge amount of money and it indicates just how much work has got to be done in the city.It is really positive for Christchurch and Canterbury because it underpins our future growth and jobs for at least another decade. Latest figures show that Christchurch is really doing well in terms of employment. The unemployment rate is down to 4.3 percent and dropping. There are increased wage rates increasing numbers of building consents and with a growth rate of 7.5 percent—absolutely unheard of in New Zealand—Canterbury is the most confident region in the country. Also we have high levels of internal and external migration and low unemployment and it is starting to become a real economic hotspot. Tourism is also increasing with our guest nights rising and we have a higher than average proportion of international visitors visiting in comparison with local visitors. That is not surprising when you consider that Christchurch is deemed by Lonely Planet as one of the top 10 cities in the world to visit in 2013. Who would have ever thought that pre-earthquake?The Budget increases funding for the things that matter most to Cantabrians—rebuilding our homes and communities and investing in health and education. The Budget allocates $900 million of new capital funding for the rebuilding of the Christchurch Hospital and Burwood Hospital. This is going to be the biggest health project ever begun in New Zealand. There is also funding for the justice and emergency service precinct. This is a hub in the central city that will allow emergency services—police the Department of Corrections St John Ambulance and fire service—to work together much more efficiently and effectively.The Budget has also got funding for tertiary education institutions. On top of that it allocates $92.4 million for the greater Christchurch 21st century school renewal programme which will benefit many future generations of school students.There is an extra $303 million that has been allocated for the central city recovery plan which includes nearly $80 million for the development of the Avon River precinct. The Avon River flows through the city and that will become the focus for our city. The precinct will provide public amenities and become the equivalent of a recreational waterfront right downtown. There is also funding for the final land zoning decisions and the work of CERA that is the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.On top of all this Christchurch will benefit from its share of the general Budget investments. Those are the investments that are designed make our economy more productive and competitive such as research and development for businesses andfunding for tourism and international educational marketing—all areas that are really important to us. Also Christchurch will be part of the broadband and irrigation projects. In terms of public services we will benefit from the Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes project funding and improved support for low-income families. Of course there is our share of the $14.7 billion going to health. That is health for all our families. It is focused on the elderly dementia diabetes asthma extra operations but also on maternity and child care and men’s health.All in all this is an intelligent and well - thought-out Budget. It is an excellent Budget for the people of Christchurch and Canterbury and for the rebuild and that is good for all New Zealanders.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is interesting the way the sequence goes but we seem to have just had a selection of speeches one after the other commending this Budget to Parliament. I rise to speak in favour of the Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill. I would like to congratulate my colleagues who have spoken on this Budget before me and my equally esteemed colleagues who are to speak on it shortly. Although I know we all share the same level of excitement and enthusiasm my own take on it is that this is a responsible finely tuned Budget for what are in my opinion post-ideological times.Let us think back to what we came through. The age of growing the Public Service to grow the economy is over. In fact it has been over for quite some time. As a nation we may be small in numbers but we are productive and have proven ourselves as a nation to be highly capable of achieving great things with the materials that we have. This recognises the quintessential essence of fundamental New Zealand values. Unfortunately previous Governments have not always recognised this and kept it in mind. Under the previous Labour Government the Public Service ballooned but the services to the public did not improve. Nor did Labour policies prepare us for the impending global financial crisis. Rather than saving for a rainy day one could say that the money was spent with what could be described as reckless disregard knowing that by the time the coin—or the lack thereof—dropped they would be out of office and indeed in one notable case out of the country.Labour’s time in office has reminded us of one very simple fact: dogma does not pay bills. Dogma does not pay bills. When this Government came into office it inherited a set of Government books that had debts running to more than 60 percent of GDP by 2020 and no prospect of Budget surpluses seemingly ever again. The Government has not and will not follow down that destructive road. We understand that a productive economy requires a fine balance of innovation and diversification and continuing to do what we have always done best but in a smarter fashion.In both the West Coast and Tasman regions this Government has invested in tourism initiatives such as three of the Prime Minister’s Cycle Trails while also ensuring that traditional industries including responsible mining—including responsible mining—can continue as well. These initiatives as well as those brought forward by local business groups who have seen the potential for future growth for the community by the community have led to a strong and growing belief across the region that we have turned into a positive stretch of road and that our future is indeed beginning to look bright. The National Government is building towards a stronger more stable economy that can again weather global storms and deliver opportunities higher incomes and more jobs for New Zealanders.Budget 2013 continues our work to build a brighter future for Kiwi families. Economic growth is the highest in 5 years almost the same as Australia and higher than almost every other developed country. Our economy is forecast to grow between 2 percent and 3 percent a year over the next 4 years. That is an enviable situation. Themuch-mentioned number of working-age New Zealanders crossing the Ditch has dropped so low that it seems to be conceivable that many of our recent graduates are simply crossing the ditch to create a time zone barrier between them and constant phone calls from their parents. It is said in relation to our Australian rivalry that jealousy is just love and hate at the same time. Well Australia may have hated seeing Richie McCaw lift the Webb Ellis Cup but it loves our sensible tax regime and more structurally sound regulatory environment.This National Government has created an environment in which business feels safe to invest and create. This is being evidenced mentioned recently by an increased corporate tax take of a considerable sum of money. There are 50000 more jobs than 2 years ago and the unemployment rate has fallen to 6.2 percent—the lowest in 3 years. This is combined with a wage growth of 22 percent. Mortgage rates have hit 50-year lows—the lowest since 1965.Innovation has been and will continue to be key to our continuing success. A feature of Budget 2013 is a $100 million a year for an internationally focused growth package providing extra research and development assistance to businesses additional funding for tourism and more resources for marketing New Zealand to international students. This growth package acknowledges New Zealand’s need to pay its way in the world through increased trade and investment which in turn creates jobs and opportunities for New Zealanders. It is all about increasing productivity. Within the package science and innovation funding has increased by $50 million a year. This takes the Government’s annual investment in research and development to $1.36 billion in 2013-14 which is the highest ever. That is something we can all be extremely proud of.Innovation though must not be seen as the place of only the economy. The need for public services to innovate is there also. Over the next 4 years we will invest $1.6 billion in new initiatives to meet cost pressures and population growth. We are investing in more support for aged and dementia care more elective operations better heart and diabetes care and more preventative screening. The Government is helping more New Zealanders get the skills they need to build successful careers and fulfil their potential. We are lifting student achievement in all levels of the education system.Budget 2013 is focused on delivering better public services within tight financial constraints but not at the expense of those in need. This I am very proud to say is a major feature of this Government. Following work by the Ministerial Committee on Poverty Budget 2013 confirms important initiatives to support low-income families. These include $100 million over 3 years to insulate 46000 more homes for low-income families more than $21 million over the next 4 years to reduce rheumatic fever in children and an extra $1.5 million for budgeting services in 2013-14 in addition to the $8.9 million already provided in 2012-13. There will be a whiteware procurement programme to help beneficiaries buy new appliances under warranty using Ministry of Social Development repayable grants. The Government is investigating in partnership with NGOs and financial institutions to support the provision of low or no interest loans for low-income borrowers.We have heard a lot recently in debates on a trial on Housing New Zealand Corporation properties of the Housing Warrant of Fitness programme for rental housing. Probably one of the major features of this Budget was in housing—again something that there is a great need for and it is penetrating right through the Budget programme.These projects in Budget 2013 as a whole will ensure that this exciting and enthusiastic nation continues to have a future that is worth being excited about—a future that is worth being excited about; a future not based on arcane ideology not based on scare tactics not based on a tired or divisive dogma but based rather onworking together as communities to ensure that we can all weather any storm that comes our way. I believe Budget 2013 will help achieve this and I commend it to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I say that I understand that it is the role of the National Party backbench to get up there and read their research notes with as much energy and passion and enthusiasm as they can. I accept that that is a legitimate role of backbench National Government members but sometimes I have to say I sit in the House and I think “That member is better than that.” That is exactly what I have been thinking for the last 10 minutes. That member Chris Auchinvole is better than the speech he was just forced by his whips to deliver. But I commend him for doing that; I commend him for his loyalty to his party more than his loyalty to the honesty of the past. I invite him to stop misrepresenting the past in the way that he did by reading the research notes—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Can I just say to the member that members should not make reference to the reading of speeches. It is entirely a matter for the Speaker.Hon RUTH DYSON: Thank you. Can I Mr Assistant Speaker commend your attention to detail. It is incredibly admirable and I hope it is as contagious as courtesy is. There are a couple of points that the member raised when he presented so eloquently his speech to the House that I want to draw to his attention as being incorrect. He said for example that the public of New Zealand did not get any increased services through the increased investment that the Labour-led Government made in public services.Chris Auchinvole: None of them much worth.Hon RUTH DYSON: I will remind that member of a couple of things. For example in 1999 the Work and Income briefing to the incoming Minister had to be contracted out to a private contractor because Work and Income did not have the competence within its own organisation to write a fundamental document—the briefing to the incoming Minister. If Mr Auchinvole thinks that is acceptable then his standards are much lower than those that I support for the Public Service in New Zealand.I remember having to advocate for constituents to get into Work and Income appointments in less than 3 weeks. That time delay for appointments to see Work and Income is creeping up every month—every month every month. All the constituency MPs and any list MPs who support constituents in their area know that what I am saying is true. It is getting harder and harder and harder for people in need to get access to the public service support they deserve because the Government is running down public services.Mr Auchinvole also talked about the Labour Government squandering our money—that we did not put anything away for a rainy day. That is just wrong. I can remember Michael Cullen year after year after year delivering on the public record a Budget surplus and Bill English sitting over here braying at him to spend it on tax cuts. Dr Michael Cullen said that tax cuts for the most wealthy New Zealanders were not the right thing to do with a Budget surplus and that it was better to save for a rainy day and invest in our future. That is what he did and it is the opposite of what this Government is doing.I think that this Government should look at addressing the causes as well as the symptoms of poverty in a much more holistic way. Putting increased money into treating children who have rheumatic fever is very good and we need to do that because we have children with rheumatic fever. Those are the symptoms. But unless the Government also invests in the causes of poverty-related illness then we will continue to have children who do not just have a disease and then get better but who pay for their entire life in diseases of poverty diseases that are preventable and diseases that shouldbe an embarrassment on the public record of this nation. We are not a Third World country but we have children in our nation who have diseases that are common in Third World conditions. That is where we should start investing: in our children in their health and in their well-being. That is not what this investment sees.What the National Government is driving is a two-speed economy. We have two speeds geographically with the main cities doing very well and the regions stagnating. That is not a good thing for New Zealand. It is not a good thing for the prosperity of the regions obviously and literally and it is not good for the morale of those areas either. We know what happens in provincial towns where we have high levels of unemployment and where young people are leaving school with no hope with no light in their eyes and with nothing to look forward to in their area. They leave they go to cities for a better time and a job they do not return and the downward spiral in the provinces continues. Under National that has just ratcheted up. We have a two-speed economy with the cities doing well and the regions stagnating.We have two speeds within our economy with our exporters and our manufacturers struggling. Some of the best and brightest of our country are struggling to survive while our speculators are doing very well. What sort of economy do we want? Do we want an economy that is based on cheap jobs low-income jobs in tourism and hospitality—where we have bigger and better casinos and lower-paid workers and casualised labour looking after the tourists who come to New Zealand—or do we want a strong high-wage high-skill economy where industries like those in our manufacturing sector are supported? We are getting the opposite under National. We see punishment of exporters and manufacturers and support for our speculators.We see the two-speed economy in Auckland where the growth in house prices is absolutely rampant. We have suburbs in Auckland where there is no property to be bought for less than $1 million. That used to be the exception. Now we have entire suburbs like that—$1 million suburbs—yet we have people queuing for jobs in a supermarket. When a vacancy is advertised in a supermarket in Auckland hundreds of unemployed people try to get that one job in the very next suburb to those million-dollar houses.We have also a two-speed economy with regard to fairness with incomes and wealth becoming more and more concentrated in the hands of the few where the gap between those who are doing well and those who are not is getting bigger and bigger and bigger every month. There is growing inequality growing tension and growing frustration. This is the opposite of the healthy society that we in New Zealand have been so proud of for so long.We certainly have a two-speed economy in Christchurch. Half of our city is depressed and angry to the point where our district health board is issuing quite strong warnings about it. People are angry because they have got wrecked roads; they have no community facilities no pools and no libraries; and they have got houses that either they cannot live in because they are so badly damaged or they are not allowed to live in because Government Minister Gerry Brownlee refused to allow rockfall mitigation on the Port Hills on city council or Government land. This is not the sort of Budget that is going to address those fundamental issues. It is not the sort of Budget that is going to address that two-speed economy.Labour’s KiwiBuild will build 10000 affordable houses a year. That is the sort of smart thinking and long-term investment we need in New Zealand. Homes will be sold to owner-occupiers for what they cost to build not to speculators who are banking on future tax-free capital gains. That is the sort of speculation the National Budget supports. That is the sort of inequity that it produces where the speculators are doing well and the young people struggling to buy their first home cannot get their foot on thefront doorstep. That is the sort of society that National supports but it is not one that I support.Labour’s NZ Power policy will reduce average household power prices by $230 to $330 a year and lower business power bills by 5 to 7 percent. That is the sort of smart thinking and investment in New Zealand families and New Zealand businesses that this country is crying out for. Our current electricity market has excessive prices. We know that. We know that the boards and management salaries have been excessive. But National continues to back it.We want a Budget that gives New Zealand hope. We want a Budget with vision for the future for a fairer more equal and healthier nation and that is the opposite of what National is delivering. National is delivering the opposite of what Labour will do.TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua): The last speaker in this debate on the Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill the Hon Ruth Dyson started her intervention by attacking my hard-working and very intelligent colleague Chris Auchinvole. She mentioned that she thought he could do so much better at his speech. Well his speech was an excellent speech about the great job this Government is doing under extremely difficult circumstances. I only wish I could say the same of the last member and that she too could make a better speech than the one she has just delivered. In fact her whole speech was about what is wrong not with New Zealand and not with this Government but what is wrong with Labour members their view of New Zealanders and their lack of desire for New Zealanders to get ahead—their lack of ambition for all New Zealanders.This Budget was one of the best Budgets that Bill English has delivered on behalf of New Zealand. We have had the great fortune on five occasions to stand up and say to Mr English: “This is a very good Budget for the times.” We have got to remember that when we came into Government we inherited books that were going in the wrong direction with great debt spiralling and that around the world economies were crashing—the global financial crisis. Mr English has said to New Zealand that we have a plan. He worked very hard over the first 3 years of this Government to put in place some of the building blocks to fix the problems in the economy we inherited.Come the election a year and a half ago we came forward to New Zealanders and reminded them of the plan. We were re-elected. This year Bill English has delivered another Budget that is part of that plan to build a stronger economy a better economy and an economy that will do much more for all New Zealanders and put us in a much better place in the world. This is just part of that plan that we move on with. I think that members of the New Zealand public get this. Certainly when I am out talking to them in different parts of the country they know we have come through difficult times and they are grateful for the strong leadership our Minister of Finance has shown.This is a Budget that builds on the momentum that we have created over almost 5 years now. It has four key priorities including responsibly managing the Government’s books and I am certainly going to talk more about that in a moment because we hear the opposite from Ruth Dyson and from many—not all—members opposite. They do not want to manage the Government’s books responsibly; they want to tax everyday New Zealanders much much more and spend on their behalf—tax and spend. Well we have had enough of that.A second priority is building a more competitive and productive economy. Many members of this House agree that that is what we have got to do. Where we have great difficulty in this Parliament is agreeing on how to do that. Can I say to you and to our Minister of Finance Bill English that the plan he has put in place over the last 4½ years is starting to show a great benefit in the areas of competitiveness and a productive growing economy.A third priority is to deliver better public services for New Zealanders because New Zealanders deserve those better public services. I want to touch on a few of these in a moment in particular the great work that Tony Ryall has done in health and the excellent levels of achievement that we are starting to see—the job has only just started—from Hekia Parata in education. Finally the fourth priority is rebuilding Christchurch. That is so very very important to all of New Zealand but particularly to the people of Canterbury who have gone through such very difficult times.Under unbelievably difficult conditions Budget 2013 has freed up a further $1.5 billion by redirecting spending to where it matters most for New Zealanders. This takes the total reprioritisation of Government spending between Budget 2009 and today to $14.9 billion. That is $14.9 billion which had the Labour Party still been in Government would have been spent in areas that were not productive for the economy. And woe and behold heaven forbid under a Green-Labour coalition Government that figure of almost $15 billion would have been so very much more because Russel Norman and his mates have already got designs on more than $15 billion of spending of hard-earned money by New Zealand taxpayers that they want to take off them and tax recycle and print a bit more to spend.At a time when the Government’s finances are tight reprioritising spending allows significant additional funding for new and improved initiatives and there have been so many of them. This Budget was about spending well not spending up—spending well not spending up. If Mr Norman has his TV on wherever he may be I bet you he has just turned it off because he does not understand that. He understands spending more money and printing more money; he does not understand that it is about better spending.In the economy we have a record that all New Zealanders can be proud of. It is not good enough yet we need to do much more work but compared with almost every developed country in the world New Zealand is punching above its weight with the exception of one and that is Australia. Have we not seen over the last little while that things are not as rosy across there as they were? Can you remember over the last four Budgets before this one? Bill English got on his feet and delivered excellent Budgets for the time for New Zealanders and the Opposition members were screaming and yelling: “Why can’t we be more like Australia?”. Well I can say to you Mr Assistant Speaker and to members opposite that if it were not for the great work of Bill English they would have got their wish.The Australian economy is going in the opposite direction from us now and our economy would be so much more like theirs. Indeed we have a 3 percent—3 percent—GDP growth rate forecast over the next couple of years. There are so many countries of the world that wish they were in a position to have a 3 percent growth. In Europe is still negative and in America it is floundering. In many parts of the world 3 percent is something they only dream of. Of course we know that mortgages are at a 50-year low. Well that is very easy to say but for those New Zealanders out there working hard through difficult times who are earning their money paying their taxes and paying their mortgages they know there is real benefit to them with interest rates being at a 50-year low because that is money in their pockets that they get to spend.Debt is under control. It is higher than anybody would want but when we came to office in 2008 the forecast was that debt to GDP would hit 60 percent by 2020 under the policies that were in place during the 9 years of the Labour Government. Remember that that Labour Government had $20 billion worth of surpluses $20 billion of extra money and when it went out of Government most of the problems that it accuses this Government of doing not enough about—and can I say that we work very hard for New Zealanders—were actually still there. They had not got better in those 9 years. The best we could say about the Labour Government was that at least it did not get as bad as itcould have been. But after $20 billion of surpluses and all that skiting from the Labour Government most of the great challenges were still there and this Government inherited them. They were no better; perhaps they were even worse.Well under this Government and Bill English’s plan debt to GDP will be at just under 20 percent by the year 2020. That is a saving of $60 billion of debt to the taxpayer. Under Labour and its policies there would have been around $120 billion of debt and no possibility of any Government surpluses any time at all. Under the work that Bill English has done—being careful about how we spend money delivering better services for taxpayers and unapologetically asking our civil servants to deliver more with the money that the taxpayer has earned and provided to them—our debt to GDP level will be 17.6 percent. We are on track in 2014-15 to a modest surplus of $75 million. The Opposition is already working out how it will spend that if it became the Government.The surplus is modest but guess what. This year the amount that we will have to borrow is about $2 billion. So our Government deficit will be about $2 billion. In Australia the deficit is more than $20 billion. That is the country that Labour said over four Budgets that we must be more like. Labour members said: “We must be more like Australia. Why can we not be more like them?”. Well actually the Australians are now wishing that they were a bit more like New Zealand. I think they wish that they had Bill English as their Minister of Finance to put in place a plan to be very careful with Government spending to make sure they would get back to surplus and to make sure debt levels would not grow. So we are on track back to surplus.I want to touch on one thing that I think is so very important to New Zealanders and this shows you the great difference between the Labour Government of 9 years and the work we have done in 5 years. When we came into Government an elderly lady in my electorate wrote to me saying: “Mr McClay it looks like the Labour Government has ruined ACC. I know times are tough. You can have my little payment that I get back so that we can make it survive.” That tells me that ACC is very important to New Zealanders; it is important to this Government.Remember those billions of dollars of losses those great challenges we had with ACC? Well not only has the Government been able to turn that round but we have signalled in the 2015-16 year that there will be $1 billion of levy reductions to New Zealanders—$1 billion going back to them because ACC is now in great condition financially. We have 40 percent of lower ACC levies signalled for families and businesses. That is fantastic work.Hon David Parker: Why not now?TODD McCLAY: The member asks: “Why not now?”. It is because we have a plan; we need to stick to it. It is not about borrowing and spending as that member’s party would do. Thank you.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. In this Budget debate I want to rise to talk about the economic choices facing our nation. New Zealand faces a number of economic challenges. We face growing inequality decline in economic competitiveness relative to other nations growing debt and a large number of Kiwis out of work. Over the last 60 years New Zealand has seen a steady decline in comparative economic performance and despite Kiwis working some of the longest hours for some of the lowest wages in the OECD the country is sprinting—it is running as fast as it can—just to stay where we currently are.In this Budget 2013 debate I would like to see our Parliament put aside some of the pointless point-scoring we have heard from the Government benches some of the petty partisan politics and the intellectually lazy reading of pre-prepared notes from research departments. Let us have a debate around the economic direction of our country. Let usask some of the questions like what it will take to deliver a prosperous New Zealand for our kids. What is the direction we should be taking? Where are the new jobs and the new innovation going to come from? And is New Zealand currently on the right path? These are all important questions if we want our kids and future generations of New Zealanders to grow up knowing there are good jobs to go into. The question is whether New Zealand is going to keep sliding down that OECD ranking and whether the poverty that some Kiwi families find themselves in right now is going to be exacerbated or alleviated in the coming decades.The Government has tried to make this Budget debate about just the surplus. But if you look at the numbers there is the current account deficit which is a more worrying measure of our economic performance and what we know from the Government’s books is that we are set to be the worst—the worst—in the OECD by 2017. Our national debt is set to skyrocket—$61 billion extra over the next 5 years—and our tradable sector is struggling. Without new exports or innovation we are going to have to keep selling the assets and keep resorting to borrowing offshore to maintain our lifestyles. That has been confirmed just today with the release of theOECD Economic Surveys: New Zealand 2013.When you drill down past the spin what the Budget reveals is severe structural problems facing us. They are getting worse. National’s entire economic strategy is flawed. What we are doing as a country is digging ourselves ever deeper into an economic hole. The current path National has New Zealand on is clearly not working. As the saying goes if you find yourself in a hole it is time to stop digging. But despite the worst economic performance of New Zealand in the last 50 years National is doing just that. The one answer it has to our economy is literally to dig more holes.Why would you pick fossil fuels and digging more holes and drilling more wells as your one industry to save the economy? It has got the fourth-lowest royalty plus tax rate in the world. There are pages and pages of tax exemptions and data out today shows that the Government is currently spending $46 million subsidising fossil fuel production and exploration in New Zealand. The Government literally called out the navy when iwi and protesters got in their way and it changed the laws at the behest of foreign offshore oil companies. I remember when the National Party used to talk about “one law for all”. Now what we hear from the National Party is “one law for oil”. That is what we hear. It is another egregious display just like the shameful Skycity deal—another display of making crony capitalist decisions for its mates.The question the country should be asking is why you would pick fossil fuels and digging more holes as your winner and why you would subsidise it because it is entirely a gamble. The Government cannot guarantee there is any oil there. We know that the hypothetical oil is likely to be deep at sea. The only way it is ever going to be economically feasible to extract it is if the oil price is high. If the oil price is high what we know is that every US$1 price rise in the barrel of oil wipes $40 million to $60 million off New Zealand’s GDP. Given that we still import two-thirds more oil than we export if the oil price is high we should be thinking about oil reduction plans not oil dependency plans. Unlike most other Governments militaries councils and businesses around the world this Government has got no plan to reduce our dependency on oil. It has got no plan to even start planning. The only plan it has got is a $12 billion borrowing binge for motorways and $46 million subsidies for oil drillers. It is the only plan it has got.The Government is not suggesting Kiwis are going to pay any less at the pump if we find more oil. It is not a smart sustainable area to focus on. We know it is job-poor. We know the profits are going to flow offshore; the Government’s own reports are saying 90-plus percent. We know it is unsustainable and there is still no plan for what happensonce you have used up the oil or drilled it. It is inconsistent with taking climate change seriously. Even the International Energy Agency says that we cannot even burn 70 to 80 percent of the oil we already know about without the Government going and trying to subsidise people to find some more down in the depths of the ocean. It is a last century approach to economic development and it is the same type of thinking that got us into the mess we are in right now. It is a model based on resources on commodities and on being a price-taker not a price-maker. It is about not being able to influence our country’s economic destiny. It is a gamble that someone will find something down there and they will not leave too much of a mess as they extract it and that maybe we will clip the ticket somewhat as they send the profits offshore.New Zealand is always going to lose under this strategy. If you look at the other legs of the National Party’s plan—dairy intensification and more mining—New Zealand is always going to lose out if we are trying to race Uruguay to cram more cows on a paddock. We are going to lose if we are trying to compete with China to see who can drill more holes in the ground and compromise our environment. We are always going to lose in New Zealand if we are racing to trash our environment faster towards economic growth.Another option of course is to look to the future. It is to have a plan around what is coming in the next century—the century we are in not the last century. It is to look at the markets and where international capital investment is heading. It is to focus on what Sir Paul Callaghan said was our strengths our niches. It is to focus on a smart green strategy that is going to build a richer New Zealand. Our strengths are in technology. They are in clean energy in a pure New Zealand brand that sees a premium paid when we export our products around the world. In 2011 Bloomberg reported that international capital investment in renewables outstripped fossil fuels. That is where the smart money is heading. That is where New Zealand should be looking not at making more holes in the ground.Do not get me wrong. I have got nothing against digging holes in the ground. In fact I would not mind digging a few—just some holes with a smarter rationale. I mean I would like to see the Government dig a trench to have a second internet cable to link New Zealand to our markets for resiliency for competition benefits and to support our thriving information and communications technology sector. I mean this is a $23 billion industry that you know has grown by $3 billion in the last year alone. Over the same period our oil imports have been down and just today the same OECD report that I referenced said that New Zealand’s high-cost low-speed internet is slowing us down. The Government could do more to support the sector. From greater education apprenticeships scholarships procurement removing patent software and a second internet cable there is a lot the Government could do. This is a much smarter future for New Zealand because there is virtually no limit to the amount of software or information and communications technology services we could be exporting around the world but there is a limit to the amount of cows we can cram on a paddock or holes we could dig.I would also like to see another hole dug this time in the Auckland central business district. A central business district rail link for Auckland will transform our biggest city’s public transport network. It is going to unclog it. It is going to benefit motorists primarily and it is going to help supercharge our biggest city. I think unclogging our biggest city’s transport and reducing the $8 billion fuel import bill is a smart way.Thirdly I want to see a power system that works for Kiwis for Kiwi businesses not for excessive profits. Every year hundreds of millions of dollars are taken out of Kiwis’ pockets and businesses’ bottom lines and we see excessive profits from the so-called market which is acting like a huge stealth tax on our economy. Over the last 70 yearsour electricity prices for families have risen by 70 percent in real terms while across the rest of the OECD their prices have dropped 6 percent on average. That is why we have put out the NZ Power plan—to give Kiwis a choice.What we are seeing is a real choice. Under National there will be more price rises more excuses and more assets sold. Under the Greens and Labour what you are going to see is cheaper greener power and Kiwis saving $300 a year. NZ Power is also going to deliver cheaper greener electricity in a market that is more innovative smarter and ready to take on the challenges. Growing clean-energy exports is where the smart money is. That is where international investment is going. That is where the Pure Advantage group of business people say is a $6 trillion global green energy cleantech sector that New Zealand could get a slice of. It is what PricewaterhouseCoopers says is a $22 billion economic opportunity for New Zealand. That is where we should be looking—not towards the past not towards oil drilling and drilling more holes and more fracking mining and drilling for New Zealand.In summary we have got a great number of choices facing our country a huge number of strategic economic challenges which are not being addressed by the Government with a single-minded media-friendly focus on just the deficit. What we need to do is look to the future not to the past. It is to look at where we can develop our economy. It is to look to things like the technology sector. It is to look at growing green exports and clean energy. It is about the “100% pure New Zealand” brand. Aotearoa’s future is not looking to the past; it is looking to the future. Kia ora.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment BillThird ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill ensures that the regime under the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 continues beyond 30 June 2013 when it would otherwise expire. This means that compensation payable to prisoners for breaches of their human rights will continue to be subject to the existing guidelines and restrictions in the Act. This ensures that prisoners will not receive compensation for wrongful treatment without first having to redress the harm that they have caused their victims. Under the regime made permanent by the bill if compensation is awarded or paid pursuant to a settlement agreement certain deductions can be made from it. These include deductions for any legal aid debt related to a prisoner’s claim and any outstanding reparation owed to victims.The regime also provides a simplified process for victims to make claims against the money through the victims’ special claims tribunal. This can include claims for emotional harm or property damage or loss caused by the offender. The bill also makes a small change to the civil limitation period for victims’ claims for their benefit and clarifies that the Act applies to unlawful detention claims.The bill is another step the Government has taken in championing victims’ rights. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill prevents the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 from effectively expiring. This means that there will continue to be a fair and appropriate regime that balances the rights of prisoners and their victims. I would like to take the opportunity to thank thosemembers of the House who have been supporting this bill particularly those who have supported it all the way through to help it get through in time for 30 June. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): If there is one thing that the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill is not it is a victims’ rights piece of legislation. It is not about enhancing victims’ rights at all. It is very much a lottery-driven piece of legislation when it comes to victims’ rights.The genesis of the original legislation was what is known as theTaunoa case which made awards of damages to prisoners whose New Zealand Bill of Rights Act rights had been traduced through the behaviour management regime then in place in prisons in New Zealand. It resulted in awards of compensation. So effectively the State was required to compensate the prisoners.The difficulty was as seen at the time that a new injustice was created. The prisoners whose rights had been breached and who won compensation as a consequence had themselves—it is self-evident—breached the rights of their victims who had no claim against them. Under the common law rights that those victims had they had lost the right to make a claim even putting aside the accident compensation rights they had. They could not make a claim for exemplary damages for the conduct of the prisoners. So the prisoners enjoyed a windfall and the victims continued to suffer the consequences of the crimes committed against them. The Government of the day the Labour Government introduced the legislation to ensure that any awards of damages went to compensate both the State and the victims before the prisoners themselves received any amount of compensation.That situation was not and will not be under the legislation we are now considering without conflicting values and principles. It is not right that prisoners should be subject to mistreatment while in prison. We sentence people to prison to deprive them of their liberty as a sanction against their antisocial conduct. We do not send them to prison to be further mistreated abused and treated in improper ways. That is not acceptable and so it is correct that the State which is the custodian of these people while they are incarcerated should itself face a sanction.Equally it is wrong that access to compensation by victims should be dependent on what might be described as the entirely fortuitous circumstance that the perpetrator of the crime against them is him or herself subject to a violation that leads to a compensable right which leads to compensation that can then be claimed by the victim. That does not deal with victims’ rights at all. So there are limitations. Although we can understand that there is an injustice that ought to be and continue to be addressed it is not a satisfactory conclusion or a resolution to the overarching issue of victims’ rights and the ability to be fully compensated for the loss that victims of crime suffer.The original bill dealt with the obvious injustice but it had a sunset clause. The reason it had that sunset clause was that it was expected that there would be a review of just that situation and of just those principles that I have articulated on the basis that there might be a more coherent and comprehensive approach taken to victims’ rights including the ability to be compensated for loss other than that compensated for by accident compensation.Simply rolling over the existing legislation with no change leaves the same contradictions in place and leaves a still unsatisfactory situation in place. It still means that only those victims who have perpetrators who themselves are subject to a compensable act get access to any compensation—it is only by chance or by lottery and that is not satisfactory.What we still continue to need is a coherent and comprehensive approach to victims’ rights. The best that the Minister of Justice can do and she made the announcementtoday is to continue and reheat existing policies. This afternoon she made an announcement that the extra money that is collected through the offender levy the $50 that is levied on convicted offenders will be passed on for the benefit of various victims programmes. Well that is the intention of the levy and so the announcement that the Minister has made today in her attempt to dress it up as some sort of enhancement of victims’ rights is nothing of the sort.Hon David Parker: And it’ll probably reduce the fines.ANDREW LITTLE: If anything we will see a reduction in fines because of other measures being taken in the justice area such as the reduction in funding for Crown solicitors fewer prosecutions fewer charges taken and therefore less collected through fines and therefore less levied on offenders. It is contradictory.What we saw this afternoon in the announcement was the same old mutton dressed up as lamb and that in combination with this legislation means we still have an unsatisfactory situation when it comes to victims’ rights. The announcement this afternoon was for $750000 to go to victims as the additional amount that is already being collected through the offender levy. It will affect 4000 victims but there are thousands upon thousands of victims each year many of whom go uncompensated as a result. So this issue still needs to be addressed.I should put on the record yet again in this third reading that one of the objections we have to the bill notwithstanding that we will vote for it is that the Minister promised that all Opposition parties would be consulted on a more comprehensive approach to the issues that this bill covers. That never happened. That was a promise broken. How unfortunate. As we had promises of consultation over MMP so we had promises of consultation over this. In both cases the promises were broken. The Minister’s word stands for nothing.This legislation has its origins in the previous Labour Government and it dealt with an obvious situation an obvious injustice. If this bill were not in place the small sliver of injustice that would remain would still be there and we want to cover off at least that level of injustice and so we will continue to support the bill for that reason. But it is not satisfactory that several years after the original bill was put in place there does not appear to have been any comprehensive work done by the Minister or successive Ministers of Justice under this Government or the ministry they have presided over on developing options for a better approach a more comprehensive approach to victims’ rights. That is important.We should deal with victims’ rights aside from apart from and separately from the way we deal with our penal regime and our system of punishment for offenders. Let us call offenders those who are antisocial and those who do bad towards others in our community properly to account through our criminal justice system. Let us have a criminal justice system that provides appropriate levels of punishment but also aims to rehabilitate and restore people to good character and a constructive role in society. But let us also recognise that there are victims of crime and their issues need to be dealt with too through effective voice through effective support and where required through effective compensation. None of the measures put in place including those in this bill gets us anywhere closer to a better system a better regime of looking after victims of crime whether serious or non-serious crime. That is a situation that must change.The fact that the present Minister has taken no effort to talk to other parties about a new approach about different approaches and about a new way forward tells us very clearly that this Minister and this Government are not serious about new measures to deal with victims. It is about dressing up and reheating old half-baked ideas and taking the issue no further. We need better progress and we need a better approach. In thewords of the New Zealand Law Society when it submitted on other legislation when it comes to criminal justice it is better to have a cross-party approach to it. Those discussions will begin one day and we look forward to that but they will begin under a different Government a new Government a Labour-led Government that wants to take victims’ rights seriously—one thing that simply reheating the present legislation does not do.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise as chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee to speak in support of this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill in its third reading. This bill has been brought to the House by the Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins. It is a good bill and it is worthy of our support. It has gone through the process of the House in full detail and in a way that I think has done both the Justice and Electoral Committee and this House proud.As a Government we make absolutely no apology for putting victims first. I find it quite deeply upsetting to hear Andrew Little talking about protecting the rights of the criminals. These are people who have committed wrongs and who are incarcerated for good cause and for good reason. It strikes me that it is a matter of basic common sense and principle that if an award of compensation is made to them during their term of incarceration the first party to benefit from that should be in fact the victims of the crimes that were committed and that have resulted in their incarceration. So this is a good bill. It is part of this Government’s plan to build a better justice system and we have embarked on a comprehensive programme for reform not only to enhance our justice system but also to protect communities to prevent crime and as I said earlier to put victims first. We are making no apologies for focusing our justice system on the rights of victims. We are staying tough on crime.This Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill responded to concerns arising from the 2005 legislation that offenders should not receive compensation for wrongful treatment without first paying the debt they owe because of the harm caused to their victims. This new bill will ensure that the system is fair that it is balanced and that it will not lead to any unintended injustices. Our reforms mean that the victims of crime in the criminal justice system are obviously there because of no fault of their own. They are not there because they have done anything; they are there because they are the victims. And they have to deal with the financial the emotional and the physical effects of the crime that has been perpetrated upon them and committed against them. This bill seeks to do that and to do it very well.We have ensured that crime is coming down and the numbers are undeniable. Part of the reason that crime is coming down is the focus that this Government has been putting on the efforts to reduce crime and to make New Zealanders feel safe in their homes in their communities and in their families.One aspect of this bill that is of interest is that we received I think seven submissions. Those submissions recommended that this bill proceed with speed and with haste because they supported the legislation that came before the select committee. The expiry date of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 was looming and we needed to move quickly to achieve the result that we wanted. That is the reason that this bill is before the House today.It is a very good bill. I commend it to the House. The select committee worked well throughout the various stages of the bill and I want to thank the members of the select committee who participated very fully in their deliberations on the bill. I commend this bill to the House.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I want to remind this House why the legislation that we are debating today the Prisoners’ and Victims’Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill has not actually lived up to the expectation that was had for it and for this present Government when the legislation was originally debated and passed through this House in 2005 as my colleague Andrew Little has described. He quite rightly highlighted the fact that “Successive Governments”—both Labour and National—“have made the political decision that paying out significant compensation to prisoners for their treatment while in prison is unacceptable to a significant proportion of the public and could affect confidence in the justice system.” That was the basis for the legislative change that Labour brought into effect in 2005. We introduced the original legislation to “further reduce the likelihood that prisoners would be awarded compensation for rights breaches during their incarceration.”But the sunset clauses were put in there for very good reason. They were included to limit the application to claims arising from the behaviour management regime which have been described and which nobody in this House would describe as being on the side of criminals. Actually it is being on the side of the proper treatment of incarcerated prisoners and as has been quite rightly pointed out that is not something that anyone—any member of this House—could possibly stand up and say that they would find unacceptable. I want to talk about the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and also the Crimes of Torture Act which we have passed in this Parliament as well and our commitment to that.Sunset clauses were included really to look at that behaviour management regime situation to make sure that any applications that were being dealt with under that could actually be dealt with and to also allow time for an independent prison complaints body to be established. The view of the Ministry of Justice at the time was that the legislation and its sunset clauses together—and it was together—“represented the best compromise between ensuring compensation is only paid to prisoners once they have redressed the harm caused to victims”—in terms of the financial obligations that arose out of that—“and upholding New Zealand’s domestic and international human rights obligations.” That actually remained the ministry’s view. I should say to the House that the document that I am quoting from is the regulatory impact statement that led to the introduction of the legislation that reaches its conclusion in the very near future on 1 July.So the sunset clauses in the 2005 legislation were originally due to come into effect on 1 July 2007. However the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Amendment Act 2007 extended the sunset clauses to 1 July 2010 and the reason for that was again twofold. It was because work on the independent prison complaints body was still ongoing and the behaviour management regime claims were not completed. But neither of those things was an indication to an incoming Government an incoming National Government that this would result in the kinds of changes that it has now introduced nor that it would be made permanent.In 2005 the Ministry of Justice began its work on an inter-agency working party to examine existing prison complaints and monitoring processes within the Department of Corrections and to scope the role of an independent prison complaints body. Under that enhanced role that came down to the Office of the Ombudsmen it was given responsibility for monitoring investigations into deaths in custody and serious incidents that could potentially affect the safe fair and humane treatment of offenders.What I should point out to the House is that we did actually receive a submission from the Office of the Ombudsmen. Of course with the office’s important role in terms of being formally designated as the national preventive mechanism for prisons and compliance with the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment its statement to our Justice and Electoral Committee I believe was very very important. What it stated was: “We areconcerned that the victims’ claims scheme which the Bill makes permanent provides neither a suitable way to compensate victims of crime nor a suitable way to prevent abuse or mistreatment of prisoners in accordance with New Zealand’s international obligations.” I believe that that is an incredibly serious statement because the Government is claiming not only that this bill somehow will enhance the rights of victims but that it is in accordance with our international obligations. The Office of the Ombudsmen which has this very important role in terms of oversight of our prison service says the exact opposite.I want to remind this House again as I did in the second reading of a document that was drawn to our attention by the Sensible Sentencing Trust. I believe that the trust has raised an exceptionally sensible point that every member of this House should be aware of and that is that it discovered that there was a report:Victims of Crime in the Adult Criminal Justice System: A Stocktake of the Literature. Where did it find this stocktake of the literature and what did it find? Well the trust found it on the Ministry of Justice website because the Ministry of Justice has been doing this work on the victims of crime. And what did the trust find to be the guiding principles for providing effective service and support to the victims of crime? They were: “Respectful and confidential treatment: available research shows that while outcomes are important to victims (eg reparation convictions) consistent with the concept of procedural justice the manner in which victims are treated is more important.”That is what the literature said. “Individualised response/ flexible services: there is strong evidence that people are affected differently by crime. Services allocated purely by crime type or victim type are likely to miss other victims with significant needs. Assessment must ensure individual needs are identified and services need to be sufficiently flexible to provide individualised response. A range of service options should be offered so that individual preferences can be catered for.” It goes on about services being accessible; the provision of right information at the right time in the right format; delivered by experienced knowledgable well-trained empathetic staff; consistent high-quality services and support; integrated service provision; end-to-end individualised support; and accountable services.The Sensible Sentencing Trust said this is what victims are asking for. That is what they want and unfortunately this bill does not resolve these problems because what it says is that money will be allocated to victim support but only if the human rights of the person who has perpetrated the offence are somehow offended against in a way that earns them compensation while they are in prison for a crime—you know the crime in fact may or may not be one that affected the individual concerned.There are many people for example in our prisons who are in there because they have been caught with possession of a drug they have been caught several times drink-driving they have problems that they need to have addressed but they are serving time in prison. In many respects they are the victimless crimes where nobody else has actually been harmed in the process of them committing what is an offence. But they too are caught by this and if their human rights are challenged by the service that is supposedly providing them with humane prison treatment then somehow that means that that money is available and that is the only way that it is directly available apart from the offenders levy.It seems to me that this is getting the wrong point. If we are going to hold people accountable for meeting those financial obligations then surely it means that we should be looking at more productive ways and more I believe important ways of holding people to account for their actions. If we are to ensure that people take responsibility for their actions then surely it is not only if they have been in this situation but if they have a windfall like a Lotto win or something like that—all of these things were supposed tobe looked at when we actually allowed for the sunset provision to take place. So I think the Government has really done a great disservice both to the victims of crime and to our international standing.DAVID CLENDON (Green): It is never a happy sight to see this Parliament passing bad law and that is what we are seeing tonight. With the passing of this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill we are embedding as a permanent provision in our legislation a mechanism that was marginal at best as a stopgap short-term measure which is all it was ever intended to be. It intended to respond to the particular moment in time: an unfortunate series of incidents at Mt Eden prison and the ongoing public concerns about that. It was intended to be legislation with a sunset clause. It should have been allowed to simply fade away while we did something much more sensible and much more long term.This legislation and its various iterations—I think this is the third cycle of legislation it has gone through: an extension a continuation bill and now this legislation to make it permanent—have chewed up an inordinate amount of parliamentary time and resource. In the meantime we are told the Minister of Justice and her officials are too busy to even consider or contemplate a very good proposition that came from Judge Boshier some 7 or 8 months ago proposing that we create an offence of family violence. That would have been a means by which we might actually have addressed the issue of protecting victims of reducing the number of victims. That would have been a useful and appropriate means of using the resources and time of this House and the people in it. Unfortunately instead we are spending time perpetuating bad law such as this prisoners and victims legislation.Does the Government continue to be genuinely concerned about a public backlash if inmates seem to reap some financial benefit some restitution for having their rights denied them or for suffering abuse while in the custody of the State? If there is a problem if the Government is genuinely concerned about that the solution is actually self-evident. The solution is to create a safe humane decent environment in our prisons to ensure that inmates do not suffer abuse or denial of rights. The problem simply goes away. There would not be an issue if we created an environment in the prisons where prisoners’ rights are secured and where they are safe environments for both inmates and indeed staff who work in them on our behalf.The events at Spring Hill Corrections Facility last weekend and the series of events over recent months which are becoming more frequent and more serious demonstrate we do not have that safe environment in our prisons and that demonstrates we have a great deal of work to do—genuine work finding real solutions to real problems rather than fiddling about the margins with this piece of legislation that actually has not even worked.What we have done here effectively is to create a lose-lose situation. This legislation being embedded in legislation takes away the rights of prisoners to fair restitution if their rights are abused or compromised. It diminishes our right to claim we are a country that respects human rights and basic decency and as the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel pointed out it does contravene international law. And what do we get in exchange for this? A piece of legislation that over 8 years has delivered virtually nothing to victims. A figure of something like $45000 has been returned to victims under the provisions of this legislation. That is less than $6000 a year—basically pennies rats and mice peanuts. We would have been better to not devote any time to it close the House early one night save a lot of money and give that to victims. That is an equally nonsensical suggestion as the one that we continue to embed with this piece of legislation which is a lose-lose piece of legislation. It has not worked for 8years. Why will it work for another 8 years or 8 years beyond that? It simply makes no sense.It has been claimed that the Greens’ opposition to this bill reflects some sort of lack of concern for the well-being of victims. Indeed at an earlier reading one of the Government’s spokespeople saw fit to suggest that I had made a speech on this bill without once mentioning the word “victim”. In fact I suggest to that member a course of active listening because I continually referred to “victims” in my 10-minute speech and that particular member managed about 90 seconds of commentary on this very important piece of legislation. We do have significant concerns for the well-being and rights of victims and would seek to put in place a comprehensive review. When the Greens supported this legislation in 2005—somewhat reluctantly but we did support it—it was on the understanding that there would be a comprehensive review of the rights of victims ideally a cross-party approach as Mr Little has indicated. I was somewhat surprised to hear the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee a competent and typically quite amiable chair talking about this Government’s comprehensive reform of the justice sector. I think the Government is being remarkably modest. If it is undertaking a comprehensive reform of the justice sector why is it not telling anybody about it? There is no evidence of any such comprehensive reform. We are seeing short-term reactive stopgap measures.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.DAVID CLENDON: I am pleased to take the opportunity to make some further comments about this unfortunate piece of legislation that has been inflicted on the House. It would perhaps be a defensible piece of legislation to continue to embed as a permanent feature rather than a temporary one—which is how it was designed and enacted—if we had any evidence that in the ensuing 8 years it had done any good. As I mentioned earlier it clearly has not done a great deal of good. A total sum of $45000 has been dispersed to victims as a result of this piece of legislation. Despite the significant cost to the country of enacting it both the process cost and the cost of the various stopgap pieces of legislation—the continuance and now this one—it is all for a grand sum of $45000 to victims.As I said earlier our original support—our somewhat tentative support but support none the less—for the 2005 legislation was predicated on the expectation that a comprehensive review of victims’ rights would be undertaken. We have an issue in New Zealand with having a very disjointed and not very strategic or well-considered approach to making restitution to victims. We have some good programmes in place. We have some good restorative justice processes albeit not as many as we could use—those very positive means of getting good fair outcomes that are transparent that serve the needs of victims and that make offenders think and hopefully deter them from reoffending.Unfortunately we have never seen the review the significant review—a sort of clean slate approach to how we can make good and how we can ensure that the victims of crime get restitution as appropriate and that they get the appropriate treatment and counselling. There are means not to undo an offence that has been done to a person but certainly to help them recover from it. We are not even at page 1 of thinking through what that might look like. That is a piece of work that I suspect will require as Mr Little indicated earlier an approach from a new Government a Government with a more progressive set of ideas and a Government not frightened to take a step back and undertake the difficult piece of work of a comprehensive review rather than these add-on stopgap short-term measures which really do us no good and indeed are now doing us harm. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise and take a call in the third reading of the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. The previous speaker David Clendon talked about a Government that was more comprehensive. I cannot think of a Government that is more comprehensive than a Government that is reducing offending by 25 percent by 2017. Results so far from corrections show there is an 8.9 percent reduction in offending. Overall crime rates have reduced by 50 percent. Violent crime is down by 20 percent and youth crime by 5 percent. Results so far show that the total crime rate is down by 9 percent with violent crime down by 7 percent. So I am not sure what the previous member means when he talks about comprehensive and progressive Government that is proving its results.This is about a bill whose purpose is to make the restrictions on awards of compensation and the victims’ claims process in the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 permanent. We are balancing the rights and responsibilities of both the victims and the offenders. We know that incarceration on its own is not enough to reduce recidivist offending. However there are some issues that are important here. The Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 did respond to concerns that offenders should not receive compensation for wrongful treatment. We talk about a court of law but there is also the public court of opinion. It was quite clear—the Hon Lianne Dalziel actually spelt it out—that the original legislation in 2005 which was supported by the Green Party was to give confidence to the public that we were responding to and balancing the needs of victims and that is what this Government is doing.Seven submissions were submitted on the bill but were not proceeded on. I finally wanted to say this: the bill confirms the Government’s commitment to supporting victims by providing that for any compensation awarded in respect of prisoners in claims for compensation the claim limitation period is to be suspended when the compensation is paid to the Secretary for Justice. This in regards to the other reforms that we are introducing as a Government is a good bill. It is not a bad bill. It is a bill that introduces and addresses some issues. The principal Act had a sunset clause that has now come to its end. We are now making this permanent to give confidence to our communities of need. I commend this bill to the House.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I note that the Greens feel that the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill goes somewhat too far from their concern for prisoners’ rights which is of course quite a proper concern. Labour on the other hand seems to say that the bill does not go far enough and its concern is that there should be more attention given to victims’ rights and that is a fair enough position as well. New Zealand First actually wants to achieve both of those things with an appropriate balance.I think this bill makes a contribution to that. I do not think it is really going to make much difference to anything in the end but it is certainly worth considering. The Justice and Electoral Committee has indeed done just that. I am pleased to see that it made a number of recommendations and they have been incorporated into the bill. New Zealand First will therefore support the bill as it is better than nothing.The principles we considered were these: first of all we say that being a prisoner means being penalised only by the temporary removal of personal liberty and by incarceration and it does not mean anything more than that. Prisoners should have the opportunity for rehabilitation education and reorientation in their direction of life. Secondly it does not result in the loss of other rights for them and it does not mean the loss of the right to compensation for genuine injury or disability from genuine accidents and it does not mean the loss of the right to compensation for significant mistreatment if that should occur.On the other hand the rights protected in this way must be balanced against the fact that there is concern in the community that prisoners abuse some of those rights especially the right to compensation for mistreatment and especially accident compensation on some occasions. So there are genuinely held concerns in the community about that and we must give some attention to them even if cases of abuse of rights are rare. We should certainly not mollycoddle prisoners and we should make sure there are no rorts like some of those we have seen in recent years.We in New Zealand First also accept that there is a need for an accessible process for the victims of a prisoner to be provided for in claims against any award made to a prisoner. Victims’ rights we think have been seen as almost second-class rights for far too long. This bill at least properly pays attention to that. It creates a clear right and an easily usable process for a victim to claim against an award made to a prisoner. New Zealand First therefore believes that the bill does achieve an appropriate balance to protect the rights of prisoners on the one hand while on the other also meeting community expectations that prisoners’ compensation be acceptable by their victims to meet the properly awarded claims made to those victims.The Government originally wanted a diversion fund to hold those proceeds and that of course was quite impracticable and has been abandoned and we are glad to see that. Some submitters also said that the courts had pre-empted this bill in theTaunoacase and that the bill is therefore not needed. They thought that codification would not be positive and that the law should be allowed to develop further as it tends to do. However codification does provide certainty and consistency in the law and I think that Parliament does need to set out what the scope for claims by prisoners will be. It does not mean that the courts may not develop the law within the scope of the Act further anyway. I agree with the Kim Workman submission that codification helps both prisoners and victims understand their rights. I note that section 13 of the principal Act sets out the essence of those issues.It says in section 13: “No court or tribunal may in proceedings to which this subpart applies award any compensation sought by a specified claim unless satisfied that—(a) the plaintiff has made reasonable use of all of the specified internal and external complaints mechanisms reasonably available to him or her to complain about the act or omission on which the claim is based but has not obtained in relation to that act or omission redress that the court or Tribunal considers effective; and (b) another remedy or a combination of other remedies cannot provide in relation to the act or omission on which the claim is based redress that the court or Tribunal considers effective.” and that seems to me to be a very appropriate provision.In section 14(2) there is a whole list of guiding considerations for awarding compensation that a court or tribunal must take into account. That includes such things as “the extent … to which the plaintiff the defendant or both took [concerning] reasonably practicable steps to mitigate loss or damage arising from the act or omission on which the claim is based;” and another one is “whether the defendant’s breach of or interference with the right concerned was deliberate or in bad faith; and … the relevant conduct of the plaintiff; … consequences for the plaintiff of the breach …” and so on—a whole list of those things which I think are very relevant to the issue.Taking all of that into account New Zealand First considers that the bill now does achieve the correct balance—that prisoners’ rights will be preserved but will be appropriately restricted in the ways that I have mentioned in the claims that are brought. More important the victims of crime will have a clear right and process to make claims against any award that the committer of the crime against them has received and that is as it should be. The victim should have the first claim against the money that a prisonerhas received in such a claim. The prisoner who committed a crime can only expect that he or she must first compensate the victim before benefiting themselves.I understand that the Labour Party which also supports the bill wants to see a much wider right for victims to claim the assets of the convicted person. That of course is beyond the scope of this bill but New Zealand First would support such an investigation and the development of legislation as suggested by Labour. I would doubt however that any additional legislation would prove to be necessary or would really make all that much difference because victims of convicted persons already have civil rights to make claims against those persons and arising from that they also have the right to enforce those claims. Perhaps those rights are not clear enough or easy enough to access and again that might be something that could be addressed in the future. But New Zealand First would need to be convinced that there needs to be anything more at all.Similarly New Zealand First would like to see better legislation to ensure much better treatment of victims which again is outside the scope of this bill. It is something that other parties have referred to and which we heard quite a lot about during the submission process for this bill. So I think that is something that all parties need to give good consideration to. In the meantime New Zealand First will be happy to support this bill which as I have said does make a worthwhile improvement to victims’ rights without compromising prisoners’ rights either.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Before I call the next member the member has something on his box which is at an oblique angle to me and if it is a slogan—I am talking to the member who has just resumed his seat—it is out of order. If it is a slogan could the member just put the box away please. Had I noticed it he would not have got the call.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): I intend to take just a very short call in support of this bill the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. Many of the views have already been traversed in this House through the various stages of the bill. I think it is pertinent that there were only seven submissions in relation to the bill. It is not a particularly controversial bill unless you are a Green member.The scheme represents a balance as Denis O’Rourke the previous speaker has said. We believe that it represents that correct balance between the rights of the offenders and the rights of victims. It does respond to that concern raised in respect of the initial Act that offenders should not receive compensation for wrongful treatment without actually repaying the debt that they owe for the harm that they caused their victims. This bill is fair it is balanced and it ensures the system will not lead to any unintended injustices. It does put victims at the heart of our justice system. It puts that stronger emphasis on victims. This bill really helps to reinforce that we want to ensure that victims are heard that they do get the support that they need and that they are not brutalised again and again and again when the defendants are tried.This is part of a suite of justice improvements. We are also of course modernising court processes to make the justice system safer and more efficient speeding up court cases and improving civil justice. This is a sensible component of that suite and I certainly support it in its third reading.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I regret to say that the last speaker Kate Wilkinson was wrong about this bill the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill doing a whole lot more for victims. This bill had the opportunity to do a whole lot more for victims but it is an opportunity lost.Hon Kate Wilkinson: Why didn’t you do it then?Hon PHIL GOFF: Why did we not do it? I will tell the member why we did not do it. All of the major victim legislation was brought in by a Labour Government. I brought in this particular piece of legislation the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act but I brought it in to deal with a narrow range of offenders who happened to get caught up in the behaviour management regime in prison—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Also under Labour.Hon PHIL GOFF: —and were treated unlawfully according to our own law. The behaviour management regime was a National Government invention unfortunately. It took us a couple of years to catch up with the fact that it was doing badly. The New Zealand Government was acting unlawfully which brought the inmates in line for compensation.I happen to know that the people who were in the behaviour management regime were not particularly nice people. I looked at the range of offences they had committed and they were horrendous offences. Damaged scarred individuals injured people hurt people—offenders who never showed remorse and never did anything to put things right. So when I looked at theTaunoa case which was going to be expanded under a class action effort by a lawyer who I thought was more interested in gold-digging than in seeing justice done I said that this was not good enough.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Mai Chen.Hon PHIL GOFF: What this legislation—no it was not. But she will be glad to know Mr Finlayson that you have accused her of that and when she reads theHansard she will now read your comments so it is good to have got you on the record.What the bill that I introduced did first of all was say that compensation should be paid only when there is no better way of righting the wrong than monetary compensation. It required a whole range of things that should be looked at to put things right for the inmates. Then it said that if it is good enough for the inmate to be compensated for wrongful action against him why is it not good enough for that money that the inmate gets to then be available to the victim—to the person whom that inmate wronged—so we could see some restorative justice done? And I stand by that. That was the sensible thing to do at the time.What I say about this legislation now however is that it deals with a very narrow group of inmates and this is where I want to come back to Kate Wilkinson’s comments. It deals with only a very narrow range of inmates—a handful of people probably. It has given probably $40000 to $50000 back to victims but that is peanuts in the wider scheme of things.I thought to myself at the time that I wanted to see how this legislation worked so I put a sunset clause in so that after a period of I think 4 years or 5 years this legislation would come to an end and the Government if it wanted to keep it would have to renew it or would have to look at reforming it. The idea of the review was that the Government would take seriously the prospect of people who are in prisons who have wronged their victims being required to give more back to the victims by way of reparations and not simply the narrow group of offenders who were wronged through the behaviour modification regime. Why should a person in that situation pay money back to the victims but not an inmate who won Lotto? Suddenly they have got a lot of money they are rich and the person whom they have harmed is still suffering from their actions. What about the crooks who write about their criminal experiences? They write books in prison and make money out of it. What about the person who inherits a whole lot of money? They did not have money at the time that they were convicted. They did not give a cent back to their victims. Nothing was done. What about people who come into money who are suddenly able if they choose—and too often they do not choose—to putthings right for their victim? What I thought this legislation might have done is have a proper review and have a look at the options.There is one group of offenders that particularly made me angry. We are seeing more of them at the moment than we have ever seen before and these are the white-collar offenders. They do not simply go and burgle somebody’s place—that is bad enough—they rip off money in hundreds of millions of dollars. They have resources. They have skills. They have assets. They never give back to the victims because they have enough skill to know that they can protect their assets in trusts. These crooks whom we lock up for 2 or 3 years because they have ripped off people—they have taken their life-savings—come out of prison go back to driving the flash car go back to living in the big house and go back to the international holidays and all the while the people whom they ripped off who have lost their life-savings end their lives in penury. I say that is wrong and there must a better way of dealing with that. This review would have had the chance to have a look at it.When the legislation ran out of time with the sunset clause the Minister Judith Collins promised the Opposition that she would involve the Opposition in discussions on a review of that legislation to see whether we could put something better in place for victims. She dishonoured that promise. She broke her word and she came back into the House with the same legislation having wasted 2 years without any review at all. I think it is time that a National member got to his or her feet and explained why the Government did not take up the opportunity to do the review and why it did not honour the promise that it made to the Opposition that such a review would take place.There is a myriad of ideas that you can explore when you are in Government. I believe very firmly in restorative justice. The best thing that can happen when a person commits a criminal offence against another person is for that person to put things right for the victim in so far as that is possible. The concept of restorative justice is the purest form of justice. So why did this Government not look at some of the restorative justice schemes that were operating overseas? I introduced schemes on restorative justice. I am proud of them. They could have been expanded.Why did the Government not look at how you get behind the trusts that protect the wealthy white-collar offenders and why did it never require them to pay money to the people whom they have wronged? That was an opportunity. Why did the Government not take it up? Why did the Government not look at the concept where when a person goes to prison they have got no income they have got no ability to repay to the victim but when they come out and they resume work again it is a clean slate? Why do they at that point owe nothing to the victim whom they have wronged? That is a concept Chris Finlayson that the Government could have examined could have looked at—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Useless Minister of Justice. You had 6 years.Hon PHIL GOFF: We had the best legislation that this House has ever seen in justice when I was Minister of Justice Mr Finlayson and you know that. That is the truth. You had real legislation. If the Government has time to pass rubbish justice bills that are about rhetoric and not about doing anything that makes a real difference it should have used its time on this bill to come up with some innovative ideas about how to look after victims and how to put in place a system of restorative justice.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Try to give something other than a vain—Hon PHIL GOFF: This Attorney-General who is meant to protect the rights of New Zealanders brings a bill into the House that takes away court-given rights for families looking after seriously disabled adults—steals their rights—and breaches the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which he is sworn to protect and he comes in and tries to tell this side of the House what justice is about. That is the greatest injustice MrFinlayson that I have seen from any Government—robbing permanently disabled adult disabled people and you Mr Finlayson are responsible for that.What I want to say is that this legislation gets support from the Opposition only because it was better than nothing—only because it was better than nothing. It will still help in some cases where offenders come into money because they have been wronged by the actions of the State and that gives the victim claim on that money. But I want to repeat what I said in 2005 because they still believe it: “Most people believe that it is wrong that offenders should be compensated for wrongful treatment but in turn are not required to pay restitution to the victims they harmed.” I said that in 2005. I stand by that but what I want to repeat to Mr Finlayson because he is partly responsible for this is that this was a lost opportunity—an opportunity where the Government could stop mouthing meaningless rhetoric about helping victims and actually do something to turn that into a reality. That was the lost opportunity that was the broken promise and that is what this National Government stands condemned for.KATRINA SHANKS (National): It is my pleasure to take a call on this Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. Well it was interesting. Phil Goff just sat down—6 years as Minister of Justice he put this legislation in place and now he is standing up and saying it is pretty weak. Actually if he thought it was pretty weak he should not have put it in place to begin with. If he wants to be strong for victims well he should be standing on this side of Parliament because we support victims. We are the ones who are putting through this strong legislation supporting our victims in New Zealand and making them a priority for this Government. But this bill does have a very difficult task. It does because we must acknowledge the Crown’s failings against prisoners and at the same time recognise the impact that prisoners have had on their own victims. It is a very fine line to actually get it right.Currently we know that this legislation has got a sunset clause and when that expires this bill will come into force and it will allow for the prisoner debts such as reparation payments and legal aid costs to be deducted from compensation. We do know that it will allow for a process whereby victims can make civil claims against offenders. We do know that this is going to make it permanent. There are no sunset clauses in this legislation because we back this legislation to be the correct legislation. We do know that it will provide for cases where the compensation may take a while to be granted and the statute of limitations on victims’ claims may expire and it will prevent this situation from happening and ensure victims have their right to redress. We do know that we had eight submitters the main one being the Law Society which submits on most legislation in this Parliament and makes some very good points. It raised many points around the human rights in this legislation but we believe we have got this balance right.We do have to remember that victims are the centre of our justice system for this Government and we will do everything that we can for those victims in New Zealand to get good outcomes. This is one more bit of legislation in the right direction. It was my pleasure to take a call in the third reading of this bill tonight.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a split call?Dr Rajen Prasad: Yes it is.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Five minutes.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): I am pleased to take a short call on this particular bill the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill. Let us be clear. I think we will all agree that the public expectation is that prisoners will not benefit from their crimes if you like in any way or indeed by what happens to them when they are serving a sentence. TheTaunoa case brought that to light and therewas the reaction against it justifiable public reaction that while this was happening to somebody when they were supposed to be being punished the victims outside were not receiving anything. So Minister Phil Goff in those days brought an interim measure into place and that was put in. Clearly and the records show it was in the expectation that a better system would be found hence the sunset clause which has been renewed several times.If I take what the last speaker Katrina Shanks was saying that this is as good as it gets—well Ms Shanks smiles but that is the message I take from what you said—that National is the Government that is interested in victims and this is its response to it. So if this is as good as it gets let us see how good this bill is. It has added nothing more than the original bill—$50000 has gone back to victims over what period of time? Since 2007. Members on the other side of the House stand up and crow about this as the exemplar—that this is how it ought to be done. That is intellectually dishonest. If indeed the thought had been put into how this bill was constructed then Ms Shanks could have got up today pointed to the new additions to this bill there would have been cross-party support everybody in this House would have supported it and New Zealand would have put a marker in the sand. But that is not what has happened.What has happened is that this is the further politicisation of this particular issue. When something like this comes out with great fanfare Ministers say “Look here we are addressing the problem.” but that lasts only as long as their story is on the front page of the newspaper. The grafting that needs to go on to actually address the problems is where the real work of policy makers goes in. That has not happened in this particular bill. In fact even the promise given for cross-party negotiations did not take place. Why did that at least not happen? As I say that did not happen.There is no moral ground on which the Opposition could stand to say that this is the best we can do and the best we can bring forward. There was no proper review. There have been any number of the ideas that have come out as to how victims could be compensated. Mr Goff raised very very good points about how to balance the victims of white-collar crime and the victims of blue-collar crime. The Government’s side—the National Government and the ACT Party—is not interested in the victims of white-collar crime. It is not. That has run into billions of dollars. In fact to be absolutely honest about the desire to redress victims if this bill was properly addressed—as Mr Goff designed it and as the promise was given—the Government would have come back today with a comprehensive bill that would say that this is how we compensate the victims of white-collar crime and this is how we compensate the victims of blue-collar crime and there would be no difference.So it is intellectually dishonest as I say to say that this is a demonstration of this Government doing the best it can in bringing forward an exemplar because that is not what this bill does. This bill does not deliver on a promise—the promise that victims will actually be properly compensated. I have not heard of any victim coming up and saying that $50000 over 8 years is really the best we can do. If that is the best that this country can do the best that the Government can do then I think we fall far short of the ideal. So it is an opportunity lost and again the victims are the victims again.As for the next time this bill is looked at I think members across the House have made many many good points as to what it would look like. We will support this bill because there is no reason why we should not support it but we are disappointed that it has not delivered on the promise. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to add another Green Party voice in opposition to the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Continuation and Reform) Amendment Bill following on from my colleague David Clendon our justice spokesperson who raised several key points relating to our position. I think you can sum up our opposition with four keypoints roughly. One is that the original Act the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims Act 2005 provided for a review to ensure that victims’ rights and the effectiveness of this bill were able to operate clearly. This bill is now going to entrench without consultation and review that law. We think that is a massive lost opportunity. There is a lot of thinking and work to be done to ensure that our system is adequately delivering for victims outside of the prison system and also that our prisons are as safe and geared towards rehabilitation as they can possibly be. By passing this bill in this way we are missing the opportunity to have that conversation and as a result we are missing the opportunity to make our country safer and fairer. We believe that is a real shame.The second reason we are opposing this bill is around the fact that we want to ensure that our prisons are safe and promote rehabilitation. There is a very real possibility too that this bill will provide a perverse disincentive for prisoners to report injury abuse or even torture within the prison system. Anyone who has had anything to do with the prison system must be aware of those power relationships in there and the very real potential of abuse and the need for our systems to actively check those power imbalances to make sure that those places are as safe as possible. That is a matter of rights but it is also a matter of promoting good rehabilitation because we know that the more people are alienated from society the less incentive there is for them to turn their lives round. If they do not feel they are being respected by society and have a stake in society then there is no sense for them to rehabilitate.The third reason we are opposing this bill is that we have a commitment to human rights for all people—victims and prisoners. We note that New Zealand has signed the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. This requires each State party to ensure that victims of torture have an enforceable right to fair and adequate compensation. This bill threatens that commitment. We have been told it is justified but over 6 years $45000 has been returned to victims. I am not sure you can say that that is actually a justifiable result for the victims or for the victims who are prisoners.The fourth reason we are opposing this is that we actually want to improve the justice system for victims. Again as I said earlier this is a massive lost opportunity of the time that has been spent on this bill coming back to the House—for the third time in fact. We are being told that the Government with its agenda at the moment cannot look at work around domestic violence legislation. We have been told by the Minister of Justice that the decades of work that have gone into looking at alternative pre-trial and trial processes that might help increase the conviction rate from the pitiful 1 percent that it is for most sexual offences have been taken off the agenda and are not worthy of the time of this Government. Again we have seen similar work in the Evidence Act. If this Government really truly cared about victims then the focus would go on actually ensuring our system delivered for victims. It is a sad day when we get this instead.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Prisoners’ and Victims’ Claims (Compensation and Reform) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes101New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes18Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.Employment Relations Amendment BillFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 4 June.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): This bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is the poster child for the failure of this National Government: the failure to deliver on John Key’s promise of more jobs the failure to lift wages for hard-working Kiwis and the failure to close the wage gap with Australia. With this bill National has declared war on wages. It wants to cut the pay of hard-working Kiwis and it has reverted to its modus operandi of last century dressed up in the soft-soap language of choice and flexibility that we heard from the Minister of Labour. John Key’s Government is now the low-wage king of New Zealand. It has held down the minimum wage it has cut young workers’ pay and now it is gutting the primary wage-fixing mechanism under New Zealand law.It is already hard going and it is costing New Zealand workers and their families but this bill is going to have a knock-on effect throughout the labour market and further entrench Kiwis in a low-wage economy. By taking away Kiwis’ right to fair wage negotiations and standard setting this bill will result in workers across the board seeing their wages fall.Every change from this Government from allowing employers to walk away from collective bargaining and negotiations to stopping people from finding out why they have been sacked to taking away the right to a tea break is about National looking after its mates at the expense of everyone else. This is payback for the Government’s wealthy mates who have become restless—and did we not see that last week in the media? They think the Government has been too soft on workers and unions. They hate unions. The Government’s mates do not like the fact that we still have the remnants of a bargaining system in New Zealand where workers can actually have a say. They donated big time to the National Party expecting a whole lot more. What did we see last year? The former Minister Kate Wilkinson with all due respect to her had pressure put on her and now it is on Simon Bridges that very ambitious Minister to deliver to the party’s donors. They want to see workers put in their place and that is what this bill is about.This bill undermines the foundation of the Employment Relations Act which is meant to promote collective bargaining not destroy it. It is meant to promote compliance with important international conventions. The bill destroys the foundation of good faith and fair dealing in our law which Governments business and unions have worked on so carefully for the last 10 years. It puts industrial relations firmly back on the agenda as a political issue. We say: “Bring it on.”—bring it on. Kiwi workers are sick and tired of being told by this Government that they should be grateful to have a job. No matter what the pay is or what the conditions are they should be grateful. That is what this bill is about as well.Once the backbone of New Zealand jobs was about a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. It was about a chance to build a better life for ourselves and our families. But now while John Key gives handouts and favours to his mates Kiwi workers are seeing the dream of decent work slip further away.This bill is not good for workers but it is not good for employers either. Good employers under this bill will have to compete with bad employers who will have free rein under these changes to employment law. Actually I have had many employers express privately to me their puzzlement about these changes. They do not seem that fussed about them and many tell me they never asked for them. What employers are saying to me is that they need stability and this bill is going to upset the labour marketin a way we have not seen in years and years. The truth is that the only people who are going to do well out of this bill are employment lawyers and I hope the Minister has provided more resources for the Employment Relations Authority and the Employment Court because that is where this is going to end up.The Government seems increasingly out of touch with good employers who are trying to do the right thing. It is missing out on the conversation that is taking place all around us about the living wage. We have got employers lining up to sign up to be living wage employers. The Government is deaf to that. It does not seem to understand that things are changing in New Zealand. People do not want this bill. They do not want us to go back under this Government to the system that we had 20 years ago.But let us be in no doubt: under this bill standards set by collective agreements that extend across the labour market to wage and salary earners will stall. New workers being employed and doing the same work as others can be paid less. The Government’s own advisers said that; it is in the Cabinet papers. Collective agreements are going to be harder to settle and I think that is the aim of the bill. Then there are the extraordinary proposals to tax workers 10 percent of their pay for partial actions and allow their pay to fall below the minimum wage. There is no measurement about what that action can be. The Minister said yesterday that it was about a level playing field. Employers already can suspend and lock out workers who take partial action. There is no balance in this in terms of workers being able to do things similar to that. Actually I cannot find a jurisdiction anywhere in the world that does this.A consequence of this silly policy—goodness knows where it came from; probably from the floor of a National Party conference and we know the sorts of things they come up with—is that this bill has pages and pages and pages dedicated to being able to tax workers fine workers for taking little little action. That could be just working to rule with workers doing their full hours but saying to an employer: “We’re a bit upset with you about the collective bargaining. You’re not giving us a pay increase. So we’re going to do just our jobs and no more.” They can be fined.If we are talking about meanness there are in this bill cuts to meal and rest breaks which I thought we had seen the back of in 2010 when it disappeared when it went to the bottom of the Order Paper. They have been revised. What that means is the boss will decide whether workers get their break. What is even worse is that workers will be required to work during unpaid meal breaks. I do not know what the name is for that. I think years ago they used to call it slavery where people were required—Andrew Little: I think they call it flexibility now.DARIEN FENTON: It is flexibility these days that is the thing—slavery or flexibility. What it means is that workers are going to be required to work for nothing during their breaks.I was interested in the Minister’s comments about Part 6A. Clearly he has had the message that the proposal to cut the protections for vulnerable workers is not supported by many businesses. We all know where this proposal came from despite a comprehensive review which took the Minister 3 years and included not only the Department of Labour but the employment of a separate consultant. There were specific recommendations that small and medium sized businesses should not be exempted. Then former Minister Kate Wilkinson got the CrestClean message: “Get rid of Part 6A or we will campaign against you.” And they did—they did. The National Party connections in CrestClean a company that has had cases against it around Part 6A got rid of her. The next minute despite all the advice and a 3-year review Cabinet decided to exempt small business.This bill comes from a Government that simply does not get it. It has never understood the vulnerabilities of a worker standing up to an employer when theemployer holds all the cards when the worker’s economic livelihood is on the line and when their only choice is to keep quiet to shut up and be obedient or lose their job. This is a Minister running this who has never had to face an employer who has more bargaining power than him. This is a Minister who made it plain yesterday that he does not understand the consequences of this bill. I do look forward to the conversation he is committed to at the International Labour Organization next week and I look forward to a report back on that. But there is a better way than this. This constant grinding down of Kiwi workers is not acceptable. We need a party with the backbone to make decent work a reality again and that party is Labour.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I thought that was a serious speech from Darien Fenton until the last moment when she talked about the face of the future being the Labour Party. What a joke. Come on Darien get in the real world. This is the modern 21st century. You are not in the 1900s. You are not in Communist Russia now. This is the real world. People work and they live and they make the most of their opportunities.This bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is good legislation. It is flexible it looks after workers and it provides the right environment for employers to be able to provide opportunities. It is good legislation for employers it is good legislation for employees and it is good legislation for our country and our economy going forward.Labour Party members use a whole lot of rhetoric. They try to scare people they try to take advantage of people’s emotions they try to say things that are not true and they do not come up with any basis or reality to what they say. It was a load of rhetoric; that is all we heard. Did we hear what the matter was with the bill? Did that member point out one section in this bill and say there is a problem with it? No. That member just spoke rhetoric in terms of what the Labour Party wants to portray. It wants to portray that we hate unions. That is what that member said. Those were the words that came from Darien Fenton.Two weeks ago we were here in this House debating a Sue Moroney bill that was an attack on unions a blatant attack on the power of unions. Sue Moroney brought it to this House thinking she was going to be the communist legaliser of redundancy payments and then she realised half-way through the debate that it actually hurts unions to do what she was wanting to do. The Labour Party never has never will and never can care about people. The Labour Party cares about itself. It always has cared about itself it always will care about itself and it does not understand what is good for this country and its people.This is a good bill. It streamlines some of the provisions around the Employment Relations Authority it makes some extensions around flexible working arrangements it returns to the original position in the Employment Relations Act around good faith it helps employers in multi-employer bargaining it allows for taking account of partial strike action and it removes the 30-day rule that enforces non-union members to take union terms and conditions. It does make some changes to Part 6A and it works on having clarity for information that is required for affected workers in situations.This is a good bill. It is in the best interests of New Zealand’s economy and it is in the best interests of New Zealand workers. The Labour Party will just use rhetoric all night long to try to put it down when the Labour Party does not really care about people and cares only about itself. Thank you.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): If there is one thing that this bill does it takes us to the 19th century; it does not take us to the 21st century. I want to give the member David Bennett who spoke just now one concession—it is true that National Party members in Government do have a connection with unions. Let me see now. They belong to someof the most powerful unions in the country. Mike Sabin is a former member of the Police Association a very powerful union. Michael Woodhouse—and I think even Mr Bennett himself—is a former member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand a very powerful union collectively organised. The Attorney-General Chris Finlayson and Kate Wilkinson are members of the Law Society another powerful union. Simon O’Connor is a member of the Catholic Church which is probably the most powerful of all of them. So they do understand about organising in their own interests but the difference between them and us is that we look after working people and their interests and those who have to stand up to those in authority to look after their own.This bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill proceeds from the false premise that a level playing field needs to be created as the Minister of Labour said last night—or that a level playing field needs to be restored. The implication of course is that there is not presently a level playing field in employment. Well I have got news for the Minister and indeed for Mr Bennett who told us that we were boldly moving into the 21st century and that is that the employment relationship is not equal. It never has been; it never will be. It is inherently unequal and the Attorney-General will know this because he is a man of law and a man of letters. He will know what the origins of our employment law are. It starts with the common law; it does not start with statute. It starts with the common law and the common law of employment which goes back at least 150 years is still the law in this land and it is amended by statute.Let us go back to the common law because it still applies. It recognises that the employment agreement is a special agreement because it means one thing—that one party the worker submits to the authority and control of the other. There is no other contract that does that. No consumer contract and no commercial contract requires an individual to submit to the authority and control of the other and to limit their freedom as a result. It is an agreement to submit. It is an agreement to submit to the instruction and control of the employer but it is not an agreement of servility and decades and centuries of employment law tell us that the employment relationship is not a relationship of servility. But the reality is that the common law was never good enough to hold back the worst of exploitation and the worst excesses of employers.Let us remember too how the common law described the employment relationship. It did not use the modern 20th century and 21st century language of “employer” and “employee”. It used the very raw language of “master” and “servant”. It is the common law of master and servant and if you want a good depiction of how that operated you only have to look atUpstairs Downstairs and the more recent rendition of it—Iain Lees-Galloway:Downton Abbey.ANDREW LITTLE: —Downton Abbey. That is where it all stems from. So what did the common law inadequately do? It set up half a dozen duties—four duties on workers and two duties on the employer. The duties on the workers included the duty to obey. That is the inherent thing about the employment relationship. You are obliged to do as you are told. That is the relationship of submission in the employment relationship. As well it says that you have got a duty of personal service. You have to do it. You cannot contract it out to somebody else. You have to do it yourself.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!ANDREW LITTLE: There is the duty of fidelity Mr Speaker—and of course it is not you Mr Speaker; I would not require you to submit to anything other than the authority of this great House the authority of the will of the people. We know what you are here for. The other duties are the duty of fidelity—you have to act in good faith to your employer—and the duty of confidentiality. You can understand how all of this came about through servants and the master-servant relationship.The duties on the employer were the duty to pay wages and that was periodically and as agreed and the duty of a safe system of work. But as I said before that was inadequate so statute law had to intervene to protect workers and what freedoms they were allowed to exercise—the freedom of association the freedom to organise and join together with their workmates the freedom of choice. Also there was the freedom to bargain collectively. These were so fundamental and so important that they have been recognised internationally in international agreements and are now celebrated each year at the annual conferences of the International Labour Organization or the ILO.The history of employment law is either the history of progress towards a more sensible and constructive and collaborative relationship between workers and their employers or a regression back to the master-servant relationship. The disappointing thing is that every law change this Government has made in employment law has taken us back towards the master-servant relationship. This is the Government of master and servant. That is the only employment relationship it knows—more servility more submission more control more master-servant. That is the National Government 2013. It knows nothing else. It is old-fashioned it is old hat it is 19th century and it takes us backwards.We know what National’s attitude towards unions is. It was represented by Cameron Slater. He said he was pathological about unions. He said he a pathological hatred of unions. Well he is right about one thing. He is a sociopath—we know that—but has a pathological hatred of unions and he is the biggest public relations machine for the National Party. He defines them.Darien Fenton: He’s Judith Collins’ supporter.ANDREW LITTLE: And his biggest hero of course is Judith Collins the Minister of so-called justice. Can you believe it? The challenge of modern management is to harness discretionary effort. Good managers good employers know this which is why they do not buy into the tardy old grubby old National Party of old like the present lot. They buy into modern management techniques which are about harnessing discretion and getting the best out of people through mutuality through mutual respect through working together through collaboration through respecting the choice of workers to belong to the unions they wish to belong to and through respecting the choice to bargain collectively. What does this lot do? They introduce a law that allows employers to trot off to the Employment Relations Authority to stop collective bargaining to deny the freedom of choice of workers.What is interesting is that we have had the principle of good faith in operation in this country for 13 years now and when the employer trots off to the Employment Relations Authority under this bill to stop collective bargaining and frustrate the freedom of choice of workers a number of conditions have to be met. But there is not one condition that relates to good faith the requirement of good faith and the Attorney-General will know because he is a sensible man that our employment jurisdiction is defined by equity and good conscience—equity and good conscience. [Interruption] Mr Finlayson QC will know that he or she—they who come to equity come with clean hands. We have to talk about it in the plural these days so we are talking about at least four hands. They who come to equity come with clean hands. But under National’s 2013 bill when you go to the court of equity and good conscience you do not have to have clean hands. That is what National represents.I am going to talk very briefly about the power of the employer to penalise workers who take what is called a partial strike by deducting their pay. In 2008 the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union led a piece of industrial action with Air New Zealand and with flight attendants employed by a subsidiary called Zeal 320 Ltd. Their strike action—and it was defined as strike action; they had to givenotice—was that they decided to breach the dress code for Air New Zealand. They turned up to their shifts they flew on the planes and they hosted passengers but they turned up in feather boas. They turned up in flash pink gear—and that was just the blokes. They turned up in fancy clothing. One or two even had tā mokos on them and they were allowed to fly. Not a single flight was disrupted as a result of those flight attendants and their partial strike. Not a single passenger was turned away. The company continued to make money but it was a partial strike. It was a difficult dispute. What it led to ultimately was a brilliant relationship a constructive relationship and a collaborative relationship.Under this bill those workers would be penalised for standing up for their rights a better deal and greater equality. That is how insidious this piece of legislation is. That is how far behind the eight ball and the times the National Government of 2013 is. This is a terrible bill. It is a dumb bill. It is a silly bill. The members opposite know it. They will shamefacedly go through the process tonight. They know it is wrong and we will oppose it with all the fibre in our bodies.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a Green call. Look the member should call. I think we need to clarify something. The member should call. The Speaker will determine who gets the call. Just because someone else stands up—we have a sort of rational approach to doing this.DENISE ROCHE (Green): This is a noxious piece of legislation and the Greens will not be supporting it. The Employment Relations Amendment Bill is another nail in the coffin of workers’ rights in Aotearoa New Zealand. This bill is designed to force wages down and to keep workers in insecure jobs and it is a blatant attempt to undermine unions and limit a worker’s ability to collectively negotiate decent wages and conditions with their employer. Put simply this bill is a return to the 1991 Employment Contracts Act. It goes hand in hand with other noxious legislation this Government has introduced like the youth rates the 90-day rule of the last term and the reform of the welfare system which is designed to flood the labour market with workers who are desperate for a job and prepared to take anything which of course undermines the pay and conditions for all workers.This bill perpetuates a narrative that employers are benevolent creatures who charitably offer jobs to workers and that we should all be grateful. It deliberately creates an industrial relations environment that is hostile to unions and hostile to workers. Effectively it tilts what was never a level playing field in the power relationship between the employer and the employee heavily into the employer’s favour. This is hardly surprising when one considers that the entire policy setting from this Government since it entered power in 2008 has been to advantage its rich friends and privatise as much of the common public assets and capital as it possibly can. There are numerous examples of this—Skycity is one charter schools are another and private prisons and countless road building projects—that do not stack up economically.The privatisation agenda is evident in this bill when you see the removal of the requirement that collective bargaining continue until the collective agreement is resolved. This is the Ports of Auckland dispute. This is the clause that was put in the bill because of the Ports of Auckland dispute. If we cast our minds back we will recall that over a year and a half ago the ports’ management was keen to avoid settling the collective employment agreement for the Maritime Union of New Zealand workers because union workers refused to allow the complete casualisation of their jobs. The company then attempted to contract out the jobs. However it was stopped by an injunction and the company has been forced into negotiations. There has been a raft of unsavoury behaviour from the ports’ management since last year including revealing leave details of one worker utilising the right-wing media to tell lies about how muchwharfies earn advertising jobs overseas to replace striking and locked-out workers and of course punishing union members who were already casuals by reducing their hours until they were forced to leave the union. Since then of course there has been the setting up of a yellow union which has settled the collective employment contract—containing less favourable working conditions—for fewer workers. The collective employment agreement for Maritime Union of New Zealand members is still unresolved despite the Employment Court directing the parties to have facilitated bargaining.The removal of the provision to conclude bargaining undermines the ability for any union to negotiate collective agreements on behalf of its members. As Helen Kelly said quite recently: “Currently an employer can refuse to settle on an issue … but they can’t walk away on ideological grounds from the bargaining … The new law will remove the obligation to conclude allowing instead for surface bargaining by employers who have no intention to settle.” In last month’s employment law update from law firm Buddle Findlay it described the changes to the collective bargaining by this bill as being “the most significant since those made by the last Labour Government in 2004” and also said that it favours employers.As well as removing the duty to conclude bargaining the bill allows employers to opt out of multi-employer bargaining which effectively means we can wave goodbye to industry standards. It means employers can carry on competing on price by reducing wages below their competitors which reinforces a low-wage economy. The dreams that this Government said we would achieve like catching up to Australia are fast becoming far-fetched when it takes this kind of approach. New Zealand as we have heard recently is now becoming the centre for low-wage workers and some Australian companies are contracting out their call centre functions to Wellington. It is no wonder. With these types of laws—and I include the dubiousHobbit legislation in this—we have become a nation of State-sanctioned sweatshop workers.The bill takes us back to 1991 with a focus on individual rather than collective bargaining. It removes the 30-day rule which is the requirement for employers to offer the collective if there is one to new workers. This provision was to protect new workers from being taken on at lower rates on individual agreements that they may have felt compelled to accept or else they would not get the job. In so doing that protected their colleagues as well. When you combine that provision with the 90-day trial provisions that this Government introduced last term we see a lack of a level playing field in very stark relief. In practice what happens is that new workers have no choice but to accept whatever the employer offers them or they will not be employed at all. I for one have already seen examples of workers being too frightened to join a union during their 90-day trial in case they get the sack because they are “too stroppy”.The meanness of this legislation is really really apparent in the removal of the only protection vulnerable workers have under the current provisions in section 6A of the principal Act. This is the section that meant that the mostly low-paid workers employed by contract cleaning companies at least kept the same pay and conditions if the contractor changed. It is no secret that the previous Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson was lobbied substantially by one small contract cleaning company which complained that this provision was unfair. So what did the Minister do? She changed it so that the provision would not apply for companies that employ fewer than 20 staff. Similarly for the removal of tea and meal breaks the law being changed to remove those rights in the legislation is due to one issue where an employer and a sole-charge air traffic controller could not agree on a time for a tea break. Once more we see the Government use a sledgehammer to crack a nut.This bill is backward-thinking. It creates an environment where workers will not speak their minds at work and this is a huge risk for health and safety for those in dangerous occupations. When we create a culture where workers will not speak up in case they are seen as troublemakers we put workers’ lives at risk. That is why the Australian health and safety regulations have more worker participation because those on the job know what the problems are. We could learn a lot from them instead of carrying on with our appalling accident and death rate for workers in the forestry sector in the agriculture sector in the building sector and yes even in the mining sector. This legislation is Draconian and I urge the House to oppose the bill.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): The previous speaker Denise Roche suggested that this bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is all about employer sweatshops. I would like to suggest that the only sweatshop around this place would be the deodorant-free Labour—I mean the Green Party conference. Sorry I almost got the Green Party confused with the Labour Party there but they are kind of merging together. What happens when one combines green and red? You get this kind of muddy brown colour—that is right.Flexibility reducing compliance costs freedom to compete and expand duty of good faith proportionate responses relaxing provisions and—here is the pearler; here is the pearler—additional choice. Well in the words of Catherine Tate “How very very dare they.” What a liberty that the National Government might introduce this to the workforce of New Zealand! Welcome to 2013 to the Labour Party and its mixed-ownership model friends on the watermelon benches. Welcome to 2013 where work is valued where hard work and initiative are actually valued and where employers are given some choice and the ability to reflect their initiative and their enterprise in their workplaces and actually get ahead and succeed. That is about flexibility and freedom to thrive and survive. What is Mr Cosgrove pointing at?Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why is Tony out the back?MIKE SABIN: That is another hard-working National Government member Mr Cosgrove—something the Labour Party is very unaccustomed to. Yes it is like some sort of foreign animal. That is a hard-working MP. What could that be? What could that be? [Interruption] There is fire in their bellies—there is fire in their bellies.This bill it has been suggested is returning to the master and servant subservient relationship. I think that describes the unions. And really what is clear is that the unions’ day has come and gone which is why—[Interruption] That is right. That is right.Kris Faafoi: Are you a member of the Police Association?MIKE SABIN: That is right; I am a member of the Police Association. That is right. That is right but you will find—[Interruption] There is no enemy of the unions here. There are no enemies of the unions here. The difference is that that association has moved with the times. That party certainly has not and the master and servant description that sort of mentality that employers are the enemy of the employees is why the Labour Party is still languishing over there propped up by its xerox printing friends in the Green Party. I commend this bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! [Interruption] Order! I cannot hear the honourable member Barbara Stewart. Was she trying to get the call?Barbara Stewart: Yes I was.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): In that case I call the honourable member Barbara Stewart.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This bill is creating challenges evenbefore it has got through its first reading stage and we in New Zealand First have no doubt that as it goes further through the process the outcry will be louder.Mike Sabin: That member doesn’t believe what she’s reading.BARBARA STEWART: I do not believe this bill. New Zealand First is not going to support this bill. We believe that it is an affront to the rights of workers and we are continually seeing under this Government the slow erosion of workers’ rights as anti-worker legislation is pursued.New Zealand First believes that if the economy is going to actually prosper and grow sustainably then the relationship between employers and employees needs to be appropriate. Employers need flexible dedicated staff and employees need appropriate conditions and remuneration. There is a really fine balance between assuring and affirming the rights of workers on one hand and allowing enough worker flexibility so as not to hinder any business’s production or productivity. In New Zealand First we understand that and we believe that the New Zealand public also understand this.There is always a trade-off a balancing act between the two extremes. Kiwi workers and Kiwi business owners know this. The biggest percentage is more or less in the centre. They are very aware that to go to either end of the spectrum is to invite the prospect of workers’ strikes or their own businesses failing and we do not want to see this. There are too many businesses going under. They are already downsizing closing and we do not want to see the job numbers fall even further than they have. An increasing number of jobs are required. We want our young people to come back from overseas to work here in New Zealand.In New Zealand First we do not believe that there is actually any demand for these changes that the Government is proposing. Just what is behind all of these changes? Radical changes are being made and there is no need for them. In this regard it is like the other piece of employment legislation we had a couple of weeks ago where workers are going to be paid less—young workers—than the minimum wage. In New Zealand First we are going to be very interested to monitor this and check whether or not businesses have actually increased the number of young people they have employed.David Bennett: New Zealand First monitors the public?BARBARA STEWART: No. We actually do not believe this. We have already seen numerous businesses come out against this particular legislation. They want to protect their workers and they want to protect their brands against all of the unnecessary nastiness that this Government is actually creating.For a party that is really cosy with the public relations firm Crosby/Textor National has poorly assessed the political risk that businesses are facing when they implement this legislation. This bill today is another kick in the head for New Zealand workers but it is also more than that. It is seeking to apply a set of rules when there is already a great deal of flexibility for employers and employees and in this way it just goes to show how out of touch this National Government is with the small and medium sized businesses throughout New Zealand.Small businesses have always had understandings with their employees and will continue to do so. Cafe owners retailers electricians petrol stations—they all expect their staff to go the extra mile when it is busy or when they are faced with a deadline and the staff are by and large obliging. That is expected and it is appreciated.This Government is discussing employee strikes and union action and is trying to create a level playing field. The employment relationship is not a level playing field and it never can be. It is about collaboration and it is about working together. If we look at strikes they are usually with large corporations. They are corporations that employ numerous people—corporations that have the resources the ability and the nous to be able to cover the rostered tea breaks.This bill is not about improving business; it is about the National Party actually pandering to its extreme-right minority at the expense of the more moderate majority. As parliamentarians we are expected to represent the views and the interests of people yet how many of us here could truthfully say that we do not expect a dinner break at 6 p.m.? We expect it we want it and we need it—we definitely plan around it.Once again this Government is showing how out of touch it is. It is attempting to pass legislation for which there is no need and it does not exist in reality. Once again it has misunderstood the working relationships in small businesses. Once again it is pursuing an anti-worker agenda when most businesses are content with the status quo. For these reasons we are very pleased to be voting against this bill and all of the challenges that it is going to create in the workplace. Thank you.Chris Auchinvole: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Have we finished? I am just trying to deal with the situation on my left but I recognise the honourable member Chris Auchinvole.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): Why is it that whenever we have an industrial relations bill those on the other side of the House—nice people individually in every sense and in every way—Mike Sabin: Oh don’t exaggerate.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: No they are—they are. Why is it that they leap into a stereotypical transformation in a gang and assume the various unionist roles so aptly played by Peter Sellers in films likeI’m All Right Jack where the archetypical trade union shop steward had a nose-to-nose confrontation with the archetypical personnel manager played by Terry-Thomas? The trouble is that this was the 1960s when even I was young. Why do those members want to drag us back to the wicked old days of constant confrontation? The reason why—I can tell them why and they will not disagree—is that that is how unionists make their money.I cannot understand why they adopt this despicable attitude towards employers as if employers do not like in any shape or form the very people who work for them and who produce their profits their well-being and their continuance in business. I find myself—and this shows you the extent to which I have been moved by listening to those miserable speeches from the other side—agreeing completely with my colleague David Bennett.Hon Members: Oh!CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Oh yes it has come to this. I am not so sure—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The Speaker will not allow a person addressing the House to be drowned out. This is not a pub.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you Mr Speaker—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I feel that it is only fair that you advise the member that he may want to withdraw and apologise for that last statement he made in his speech.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Chris Auchinvole.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I shall ignore the comment that came from the other side of the House because it is the best way to deal with the comments from that particular member and I am sure that on reflection he does not really mean what he says. But I am sure that I will also agree—and here is the member David Bennett—with my colleague Cam Calder who is yet to speak.I was intrigued though at Andrew Little’s example of each of us belonging to a union but saddened that even he a scholarly person dedicated to his profession—and yet so angry—is still in his own words locked in the time ofDownton Abbey and seeslabour relationships in terms of servility. I never saw labour relationships in terms of servility when I was a worker and nor did I when I was an employer. If Andrew Little is the leader of a trade union it speaks volumes in terms of attitude.This piece of legislation the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is good legislation but it will not be seen as such by Labour or indeed by New Zealand First which wants to keep everything the way it is at the moment. Labour wants to drag it back 30 years. I hesitate to say it but Labour views it through an old-fashioned pair of spectacles. I would encourage those members to freshen up and see the opportunities offered by this excellent bill.Just a final word for Andrew Little because he brought up the question—[Interruption] No listen to this bit. Andrew Little brought up the question of Air New Zealand workers wearing mufti. I cannot believe—think back a week—his temerity and duplicitous attitude in his approach. He was hailing them as heroes whereas when I in innocence wore my sleeveless jersey—60 stitches to the inch merino and alpaca hand-knitted probably by the women of Wānaka—who was it who objected? Who was it who raised the point of order to you Mr Assistant Speaker Robertson in the Chair? It was Andrew Little. I was deeply hurt and offended. Thank you.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Well does that not just about say it all? That last speaker Chris Auchinvole thinks that this legislation the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is to be debated as a piece of theatre. Because that is what we just had—Chris Auchinvole from the National Party thinking that this is a piece of theatre. This is about people’s lives. I do not know what it is that that Government does not get or how it has become so out of touch so quickly that it does not realise that this piece of legislation is about everyday people’s working lives. It is about what people do when they leave their families every day. It is about the relationship that happens in their workplace. It is about them returning safely to their families at the end of that day and having the income on which to live. That is what this bill is about. It is not a piece of theatre; it is about real people’s lives.I have become used to hearing Simon Bridges butcher the English language in this House but here he is butchering people’s rights at work this time—butchering people’s rights at work. That is exactly what is happening with this piece of legislation. The member who just resumed his seat Chris Auchinvole told us that it was a good piece of legislation and then could not even tell us why. He had not one reason to offer this House about why he thought this was a good piece of legislation. I think that deep in his heart and in those of most of his colleagues they know that it is a piece of nonsense. It is a piece of nonsense. What is the Government doing but actually trying to take away people’s rights at work? And for what purpose?Let us have a think about the moment in history where we sit here in New Zealand. We sit in a moment of time when we are trying to struggle our way out of a global recession.Chris Auchinvole: And doing very well.SUE MORONEY: And not doing very well at it actually Mr Auchinvole—not doing at all well. We have been in a recession for 5 long years. That Government has been promising to get us out of recession every single year since it came in and it has been failing. But I digress.We are in the midst of a global recession—a global recession by the way lest we forget that was brought about by a lack of regulation. I think people have almost already forgotten that. It was brought about by a lack of regulation on the financial sector. That is what brought about this global recession and who have been the people who have lost out as a result of that lack of regulation of the financial institutions and the investment bankers like John Key? Who have lost out? It has been ordinary workingpeople who have lost their jobs. Every day you pick up the paper there are 50 or 60 or 100 jobs being lost somewhere in New Zealand. They are the people paying the price.What is the solution? The solution the National Government has come up with is the same one its members have always trotted out no matter what the circumstance is. The solution is to attack people’s rights at work. That is the solution they are putting up to get us out of this global recession. Well it is an absolute piece of nonsense and no wonder Chris Auchinvole could find not one reason to say why he thought this was a good piece of legislation because it is not.It is not about a level playing field Mr Bridges. I listened to his first reading speech which was I think yesterday in the House. He said the reason for this was to create a level playing field. Well hello Mr Bridges. Have a look at the environment we are operating in. When we have 1500 people lining up for 30 minimum-wage jobs at supermarkets every day of the week—as if there were that many jobs every day of the week—Darien Fenton: That’s a level playing field.SUE MORONEY: Yes tell us about the level playing field. Tell me where the power balance is in that exercise. When you have got hundreds of people lining up for a small number of minimum-wage jobs guess where the power lies in that relationship? [Interruption] David Bennett would have us think that the people lining up begging for the minimum-wage jobs have got the power on their side. That is how far removed the National Party members are from reality. They are so out of touch with what is actually going on in New Zealand.One of the parts of this bill says that it is going to require any workers taking strike action to give notice. This dreadful strike action is obviously causing our global recession. What strike action and where? No answers. What is the problem that National members are trying to fix? For these strikes that are not taking place they want these striking workers to actually have to give notice. Well I am in the middle of a debate on a first reading bill of my own in this House because that Government is refusing to actually agree to workers having any notice of their jobs going—of their jobs being made redundant.I have got a bill in the House now asking for it to be put in the law that notice is given to workers whose jobs are going to go whose entire income is going to be taken away from them. That Government refuses to give that notice in the law and yet here its members are saying that workers—who are actually not even striking by the way because we do not have a problem here in New Zealand on this issue—have to give notice that they might withdraw their labour for a period of time from the employer.Well that just goes to show how out of touch that Government is and how against the ordinary working person its members actually are. They do not value workers. They actually do not value working people or the contribution they make to this country. Bills like this show us and expose the National Party members for what they are.But the other piece of this bill that I want to draw people’s attention to is something that we should not even be debating in the year 2013 in this Parliament. That is the right for working people to have a lunch break and to have a morning tea break and an afternoon tea break. This is an issue that is actually close to my heart because I in fact wrote the piece of legislation that they are amending. I actually wrote the amendment that was brought in by the Labour Government in 2008. While Kate Wilkinson when she was the Minister of Labour was going about writing this amendment that says that employees do not have to have a break they can bargain it away her department was reviewing the law that Labour brought in to see how it was working a year after it had been established. And do you know what they found? They found that it was working fantastically well. They found that of the employers—and I think there were somethinglike 1000 employers whom they interviewed—just 11 percent of them have had to make alterations as a result of that law. And the vast majority of that 11 percent of employers said it was a really good change that it made a difference a positive difference in their workplace when they gave more regular and longer meal breaks and rest periods to their workers because productivity went up and health and safety issues came down. Employee morale went up. That is what they told the reviewers—that is what they told them.Here comes this Government with its dreadful dreadful record on health and safety. Have its members learnt nothing from the Pike River mine? Have they learnt nothing at all because here they go again not understanding that people’s rights to take a break at work is a fundamental issue around health and safety. When people do not get regular breaks at work that is when things go wrong. They have learnt nothing from the Pike River mine inquiry and they need to get that out and read it good and proper before they pass this piece of legislation. The impact of what they are trying to do here will reduce people’s rights at work and it will make their workplace less healthy and less safe. It will mean that we will have more accidents at work and productivity will go down employee morale will go down and health and safety problems will go up.Is that the brighter future? They campaigned on a brighter future and I can see no brighter future in this piece of legislation. I can only see New Zealand going backwards to the bad old days of the Employment Contracts Act.Dr CAM CALDER (National): Thank you Mr Speaker for the call. It is most civil of you. It is a great pleasure to take a brief call on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This bill as is very clear is aimed at improving fairness and flexibility in workplace relations. We were asked what it is about—this is what it is about. Our focus simple again: creating more and higher-paying jobs for New Zealanders as part of our plan to build a more competitive economy.What does this bill do? It is simple. The bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 in relation to collective bargaining flexible working arrangements good-faith bargaining rest break and meal break provisions and the Employment Relations Authority. The bill also introduces an exemption from certain requirements of Part 6A of the Act relating to continuity of employment and I am sure we will talk about this further in the debate.This bill is about pragmatically improving and promoting flexibility and fairness in the labour market. It continues our strong and unrelenting focus on reducing compliance costs and unnecessary and burdensome regulation—much of it put in place by the previous Labour Government. We are committed to maintaining the framework for collective bargaining—maintaining the framework for collective bargaining—but we wish to ensure that there is adequate flexibility and choice within that framework.We are also keen that ineffective and unnecessarily protracted bargaining that has productivity and other social impacts is avoided and that the fairness and balance of bargaining requirements are appropriate. National is ensuring employees and employers have the freedom to compete and expand while key protections for employees are maintained. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I advise the House that this is a split call. I call the honourable member Iain Lees-Galloway.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Well the National Party has never seen a workers’ right that it did not want to get rid of has it? That is basically what this Employment Relations Amendment Bill is about. The National Party has never seen a workers’ right or a working condition that it did not want to get rid of and all this bill does is take us back to the bad old days.Some people have said that it takes us back to the 1990s. I reckon it takes us back to the 1890s or maybe even before then. It is positively Dickensian this bill. If a worker should dare ask for more sir—if a worker should dare ask for more—the Mr Bumbles over there will send them off not even to the workhouse but out of the workhouse out on to the streets. That is what the National Party wants—that is what the National Party wants. I am not sure whether they are the Bumbles or the Fagins over there but either way this is a Dickensian piece of legislation that takes us back to the bad old days of the master-servant relationship in the workplace.In the 21st century the workplace is supposed to be a partnership. It is supposed to be about the employers the capitalists and the employees the labour working together to build a better business. But that is not what the National Party believes in. It believes in the old master-servant relationship where it tips the balance in favour of the employer every time. This is all designed to drive down wages and to make sure that the workers have so few rights and are so on edge in the workplace that they will never demand anything. They will never ask for more.Removing the duty to conclude collective bargaining is about bad employers—not the good employers. There are plenty of good employers out there but the law is always about making sure the ratbags cannot get away with their bad behaviour. So bad employers will be able to put ludicrous terms on the table and when the union does not agree to them they can just walk away. They can just walk away from collective bargaining. They can spray and walk away.Repealing the 30-day rule allowing employers to opt out of multi-employer collective bargaining—this is about getting industry standards. It is about unions and employers working together to build their industry. National does not want that. It does not want multi-employer collective agreements. It does not want to see the kinds of pay rises that the nurses got when the district health boards settled a multi-employer collective agreement with the Nurses Organisation. It does not want to see wages rise. John Key said it himself. He would love to see wages drop and that is what that part of this legislation is about.Then we have got this awful thing the so-called strike tax the partial action tax. So if workers wanted to maybe wear a sticker to work to show that they were taking the smallest tiniest form of industrial action just to show that they were not happy with the way bargaining was going then the employer would have the right to deduct 10 percent of their wages. Mr Bumble would be proud of this. Of course removing workers’ entitlements to rest and meal breaks—I mean how petty. How petty can the National Party get?Actually if I could just go back to the strike tax we know that this is not the end. The northern region of the National Party voted in the weekend to support employers being able to lock workers out and to then replace those workers. So it is not even workers wanting to strike or take their own industrial action. The employer—one day if National gets its way—will be able to take the industrial action lock the workers out and then replace them with somebody else.Some people have said the National Party is anti-union. The National Party is not anti-union. The National Party loves some unions. It loves the Employers and Manufacturers Association a fantastic union that works for employers. The National Party loves it. The National Party loves Federated Farmers. If Federated Farmers say “Jump!” the National Party says “How high sir? How high can we jump for you?”. The National Party actually quite likes unions; it just hates workers. It just hates the labour force. It sees the labour force not as a vital component of growing business but as a cost—a cost to be reduced and a nuisance to be annihilated. That is how the National Party sees hard-working employees in New Zealand.This legislation is simply about removing rights removing bargaining leverage and ensuring that workers are so on edge about the ability to keep their jobs that they will ask for nothing. There will be no more requests for more under this legislation because if you ask for more you will be out on your ear.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to speak on this Employment Relations Amendment Bill asking the question of who will benefit from this law and also how consistent it is with the Government’s agenda to increase productivity. My position and my belief is that this bill will benefit very few people and only in the short term; it will make things much worse for many many more people; and it will not help us collectively as a country at all. This bill undermines the influence of workers’ unions and that fundamentally undermines the ability of people to join together to help each other to create a good workplace and to help each other to have decent conditions and better lives. This Government has articulated its vision whereby freeing up employers from the restrictions of such negotiations and any pressure to provide decent conditions means that these employers’ profits will grow enough so that they can employ more people. We are told that this is going to be good for people in New Zealand because it will create more jobs.This bill is yet another example of the trickle-down theory in action. At the heart of this is the same justification given for the existence of sweatshops. We are reminded again and again by this Government whenever we raise issues of equity of the global financial crisis in this world. It is almost as if it is suggesting we are greedy to want the poorest people in New Zealand to be able to live decent lives. This bill increases the power of employers and encourages rogue companies to come in and underbid good employers who offer decent wages and conditions. And you can be sure that that underbidding will come from the wages rather than the profits. This is going to impact on cleaners mostly who are some of the lowest-paid workers in this country and many of whom are women many of whom are Pasifika—the people that this Government gives lip service to wanting to improve the conditions of.This bill removes the guaranteed meal and refreshment breaks. This bill makes it easier for employers to opt out of bargaining for multi-employer contracts which is our structure for getting industry standards. In the words of the Service and Food Workers Union: “There is not one thing in the raft of proposed changes [in this bill] that will help New Zealand workers to increase their already very low wage rates”. Welcome to the dystopia of National’s industrial relations. The National Government is failing to share fairly the benefits of economic prosperity which is happening right now for a small group of people. There are people in New Zealand who are getting richer by the minute in this country and that benefit that wealth is not being shared. The OECD report out today cited incomes well below average and particularly high pre-tax capital income inequality as problems needing redress. It highlighted the low levels of people management skills across the business sector as an underlying cause for low productivity and this bill feeds poor management practice. It encourages employers to see workers striving for better conditions as a pure cost rather than an opportunity for productivity.The Green Party has a much different vision for our future prosperity. It is a vision based on investment in our people adding value in terms of the value chain and our getting a greater share of that. This bill undermines that brighter future.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I note that we have a Minister in the House who has got his earplugs in and is listening to an iPad. I raise just two points with you. There is a convention around telephones cellphones and what not. I doubt whether the Minister Mr Ryall can hear us—because he is probably listening to Liberace or something like that; I am not sure—but could yougive us a ruling as to whether it is appropriate to listen to Kylie Minogue or the top 20 in the House when you should actually be listening to the proceedings of the House especially if you are on a quarter of a million dollars a year as a Minister.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am not sure what the Minister is doing but everybody in the House would be aware that—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Everyone would be aware that it is improper to use a cellphone in the House and it should be turned off. The Minister should know that if that is the case and what is happening.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Is it not a paradox that we have been listening to an hour and a half you know of “This is an attack on workers.” and then it is someone from the Labour Party who stands up and starts to point at someone who is actually doing some hard work in the House. I think the word is “paradox”—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! [Interruption] Order!Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Just a minute Mr Cosgrove. The member cannot refer to points of order that have just been held. The issue is closed; it is not for him to do so.SIMON O’CONNOR: I thought it was purely hypothetical and—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have just made two definitive rulings. I know that the member is a new member but you made a very very clear ruling that it is not appropriate to challenge the Chair and he does it again. You have some course of action available to you.Tim Macindoe: The member on his feet had barely begun. He was not even halfway through his first sentence. I challenge that member to say how he could possibly have known what he was—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I know it is one of those debates. I just ask the members to show some restraint. I have called the honourable member. Would he please get on with his speech in this debate. Chaos may be the parent of creation—SIMON O’CONNOR: Indeed.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): —but in this place we will have order.SIMON O’CONNOR: We will indeed.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have just given a ruling.Hon Member: He’s trifling.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No I am not trifling. I think it is important because the Chair has ultimate authority in this House. The point was made that I was being challenged in respect of my conduct—taking a point of order. The reason I knew that the member was out of order was that the whip may note the Assistant Speaker leapt to his feet and ruled that he was out of order. Wakey wakey.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Mr Cosgrove you were doing exceptionally well and then you had to ruin it right at the end.SIMON O’CONNOR: Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. I am all for bringing order out of chaos. I think the original Hebrew or Aramaic is “tohu wa bohu”.But as I was saying hypothetical and paradoxical is an element of what we have heard tonight as we have heard basically a number of philosophical positions being put forward. One of the primary ones is the whole Hegelian element of master and slave. We have heard of power dynamics which is delightfully Marxist and for some who want to be slightly slightly more modern it is very Foucault. The problem with allof those people is firstly they do not know what we are talking about. Secondly of course those are names of a past and discredited philosophy.This bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill is not hypothetical. It is not paradoxical. It is about balance and it is about trust. This is about rebalancing dynamics within the employment sector. We have heard a number of things here tonight but I have got only a few moments to speak to it. The first is around the meal and rest breaks. Most of us have enjoyed them in different ways. This bill does not get rid of them; this just steps away from being prescriptive. This is about maintaining a clear signal to employees and employers that they can negotiate these breaks; it does not get rid of them. It is all about flexibility. At the ultimate end this is about trusting Kiwis.Sue Moroney: Oh that old chestnut—there’s power in that relationshipSIMON O’CONNOR: Ah yes we hear “power relationship” again—old term Hegelian philosophy. This is about trusting Kiwis. This is about trust and this is about balance. This is moving away from the hypothetical and the paradoxical. This is moving on to real good legislation. I commend this bill to the House. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am just about ready to give out a yellow card.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill(No 2)First ReadingHon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Local Government): I moveThat the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider the bill. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) will amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to provide powers for local boards to delegate responsibilities allocated to them under the Act. These powers of delegation are currently provided for through transitional regulations that will expire on 31 October 2013.Providing delegation powers to local boards through transitional regulations was intended as an interim solution to allow a better understanding of the operation of local boards to be reflected in a later amendment to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009. The Auckland Council has indicated that the efficient and effective operation of local boards requires that they continue to have the powers to delegate that they currently have now. The bill therefore replicates the effect of the relevant provisions in the transitional regulations. The Auckland Council requested the amendment and supports the detailed drafting of this bill and I understand that no local board or local board members have sought the enactment of different delegation powers. Given the important but straightforward nature of this legislation I am sure theselect committee will work constructively to ensure that the council’s request is supported. Quick passage of this bill will result in minimal disruption to the ability of local boards to delegate their functions.Auckland’s 21 local boards were established as part of the Auckland governance reforms. These reforms were instigated in the 2009-10 year by central government in response to the royal commission’s report on Auckland governance. These changes were necessary because of longstanding problems with Auckland. The eight councils lacked a collective sense of purpose and did not have the constitutional ability to effectively address the region’s many issues.Andrew Williams: What a load of rubbish!Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Local issues and parochial attitudes had created an insurmountable barrier to regional progress and integrated development.Phil Twyford: You’ve offended Andrew.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Ha ha! A successful Auckland is crucial to the success of New Zealand as a whole. I wonder—oh I will not go there. This is due to its size uniqueness and economic influence. For example Auckland is home to 1.5 million New Zealanders—34 percent of the country’s population—and is responsible for approximately 38 percent of our national gross domestic product. It is one of only a handful of cities internationally responsible for generating over a third of their country’s national GDP.The creation of Auckland Council has already proved to be a success. For the financial year 2011-12 Auckland Council achieved $81 million worth of efficiency savings. This enabled it to deliver a lower than expected 3.94 percent average rates increase to Aucklanders. The rates increases projected for the same year by the former councils averaged some 6 percent. Auckland Council is forecasting further permanent savings resulting in $1.7 billion in projected efficiency savings over the 10-year period of the current long-term plan. The proposed rates increase for the 2013-14 year is 2.9 percent which is lower than the 4.8 percent forecast in last year’s long-term plan.The Auckland two-tier model in which governance is shared between the council’s governing body and local boards is unique within New Zealand’s local government. The governing body and the local boards are non-hierarchical and share complementary decision-making responsibilities. The governing body has a region-wide strategic focus while local boards make decisions on local matters. The local boards model has understandably taken some time to bed in and be understood—not least by those involved in it—but it is now starting to deliver. The relationship between local boards and the governing body is maturing in recognition of the fact that there are few if any regional decisions that do not have a local dimension and few local issues that do not have regional implications. This is a successful model and this Government is actively considering making it available in a modified form in other parts of New Zealand with smaller population bases.Auckland’s 21 local boards have a significant and wide-ranging role that spans most local government services and activities including firstly making decisions about non-regulatory local matters including negotiating service delivery standards. Secondly it includes developing monitoring and implementing local board plans every 3 years and negotiating local board agreements with the governing body. Thirdly it includes providing local leadership and developing relationships with the governing body the community and special-interest groups.Andrew Williams: Who wrote this speech? Who wrote this speech at the DIA?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: This bill will enable the continued delegation of some of these responsibilities to a committee a local board or an officer of the Auckland Council. It actually might help if the member across the road opened his ears to listen tothis wonderful speech because he might learn a thing or two that he was unable to learn in his period as mayor in one of the former parts of Auckland. However that is an aside.The bill would not enable the delegation of certain functions such as the duty to identify and communicate the interests of people in the local board’s area in relation to strategies policies plans and by-laws of the Auckland Council. Nor will any local board be able to delegate the ability to propose amend confirm modify or revoke a by-law adopt a local board plan agree the local board agreement for its area or apply to the Local Government Commission for a determination in respect of a dispute with the governing body of the Auckland Council. These are critical core functions for a local board and it is appropriate that local boards retain direct responsibility for these powers.In conclusion it is worth noting that only two of the 21 Auckland local boards have populations fewer than 45000 people. This figure is around the average number of people who live in each city or district outside of Auckland. Elected bodies serving populations of this size need flexibility in how they structure their decision making. They need to be able to create committees and subcommittees and to delegate appropriate responsibilities to them. In order to ensure that this ability to delegate continues it is essential that we pass this bill. This will enable the continued effective and efficient operation of local boards in Auckland after the transitional regulations expire. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the motion be agreed to. I call the honourable member Su’a William Sio. Talofa lava.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): Talofa lava Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): O a mai oe?Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Manuia fa’afetai.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Fa’afetai lava.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: That is enough now. My apologies Mr Assistant Speaker. Your Samoan is wonderful as always. It is just that we have moved from Samoan Language Week into the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). But I do want to thank you for the reminder. Let me just say to all of the House that I thank you very much for your support of Samoan Language Week last week. I note that you Mr Assistant Speaker because you represent an electorate with a huge proportion of Samoan population cannot help but continue to speak Samoan on a regular basis. So fa’afetai tele lava lau afioga le Fofoga Fetalai.I rise on behalf of Labour to speak at the first reading of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) 2013. As the Minister of Local Government has outlined eloquently the bill is to amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 to enable local boards established under the Act to delegate responsibilities duties or powers conferred or allocated to them under the Act. Currently local boards are able to delegate many of their responsibilities duties or powers to a committee a member of the local board or an officer of the local council under the local government regulations. As the Minister has outlined the end of the transitional period after which this regulation was to expire is 31 October this year after the 2013 local body elections on 12 October.The bill provides that a local board to which the governing body has delegated a responsibility duty or power may without confirmation by the governing body exercise or perform the responsibility duty or power in the same manner and with the same effect as the governing body could itself have exercised or performed it. The bill also provides that no such delegation relieves the governing body of the liability or legal responsibility to perform or ensure the performance of any responsibility or duty.The bill provides for delegations by local boards without relieving the local board of the liability or legal responsibility to perform or ensure the performance of any responsibility or duty and provides that for the purposes of efficiency and effectiveness in the conduct of a local board’s business a local board may delegate to a committee a member of the local board or subcommittee or an officer of the Auckland Council any of its responsibilities duties and powers except—now I want to make the point—the duty to identify and communicate the interests and preferences of the people in its local board area in relation to the content of the strategies policies plans and by-laws of the Auckland Council; and except the power to propose a by-law or an amendment to a by-law; except the power to confirm a by-law or modify a proposed by-law; except the power to propose the revocation of a by-law; except the duty to adopt the local board plan for its area; except the duty to agree the local board agreement for its area with the governing body of the Auckland Council; and except the power to apply to the Local Government Commission for a binding determination in respect of a dispute between itself and the governing body; and a responsibility duty or power that this Act or any other Act expressly provides may not be delegated.I emphasise those points as outlined in the proposed bill and I agree that Labour will support this bill. It is a technical bill. It is an initiative by the Auckland Council and really is just a continuation of the existing powers that it currently has. I would like to see that when it comes to the select committee process there be some consideration given in light of what we have seen of late in some quarters of local government. This is really to do with risk management. Although I agree that the delegation of powers is a necessary part of enabling local boards enabling many of us to conduct our affairs efficiently and effectively we do also have to consider the risk management particularly in the cases where we may rely too much on those whom we have endowed with the powers and responsibilities. There have been recent examples that come to mind which I do not want to dwell on at this particular time but I think there has been some concern raised that often we have seen on the appearance of it too much validating legislation due to mistakes or incompetence or due to those who have delegated authority simply sleeping at the wheel.Notwithstanding that we believe that this bill simply allows for the local board—the council officials in Auckland in particular—to get on with the business of representing and serving their local communities. In Auckland there are about 149 local board members. I can say with much assurance that it is a 24/7 job. The local board members work tirelessly on behalf of their constituencies. I know in particular that in the Māngere and Ōtara local board areas our teams do a wonderful job of representing our community and are articulating and advocating on behalf of our community. On the Māngere and Ōtara local boards we have some old hands who have been around with a wealth of experience but also we have some young local board members coming through such as Lydia Sosene who is a passionate articulate hard-working local board member for our communities. So I want to acknowledge the local boards in Auckland for their work.I think this is also a good time to acknowledge Auckland Council in particular when you consider the work and effort that it has put in. It has worked extremely hard despite times being tough. Times have been tough for our ratepayers—high unemployment few jobs the rising cost of power bills increases in petrol—Hon Maryan Street: Provocation by the Government.Su’a WILLIAM SIO: Absolutely. Despite this Auckland Council is getting on with its work. It wants to deliver a livable city for Aucklanders. It wants to get on with delivering jobs higher incomes and economic development and providing opportunities for our young people. Auckland wants to get on with the work in hand andnot play the Wellingtonian political gamesmanship that this Government seems to be content doing. This bill ensures there is certainty for local boards to carry out their role and I think it is important to acknowledge that.I want to say that I think Chris Tremain the Minister of Local Government is such a nice guy. In delivering the legislation tonight I would say that he is probably one of the best Ministers who is well placed to lead local government at this point in time. I would rather see him who is prepared to listen to Auckland Council than the likes of Mr Smith who frankly has just been a bully. He has been a bully. I have to say in this day and age where we do not accept bullies in our homes where we do not accept bullies in our schools or in our workplaces why on earth would Aucklanders accept the kind of Minister and the behaviour that Mr Smith is displaying and the bullying tactics that he has shown Auckland? Why? It is ludicrous when you consider he spent 6 weeks negotiating with Auckland Council Auckland Council negotiated in good faith with the Government but at the end of it he decided after making no mention of overriding powers to rush through in this Budget overriding powers. How can you have Auckland Council able to deliver what it needs for its constituency when this Government holds a gun to its head? It is unacceptable behaviour.I think Mr Chris Tremain is the ideal person who ought to do that. It is unacceptable the behaviour that Mr Smith is displaying so far. I would ask Mr Tremain to please step forward and help out. Can somebody let this Minister Mr Smith see reason? Can somebody help him to be responsible in his attitude to local government and to Auckland Council? Can somebody please help Mr Smith period and just put him out of his misery? Mr Tremain I hope will have the courage to step up to the plate and take the lead in a very very important debate. It is just unacceptable I would say to this Government—it is unacceptable that you have a bully. That is not the kind of partnership that local government is looking for. It does not want bullies in local government. Dr Smith is a bully as far as I am concerned and is a bully as far as Aucklanders can see.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): Talofa lava Mr Assistant Speaker. As we have heard from the very good Minister of Local Government Chris Tremain this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2) amends the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 and it enables Auckland’s 21 local boards to delegate various functions and powers to committees of the local board or to a council officer. These powers were originally provided by transitional regulations in 2010 after Cabinet agreed that local boards should have the power to delegate although there are some limitations in terms of local representation the local board’s agreement for its area and the management of by-laws.The regulations were an interim measure. They allowed time for a better understanding of local boards’ operations to develop which then could be cemented into amending legislation. We need to pass this bill now because on 31 October this year the transitional powers will expire. The Auckland Council supports this legislation because it believes that the powers to delegate for local boards enable them to operate efficiently and effectively. The system is working well so now is the time for legislation rather than further regulation. This legislation will give effect to the present reality. It will provide certainty for the Auckland Council and its local boards and then local boards will be able to continue their important work.Let me make it clear: this bill does not change anything. It just replicates the current provisions and does not add any new policy.Chris Hipkins: So what’s the point?NICKY WAGNER: Well the point is said: the point is it will replace transitional regulations that will expire at the end of October OK? This is part of National’s BetterLocal Government reforms which is a programme to build a more productive and competitive economy and better public services for New Zealanders. The reforms are designed to focus councils on operating more efficiently and to help them be more fiscally responsible.The form of Auckland’s local government was recommended by the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. The royal commission identified that the regional governance in the area was weak and fragmented and it recommended a new structure for Auckland to give it more common identity and purpose. Although it has taken some time for the changes to embed the reforms have helped the Auckland Council focus on its planning process and on its core role of providing local infrastructure public services and regulatory functions at least cost to households and businesses.This bill is essential to provide continuing powers for Auckland’s local boards to delegate responsibilities duties and powers. It will ensure that the system which is working well and is supported by all levels of local government can continue to operate. I support this bill to the House.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me pleasure to rise to speak to this Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). As the Minister of Local Government has traversed and the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee who has just resumed her seat has traversed this is indeed a minor technical amendment but it is important. It is not a minor technical amendment of the sort that the State sector was in 1986. I am pleased that the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee is in the House because there are a couple of things that I need to raise that are of relevance to that committee. I am very pleased that the Minister is here also.One of the things that has concerned me about this bill is not its function as it is stated because that is perfectly supportable—in fact not only is it supportable; it is the right thing to do. It is taking transitional arrangements transitional regulations and putting them into primary legislation which is where transitional regulations ought to be. They ought to be in primary legislation so that they can be brought before this House they can be referred to a select committee and they can then be debated and passed. But the concern I have—and I would like the Minister to address this at some point if he is able to—is that the explanatory note of the bill says that currently local boards are able to delegate their responsibilities to an individual a committee of the local board or an officer of the council. That is fine. That was under the transitional Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Delegations Development Contributions and Trade Wastes Regulations 2010. The point is that in front of the Local Government and Environment Committee at the moment is the Resource Management Reform Bill which has been vexed by the question of transitional regulations. The select committee has applied itself quite properly to the transitional regulations and I think the chairperson has seen that through in a very fair and admirable way. But I wonder whether there is something not matching here because in the Resource Management Reform Bill we have been considering the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010.I want to know whether that is just a shorthand version of the long name that I read previously which is in the explanatory note of the bill we are reading tonight. If so why do we not do the whole thing? Why do we not put the correction of the regulations that were in the original Resource Management Reform Bill which gave the Minister extraordinary powers to make regulations that could have contradicted the primary legislation into the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2)? It seems to me that these two pieces of paper are trying to address the same piece oflegislation. So does that mean then that if we proceed to pass this bill and the—without breaching privilege—Local Government and Environment Committee’s report on the Resource Management Reform Bill gets presented to the House and we table it next Tuesday it will go forward to the deliberation in the select committee of the bill that is under consideration tonight? It would seem to me that that is the only way to tidy up something that at the present moment looks like the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing.I am very concerned about that because we spend some time on regulations. It is not just because I am the chair of the Regulations Review Committee. It seems to me that there was a step missed here. Something does not quite fit together. It is simply because I sit on the Local Government and Environment Committee which I presume this bill will come to in due course. I missed the Minister’s opening comments in his speech but I presume that that is the committee this bill will be referred to. So in that respect then it would be good if we could have the Minister’s permission in advance to use the changes that we are going to make in the Resource Management Reform Bill to dovetail with the changes that he is seeking in this piece of legislation. Otherwise we are going to send the Auckland Council searching far and wide for the extent of its own powers and the limits of the Minister’s powers because what we have seen to date in ministerial behaviour towards the Auckland Council has been an overbearing overweening bullying—as my colleague Su’a William Sio said a moment ago—approach to the Auckland Council. Well if this is a divide and rule sort of approach where it is part of giving the Auckland Council busywork to find out which piece of legislation it is meant to be looking at then it has worked. Well it would have worked if I had not spotted it.What I need to know from the Minister is whether this was deliberate or whether it was simply an accident. If it was an accident it can be fixed at the Local Government and Environment Committee; if it was deliberate I would like him to own up and say: “We’d prefer to keep Auckland Council running around in tiny circles as much as possible because we’d really like to exercise as much power over it as we possibly can.” Whether it is resource management consents or whether it is the delegation of responsibilities duties and powers conferred to local boards this should all come under in my view the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2).I think that putting the transitional provisions into the primary legislation is the right thing to do. They were there as transitional until 31 October of this year. I have no problem with the delegated authority that exists because even if the authority to do certain things is delegated it is still the responsibility of the Auckland Council in law and still the responsibility of the local board in law. That means that what we should have is primary legislation that gets all the scrutiny of the House and all the scrutiny of a select committee. Transitional regulations are problematic. It is a favourite device of this Government and the fewer of them we have the better. Thank you.DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe. I rise to speak to the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill (No 2). The Greens will be supporting this bill. This bill makes the transitional provisions for the powers duties and responsibilities of local boards in the Auckland super-city permanent. Since they were enacted in 2009 they have been transitional arrangements.We all know that the super-city was the Government’s biggest experiment. The legislation that enacted the forced amalgamation was a rushed job. We have just heard from the previous speaker about some of the things that were left out and confused. The pace of change that has ensued has given rise to a huge amount of work for councillors local board members and council officers. In the less than 3 years since the super-city was enacted the council which is made up of the 21 local boards and the governingbody which is the councillors have completed a 30-year spatial plan. The 21 local boards have developed 3-year plans and have negotiated three times for their local board agreements. The council has drafted the unitary plan which closed for submissions last week and which of course is being undermined currently by the Auckland-hating Government.Local boards have worked incredibly hard and I must say that most have been effective advocates for their communities. This is despite the fact that the original legislation gave few express roles and responsibilities. The exact regulatory and non-regulatory powers were developed between the governing body and the local boards. The governing body was instructed in the Act to allocate responsibility for non-regulatory decision-making to local boards unless a region-wide approach was needed.According to section 10 of the original Act local boards were set up with the express purpose of enabling democratic decision-making on behalf of communities within the local board area and better enabling the promotion of the social economic environmental and culture well-being of communities within the local board area in the present and in the future. Some people might remember these as the four well-beings that were stripped from the Local Government Act 2002 by this Government earlier this year.So how are local boards to do that? Well the transitional arrangements under section 16 of the Act simply stated that the local boards were responsible for community engagement preparing local board plans monitoring the local board agreement with the governing body—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Honourable members the time has come for me to leave the Chair and the House. This sitting of the people’s House is suspended and I shall resume the Chair at 9 a.m. tomorrow 6 June 2013 for the extended sitting. Haere ra ka kite anō pō mārie good night.Debate interrupted.Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)