Volume 694 Week 57 - Wednesday 23 October 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 694 Week 57 - Wednesday 23 October 2013[Sitting date: 23 October 2013. Volume:694;Page:14177. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 23 October 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersMinisters—Confidence1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence that his Ministers are ethical and competent?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: Can he assure the public that the Hon Nick Smith the Hon Peter Dunne and the Hon John Banks all upheld to his satisfaction the requirements of theCabinet Manual that “… Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This is going to come as a great revelation to the member but John Banks is no longer a Minister.Hon David Cunliffe: In light of that answer and given that John Banks has conveniently forgotten helicopter rides 7-foot-tall German billionaires and the concurrent arrival of two cheques for $25000 how is it credible for the Prime Minister to even consider reappointing him to a ministerial role as he said he would do yesterday?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It strikes me that the member keeps forgetting what he tells private audiences he is in. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that the question had an introductory part to it but the Prime Minister should make some attempt to address it.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think that question would fall into the category that you often mention and that your predecessors in that seat often mentioned: very heavily loaded political questions. What the Prime Minister did was refer to the first part of that question and I think adequately addressed it.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I am going to accept the advice given by the Hon Gerry Brownlee. The question was very politically loaded. When members ask a supplementary question like that they give a fair amount of licence to a Minister or Prime Minister to answer.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Prime Minister said yesterday that he would reinstate John Banks but would only possibly reinstate the Hon Peter Dunne can he tell the House why his confidence in the Hon Peter Dunne is lower than in the Hon John Banks?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have no ministerial responsibility for that.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister does have responsibility for statements that he made and he was being asked to reconcile two of those statements. That is a perfectly acceptable question.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I accept the advice of the member Grant Robertson. I am going to ask the Hon David Cunliffe to re-ask that question.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that he said yesterday that he would reinstate John Banks but would only possibly reinstate the Hon Peter Dunne can he tell the House why his confidence in the Hon Peter Dunne is lower?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he believe that Nick Smith simply forgot about being briefed on theRuataniwha dam before 29 July the first eight times he was asked about it in the House even though the dam submission had been mentioned three times previously in the Minister’s weekly reports?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Mr Speaker I understand that you are yet to make a ruling on the privileges complaint in relation to this matter and I do not believe that it is appropriate to discuss the matter until you have done so.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he think it is appropriate for the Minister of Conservation to interfere in a departmental decision and to stop the department from raising legitimate concerns about water quality to the Ruataniwha dam board of inquiry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think that Doris Johnston made it quite clear that the Minister did not.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I delayed raising this point of order because I thought it would be obvious to you that when Mr Key said that a matter was brought before you for a privileges decision he acted as though you were some fine judicial court and the matter was sub judice. It will be very apparent to you that you are not and the issue is not so he should not have been able to get away with that.Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure exactly what the point of order is. Maybe the Hon Gerry Brownlee could help. [Interruption] Order! This is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.Hon Gerry Brownlee: It was perfectly reasonable in the answer for the Prime Minister to acknowledge the letter to you from the Hon David Cunliffe relating to the matter of privilege and suggesting that it would be inappropriate to make any prejudicial comments when it is in your hands. I think that is perfectly acceptable.Mr SPEAKER: I accept that. I agree entirely.Hon David Cunliffe: Given this sorry litany of ministerial failures and the fact that his ragtag Government is hanging by a thread is his plan C to inflate crazy conservative Colin Craig or is he just a “Mad Hatter” looking for a new tea party?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sorry that the member cannot count but we actually have 64 votes so we are not hanging by a thread. If he wants to get into crazy he could look at his own coalition partners. But actually he does not have to look too far. He should just follow the advice of Trevor Mallard who nicely summed up last night exactly what he thought of Metiria Turei.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Prime Minister be contemplating restoring to a ministerial post someone who leaked from the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) four separate times and a fifth time which was in respect of the Inland Revenue Department and Novopay; how can that person possibly be—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about the gnome.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: The difference is that I did not lie to the House like you did.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a very good example of the unhelpful information of an interjection but then the response from the Rt Hon Winston Peters was out of order. Would the member now rise to his feet and simply ask his supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I would be very grateful to. How can the Prime Minister be possibly contemplating restoring to a Cabinet post someone who leaked information in respect of the GCSB four separate times and a fifth time in respect of the Inland Revenue Department and Novopay; how can that person possibly fit the high standards that he has hitherto claimed to uphold?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the premise of the question is wrong. It is unproven in terms of the first point and the second point is that if he wants to talk reinstatement maybe he should talk to Brendan Horan. I understand he might have been—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not helpful to the order of the House.Economic Growth—Forecasts and Reports2.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received on building momentum in the New Zealand economy and how this is supporting jobs?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yesterday the ASB released its quarterly economic forecast pointing to a broad-based improvement in business activity. This follows encouraging reports from other forecasters. The higher dairy payout will add $4 billion of income to the regional economy and that sits alongside a recovery in meat prices although livestock numbers will take some time to rebuild from the drought. The Canterbury rebuild is gaining traction and ASB says the Auckland housing market is on the cusp of a housing construction pick-up. Recent migration figures show fewer New Zealanders are leaving for Australia because of the relative improvement in the New Zealand labour market meaning they are relatively more likely to get a job here than they are in Australia. This is an encouraging picture of consistent economic growth.David Bennett: How is the improved economic momentum being reflected in business and consumer confidence and what growth does this point to over the next few years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Last week the ANZ released its survey of consumer confidence. Confidence was up in September and remains above the long-term levels of consumer confidence. Consumers report feeling better off than a year ago and more likely to buy a major household item. ANZ also reports that business sentiment is strong. These confidence levels point to reasonably good economic growth in the year ahead with higher incomes and more jobs for more New Zealanders.David Bennett: How is increasing confidence among businesses and consumers delivering jobs and growth in the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is important that there are new jobs in the economy because in any given quarter up to 100000 jobs disappear from the economy.Hon Member: What about the regions?Hon BILL ENGLISH: So it is pleasing to see higher levels of confidence translating into rising employment. TradeMe jobs reports that job listings are up nearly 10 percent from what they were a year ago. Manawatū and Wanganui job listings are up 17 percent and they are regions. Bay of Plenty listings are up 13 percent and I understand that the Bay of Plenty is regarded as a region. The SEEK website reports that the strongest growth in job listings is in the South Island in particular Marlborough which is a region the West Coast which is certainly a region and Southland which is somewhat metropolitan but probably a region.David Bennett: What reports has the Minister received endorsing the Government’s economic programme and the current improvement in the New Zealand economic direction?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are so many of these reports but some of them are particularly satisfying. There was one last night and I will quote it in respect of the economy: “It’s certainly heading in the right direction. We celebrate the improvement.” That actually was on Television New Zealand yesterday morning from the current leader of the Labour Party David Cunliffe.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What steps to prevent the recent closure of a Shannon fellmongery and a Rotorua sawmill with large job losses did the Government take including addressing a grossly overvalued exchange rate now heading towards US90c?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We share the member’s concern about the value of the exchange rate. The single most important measure the Government is taking to do what it can to relieve pressure on the exchange rate is to increase the supply of housing more quickly on the ground particularly in Auckland. The Minister of Housing just a couple of weeks ago announced special housing areas for 5000 houses. Otherwise our exchange rate is determined largely by the state of the US economy. As it continues to improve it is likely that our exchange rate will be re-rated downwards.Skycity Convention Centre—Members’ Potential Conflicts of Interest3.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to thePrime Minister: Has he checked his files yet regarding whether Hon John Banks declared a potential conflict of interest in relation to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill while still a Minister; if so was any conflict declared?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes and no.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister consider that John Banks while a Minister is his Government acted in strict accordance with theCabinet Manualregarding the declaration of conflict of interest given that no such conflict of interest concerning the Skycity bill was declared by John Banks?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and I do not believe that there was a conflict.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister not agree that a Minister who is the subject of court evidence given by someone involved in a multimillion-dollar deal that requires that Minister’s vote in the House to pass has a conflict of interest; if so does that conflict of interest remain once that person is no longer a Minister?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not believe there was a conflict of interest any more than there would be a conflict of interest—if we want to follow the member’s logic—where Labour would be voting on employment legislation when we know that the unions actually have a vote in the Labour membership. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called Metiria Turei for a supplementary question.Metiria Turei: Did the Prime Minister discuss any potential conflict of interest in relation to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill with Skycity Chief Executive Nigel Morrison when he was hanging out with him at the opening of the new Skycity bar in Auckland last week?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No and I am pleased that the member looked at theHerald on Sunday where I was photographed at that particular opening with many other people.Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister concerned by reports of yet another conflict of interest concerning the bill where National MP and Commerce Committee member Sam Lotu-Iiga sat silently by while his electorate chair misinformed the select committee about the Catholic Church’s position on the Skycity bill; if not—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question is addressed to the Prime Minister who has no responsibility either for what occurred at a select committee or for a member of the caucus. It is a question the member is asking of the Prime Minister as a Minister. I will give the opportunity for the member to rephrase that question.Metiria Turei: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports and is he concerned by the reports of yet another conflict of interest concerning a National MP who sat on the Commerce Committee silently while his electorate secretary gave misinformation to the committee about the Catholic Church’s position on the Skycity bill; if he is not concerned why not?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I believe that what the member has just asked is essentially the same question that you have just ruled on. It gets to the point where we would have to for example have members of the Labour Party recusing themselves from select committees if one of the unions was appearing or if Greenpeace was appearing the Green Party would have to leave the select committee. Members are expected to exercise a degree of discretion in these matters. I do not think that there has been anything wrong with this and the question in itself is out of order.Metiria Turei: I would just remind the member and I also say this for your consideration Mr Speaker that my question concerned whether the Prime Minister had seen any reports or had any concern about any such reports. He does have responsibility for that.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty that the member has and she has tried to abide by the Standing Orders is that the Prime Minister does not have responsibility. The member is not going to make the grade in asking the question by trying to rephrase it. I will not rule the question out; I will give the member effectively another shot at another question.Metiria Turei: Thank you very much Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Very generous. [Interruption] Order!Metiria Turei: Has the Prime Minister had any discussions with Cabinet regarding the Catholic Church’s position being misrepresented by Sam Lotu-Iiga’s electorate chairperson while Sam Lotu-Iiga was on that committee; if so did any member of his Cabinet express any concerns regarding the misrepresentation of the Catholic Church’s position?Mr SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Prime Minister as far as he has a responsibility.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I have not had any discussions with Cabinet. In relation to reports yes I have seen one report which came from Trevor Mallard. It said that the member is not on top of her job and I agree with Trevor Mallard. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that last comment from the Prime Minister could in any way be construed as being in and related to the question then every part of the member’s primary and supplementary questions should have been allowed in by the licence you gave the Prime Minister.Mr SPEAKER: The member raises quite a valid point on this occasion. The answer from the Prime Minister was not helpful to the order of the House but at the end of the day he was actually responding to an interjection that came from the Opposition side of the House.Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister require all members of his Cabinet or his Government to declare any personal or financial conflict of interest that they may have in voting for the Skycity bill and make those declarations public?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Cabinet Ministers already follow rules in relation to conflicts of interest. They work with the Cabinet Office to ensure that they follow the rules and in my experience of seeing them in action they follow those rules closely.Metiria Turei: Has the Prime Minister discussed with his Cabinet any concerns about the fact that the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill may get through only because of votes from John Banks who has an undeclared conflict of interest and Sam Lotu-Iiga who kept silent over his electorate chair misrepresenting the views of the Catholic Church to the Commerce Committee?Mr SPEAKER: If the right honourable Prime Minister could answer the first part of that question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I think the member is wrong. In fact I think the member is out to lunch.Mr SPEAKER: No it is not in order for the Prime Minister to answer that last part of the answer in that way. Would he stand withdraw and apologise for that.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw and apologise.District Health Boards—Health Benefits Ltd4.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to theMinister of Health: Is he satisfied with the performance of Health Benefits Ltd; if so why?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes within the challenge of standardising administrative and procurement processes across 20 district health boards which have generally been operating independently. The goal of this 5-year strategy is to use the power of standardisation in bulk purchasing to move resources from the back office to the front line. This is very important because back-office administration staff numbers grew by over 40 percent or from 8000 to close to 12000 under the previous Labour Government.Hon Annette King: What concerns does he have about the ability of Health Benefits Ltd to actually achieve the $700 million in cuts to district health boards over the next 2 years in light of the fact that the Health Committee was told by Health Benefits Ltd that no breakdown of the cuts was available?Hon TONY RYALL: I am very confident that it is going to be able to meet the achievements set out in its State-owned enterprise statement of intent. I would have to say that the member is quite wrong to characterise these as cuts because they are actually savings from procurement activities. So for example moving to one bank nationally bringing the district health boards’ overnight bank accounts together has saved $4 million which goes straight back into front-line services for patients. That is not a cut; that is a saving.Hon Annette King: Has he seen a breakdown of the cuts claimed to have been made by Health Benefits Ltd such as in this report leaked to me a few days ago; if he has seen such information can he give an assurance that the $2 million that has been cut from wound care is not affecting the recovery of patients?Hon TONY RYALL: I cannot see that schedule from here but what I can tell the member is that Health Benefits Ltd is making a significant contribution in making savings. So for example moving from having 18 suppliers of gloves to six has saved $6 million over a 3-year period. Similarly through better negotiations of insurance arrangements Health Benefits Ltd has contributed to savings of almost $7 million in the insurance costs for district health boards. When you have inherited a situation where bureaucracy—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is now getting quite long enough.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the leaked report I have of all the cuts that have been made because—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is enough of a description. It was described well in the supplementary question. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon Annette King: Why was this information denied to the select committee and what is there to hide or is there concern already that the $1.1 million that has been cut from children’s oral health is adversely affecting their dental care?Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to check the veracity of the member’s information because my—Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I sought leave to table the very—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I want to know what the point of order is.Hon Annette King: My point of order is that the Minister is challenging my word based on something—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister had said he would have to seek validation of your words or words to that effect.Hon TONY RYALL: I know that over the last 4 months the member has submitted over 400 Official Information Act requests to district health boards so I am unable to comment on every single one of them. But what I can say—Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry but my question was not about how many Official Information Act requests I have sent to district health boards. I asked why this information was not available to the select committee.Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty we have now got is that I can hardly remember the question because I have had two points of order. So what we will do to try to tidy it up is we will get the member to ask the question again and we will get the Minister to attempt to answer it.Hon Annette King: Why was this information denied to the select committee and what is there to hide or is there concern that the $1.1 million already cut from children’s oral health is adversely affecting their dental care?Hon TONY RYALL: I think there has been a remarkable amount of information put out about Health Benefits Ltd. I would have to check the detail of what that member has said. It may be like her response to the South Canterbury District Health Board’s numbers where in an Official Information Act request the figures were amended. The member has not yet explained why she did that. But what I do know is that Health Benefits Ltd is making considerable savings that are being delivered to patient care. For example—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has strayed a long way from the original question and I think it is probably time to move to the next question do you not?Mr SPEAKER: Order! On this occasion the member is not correct. The Hon Annette King asked three questions. The first was why the information was denied to the select committee. The second question was what there is to hide. That is the one the Minister is spending some time answering. The third question was then something about oral health. Members risk getting a confused answer that will not be to their satisfaction when they ask a supplementary question that actually has three parts to it.Hon TONY RYALL: What Health Benefits Ltd is doing is it is making savings in administrative and procurement costs that are being used to improve oral health and other services. I can tell that member that the number of kids who are waiting to see a dental therapist is far lower than when I became Minister of Health.Hon Annette King: Has he been advised that Health Benefits Ltd’s finance supply chain and procurement project has had little planning is causing considerable concern and is resulting in increased costs to district health boards; if so what action has he taken to stop a potential disaster?Hon TONY RYALL: Of course district health boards are going to invest some money to make quite considerable savings in the future. For example with the changes that we are making to finance procurement and supply chain management it is estimated that we are going to save considerable hundreds of millions of dollars over a 10-year period. All that money is going to go back into front-line services for patients—more elective surgery faster cancer treatment better access to emergency departments. We simply cannot carry on as Labour did with a 40 percent—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is now quite long enough.Christchurch Recovery—Central Business District Anchor Projects5.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to theMinister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What recent progress has been made on the anchor projects in the Christchurch Central recovery plan?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): Very good progress is being made. Last week the Prime Minister unveiled the design for the $300 million Christchurch Justice and Emergency Services Precinct. Earthworks are scheduled to begin in the next 4 months making this the first major public building built in Christchurch since the earthquakes. Other anchor projects are gathering momentum including the bus interchange with construction due to begin in the early part of next year; the hospital redevelopment which is under way or at least planning is well down the track; and that leads us to the convention centre for which significant expressions of interest are currently being considered.Nicky Wagner: How are the anchor projects providing examples of better public services?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The rebuild provides an opportunity for innovations and the capturing of efficiencies in the way public service is offered rather than simply doing things the way they were done before. The justice precinct is a premier example of this and leads strongly to a better public service. It will house several justice sector agencies in one location enabling them to share facilities and services and work together more effectively. This will be the largest multi-agency Government project in New Zealand’s history.Nicky Wagner: Why are the anchor projects important to the recovery of the central city?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The anchor projects will reinvigorate the central city by attracting more people and businesses. The justice precinct alone will bring 2000 employees and visitors into the central city every day in addition to 1700 Government employees from 20 Government departments located in other central business district buildings by 2016. Bringing people into the central business district will give confidence to other investors like Anthony Gough who has already begun work on his $140 million retail complex and the developers of the Orly Building and 151 Cambridge both now under way which represent further examples of how a catalyst project can get others to do things alongside them.Dr Megan Woods: Will he guarantee that he will have signed off the central city transport plan before Christmas given that his own officials advised him on 1 July 2013 which was 3 to 4 months after the initial due date that the approval of the plan was urgently required to enable the commissioning of key works needed to support the early delivery of anchor projects; if not why not?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes.Dr Megan Woods: I seek leave to table a document released to me under the Official Information Act a briefing from the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to the Minister telling him about the urgency—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the document which is a briefing to the Minister. Is there any objection to it being tabled? [Interruption] Order! It can be tabled. [Interruption] Sorry. There was objection. I apologise. It will not be tabled.Exclusive Economic Zone—Seismic Surveying6.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to theMinister of Conservation: Has he received any reports on the environmental impact of seismic surveying in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): My responsibilities as Minister of Conservation relate to the protection of marine mammals. I have received reports on improving the management of the environmental impacts of seismic surveys. The new law I introduced to Parliament as Minister for the Environment in August 2011 enables such effects to be regulated whereas prior to this when many seismic surveys were done there were no rules. This has enabled the 2012 code of conduct for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from seismic survey operations to be introduced. I have received reports on updating and improving it. It is just another example of the improvements this Government is making to environmental law.Andrew Williams: What environmental safeguards have been put in place in relation to seismic surveying in the exclusive economic zone and what monitoring structure will be in place to provide comprehensive data and reporting on the environmental impacts of seismic surveying?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would be happy to provide the member the 2012 code of conduct specifically about seismic surveying which also includes monitoring requirements. I would point out that this code of conduct for seismic surveying has been introduced only as a consequence of the law changes made by this Government and opposed by members opposite and that many seismic surveys were done by the previous Government with the support of New Zealand First with no standards at all.Andrew Williams: What information does he have on any adverse effects on marine wildlife as a result of seismic surveying?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The key issue for marine mammals in respect of seismic surveying is the effects of the acoustic disturbance. That is where the Government has done a huge amount of work. That is why that code of conduct was introduced last year. That is why it is being updated this year and that is why this Government has such a proud record of improved environmental regulation.Andrew Williams: Given the Minister’s answer and given New Zealand’s strong international stance on protecting whales dolphins and other marine animals will a precautionary approach be taken to protect marine life if adverse effects of seismic surveying are evident and proven?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The2012 Code of Conduct for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to Marine Mammals from Seismic Survey Operations including whales is world’s best practice around managing these risks. It has become regulated only as a consequence of this Government’s laws. I do have confidence that it enables us to be able to utilise our resources in the ocean environment while making sure we look after those precious whales and dolphins.Public Services—Performance7.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to theMinister of State Services: Has he asked the State Services Commissioner for reports on recent failures of state sector agencies to carry out their functions according to the law; if not why not?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of State Services): No I have not requested such a report from the commissioner. The reason for that is that the Government’s regular surveys of public trust and satisfaction with public services give me confidence that in general State sector agencies are performing well. The most recent Kiwis Count survey shows that public satisfaction with public services used in the last 6 months is currently 73 percent up from 68 percent under Labour and trust in public services has increased from 67 percent under Labour to 77 percent today.Hon Maryan Street: Why did one of the poorest schools in Christchurch have to engage one of the top public law specialists in New Zealand to prove that the Ministerof Education got it wrong when she merged Phillipstown School with Woolston School?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: As the Minister of Education has previously said in this House “As this judgment is still within the appeal period and one or other of the parties may appeal it would not be in the public interest for me to comment.”Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand the need sometimes for Ministers who perhaps have something to say that will cause an issue in the court to use that but this was a question to the Minister of State Services around the competency of State sector agencies. I think he could have made a better attempt to answer the question than that.Mr SPEAKER: The member may well think that. I think there would be many occasions when he thinks a better attempt could be made. It is the responsibility of the Minister to answer the question. He has decided presumably on advice that on this particular occasion he does not want to comment further and has said that it would not be in the public interest to do so. That is the responsibility of the Minister. Provided that the question is addressed and addressed that way the answer is satisfactory.Hon Maryan Street: How does he explain the Department of Conservation’s failure to carry out its legal requirements to advocate for the environment by offering its Minister a two-paragraph submission on theRuataniwha Dam proposal except by interference from the Minister Dr Nick Smith?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I completely disagree with the assertion underlying that question. It is interesting. When Maryan Street was in front of the New Zealand Public Service Association yesterday she was telling public servants that they follow the law and perform with integrity but—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question has been adequately addressed in the first part of that answer.Hon Maryan Street: Given the litany of State sector failures and the corrections sought by citizens through court means whether it is through health education conservation or police what is he going to do to remedy such gross failures of ministerial competence and Government agency performance?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well the only case I can recall of gross ministerial failure was under the last Labour Government when the Minister or her colleague got Parliamentary Service to illegally fund an $800000 pledge card. That is the only case I am aware of.Primary Growth Partnership—Successful Bids Purpose and Audit8.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei) to theMinister for Primary Industries: What progress can he report on boosting innovation in the primary sector through the Primary Growth Partnership?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): The Primary Growth Partnership has now committed $684 million of industry and Government funds to 16 projects. Although these projects are long-term investments they are already delivering some very exciting outcomes. The Precision Seafood Harvesting project is developing a new world-leading net technology. This high-tech equipment has the aim of allowing fish to be sorted by size and species before even leaving the water. This has the potential to revolutionise commercial fishing. Also the New Zealand Sheep Industry Transformation Project has already realised real gains. Its Silere meat premium brand was introduced in 2012 and $45 million of branded products are in place. Also Silere was a winner amongst supporters of the America’s Cup just recently where more than 1.4 tonnes of merino lamb was dished up during the 12 weeks.Ian McKelvie: What other results are already being realised in the Primary Growth Partnership programmes?Hon NATHAN GUY: A very good question. Transforming the Dairy Value Chain a Primary Growth Partnership programme has already delivered some amazing results. Last week Fonterra announced a new $72 million investment into its Clandeboye mozzarella plant near Timaru. This is driven by a new patented technology for developing mozzarella cheese which was supported by Primary Growth Partnership funding. This programme has also developed an online tool that gives predictions of pasture growth out 15 days and right out to 2 months which I am sure will be an advantage to farmers. It has also identified 11 new genetic markers that are under development. Analysis shows that discovery of these new genetic markers for important dairy animal traits could result in an estimated 10 percent per year gain worth $30 million.Ian McKelvie: Why is the Government investing in innovation in the primary sector?Hon NATHAN GUY: In case members of the House have forgotten the primary sector is the engine room of the New Zealand economy making up 72 percent of our merchandise exports. This Government is committed to improving the economic and environmental performance of this sector. One way that we can do this is by boosting innovation in the sector which will ultimately mean a stronger primary sector and of course a stronger New Zealand economy.Hon Damien O’Connor: Given the fact that his ministry has failed to produce mandatory quarterly reports on the Primary Growth Partnership has not released the Ernst and Young or its own internal audits has yet to produce key performance indicators for the programmes has systematically refused Official Information Act requests for this information and has scrambled to provide information on its website in the face of scrutiny is he really surprised that the Auditor-General is now investigating the whole programme?Hon NATHAN GUY: No. There is a wide range of auditing and monitoring going on with these Primary Growth Partnership projects. If the member cared to look at the Ministry for Primary Industries website he would see that the quarterly reports are becoming available on there. The audit reports are available; three of those have been done already one of those externally by Ernst and Young and another external one. The member should stand up and celebrate the Primary Growth Partnership instead of booting it and not backing the primary sector. The member does not back Primary Growth Partnership he does not back irrigation he does not back the Trans-Pacific Partnership and he does not back rural broadband. He does not care about primary industries.Kiwifruit Industry—Reports Investigations and Government Support9.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman) to theMinister for Primary Industries: What reports if any has he received on the state of the New Zealand kiwifruit industry?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I have seen a range of reports on the kiwifruit industry which indicate that despite a hard time over the last 4 years things are improving. I have seen reports that show that results for the 2012-13 season saw the highest-ever orchard gate returns of $51153 per hectare average delivered to kiwifruit growers. I have seen reports that state that Zespri’s latest forecast was for the highest-ever per tray pay-out for gold kiwifruit and the highest per tray pay-out for green kiwifruit since 2003. I have seen reports that show that the G3 variety is being successfully introduced and is proving less susceptible to Psa. I have also seenreports that show that export volumes should increase to pre-Psa levels within the next 3 years as production from G3 comes on stream. The member should stand up—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think that answer is quite sufficient.Hon Damien O’Connor: How did the Minister find out that the Serious Fraud Office was investigating Zespri and has the Minister received any briefings prior to or since his media statement yesterday?Hon NATHAN GUY: I found out from a journalist when the journalist rang my office. I have received no briefing on the Serious Fraud Office and that is appropriate because it is an independent organisation. It is independent of Ministers and that is the way it should be.Hon Damien O’Connor: Why does he consider it is not necessary to find out more details about why the Serious Fraud Office is investigating one of New Zealand’s largest exporting companies; and does he not think that it puts our reputation as a trading nation and the livelihoods of all kiwifruit growers at risk?Hon NATHAN GUY: The Serious Fraud Office as I have already said is an independent body. It is an enforcement agency. It is up to the agency to talk to Zespri about what it is keen to inquire into. My understanding is that Zespri has not been informed of that process at the moment and neither have we nor the wider New Zealand public. At the appropriate time I am sure that information will become available.Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Minister consider his lack of action to assist kiwifruit growers against the Psa disease and now his refusal to ask any questions regarding the Serious Fraud Office investigation to be a dereliction of his duties as the Minister for Primary Industries; and why is he still in the job?Hon NATHAN GUY: What a stupid question that is. The Government has supported the kiwifruit industry—$25 million invested in partnership with the industry. We have also supported a lot of research into Kiwifruit Vine Health as well. The member should not be so critical of what the Government has done because we are supporting the kiwifruit industry get back on its feet. He obviously wants to join the chorus with Don Nicolson and see that Zespri is smashed apart. He should go up to the head office in Tauranga and say that.Brendan Horan: There was some positive news. Will the Minister provide an ironclad guarantee that his Government will provide continued funding for research and development to growers and indeed the kiwifruit industry to support the industry in its fight against Psa and help ensure that it meets growth targets?Hon NATHAN GUY: I have already alluded to the fact that the Government has supported the kiwifruit industry—$25 million. Some of that money has gone into Kiwifruit Vine Health which is indeed doing the research and the research is very good.Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister for an ironclad guarantee that his Government would continue to support the kiwifruit industry.Mr SPEAKER: Order! When members ask a supplementary question like that asking for a guarantee they are unlikely ever to get a satisfactory answer. When they ask for an ironclad guarantee it is even more unlikely.Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table a letter I received today refusing to provide information that I had asked which is now beyond the normal terms of parliamentary process. The information is regarding the Primary Growth Partnership and the whole programme.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is objection.Brendan Horan: Will the Minister commit to continued funding for research and development to growers and indeed the kiwifruit industry in their fight against Psa and help ensure that they meet growth targets?Hon NATHAN GUY: I have already answered that question.Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a new question and he has not answered it.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister considers that he has already answered it. That is the Minister’s answer. The member may not be happy with it. The Minister has addressed the question. [Interruption] Order!Crime Victims—Support Services10.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to theMinister of Police: What recent announcements has she made to support the victims of serious financial crime?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): Yesterday I announced that the Serious Fraud Office has signed a memorandum of understanding with Victim Support. The emotional and financial consequences for victims of serious financial crime can be extremely traumatic and like other victims of serious crime they deserve support. That is why when I became the Minister I asked the Serious Fraud Office to establish a close working relationship with Victim Support. The resulting memorandum of understanding will ensure that victims have access to help and advice as well as giving them the confidence that those who commit financial fraud are held to account for their crimes.Paul Foster-Bell: How will the memorandum of understanding result in better services for victims of serious financial crime?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Serious financial crime can have a devastating impact on victims with many of them losing a lifetime of savings. The memorandum of understanding will see the two agencies working together to promote and deliver victim support services and to keep victims informed about their cases. The Serious Fraud Office and Victim Support will also hold joint training sessions to help share information and best practice. The Serious Fraud Office has already published two guides to help victims understand the processes involved in investigations and prosecutions and how this might affect them.Hawke’s Bay Water Management—Minister’s Involvement and Briefings11.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to theMinister of Conservation: Why did he tell the House on 24 September “the first I knew of the issue of the submission was just 5 days before” when as he stated on 17 October “The first full briefing on Tukituki was on 5 March and it confirmed the department’s role in the process and mentioned nitrogen and phosphorous management”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The 5 March report on Tukituki from the Department of Conservation said that the proposed project would result in water-quality improvements throughout the catchment. It is ridiculous of the member to suggest that as a consequence I should have known of the existence of a draft submission that said the exact opposite. I stand by my answers that I did not know of the existence of the 34-page draft submission until it was publicly leaked in September.Hon Ruth Dyson: When he told the House last week about his paper on 5 March that “The paper was very positive on the project” and “I was surprised at the content of the leaked draft submission which had a very different view on the effects of the project.” was he saying that the reason he expressed so much concern over theDepartment of Conservation’s submission was because he thought it was going to be positive about the Ruataniwha Water Storage scheme?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I simply leave it to the comments by the Deputy Director-General of Conservation. She said that she made the decision on the submission that I never saw the leaked draft submission that I had no role in the decision making and that she did not know what my view was. It could be no more comprehensive than that. The allegations from members opposite do not have a leg to stand on.Hon Ruth Dyson: Does he think he is keeping the Department of Conservation sufficiently neutral given that his weekly report from 11 March notes that it was preparing material for a meeting with the Bluegreens a National Party organisation?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is perfectly normal of Ministers to say “I’m going to an event and I’m likely to give a speech on some subjects and I’d like to be well informed.” I remember well Ministers under the previous Labour Government in terms of the Prime Minister receiving substantive briefings prior to giving speeches at Labour Party conferences.Hon Ruth Dyson: What exactly did he say to the Prime Minister on 30 September when he briefed him on the public controversy over the Department of Conservation’s leaked draft submission on the Tukituki plan change?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: At lunch when the Prime Minister returned from an overseas trip I said to him that the Labour Party had been making up some nonsense over Tukituki that the Deputy Director-General of Conservation had made it absolutely plain that the department made the decision and that we were getting on with the important business of Government.Climate Change Policy—Emissions Trading Scheme12.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to theMinister for Climate Change Issues: Will he explain given the latest projection of New Zealand’s net greenhouse gas emissions is around 90 million tonnes in 2040 how the Government can conceivably reach its own emissions reduction target of 30 million tonnes by 2050?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues) on behalf of theMinister for Climate Change Issues: We will meet our targets through a combination of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme and other domestic initiatives. We will also likely use reductions from overseas where it makes good economic sense to do so. The emissions trading scheme is a long-term tool and it is not hard to imagine that with a good outcome on a new global agreement and leadership from the major economies we will need to adjust our own domestic policy response as well. We anticipate that the Ministry for the Environment’s projections will continue to change over the next 30 or 40 years.Dr Kennedy Graham: But does he take responsibility for the fact that the latest projections show that instead of meeting a 50 percent reduction in emissions we are heading for a 50 percent increase?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No because of course the projections are useful but they are also limited given that they are based at the moment on a very low carbon price. We know that as we make progress in international negotiations carbon price will surely rise.Dr Kennedy Graham: Can he then explain to this House why New Zealand’s net emissions have increased since 2009 the period in which his Government has been weakening the emissions trading scheme with the result of a low carbon price?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I have just said and it was implicit in my last answer it is a product at the moment of a low carbon price right around the world. But what is of course very true is that as we make progress internationally it is highly likely that theprice will rise and with that the projections and the progress that we will make around this world.Rt Hon John Key: What is the likely impact of a much higher carbon price and a much more fulsome emissions trading scheme on residential consumers when they pay their electricity bill if one was to be promoted?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well of course prices will rise exponentially and it will be a terrible thing for consumers all around New Zealand. Let us hope that Labour and the Greens never—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The last part of that answer is out of order.Dr Kennedy Graham: Can he find any other reason for this monumental policy failure on the part of this Government and its breach of our framework convention obligations other than the gutting of the emissions trading scheme over which he has presided?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Of course the member is simply wrong. We have not gutted the emissions trading scheme. The emissions trading scheme is effectively one of the very best in the world. What is true is that the carbon price all around the world is low. That is not going to stay the position. I am actually very optimistic about global negotiations over the coming years and that we can make a real difference on this serious issue.Dr Kennedy Graham: When he optimistically assures the New Zealand public that his 2012 amendments on climate change will ensure that New Zealand continues to do its fair share does he believe the world will agree once it sees this graph?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not know why he is showing a graph of what power prices will do under the Labour-Greens when they are next in power but no I disagree with the member.Questions to MembersCare of Children Law Reform Bill—Progress1.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) to theMember in charge of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill: Is it still her intention to proceed with the first reading of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill?JACINDA ARDERN (Member in charge of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill): Absolutely it is my intention to proceed. Although the bill was delayed to allow for clarity around the impact of the marriage equality legislation on the bill there remain a number of unresolved issues as a result of the fact that quite simply our adoption laws are out of date and no longer fit for purpose.Dr Rajen Prasad: Has she received any reports on the likelihood of the bill reaching a select committee?JACINDA ARDERN: I have. Although I am optimistic I understand that unfortunately some parties would rather wait for the gamble of a second member’s bill on this issue being drawn before progressing with adoption law reform. Others quite simply do not see it as a priority. I would ask that these parties reconsider.Care of Children Law Reform Bill—Purpose2.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) to theMember in charge of theCare of Children Law Reform Bill: Why is the Care of Children Law Reform Bill required?JACINDA ARDERN (Member in charge of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill): It is true that adoption numbers in New Zealand are falling but this is in part due to the very antiquated nature of our laws. Not only are there limitations on who can adopt there are also limitations on who is able to maintain a legal relationship with thechild once the order is complete meaning that whāngai adoption for instance is not supported by our current legal framework. The law needs to be changed to introduce the paramountcy principle so that the No. 1 consideration is the well-being of the child.Dr Rajen Prasad: Why does the Care of Children Law Reform Bill reference the Law Commission’s report entitledAdoption and its Alternatives: A Different Approach and a New Framework?JACINDA ARDERN: My member’s bill does take an unusual approach in that it leans heavily on the work of the Law Commission in its report on adoption. That is for one simple reason. This area is very complex. The Law Commission produced over 300 pages of policy and recommendations. We need to get this right and it makes sense to utilise the work it has done.Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill—Progress3.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to theMember in charge of thePrivacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill: Is it still her intention to proceed with the first reading of the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill): Yes. I hope that parties that take privacy breaches seriously will in fact get the chance to vote for my bill this very evening.Andrew Little: Has she seen any reports of similar legislation being proposed?SUE MORONEY: Yes I have. In May 2012 the Minister of Justice Judith Collins promised a privacy forum that she would be introducing a bill to replace the Privacy Act in the first half of 2013. As we head into November there is no sign of that bill yet but help is at hand. She can make—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is now sufficient.Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill—Purpose4.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to theMember in charge of thePrivacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill: Why is the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill required?SUE MORONEY (Member in charge of the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill): This bill gives two important tools to the Privacy Commissioner: firstly the ability to launch her own investigation without a specific complaint in order to investigate a privacy breach; and secondly the right to require agencies to take specific remedies when there are privacy problems. Both of these issues which are in this bill were recommended by the Law Commission.Andrew Little: Why is it important to New Zealanders for this bill to be progressed now?SUE MORONEY: It is important that this bill is progressed now because of this Government’s record of playing fast and loose with New Zealanders’ privacy—breaches everywhere from ACC to the Earthquake Commission—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is quite sufficient.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—no. Order! It is not in order to have a supplementary question.General DebateMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. As if the Skycity deal was not rotten enough—as if it was not rotten enough—we now have one of the most unethical bills ever to pass through this House’s history sneaked through on the votes of not one but two deeply conflicted Government MPs. When the Opposition is down one member due to the by-election it is an abuse of democracy to pass the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill in such circumstances.MPs are under huge pressure to vote against this deal. The pressure is coming from families churches and organisations that have been harmed by problem gambling or left to mop up its mess. Sam Lotu-Iiga knows all about this pressure. He represents a community guided by deeply held religious beliefs that is genuinely troubled by gambling. How convenient then that a supposed spokesperson for the Catholic Church should front up to a select committee with evidence that the Church thinks that the casino is really a pretty good place—in fact a safer place to gamble. But that was not the Church’s view of the casino at all. The Church does not support this deal. The man who gave that evidence was none other than Sam Lotu-Iiga’s own electorate chairman Seamus Donegan. When Mr Donegan gave the evidence Sam Lotu-Iiga sat listening in silence. He never once revealed his relationship with the man not even in the days afterwards when the Church had to distance itself from Mr Donegan’s comments and set the public record straight. I say that Mr Lotu-Iiga’s silence over all these weeks speaks volumes. My only hope is that he is troubled enough by his conscience to allow it to be heard when the time comes to vote for this unethical morally compromised bill.John Banks is also deeply conflicted over this bill. John Banks has railed like a preacher against the evils of gambling in the past. He has called casino operators “wide boys”. He has accused them of having “sucked hung drawn [and] quartered” the people of New Zealand. But just $15000 later he has changed his tune. Asked by reporters how he could in all honesty support the deal John Banks replied that he did not gamble and he did not drink but he did not inflict his values on others. Well then why did he vote to raise the drinking age to 20? Of course he inflicts his values on others. He just disappears from his values when it suits him.John Banks is a textbook case of conflict. When a member votes on a deal worth $400 million to a casino while at the same time the casino’s chief executive officer is in court giving evidence against him there is a conflict of interest. It is a conflict of interest burden that is borne by Mr Banks. The rules around conflicts of interest exist in this Parliament for a reason. Even the perception of a conflict is enough to require standard management: declaration of the conflict and in some cases removing oneself from the decision making. It happens all the time and is the best way to manage the conflict or perceived conflict. The Skycity bill deserves to go down in a ball of flames as the perfect example of the Key Government’s crony capitalist values.Regardless of the bill the Green Party has produced proposals for making New Zealanders safer from problem gambling anyway. We will make pre-commitment on pokies compulsory rather than voluntary so gamblers will have to set a limit at the outset and will not be able to exceed it in the heat of the moment. This is effective in the same way that compulsory seatbelts are effective whereas voluntary seatbelts are not. We will outlaw inducements by casinos to problem gamblers to encourage them to come back to gamble. We know that that happens because 67 percent of the pokie revenue at Skycity Casino comes from gamblers who are part of the loyalty programme. So it knows who they are it knows where they live it knows that that programme is supposed to be used to prevent harm and yet that is used by Skycity to market to thoseproblem gamblers. We will stop that across the board including for Skycity. Yes these ideas come about through our fight over the Skycity deal but they exist on their own as reasonable practical and responsible ways to stop problem gambling. Thank you.Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): The member who has just resumed her seat Metiria Turei tried to imply that members in this House feel under some pressure to vote for the Skycity convention centre bill. Well I can tell you the only pressure the members in this party feel under is to turn round 9 years of complete economic sabotage and destruction that was wreaked on this country by a Labour-Green Government. The pressure I feel as a member of this House is the pressure to provide opportunities and jobs for New Zealanders. I would be surprised if there was anyone in this House who would stand up and tell New Zealand that they come here every day and block every single opportunity to create jobs in New Zealand. Yet what do we have? We have some parties who come to this House and they oppose agriculture they oppose free trade they oppose the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband and all the benefits that brings they oppose mining they oppose every opportunity that would create jobs and they support every bureaucratic process-heavy costly long drawn-out process that will suck the life out of the economic future of New Zealand.I want to talk a little bit about one issue that we are hearing a lot about just recently and that is the issue of mineral exploration. I want to talk about mineral exploration because I find it absolutely unbelievable that we have parties in this House with the barefaced cheek to come in here and talk about the risks of oil and gas drilling when they not only spent 9 years in Government with zero protection for the environment—zero protection for the environment—and zero rules around how we look after our offshore resources when we do these things but also voted against environmental protection when the National Government put it up. It was the National Government that for the first time instituted a system of environmental consenting for our offshore exclusive economic zone and continental shelf. And do you know what happened of course? Labour voted against it and the Greens voted against it.What I want to do is tell you a little bit about what the process was under a Labour-Green Government. This was the environmental protection. This was the very technically competent inclusive publicly involved process under Labour and that the Greens had. Step one: the Minister of Energy and Resources signs a permit. That is it. That was the whole of the process. So where was the environmental protection? Where was Greenpeace with its models? Where was the public involvement? [Interruption] And now we see the outrage—the outrage—that pours off them in waves.But do you know what I think it is? I think we can take a little bit of a lesson on this from what is happening now with the Skycity bill. We have got Labour saying publicly “What an outrage!” and saying privately “Don’t worry boys. We’ll look after you. We’ll be fine if it’s in.” So you can imagine what Labour is telling the oil and gas industry behind the scenes: “Don’t worry we’ll be out there charging about saying how outrageous it is but we’ll see you right. Don’t worry.” You could not figure out what the Labour position was on this issue if you tried. You know that whatever the members tell you is unlikely to be correct. We have had David Cunliffe telling Taranaki that people are leaving in droves and yet what were the numbers that came out? No it was growth in Taranaki.Jonathan Young: 5500.Hon AMY ADAMS: In fact with a successful blend of oil and gas agriculture and tourism—Mr Jonathan Young will know—it is one of the most successful economies in the country.Dr David Clark: Where are the jobs?Hon AMY ADAMS: The jobs Mr Clark come from mineral extraction. They come from agriculture. They come from the roll-out of infrastructure like the ultra-fast broadband network. If New Zealand is not already wise enough to know how much damage the Labour-Green Government did in its 9 years the fact that those members oppose more jobs in agriculture oppose more jobs in the oil and gas sector oppose more jobs across the provinces and oppose the roll-out of infrastructure—you do have to wonder. But I can tell them. Perhaps I can help them. Perhaps we can help the Green Party cut out some hundreds of thousands of dollars with its spin doctors that frankly the oil and gas sector through its taxes probably paid for. We can tell it already what its slogan should be in 2014: “The Green Party. We’re for New Zealand—closed for business. Last man out blow out the candle.”JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): If the member Amy Adams wants to talk about jobs then we can talk about jobs. Let us be absolutely clear. This election will be won and lost on the economy and jobs. This Government’s failure is to act in the face of massive job losses in this country. All that the Government members are interested in doing is preserving their relationships through dodgy deals with organisations like Skycity.One such example which I raised in this House yesterday is the crisis that is going on in the screen industry in New Zealand. I do not use the word “crisis” lightly but that is absolutely what we are facing. There are literally hundreds up to thousands of jobs and livelihoods being lost as we speak. The crime of it all is that it is entirely preventable but this out-of-touch Government is sitting on the sidelines while this absolutely critical industry is decimated. Of course we have had this industry for a number of years. But in 2004 when the incentives regime came in under the then Labour Government it undeniably gave a boost to the industry. The industry met the new demand. It built up skills. It built up talent. It built up capital. Now we have got to a point where if a production comes into New Zealand we can meet the needs of that production with up to 90 percent internally in New Zealand with the skill base and with the capital that we have.But since then things have changed dramatically. We have the people but the work is disappearing and it is disappearing fast. Why? Well first of all undeniably the Kiwi dollar is high and it is having an impact. Since the incentive regime has come in the Kiwi dollar has gone up in strength against the American dollar by 25 percent. That has virtually decimated the drawcard that our rebate regime once was. The fact that our regime has remained static while other countries—Hon Tau Henare: “Moaning Myrtle”—what’s the answer?JACINDA ARDERN: —have become more competitive has meant that we are in an entirely preventable perfect storm. And there are answers Tau Henare. There are things that this Government could be doing. Labour has said that the Government should be intervening on monetary policy. That is what we would do. If it is unwilling to act in that regard if it is unwilling to do that then it should at least look at the relative competitiveness of the rebate regime—and it is a rebate. Essentially it is money in before money goes out. You have to pay taxes and you have to have economic spin-offs before anything happens in that regard.Why is the Government not doing anything? Well firstly it claims that the rebate at the moment is somehow at a break-even point. Well I ask one question. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment should go and look at why the UK Australia Hungary Ireland the USA and Canada are doing things differently. That is one simple question I ask of those members. Secondly the Government claims that our skills base will naturally attract people but our skills are just one part of the mix. If the rest of the mix does not attract production it does not matter whether we have good people here.In fact the Government tried to argue that one of the reasons that the rebate regime was cost-neutral was that if all those skilled people did not have work in screen production they would just go somewhere else.I have met good people talented people at the top of their game who have been unemployed for months. They will leave this country leave these shores and we will not have the talent base for those production companies when they come back into this country. The fact the Government does not acknowledge that shows that it is completely out of touch and does not understand this industry. It is not just talent; it is capital. I challenge Steven Joyce to go and visit the companies that invested in the rigging the kit and the props. Those props are going to landfills because the companies cannot afford to store them any more. It is kit that they can no longer afford to keep and are selling off. It is not just about the big projects. The big projects prop up the little projects the New Zealand projects that help us tell stories about ourselves.This Government is standing on the sidelines while an important skilled industry is being decimated and jobs are being lost. Let that be on those members’ heads if they continue to stand on the sidelines and do nothing while we lose this critical industry.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): That speech from Jacinda Ardern was almost as angry as my little speech on John Campbell’s show last week. But I will tell you this much—at least Jacinda Ardern and I did not give a nasty little speech like Metiria Turei did in the House not long ago.Speaking of John Campbell Greenpeace Gareth Hughes and Moana Mackey have all been very excited in the last few days about oil and gas and there is a lot to be excited about with oil and gas. We in this country have a proud history in this area. We have a great presence today and we have a very strong future. Today the average wage in oil and gas mining is $105000—what is not to like? That is over double the New Zealand average. Actually if you take just jobs in petroleum it is probably more than that if you get rid of other mining on the side. They are very high-paying jobs—the highest in this country. The people working in that industry are the kind whom members on the other side of this House say they represent but actually do not—they do not. Those workers have come to our side of this House because they know that we are the ones delivering the future for them.I said we have got a proud history in this area. It is actually on our coat of arms. We have had an extractive economy for a very long time since Moturoa in 1865. Actually as I understand it that was the second oil rig in the world after one that I think was in Pennsylvania. So we have been doing this for a very long time. Since the 1960s over 1000 wells have been drilled safely in New Zealand without a major incident—200 offshore and eight deep offshore in over 300 metres. So we have a very proud history in this area.Today there are numbers that are not to be sniffed at by the Greens. I am talking about $2.5 billion to $3 billion per annum and $800 million in royalties which pay for the schools the hospitals and the other infrastructure that everyone in this House agrees with. Our fourth-highest commodity is crude oil to Australia. It is our biggest export. It is literally an industry that feeds and clothes children in this country. It delivers taxes and royalties and as I have said in terms of the dollars going into households it delivers more than anything else.Then we talk about the future and what a great future it is. We should be excited about the biggest exploration season ever probably on most measures this coming season and about what that means for this country down the track in terms of jobs. The truth is that we are under-explored. We have one basin Taranaki that gives us $2.5 billion or thereabouts in revenue. One more as I have said before in this House wouldbe a game changer for this country. It would mean more people employed in high-income jobs.I think Statistics New Zealand said that 130000 Māori are working in Australia thousands of them in oil and gas mining. Well let me tell you that they would like to work in this country if they had the opportunity and that is what this Government is about. It is about real jobs for the real people whom the left likes to talk about—but whom we are actually doing something for. And what a great speech that was from Amy Adams where we heard about the environmental protections that we have put in place. It was a very layered set of protections that mean that up front we are preventing the kinds of harms that the scaremongers in the Greens like to go on about.You know it is interesting to see from the left a very schizophrenic approach to this an approach that is all over the show. I agree with Shane Jones that the Greenpeace report today was “greenwash”. Actually I think I almost agree with David Shearer. He seems to be moderating his position. He says that provided that we have world’s best standards—which we do and which we have implemented through the Crown minerals regime this year—then that is OK. See—he is shaking his head so he does not support it. He has gone back so he is schizophrenic. He has gone back into the Moana Mackey - Maryan Street camp. He does not know where he is.At least with the Greens we know their position. They are totally opposed to progress in this country. What they do not understand is that it is not a zero-sum game. It is not an either/or. Actually we can be proud that we have 75 percent renewables in this country—the third-highest in the world and going up—but not if Labour and the Greens get their way with the disincentive there will be for investment in renewables going forward.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): It will not be long before it is 3 years since the February 2011 Christchurch earthquake. It is now over 3 years since the September 2010 Greendale fault earthquake. Who would have thought that after that period of time there would still be people trying to settle insurance claims let alone actually getting progress on the rebuilding of their homes?Let it be recorded for posterity that the constant delays by insurers over Canterbury earthquake claims the failures by insurers to honour their policies the treatment by insurers of the people who placed their trust in their policies and those companies and the full replacement insurance that has not actually meant what it said have all defined what is one of the most disgraceful episodes in New Zealand’s commercial history. Never has such utterly despicable behaviour been seen by commercial insurers on such a scale in this country. We are not talking about just a few cases; we are not talking about just a small minority of difficult cases but literally hundreds of cases—in fact a very significant percentage of the whole. It is a national disgrace that this should still be the case 3 years from the disaster. We are not talking about just a few of the insurers but all of them—some are better than others.The current situation is truly an indictment on the insurance industry in New Zealand as a whole. Among the worst is an entity known as Southern Response Earthquake Services. Is that not a great name? Well it would be if it were true. But “response” is exactly what it is not. This is the entity that took over a failed insurer AMI Insurance. AMI was so inept that when the first major disaster came along for which it was required to be prepared it did not last 5 minutes and had to be taken over by the Government.That should have solved the problem should it not? Well no it did not. Anyone who saw theCampbell Live show recently would know for sure that Southern Response is just another one of the shonky insurers that we are all so disgusted with in Christchurch. It is just another failure. It is just another incompetent performer. It is just anotherdelayer. It is just another arrogant and unhelpful obstacle for policyholders. In the meantime people suffer. Health suffers families suffer and communities suffer.Christchurch people have had enough of it. What on earth has the Government been doing about it? The Government was told years ago that it needed to intervene just as the Australian Government intervened in past disasters there. That Government did not tolerate the incompetence of insurers; it legislated it regulated and it made sure that its people were not put through what ours have been put through.After the first 2 years all this National Government would do is provide some free advisers not even advocates. The response from our Government since has been a long deafening silence. So after the next election when New Zealand First forms part of the next Government it will seek to establish a new State insurance company to replace the one sold by Labour. We will get a new one—“KiwiSure”—to ensure that there is a reliable insurer that will give genuine replacement insurance and deal with disaster claims promptly and fairly. That is why this country needs New Zealand First because it needs good governance and people need a fair go.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Mr O’Rourke talked about a lot of suffering. The four bills that came before this House this morning followed pretty much the same theme. We have been fortunate—or unfortunate—today to have traversed a lot of history for the people of Tūhoe Ngāti Hauā Ngāti Koroki Kahukura and of course the descendants of Mokomoko. Their legacies are relived; their experiences arrived here in Parliament today. It is in the spirit of that sort of sorrow that I wanted to focus this contribution this afternoon on our tamariki and our mokopuna and indeed the mokopuna of Tūhoe.In this morning’s paper under the heading “Child abuse is rising in NZ” the Children’s Commissioner Russell Wills revealed that the public’s tolerance for violence against children still had a way to go. I got asked the question of how we as a nation can hold our heads high when our child abuse statistics are such an indictment on our reputation. Our focus as members of Parliament should rightly and properly be on what we are doing as agents of the State. As such I would implore all members of this House to read the statement released just 3 days ago onMarae Investigates by a leading paediatric specialist Professor Innes Asher. I referred to that in a speech this morning. Professor Asher—a clinician at the Starship hospital a paediatrician for over 30 years and the head of the paediatrics department at Auckland University—has spent her life investing in the well-being of children. So when she described the treatment of children during the Tūhoe raids 6 years ago as “one of the worst cases of child abuse by the State in recent years” one would think that this House would listen.Of course it is not the first time that the children of Ruātoki have been raised in public attention. A mere 5 months ago a report from the Independent Police Conduct Authority recommended that changes to policy and practice needed to be introduced that would reflect better planning for children and vulnerable people. Aside from that I am still waiting for the Human Rights Commission report to come out and hopefully that will be soon.At the time of this recent release the local schoolteacher Gaylene Collier reflected that her pupils had already been frightened when they were detained in their homes during the operation. Her conclusions were pretty clear: “It was tough on the families and it should never ever have happened.” I have relentlessly brought the issues of these families to this House but we are still a far way away from seeing any resolution to the lasting trauma that Professor Asher speaks of. On public television on Sunday she told New Zealand that “if these children had been held by armed offenders in the same way the state would have immediately rescued those children and given them some help and assistance. And the children would have been on the front page of the papers and onyour lead news item”. So why is it that we cannot face up to the wrongs done to the innocent children caught up in Operation Eight? Why are we so reluctant to admit that the events of that day represent as Professor Asher states the most profound abuse of power in our memory?In a letter written to former Commissioner of Police Howard Broad Peter Williams QC described the extent of the terror raids as being “a great show of force by the police who have been accompanied by military-type vehicles helicopters fire arms dogs and various other adjuncts. Most of these police officers were dressed in military battle uniform consisting of black clothing balaclavas and carrying what appears to be loaded weapons—in particular rifles and revolvers.” One of the interviewees said that he counted 43 police officers surrounding the house where he lived with his partner his four young children his father and his father’s partner. All of these police had guns trained on this house. These prisoners mainly women and children were kept under armed guard and detained for varying periods between 3 and 6 hours. The children particularly were terrified he said.I do not understand how we can receive that sort of information and how we can hear the horrific experiences our State forced upon children and not feel motivated to change or to act. We could go to the Ruātoki valley. We could sit with the people of Tūhoe. We could share with the whānau our acknowledgment of what happened on 15 October 2007 and that it had truly traumatic effects on the children that will affect them for the rest of their lives. Our job as a Parliament is to represent the best interests of our people. This is beyond party politics. It is beyond bureaucracy. This is about our children.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Well I would have thought that the Minister of Labour Simon Bridges may have had a word to say about the fact that it is Labour weekend this weekend. However—Sue Moroney: No he didn’t say it at all.DARIEN FENTON: —he did not say a word about Labour Day being this weekend. He will just be off having a holiday forgetting that Labour Day is about remembering the struggle we had that began in 1840 for an 8-hour working day and forgetting that it has been celebrated in this country from 1900.There was a time when each generation was proud to say that their kids would be better off at work than they were. We have all worked hard to ensure the rights won by our forebears have not been lost. But I cannot say that today. Working people are going backwards under this National-led Government. Our kids cannot get jobs and even when they do they are highly precarious. Flexibility is about how easily they can be fired and how little responsibility an employer must bear. Competitiveness and productivity is about how low the wages can be and how much can be extracted from workers in an ever-diminishing pool of hours. The 8-hour day and 40-hour week are considered a joke. In fact they do not exist in legislation and we have no working hours protection in New Zealand.Sue Moroney: Especially not in the forestry industry.DARIEN FENTON: Especially not in the forestry industry. We subsidise low wages through Working for Families. We pay employers to take on young minimum-wage workers whom they can sack after 90 days. Then we blame people when they struggle to make ends meet.There are more and more people out looking for work now for jobs that do not exist. When they cannot find them they get punished. We are on a punishment regime led by the Hon Paula Bennett.Thousands of workers continue to lose their jobs through lay-offs. It has been a dreadful week this week. I want to just briefly send aroha out to the 1000-odd New Zealand Post workers who are facing the job losses that have been announced today.But what does this Government do? It goes back to its normal modus operandi of cutting workers’ rights. I guess that Simon Bridges should have been at the select committee to hear the stories of workers the 14000 workers who submitted against his Employment Relations Amendment Bill. However because he was not there I am going to tell some of their stories.There is no story stronger than that of the cleaners who work in this Parliament who have appealed to Simon Bridges to not make their lives worse by ditching the protections of Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act. I hope he has been listening like he said he would and like he told this Parliament he would but just in case here are some words from the cleaners: “You never see us. Every evening we catch the bus or the train from Wainuiomata or Porirua to clean your office. We vacuum the floors scrub the toilets and tidy away your rubbish. We come in at midnight when you have all gone home and the Parliament Buildings are empty.”Hon Tau Henare: Where are all the Pacific Island union organisers?DARIEN FENTON: I know Tau Henare is a bit sensitive about this topic. “We come over to Parliament after we have worked all night cleaning the buildings on The Terrace and Lambton Quay. It’s a hard job a dirty job but we don’t mind being cleaners. We are proud to clean the most important house in the country. But we don’t love our pay ... On top of that as contracted workers we face daily uncertainty at work. Spotless has the contract to clean Parliament but it could lose it so do not make it bad for cleaners or make it worse for cleaners Mr Bridges. Part 6A is a fair rule. All the contractors should play by the same rules.” On their behalf I call on Simon Bridges to remove the changes he is planning to make to Part 6A.In Christchurch he should have heard the stories too from workers who came along who have already been traumatised by the earthquake who said: “Why would a Government want to cut our pay? Why would they do that to us?” There was a worker called Julie Reason who talked about her job as a home-care worker—a home-care worker working on assignment job to job working an hour then getting in the car getting paid nothing no tea breaks or anything. She said: “Why would this Government want to cut our pay?”My message to New Zealand workers this Labour Day is that the Labour Party values the hard work of working New Zealanders and their contribution. We are on your side and we have real plans to improve your working lives when this Government is thrown out.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Well today on the front page of theTaranaki Daily News we saw Greenpeace’s estimation of the oil reserves off the North Taranaki coast—40000 barrels a day. That is double the rate of flow of the Maari field which is offshore from South Taranaki.I have got to say that Greenpeace’s modelling is the best advertising I have seen of New Zealand’s prospectivity. That should get the attention of oil explorers all over the world. We are the new Mozambique or the Texas or the Norway of the south. The royalties and tax revenues coming from these fields will make New Zealand one of the wealthiest countries in the southern hemisphere. There will be schools hospitals roads operations and continual New Zealand superannuation for 65-year-olds.I want to look at the example of Norway and what it has done with the significant reserves it has been able to extract. Norway is so similar to New Zealand in many ways. It is the second-least densely populated country in Europe. It is a very long country—1600 kilometres long. We are just a little bit longer at 2000 kilometres. The capital city Oslo is the largest in the nation with a population of nearly 1 million people. Auckland of course has an urban population of 1.4 million people.What has Norway done with its extensive reserves of petroleum natural gas and minerals lumber seafood fresh water and hydropower? That country has the fourth-highest per capita income in the world. That is good news. On a per capita basis it is the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas outside the Middle East. Listen to this: “The country maintains a welfare model with universal health care subsidised higher education and a comprehensive social security system.” Why do they have such social advantages in Norway? Simply because of petroleum production. The OECD ranks Norway third in social mobility and fourth in its 2013 Better Life index.Forbes ranks Norway fourth in its list of the world’s richest countries which compares countries by GDP.This is the bizarre thing: all these social improvements in Norway have come through its oil and gas production. These are the same social improvements that the Green Party advocates for except the Green Party does not want to pay for it. It does not want to see the source of this social change and social uplift being the work and the generation of an industry in oil and gas.The Green Party along with its red friends says no to just about everything. Unless of course you are David Cunliffe—then you say no to the TV cameras and yes to big business behind the public’s back. Do you doubt that? Not one little bit. David Cunliffe promised the world to his union supporters at the Council of Trade Unions. He promised a living wage and extended parental leave but then he backtracked when talking to the media immediately afterwards saying “We don’t know when.” and “We need to be fiscally responsible.” Labour members get all angsty about oil exploration on the East Coast but turn up in droves in Taranaki licking the boots of the oil barons. That is what they do.Labour is a two-faced party with no clear and distinct policy. Its members are still divided and still incoherent. They have shallow one-liners but no depth and consistency in their policy. This is not the time—in fact it is never the time—for that sort of fractured group to be anywhere near the Treasury benches.Do we want the same progress wealth and social infrastructure that Norway has? Yes indeed. Taranaki stands out as an example of that. Statistics New Zealand released the first official analysis of regional gross domestic product. That study covers the period from 2007 to 2010 and on a regional basis Taranaki recorded the highest growth in GDP due to the expansion of its oil and gas industry during this period. Taranaki’s economy increased by 46.9 percent in size over the 4 years the largest increase of any region due to expansion in oil and gas production. The region boasts the highest GDP per person beyond any other region in the country. Taranaki’s strength—just as I close—in mining and agriculture gave us the highest gross domestic product per person of $73200 against a national average of $43700. That is 67 percent higher. Thank you.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Well I want to follow my colleague Darien Fenton and talk about what is happening to women in the paid workforce. Certainly women are going backwards under this National Government. Women are not experiencing the brighter future that National promised. National’s rich corporate mates on the other hand of course are getting lots of attention and lots of opportunities but not women seeking to get ahead financially—not women trying to manage paid and unpaid work responsibilities.As others have noted the job situation is dire unemployment remains high and yet National promised 170000 new jobs over 4 years in 2011 and in 2012 managed to muster just 8000.Of course over recent days we have seen workers losing their jobs from a fellmongery in Shannon New Zealand Post workers are hearing today that they will be losing their jobs and the mill workers in Rotorua heard on Monday that they will belosing their jobs—many many workers. I want to convey my concern to those workers and I know just how difficult that will be.It is not only unemployment that is a problem though; underemployment also remains a problem. Over 100000 people want more work. I am sure that the majority of those workers would be women seeking more hours than they currently have. Women are low paid. Women are overrepresented amongst those in low-paid work—certainly at least 60 percent of those on the minimum wage. Of course the Government fails to make any meaningful shift in the minimum wage and fails to commit to a living wage. And who does that affect? Who does that affect? Well of course it affects those women workers but it also affects their families. It has an impact on their lifetime earnings. It means that with an ageing population where women tend to live longer women are more likely to be living in poverty in their old age.What is the Government’s response to low pay? Well John Key thinks it is a great idea actually. He is quoted as saying that driving wages down is a good thing. In the Employment Relations Act changes the attacks on workers’ rights will make the situation worse by undermining collective bargaining. Certainly the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women the international UN committee concerned about women has said that we need to look at the gendered impact of this legislation. What has the Government said? “No action to be taken.”What about pay equity? This is not something that the Government is committed to. The Government says that greater economic independence for women is meant to be a priority but it says that will be done by moving women out of low-paid work rather than by valuing and paying for that work. Well who is going to do the work in aged care for example? When are we going to see that properly valued? There is barely any mention of pay equity on the Ministry of Women’s Affairs website. Certainly the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women again refers to that and again there is no action to be taken.Recently a very brave women Kristine Bartlett won a case against her employer TerraNova Homes and Care an aged-care employer. She earns $14.46 an hour after 20 years’ service in aged care. What is the Government saying? Well the Minister of Women’s Affairs is not interested. She has not briefed the Minister of Labour. She has not even had a conversation with the Minister of Labour about this important issue. The Minister of Labour when questioned in the House just makes jokes. So clearly pay equity is not something that the Government is concerned about.Paid parental leave would help families manage their income when they have a new child. Of course my colleague here Sue Moroney is actively promoting an extension to 26 weeks. There is massive community support for it and it has a majority in this House but no the Government intends to veto that change.I want to talk particularly about industry training because industry training is supposedly how women might move into these non-traditional jobs and yet the numbers do not bear mentioning. The numbers of women in industry training are appalling. Recently when I questioned the Minister on how this lines up with the Better Public Services goal the Canterbury rebuild goal or even the Business Growth Agenda of delivering more skills—the numbers of women in industry training are going down. I just want to identify some of the worst cases. In the building and construction industry 1 percent of trainees in that industry are women. In joinery it is 6 percent. In electricity it is 7 percent. In infrastructure it is 6 percent. And what is the Government doing about it? Well according to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is helping here. Well it has done a pamphlet it has done a research paper and it interviewed seven women in the electrical industry. It is a joke.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Being lectured on job growth by Carol Beaumont and Darien Fenton is like being lectured by David Cunliffe on how to write a CV because they have no idea about how badly the policies they are pushing would hurt workers. They have no idea about how successful the New Zealand economy is right now and how many New Zealanders are gaining jobs because of the policy settings that this Government has put in place.I want to go on to that a bit further on in my speech but first I want to turn to Metiria Turei’s speech at the start of this session. I have nothing but disdain for the Greens and the sanctimonious duplicitous bile that comes from their mouths. They have the cheek to come into this House and claim that members on this side have some great conflict of interest and even though they are democratically elected to this Parliament they cannot vote on a piece of legislation.I have never seen a Greenpeace submitter declare conflicts of interest in a select committee. I have never heard the Green Party declare conflicts of interest because it is associated with Greenpeace and other green organisations when it promotes policies. I have never heard the Labour Party declare conflicts of interest despite the fact that it has tens of thousands of dollars of union backing every election. Good on the Labour Party. That is its right.But if the Green Party wanted to be consistent if the Green Party actually believed in policy and principle then it would be saying exactly the same thing about the Labour Party and about itself as it has been saying about Sam Lotu-Iiga and other members on this side. Sam Lotu-Iiga stands up for his community. Sam Lotu-Iiga stands up for job creation for his constituents. This Government stands up for job creation for New Zealanders. The other side wants to just oppose everything that this Government does to improve the case for New Zealanders. I have absolute disdain for those Green Party members across the way.I want to turn to David Cunliffe a little bit as well. I would like to refer to David Cunliffe as “Dr Jekyll and Mr Cunliffe” because he says one thing on one side and he has absolutely another message going out around the place.Oil and gas has been touched on by a number of my colleagues. We had Mr Cunliffe talking about the fact that the Labour Party opposes a range of oil and gas exploration initiatives despite the fact that they will create jobs for New Zealanders. Shane Jones goes out on the other side and says that Labour supports them. We had the Labour Party saying publicly that with its mates in the Green Party it would repeal the Skycity legislation but just behind the scenes Mr Cunliffe was telling Skycity that no it will not do anything there. We heard Mr Cunliffe talking about Labour’s great plans for union membership and everything that it is going to do to extend paid parental leave and increase the living wage but when he talked to the media afterwards he backtracked immediately.On regional growth just last week Mr Cunliffe tried to paint a story of absolute destruction out there in the regions but then the figures came out and he was absolutely wrong again. We have done a lot for jobs in New Zealand—65000 people have jobs in this country because of the policies that we have put in place. Everything we try to do Labour opposes. Let us take the 90-day trial—13000 extra jobs—the 1000 jobs being created by the International Convention Centre the 225 jobs through Bathurst Resources escarpment mine and the thousands of jobs through the roads of national significance. If Labour really was serious about jobs—you can wipe that smile off your face Mr Faafoi—it would be supporting what we are trying to do.Let us remind the Labour Party of the economic climate that we inherited. We inherited a current account deficit of almost 9 percent. That is now at 4.3 percent. External debt had blown out to 84 percent of GDP. We have got that down now to 71percent of GDP. Inflation was running at 5.1 percent. It is now at 1.4 percent. Anyone who has studied economics for even just a few years would know that inflation is the biggest thing that harms workers. They would know that mortgage rates going high harms workers considerably too.Under this Government we have seen a much improved economic climate. We have seen much improved economic figures. We are seeing jobs being created. We are growing faster than the average growth rate of the OECD. Those guys do not understand it. They actually do not care. The Green Party is duplicitous and sanctimonious and the Labour Party really should be dissociating itself from the Greens. That would do Labour a lot of favours but it is not smart enough to do that.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I rise to speak on the great city that is Tauranga. I wonder how with two sitting Ministers Tauranga’s national standing and reputation could be so diminished under their tenure. Look at the recent council elections where national media covered changes in Auckland Christchurch Wellington and Hamilton with front-page news but there was barely a murmur of Tauranga the country’s No. 1 export province.How can it be with two sitting Ministers one of whom is the Minister of Energy and Resources that Tauranga householders pay 15 percent above the national average for their electricity? How can it be that Tauranga ratepayers are saddled with a $60 million noose incurring additional daily interest in excess of $10000 per day for Route K—Route K being the road that should be a State highway as it connects directly to the port? Why has that not been handed over to the New Zealand Transport Agency? Are we going to wait until just before the election?How can it be that despite having the Minister of Health as a local member 11 and 12-year-olds are made to wait over 9 months for an appointment with an ear nose and throat specialist at Tauranga Hospital? Schools such as Mount Maunganui College not 15 minutes from Tauranga Hospital have to wait many hours and sometimes overnight for medical specimens and smears to be transported to Tauranga Hospital when the international standard is under 2 hours.How can it be that the rotting festering carcass of theRena is still on Astrolabe Reef still polluting our waters and even worse still sending a message to offshore companies with deep pockets that it is OK to come and pollute our pristine waters? This Government is continuing to demonstrate that it cannot even remove a boat off a rock and yet it is ready to risk the total devastation of our coastline by allowing deep-water drilling not only to depths of 3000 metres but—chuck in—in earthquake-prone areas as well. How can that be?How can it be that the Port of Tauranga is storing a highly toxic and dangerous chemical the oil dispersant Corexit? It is time that this Government put people first not profit.I will also speak on bullying because it appears to be rife in New Zealand. Bullying is a virus and has wheedled its way into our daily lives. Here are just a few real examples of bullying in Tauranga. A young woman came into my electorate office suicidal. After a year of trying to service a bank debt by paying $50 per week that debt had blown out from $27000 to $56000 solely due to the fees charged by the bank in giving it to their collection agency—corporate bullying.A young man on the benefit approached me after his power had been cut off. Even after setting a repayment regime with the power company through Work and Income New Zealand that power company was then refusing to reconnect him saying that in order to reconnect him it would treat him as a new customer and subject him to a credit check which he would fail—bureaucratic immoral bullying against the disadvantaged.I know of a law firm that sent people to the bedside of a terminally ill patient in Tauranga Hospital and changed her will just 2 hours before she was due to have a life-saving operation. She thought she was signing operation consent forms not signing a change to her will. So here we have lawyers complicit in the bullying of the elderly and the vulnerable.I am not going to name all of these firms because they deserve a chance to truly put things right. I hope they hear this and do the right thing. But this bullying and unfair treatment of our people must stop. Look at ACC with its standard line: “That’s not an injury. It’s degeneration.” That is systematic bullying of the injured and vulnerable. The average Kiwi believes in fairness and we should not tolerate unfair behaviour.Parliament has its own bully-boy one whose behaviour was publicly recorded only weeks ago when two young staff members—two highly competent researchers—were unjustifiably dismissed without notice. And instead of fighting for what is right that member’s caucus sadly is so browbeaten and bullied into submission that it uttered not a word not a murmur not a syllable not a sound. Instead it took a 21-year-old board member of that party to stand up and speak truth to power—truth to power—in defence of these promising young men who were wronged.I believe we need to stop bullies in their tracks. We are after all a nation that believes in giving people a fair go. New Zealand prides itself on being an egalitarian society and we should not accept bullying from any Government any business any political figure or any individual.Hon TAU HENARE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. An accusation has been made. There are 120-odd members of Parliament in this place and I think it behoves that member there Brendan Horan to name that person so that the rest of us are not wrapped up in his little game.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you very much Mr Henare for your contribution but it is not a point of order. It is entirely up to the member. Honourable members the time for this debate—Simon O’Connor: Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Oh you were lucky.Simon O’Connor: Damn straight.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Simon O’Connor.Hon Member: No we’re lucky.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Absolutely—it is lucky for the country that we have taken this 5 minutes. Look I was absolutely struck today in question time. We had sanctimony coming from Metiria Turei the leader of the Green Party particularly who began to lecture us on the supposed virtues of the Catholic Church. I do not stand here to speak for the Catholic Church either but I am absolutely amazed that this is happening. I look forward to Ms Turei and others taking on the fullness of Catholic social teaching the respect for life and the dignity of every person.Speaking of the dignity of every person I am incredibly proud to stand next to Sam Lotu-Iiga the MP for Maungakiekie—the MP who took a red Labour seat and turned it blue—and to work hard with this man every day to do the best that we can for our electorates in Tāmaki and Maungakiekie.What we heard today though from the Greens—particularly coming through Greenpeace; of course it has not declared directly its allegiance there—was something about which I would say shows we can count on the Green Party to provide us with fairy tales. You see once upon a time there was a land that never had to worry about oil spills or pollution. There was no intensive farming or agribusiness and no geneticengineering or modification. No one owned a car and most people walked wherever they had to go. It was a Green Party paradise.It was of course Europe in the Middle Ages and no one then thought of it as a paradise. You see in reality life in the medieval period was brutal short and tragic. Infant mortality was 25 percent. Just to help out those who cannot count that means one in four newborn babies died before their first birthday. Today infant mortality in New Zealand is 0.4 percent. Life expectancy in the medieval period was about 30 years. Now New Zealanders can expect to live to an average age of around 79. Violence in that medieval green paradise was rife. In fact scholars estimate that people were 35 times more likely to be murdered then than they are today. Life was horrible but their beaches were gorgeous.We have come a long way from there. Our quality of life today is the envy of every country in the world and everyone who ever lived before us. You may ask how we achieved this great standard of living. It has been a slow process. It is called science. It is something that the Green Party and its Labour allies and followers care little for. Science has been the driving factor. It has provided us with many ways to improve our lives but it has also provided us with the resources to do so—and by that I mean income.Last year the New Zealand Treasury received $1.9 billion from the oil and gas industry. I listen to the Greens in particular demanding that we forbid future drilling. I listen to them scaremongering and bullying people—there we go Mr Horan; bullying is there—and insisting that oil is bad for New Zealand. And do you know what? They are just plain wrong. Last year that $2 billion saved lives. It saved young people and retired seniors. It educated students and it supported welfare beneficiaries.The $2 billion we received in oil and gas revenue was enough to cover just over half the entire tertiary education budget for the year or to cover the entire budget for the Canterbury District Health Board and the Southern District Health Board for the year. In fact $2 billion could pay for every single unemployment benefit given out for the next 3 years and it could pay for about 30000 heart valve replacement operations. It could almost cover the entire transport budget or half of our law and order budget. You see this is what oil and gas means to New Zealand. It will pay for new schools new hospitals and the insulation of homes. It pays for more doctors teachers and scientists. It will contribute to income support for those who need it to aged care for the elderly and to health coverage for everyone.In contrast the Green Party is intent on blindly following a dangerous dogma that will leave people alone facing harsh realities without assistance. Without oil and gas revenues the Green Party will have to cut many of the services New Zealanders count on. It intends to turn back the clock and take us all back to a time when industry and science were unwelcome and when people lived harsh lives in grinding poverty.The oil and gas we are searching for will have a tangible benefit for all Kiwis. It will raise the quality of life for everyone especially the most vulnerable elements in our society which rely on Government assistance. Look back into history. New technology is vitally important to our lives today but without the money to run it we might as well be living in the Dark Ages with the Green Party. Now we can finish the debate Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for informing me that you have finished.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) BillThird ReadingJACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I moveThat the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill be now read a third time. At the second reading of this bill I noted that my electorate includes the vast Mackenzie Basin our awe-inspiring Southern Alps and a very special coastline. Not only do good people live work and play in my electorate; some very interesting diverse and rare creatures and plants live in these special places too and I would like to think that this bill will make their lives a bit more secure.The bill will help the places by creating for the first time equal legal protection for all classes of public conservation land. The maximum penalties for offending on any public conservation land will be the same. The existing legislation provides inconsistent penalties. The same action could have resulted in a maximum of a $500 fine or 1 month’s imprisonment if it happened in a reserve a $2500 fine or 3 months’ imprisonment if in a national park or a $10000 fine or 12 months’ imprisonment if the offending took place in a conservation area. This inconsistent situation is a pure accident of history. Each Act reflects the norms of the penalties at the time it was enacted rather than the values that are protected on that land today.This bill remedies that situation. National parks and national reserves will still be the jewels in our crown as some of our most precious places and sentences will be better able to take into account both the status of the land where the offending occurs and also the natural heritage values that exist on that land. This will result in fair and effective sentences. The bill will help the creatures and the plants by creating again for the first time increased legal protection of all natural resources wildlife and the places they need to be able to survive.The penalties contained in this bill are in many cases significant increases to the existing penalties. Penalties for offending against marine mammals will now be similar to the penalties provided for in the Fisheries Act and the Animal Welfare Act and I want to acknowledge and thank Maryan Street for her work in bringing this clause into the bill. We have set penalties for commercially motivated offending against wildlife at a high enough level to deter smugglers from stealing our precious plants and creatures. It will no longer be a lucrative proposition given that they could face up to 5 years’ imprisonment and pay significant fines.This bill will also help my constituents by supporting Brand New Zealand. Our way of life our national identity and our tourist industry are built on our natural heritage. By deterring people from offending against it we will all win. By increasing these penalties and by doing so consistently we demonstrate the value our community places on our protected places plants and creatures. This bill raises fines but more important it raises the mana of the values that will be protected by it. We treasure our natural heritage and this bill will help protect it better.The Department of Conservation works closely with the tourism industry—an industry that depends largely on our conservation land and values. The department has worked hard to respond to industry needs for greater efficiency and consistency and I do hear reports that this work is paying off. My colleague the Minister of Conservation wants to ensure that the interests of legitimate operators are protected and not undermined by cowboy operators. He hears from the industry that it wants greater monitoring and more consistent consequences for those who are not playing fair. People who make a buck by making money out of public conservation lands without authority undermine legitimate industry. We want a clean prosperous industry. We want peopleto be out enjoying the outdoors. We do not want dodgy deals overcrowding and competition from those who do not play fair.Through my electorate role I have become aware of how highly valued some of our endemic rare and endangered species are on the international collectors market. Our orchids and our geckos can fetch amazingly high prices. Smuggling of these items is highly sophisticated. It is difficult to detect apprehend or prosecute and of course it is highly lucrative. The Department of Conservation through the Wildlife Enforcement Group has had some really good success. It is monitoring the international market and working with the Customs Service which has resulted in seven foreign nationals being convicted of smuggling-related offences in the last 3 years. That is a good-news story. Some of the geckos they were taking were from my electorate and those populations that are being smuggled are rare they are precious and they are endangered. They cannot sustain selfish unlawful commercially motivated predation.Previously it was unlawful to take these animals from New Zealand but little action was taken outside of New Zealand to prevent their sale on the international market. The increased Wildlife Act penalties created through this bill respond to the calls of District Court judges to provide a meaningful deterrence for this behaviour. I am also happy to report to the House that the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora congress held earlier this year agreed to elevate the status of our geckos so that they now have greater protection internationally as well as nationally. European and other authorities are now likely to take stronger action against the sale of smuggled geckos on the international black market.Although the effects of stronger fines and prison sentences in themselves may be arguable in terms of their rehabilitative effect there is some evidence that they do serve for effective deterrence and punitive purposes. I see these new high penalties as being the fence at the top of the cliff so we are not relying on ambulances. I want to deter offending preventing it from happening rather than being left to pick up the pieces afterwards and these penalties will assist in that goal.As was raised by submitters waving the big stick of higher penalties is only one tool in the mix of methods required to effectively protect our special places and our special species. Prosecution is only one tool in the compliance box. The Department of Conservation works hard on educating and encouraging compliance and would much prefer to work to prevent offending from occurring rather than have to prosecute. Where offences do occur the department works hard with alleged offenders to help develop effective proportionate consequences and it has a very active diversion programme in place. At times taking the matter to court will be the most proportionate and effective consequence and I am all for that.In conclusion I want to thank the officials who have worked so hard on this bill over many months and who have been so passionate about the wildlife special places and creatures. I again want to give my thanks to my colleagues on the Local Government and Environment Committee who willingly applied their minds and provided useful insights to enhance the bill. Again I want to thank the Hon Maryan Street for her contribution to the clause that includes marine mammals. It has been a pleasure to work so constructively on issues that we all seem to agree on. We all do care about our special places our special plants and our special animals and we all want to make sure that they are protected.It is well past time for those who commit serious offences against our special places and species to face serious consequences. The increased penalties that this bill creates will deter potential offenders and will increase protection of our natural heritage. I commend the bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): That is very helpful Mr Assistant Speaker given that that is my name. I want to share in the warm fuzzies exhibited by the member in whose name this bill the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill is Jacqui Dean. I commend her for thinking of this as an initiative to put in a member’s bill and for being prepared to listen in an open and genuine way to the submitters and to other colleagues from different parties at the Local Government and Environment Committee. It is not always the case—we know that—but the member did that. Also I commend her for her genuine acknowledgment of my colleague Maryan Street for her specific additional contribution.I think this bill is a good bill. It does things in terms of making the penalties regime more logical and rational around breaches of protection whether it is for geckos or orchids as the member mentioned. It makes sense of the whole regime and I think it is a very good initiative. Jacqui Dean talked about it being a measure to ensure that legal protection for all classes of conservation land was comparable. I think that was a very fine statement.If only the Minister of Conservation was applying that very same principle in regard to the land which he seems prepared to give away in order for the Ruataniwha Dam to proceed. He said that it is not classified; it is not highly regarded. Well that is because it has not been through that classification process and we all know that that is like a limbo-land of conservation land rather than it being of low value.The very same committee that looked at this bill recently heard from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on this very topic—the issue of stewardship land. It is not that stewardship land is of low value. It is not that it has been measured against national parks or schedule 4 land. It is just that it has not got around to being classified. It is just in that holding pattern. It has never been a priority for a Minister or for the Department of Conservation.So I think that the Minister of Conservation would do well to look at the words of Jacqui Dean in her contribution immediately preceding mine and understand that whatever the breach is whether it is stealing orchids or trying to smuggle geckos out of our country it does not actually matter what classification the conservation land has; the penalties should make sense and should be the same—in the very same way as giving away land in the Hawke’s Bay so that a massive dam can be built.A ratepayer-provided dam for private benefit including giving away part of our conservation estate with no arrangement to enhance the value of conservation land in other parts of Hawke’s Bay is I think a mistake. It is just one in a very long list of mistakes that the Hon Nick Smith has made in regard to that Tukituki plan change and the Ruataniwha Dam.I want to comment briefly on the contribution that Maryan Street made in regard to this bill and that was to propose a new Part 6 to this legislation to add the penalty regime of the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. As I acknowledged before Jacqui Dean did not say “Oh this is a Labour idea. I’m going to oppose it.” as is sometimes the case. We are all a bit party politically petty actually in that regard. She was well above that. She said that it was a sensible suggestion it added additional weight to her bill and she was going to propose that the committee accept it. That is the second example of good behaviour I want to acknowledge the member for. She set an example that all of us should follow actually. So that has made what was already a good bill even better.The select committee did a few other things but I think that was the most substantial. There were some other improvements as you can always have with a bill but everyone in the House agreed that the idea of this bill was sensible and the fact that it came through as a member’s bill is just Jacqui Dean’s good luck. I guess it would have beenhard to make it a priority for the Government. However I have noticed every day for the last I do not know 5 sitting weeks that when the Speaker asks whether any bills have been presented there is a big silence. Maybe the member could have got it through as a Government bill seeing that there is a big vacancy for Government initiatives at the moment but regardless of that she had the vision to put it forward.When you come from an area as beautiful as she has described where you have got the Mackenzie Basin and the Southern Alps which are a beautiful part of our country—not as beautiful as my own electorate of Port Hills but getting close—and when you are surrounded by that beauty and understand the threats within your own electorate then I guess you might feel a bit more passionate than others who do not have the good fortune of representing an electorate such as that.I also want to comment on the other members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I think everybody worked really hard on this bill. It was not complex or challenging but it did still receive good attention the sort of attention that a member’s bill deserves so I want to commend the other members of the committee. I also commend the officials who put a lot of effort into making sure we understood what we were doing and that we looked at comparisons with other penalty regimes. I think they gave us very sound advice and we got it right.The officials have been working under huge pressure. In the last 5 years the Department of Conservation has had massive cuts from its budget. We have been told that of course this would not affect its ability to work but you cannot take millions of dollars off a departmental budget and reduce staff significantly and then put your hand up and say: “Well that won’t have any impact on the work that’s being done.” Of course it does.From the very first Budget under the National-led Government in 2009 $54 million has gone whoosh out of the Department of Conservation budget. Then it had to try to redress its priorities try to work out what it was going to cut back on. That equated to about 400 job losses and every year since then we have seen further budget cuts and further job losses to the point now that when you look at the Department of Conservation’s annual report which has just been presented it is just not meeting its key performance indicators. It is not doing the job that this Parliament expects it to do. I think it is because it has been cut past the tipping point. However that was not reflected in the quality of advice from the Department of Conservation officials on this bill. They were really competent really hard-working and I guess they went well above and beyond the call in terms of delivering support to the committee on this specific bill.The other issue that I am sure the committee will be considering in future in light of the thinking that has gone on behind this bill is just how few of the threatened species that we have in New Zealand are actually under active management by the Department of Conservation and what the last 5 years of budget cuts and job losses have meant to the ability of the Department of Conservation. It is the one department that is charged with protecting our threatened species. What difference have those budget cuts made to the department’s ability to do it? At the moment it is monitoring and managing only about 250 of the over 2500 threatened species that we have in New Zealand.It feels to me like we have a generation of leaders in our current Government who are just surrendering their responsibility to make sure that our children and our grandchildren and their children and grandchildren are able to enjoy the great outdoors including the species that we have within our land. Many species are threatened. Many species are very critical to being totally extinct. We have heard of course about animals like our beautiful Māui’s dolphins which are so critically close to being extinct. Only 55 adults are left. So we have a big responsibility in that area toensure that the roles that we are privileged to have in this Parliament are taken to the utmost benefit of future generations not our own.I think this bill goes a step towards that. It is not going to change the world overnight but it is a bill that has passion behind it. It is a bill that has very good intention and values. It is a bill that will get to the heart of part of the protection mechanism that is needed and that is the penalties that apply when people breach the conservation provisions in our country.It is not the whole picture. We do need to beef up the ability and the resources of the Department of Conservation for it to perform its job properly. It needs to be able to do that to give us the outcomes that we want to see. But this bill will be a big help to those at the other end of the spectrum in the sticks. I just want to end by saying to Jacqui Dean that this is a good bill. Well done for the content and the manner in which you progressed it. I look forward to its final passing.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I too rise to support the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill in its third reading. I would like to concur with the member who first presented this bill to the House Jacqui Dean that it is very much about deterrence. The reality is that many of the species endemic to New Zealand that are traded offshore or otherwise killed here or destroyed in this country are threatened species. They are dwindling in number and deterrence really is the only practical way to go. Locking someone up or sending them a $10000 or a $100000 fine will not bring that species back if it is pushed to the point of extinction due to foul play or in fact trade.What was interesting about this bill for the Local Government and Environment Committee was that as originally submitted it was to change the penalties and provisions across five Acts. In doing so it was informed by three other Acts. There is an Act of Parliament that remains untouched by this piece of legislation. I would like to take members through those five Acts. Originally as introduced amendments were proposed to the Conservation Act 1987 the National Parks Act 1980 the Reserves Act 1977 the Wildlife Act 1953 and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977.At the second reading of this bill a number of changes were incorporated following the select committee process and were confirmed at the Committee of the whole House stage. The key change was to include the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. The penalties in that Act are also being changed through this legislation. So six Acts are being changed.The committee asked the question of what the contemporary penalties were in recent Acts of Parliament where punishments were handed out by judges. What recent Acts were they informed by or should we be informed by in setting these penalties? We looked at three current Acts in order to make that judgment the Animal Welfare Act the Resource Management Act and the Fisheries Act—these outline penalties that are fairly contemporary; ones set within recent years—in order to set comparable penalties for those people or corporations that are discovered to be basically destroying our fauna and flora. What has not come through is that this particular bill does not apply to the Marine Reserves Act. In fact penalties in the Marine Reserves Act will be addressed through separate legislation to be introduced by the Minister of Conservation. Although three Acts informed the levels of penalty to six Acts in fact the Marine Reserves Act has been left out of this legislation and rightly so.The bill now sends a strong message that we take the protection of New Zealand’s wildlife in natural areas very seriously. Actions that damage or endanger our wildlife in natural areas put our protected species our excellent international reputation and our tourism industry at risk. This most comprehensive reform is needed. The conservation penalties in our legislative history did need updating. Some penalties have not actuallychanged since the 1970s so Jacqui Dean did a good job here in identifying the need for this legislation. It provides serious consequences now for serious offending. The proposed penalty levels are benchmarked against the other legislation that I outlined. It will deter commercially motivated offending but will not in any way undermine legitimate commercial activity. It is worth noting that there are a large number of commercial operators on the conservation estate or elsewhere in New Zealand that come head to head with our natural flora and fauna. They operate legitimately in important tourism businesses in particular in New Zealand and they achieve outcomes that are good for conservation and good commercially. This bill though will make it harder for cowboy operators to compete with or undermine legitimate concessionaires—those who hold concessions to operate on the conservation estate.This is a good piece of legislation. It has been put to the House not before time. It is a comprehensive bill. It proposes serious consequences as I say for serious offending—bigger fines and longer jail sentences for people who endanger our wildlife or damage our protected natural habitats. The current penalties are too low. This bill raises them. I support this bill.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the third reading of the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. I want to congratulate Jacqui Dean the member in whose name this bill stands on getting it through to this stage and very shortly on to the statute book. It is a worthwhile bill. It is something that came out of the member’s own concern for those wildlife and natural and historic resources that abound in her own electorate of Waitaki. In the course of defending things that she sees and lives with on a regular basis in the Waitaki electorate she has chosen to do something that benefits the whole of New Zealand and for that I commend her. Her original intention was that those resources would be better protected and I think this bill will achieve that in law.There are two components to it. One is that it will give us consistency across all of those pieces of legislation that are administered by the Department of Conservation. When the bill was introduced as the previous speaker Phil Heatley has just iterated it amended a number of Acts as I say that are under the remit of the Department of Conservation—first the Conservation Act 1987 the National Parks Act 1980 the Reserves Act 1977 the Wildlife Act 1953 going back further and further in time and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977. All of those pieces of legislation had various penalties for the abuse or the misuse or the harm or destruction or some other kind of ill being done to our natural historic and wildlife resources.In the course of the discussion at the Local Government and Environment Committee about this bill Ms Dean was generous enough to entertain the possibility of an amendment. She has subsequently been repeatedly generous in acknowledging the amendment that I proposed which resulted in a new Part 6 “Amendments to Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978”. The intention of the bill which we all supported was to provide consistency across these Acts and to provide increased penalties that would make these Acts more effective and could be complemented by the addition of the Marine Mammals Protection Act. The marine mammals were the ones that were left out. Everything else was included and with some judicious drawing of members’ attention to these issues the Marine Mammals Protection Act became included for amendment. In other words it was entirely possible under Jacqui Dean’s original bill to protect and defend native orchids geckos and other flora and fauna of this country from harm destruction and smuggling as has become more commonly experienced in recent times. But although those things were able to happen it did not cover marine mammals like whales seals and sea lions. Those mammals require special protection in our environment.I think that the Minister of Conservation’s willingness to accept my amendment does him credit and the member’s willingness to accept my amendment to include marine mammals is important. Just recently we have seen two cases brought before the courts where people have been charged with and convicted of harming marine mammals. The bashing of seal pups in the name of hunting was never going to stand as a defence anyway. Everybody could see that. Those kinds of crimes attracted lesser penalties under some Acts than others and therefore charges that were brought under the Wildlife Act were going to result in different penalties from those under the Marine Mammals Protection Act. That will never be able to happen again because the punishments will be the same. They will be standardised and they are substantial. They have moved from simply $500 or 1 month’s imprisonment to $100000 or $200000 for individuals and daily penalties on top of that which are very substantial and in addition to that hefty prison sentences. There has been a seriousness about this bill that has been laudable.The select committee has applied itself to this bill with care. There has been no dissension between us on this issue. I would be very keen to see when this bill is passed whether in fact there was any evidence to show that seismic testing did harm to marine mammals and whether or not there is a risk here for the Minister who was so generous in including the amendment that suddenly he might be hoist by his own petard. At this stage in proceedings I am keen that this bill be passed by this House because all parties agree that protection is required and that consistency is needed across all of the legislation that the Department of Conservation administers more thinly and with greater difficulty now than when it used to have a more adequate budget and greater staffing. However it still applies all its efforts to ensuring that the legislation that is within its remit is complied with properly and completely.I think probably as well as the consistency across other laws which is desirable it is the extent of the punishments that is going to be one of the interesting factors to pursue just to see whether in fact it does act as the deterrent that we seek. Whether it is $100000 or $200000 for an individual with an ongoing daily penalty of up to $10000 or $20000 or whether it is the prospect of a maximum term of 2 years’ imprisonment for individuals and 5 years in other circumstances where commercial gain is the factor it is going to be interesting to see how effective these penalties are in deterring the kind of behaviour that we have seen to date. Now people who bash seal pups will be subject to the same penalties as people who smuggle geckos and that is as it should be. I want to finally commend again the member whose name this bill is in for bringing this bill to Parliament’s attention. Thank you.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party again is pleased to speak to the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. This will be a short call on its third reading. I have previously described the bill as useful tinkering. It is certainly that because it does seek to improve compliance with conservation legislation. Maryan Street enumerated the Acts that it applies to the Conservation Act the National Parks Act the Reserves Act the Wildlife Act the Wild Animal Control Act and the Marine Mammals Protection Act. It does this in terms of attempting to improve compliance by increasing the penalties in terms of both imprisonment and fines and providing for a more flexible sentencing regime.Certainly there needed to be legislative change because a lot of the penalties in the legislation are quite old. In the Reserves Act for example they had not been changed since 1977. They are inconsistent. The same offence in different types of protected area can end up with different penalties. The penalties are often not proportionate to the significance of the wildlife. People who are smuggling our species like gecko could earn more from selling gecko internationally than they would be penalised under the Wildlife Act.It was quite problematic—these pieces of legislation and the enforcement and penalty regimes they established—so we do congratulate Jacqui Dean on her work in bringing this bill to the House and to the Local Government and Environment Committee and for the very constructive way in which the select committee operated.The legislation is useful also because the department has reported a number of offences in areas as diverse as encroachments on conservation land illegal whitebaiting people taking dogs into areas that are closed to dogs in order to protect the kiwi there and people injuring wildlife. In the case of the bashing of seals that Maryan Street referred to I think it was actually a prosecution under the Animal Welfare Act rather than conservation legislation. But all of these sorts of things happen on conservation lands and to our protected species and people need to know that there are strong penalties and that they will be dealt with appropriately.There are some wider problems with the actual implementation of this bill and that is because of the significant underfunding of the Department of Conservation and the restructuring of the department. It has moved away from being a place-based organisation centred around field centres area offices and conservancies to having much bigger regions. I question whether there will be enough staff on the ground and whether they will have the capacity to actually respond promptly to potential breaches of the legislation. Certainly the Department of Conservation has a hot line that the public can report anything to that looks a bit dubious and to report registration numbers. The public does have a key role in providing the department’s eyes and ears. But when you have a department that has had its funding cut by $54 million under this Government does it have the resources to ensure that staff are out there in the field vigilant about potential offences and that the department then prosecutes those potential offenders? We have seen in the Ruataniwha case the department saying that one of the reasons it did not make a proper submission was that it was concerned about the cost of bringing expert witnesses and others in front of the board of inquiry. So cost is used to undermine the department’s statutory advocacy responsibilities. How do we know that it is not going to do the same here and that there is no risk that it will not be enforcing the legislation and these increased penalties?The other area where there is a major concern is that the Government has not shown itself to be committed to the effective management of our natural heritage. Here in this bill you have new penalties created for offences like affecting the spawning areas of fish and for putting substances or devices in the water that will harm fish. Yet you do not have the same department that is responsible for enforcing this legislation being able to make a substantive submission on the Ruataniwha Dam application that will make the Tukituki River and other tributaries potentially toxic because of elevated nitrate levels and will kill fish. So we have an offence to kill fish and increased penalties under this bill but we have the department not being active to prevent a major irrigation scheme that will kill fish. So there is a double standard there.You have the Ministry for Primary Industries in that same Ruataniwha case making an 18-page submission about how the scheme will benefit agriculture but you do not have the Department of Conservation doing its work. This Government is not interested in the department doing its job properly and we have seen that through the major cuts to funding and through the significant restructuring in the department.Maggie Barry: Rubbish.EUGENIE SAGE: It is true and it is borne out by the department’s annual report which was tabled last week. Under that annual report it highlights that we have got a biodiversity crisis in New Zealand which the Government is blind to. The Department of Conservation gets $157 million annually—that is all—for natural heritage management. It was able to do possum control last year on only 184000 hectares. Yesthis bill is a good one in terms of improving the penalties but the wider issue of effectively managing our conservation lands and adequately funding the department to do comprehensive pest control is not being given the attention it deserves or the funding it deserves by the Government. You have the department haemorrhaging staff as a result of the restructuring so will there be the staff on the ground to recognise when offences are occurring? Will they follow up those offences? We are not sure because of the major loss of expertise and staff numbers the move away from a place-based department and the department’s failure to undertake its statutory responsibilities in terms of statutory advocacy and our freshwater fish management.Yes the bill is a good one but it is a small area that it is dealing with and there may not be the adequate funding for the Department of Conservation to undertake its compliance and enforcement responsibilities effectively.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak at the third reading of the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. This is its third reading. I have spoken at all the other readings and I am a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee which has heard this excellent bill through all its very many stages. As others have said this is a bill that updates all the penalties across the conservation areas and across many pieces of legislation with the sole and laudable aim of better protecting our native species our flora and our fauna and our creatures. Jacqui Dean the sponsor of this bill who has done a magnificent job of representing a local issue and making it relevant and applicable in the wider sense has also been telling us about the geckos. We were shocked by some of the submissions that we have seen around what they will actually fetch in terms of the price internationally. There are considerable incentives for people to do the wrong thing—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Ask John Banks.MAGGIE BARRY: —and that is why it was vitally important that we did an update on the penalties. After all they have not been updated since the 1970s—much like the member who is whingeing in the corner over there opposite me who lives in the past.This is a bill that—unlike that creature who wallows in the wilds of the Waimakariri seat he will never win again—does improve penalties and it improves things in a way that is consistent. Once again that is something that is a bit of an unknown to the Opposition benches. Six key pieces of legislation are involved in this bill. It is about increasing the protection for most public conservation land and protected indigenous wildlife and marine mammals which was a positive contribution—a rare creature indeed—from the Opposition. These are the sorts of things that actually make a piece of legislation relevant. It has as a bill enjoyed widespread support cross-party support but of course there have been some political points scored today so I would like to counter some of those.If you were unwise enough to listen to the peculiar utterances of the Greens for example you would think that the Department of Conservation is an organisation that can do nothing to protect our environment and is on its knees and weakened. That is rubbish like much of what the member Eugenie Sage who sat down just before my speech often says—in select committee too regrettably but mostly in this House. I would just point out to those of you who are interested in the facts that the budget for Vote Conservation is now $444 million which is almost double the $226 million it was back in 2001 and 2002. So once again although there is a great deal of rhetoric from tired old Labour people they did nothing much at the time. They went along with this bill because it is an excellent piece of work and even though they cannot find fault with it they still continue to try to stand up and bash the Government around these sorts of things.This is a Government that is investing well in recovery programmes. Across our national conservation programmes we want to protect some 35 percent more threatened species. We are also as a Government intending to review New Zealand’s threatened species management framework. Those are all laudable aims and they are also things that we actually do. We do not just sit around and gripe about it when we have already lost the opportunity to do it which is what happens with Opposition members. It will probably be a very long time before they ever get the opportunity to do anything about this sort of thing again because they are never going to get the Treasury benches with the kinds of antics that they are coming up with at the moment.People have talked about the flora and fauna but I would like to remind this House and people who are supportive of this bill that it is also very important for the preservation of human life. I would like to remind this group here today about Rosemary Ives. That is a name known to us due to the tragic nature of her death. She was killed as a result of a bullet being fired without due caution in the wrong place at the wrong time. We all know or if we do not we should that it is unlawful to discharge firearms at night or over public conservation land. But it happens. When it happens it needs to be punished. There is currently very little consequence on the statute book for such actions. This was something that the coroner highlighted in particular as something that he was aggrieved about and felt needed addressing. That is in part what this bill does because what happened to Rosemary Ives that terrible tragedy is technically just a breach of a condition in a permit. This bill changes the penalty for such actions from the current maximum of a $10000 fine to a maximum of 2 years’ imprisonment or a $100000 fine or both. It is too little and too late for the tragic situation of Rosemary Ives but it is significantly better than no change at all.So this bill which has been ably led through the select committee process by a very competent and able chair Nicky Wagner and proposed by a very competent and able member Jacqui Dean has brought together the very best of what needs to be done to protect our flora and fauna. The question remains why it has taken so long to get to this stage. It is a bill that is fit for purpose enjoys widespread support needs to be passed and needs to be done. I commend this bill to the House without hesitation or reservation.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I recognise the honourable member Andrew Williams.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. I am glad that you recognise me. Even though this week I have not had a haircut you still recognise me. That is very good.I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in the third reading debate on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. We also commend the member Jacqui Dean for bringing this bill to the House. This bill certainly has a great deal of merit in that it addresses many concerns that most New Zealanders have—certainly those who are conscious of the effects on our flora and fauna and in terms of our wildlife the risks that it suffers.A few weeks ago I attended a conference in Auckland. It was very interesting. It was not to do with wild animals; it was to do with companion animals. At that conference involving the SPCA it was made very clear to all in attendance that we are the guardians of animals. Animals cannot speak for themselves. They are unable to stand up for themselves and humans are their guardians. It is interesting that in terms of ownership of animals they no longer talk about owners of cats or dogs or owners of horses and other animals; they talk about guardians of animals.In that respect in terms of this bill we are also guardians of the well-being of wildlife. Therefore it is very worthy that this bill addresses many of the issues wherewe have had the likes of geckos spirited out of the country by foreigners for illicit gain and where we have also had other species of endangered animals and birds taken out of the country. This bill addresses that by greatly increasing the penalties for those who would perpetuate those crimes. It also deals with crimes relating to fauna and what would happen in terms of the natural environment.Although it is very worthy that National Party member Jacqui Dean has brought this bill to the House—and we congratulate her on doing that and on standing up for her principles and for wildlife—New Zealand First does have concerns in terms of the wider picture. We have already heard in the House today and through the previous readings of this bill that there are concerns out there about the significant cutbacks by this Government in terms of the Department of Conservation and the flow-on effects of that in so many areas. So it is a situation where there is giving on one hand but taking on the other. This is very much a bill that is giving on one hand and helping that situation but on the other hand we are seeing cutbacks.My colleague Tracey Martin brought to my attention the other day at caucus the situation of the great spotted kiwi the largest kiwi in the country—it was highlighted on a television programme the other day—and the effects the situation is having on it. Great spotted kiwi are found in north-west Nelson and in the northern part of the West Coast. They are an endangered species; in fact they are listed as being vulnerable.The New Zealand Community Trust it was shown is struggling with funding to continue providing its hatching arrangements and its incubation arrangements to ensure that the eggs and the young chicks survive the important first year or so through to when they can be released into the wild so that they are not eaten by predators in the wild and also do not suffer as a result of the habitat destruction in parts of that area. So it is very concerning to hear from the likes of the New Zealand Community Trust that it does wonder how when its funding is getting increasingly smaller it will survive after the next 2 or 3 months and how it will continue to do work on behalf of the great spotted kiwi.The trust says that funding from the Department of Conservation is regrettably reducing because of the pressures on the department with its reduced budget. It is not necessarily the department’s fault. It is being given strictly controlled budgets and reduced overall budgets across the whole of New Zealand and its front-line staff and the people actually out in the wild are very much under pressure to provide the services they do with the funding they are provided with.This particular instance where great spotted kiwi numbers have declined by 43 percent in the last 45 years is quite alarming. I think that every New Zealander would be shocked if they knew that there was not sufficient funding to support the likes of the ongoing work of the New Zealand Community Trust. They would be shocked if they knew there was no assured funding to support that trust so that the very largest kiwi in New Zealand with the largest eggs is assured of a healthy and long existence in New Zealand.However having said that we acknowledge that other parts of this bill do address the important area of smuggling. Interpol has estimated that the smuggling of endangered species is in the order of—it is quite a large figure—anywhere between $10 billion and $20 billion a year worldwide. New Zealand has a unique situation. Because we are such an isolated country—we were cut off from Gondwanaland the rest of the land mass many millions of years ago—we have species here that are unique to New Zealand but are prized and sought after in other parts of the world. Therefore in that respect we are the guardians as I said at the beginning of my speech of those species. We New Zealanders must ensure that those species are well protected. We are veryproud to live in a country where we are so fortunate to have such a wonderful array of flora and fauna which the rest of the world envies.So this bill does go a long way to address that issue. It will ensure that the right message is sent out worldwide—that New Zealand will come down heavily on people who break our regulations and that any corporations people individuals or anybody else participating in any activities of that nature will be heavily fined. Also it is good that this bill is addressing the marine mammal situation. Again we have seen some terrible situations with the clubbing of seal pups and other terrible acts such as that. Again this addresses that situation and it is long overdue because those atrocious sorts of situations cannot be allowed to continue.So we do commend Jacqui Dean for bringing this bill through. This is a good member’s bill that is worthy of being supported by all members in this House. New Zealand First is very pleased to support it. We see this as a valuable addition to the conservation estate and we commend it to the House.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): I am very pleased to take a call on the excellent Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill brought to the House by Jacqui Dean who is a very fine member of Parliament—a strong and staunch member of the Bluegreens a promoter of the Mackenzie agreement a well-known personality in Wanaka and chair of the Law and Order Committee. And it is that commitment to law and order and upholding the law that I think lies behind this piece of legislation that she has brought to the House which is indeed extending that concern for law and order to the area of the geckos the skinks and all the critters of this piece of the world that we call New Zealand which we are talking about today.It is very pleasing to see the Greens supporting this legislation supporting tough penalties and being tough on law and order. It is a pity that they do not carry that logic across to other crimes but we do celebrate their support in this instance today.I just wanted to remind us all that indeed New Zealand was the last significant land mass to be populated on the Earth apart from Antarctica. It was only 700 or 800 years ago that the first Māori arrived in this country and prior to that it had lived in splendid isolation for millions and millions of years with no people around. I remember very well going down to the Catlins one time with Simon Upton when I was working with him back in the 1990s. We stood beneath a great rimu tree a very ancient tree that had been grazed by moa. It was that old—an 800 or 900-year-old tree. It just brought home powerfully the fact that we just missed what must have been one of the greatest shows on Earth by a split second in geological time. So New Zealand does have to accept the fact that so much has been lost due first to a wave of extinctions after Māori arrived and then to another wave after Pākehā settled in these lands. And we have lost so many birds due to the forest clearances. My favourite place is a little place called Huia named after the rather beautiful bird that we lost only 100 or so years ago. So we have had great success in this country building our prosperity by developing the country and we enjoy that today but we look back with regret that previous generations were so quick to burn and clear the forests and lose so much of our biodiversity.So what do we do today? We certainly have a huge commitment to preserving the environment and that commitment is widely shared across the House. It is certainly not the preserve of just the Green Party. It is widely shared and deeply embedded in the beliefs and attitudes of the National Party and shared by countless New Zealanders who on their private land protect areas of natural habitats and make sure that they do everything they can. We also have a massive investment in the Department of Conservation which runs to well over $300 million per year.Of course it is often forgotten that we have over one-third of the land mass of New Zealand set aside in the Department of Conservation’s area. One-third of the land masshas been set aside to preserve our forests and our natural habitats. We also have 13000 square kilometres of marine reserves up from only a fraction of that figure 10 years ago. Indeed we also have 111 threatened species under active management up from only 42 a few years ago. So we do have a massive investment in conservation in this country.That brings us finally to the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill which we are talking about today. What are we trying to achieve by this bill? The purpose of the bill indeed is to update the penalties across six conservation-related Acts in order to better protect public conservation lands and protected native species. It is expected to act as a deterrent to those who would engage in illegal activity. It is expected to act as a deterrent. We were shocked—we were shocked—in the Local Government and Environment Committee consideration when we were listening to lots of information from people coming through about where and in what ways people smuggle geckos in and out of the country. It was illuminating and it was interesting but we all agreed that conservation offending poses a serious threat to our natural heritage. Such offending includes smuggling protected species killing marine animals illegal hunting of protected species logging trees and draining wetlands in protected areas and releasing potential pests into protected areas. So increased penalties are proposed across the board for illegal commercially motivated activities as well as for non-commercial offending and breaches of by-laws and regulations across all six Acts. That is a singular achievement by Jacqui Dean in bringing this bill to the House. I am sure it will make no small contribution—a large contribution—to sending the message that New Zealand has no truck with people who will go into our conservation areas into which we are investing such huge sums across the nation and which we are so determined to preserve in order to make their own money in nefarious ways.I suppose one of the other questions that lingers is why we have longer jail terms and stronger fines. There is no question that it does send a strong signal that there are serious consequences for those who choose to break the law but it also sends a message that New Zealand takes the protection of our species and native species seriously. That is a strong message to get across internationally particularly at a time when we are trying to advance our cause on all sorts of international bodies. In the sense of New Zealand being an isolated set of islands in the South Pacific with a whole lot of endemic species that are unique to this country we do not indeed take our responsibilities that kaitiaki lightly but we make every effort that we can to ensure that we deserve that distinction.For some offences the potential gains for people if they are not caught are highly lucrative which acts as an incentive to offend. So we do need to match the potential gains of this lucrative trade with the maximum penalties because there is no point undershooting on these issues. The options of longer jail terms also mean that when serious offences are committed international offenders can be refused re-entry into New Zealand. There is no point being soft on people like that who go around smuggling geckos in their underpants on the plane who come back and get caught and then letting them have another go. Most people would be surprised that this is something that people would build their career doing. I think the average New Zealander would not expect or understand that this was the sort of thing that people would choose to make their life’s vocation but surprisingly enough it is a highly lucrative business and we do need to clamp down on it. I stand here and commend Jacqui Dean for this piece of legislation which is now approaching the end of its third reading.I will just say that another question that lingers is whether the maximum penalties will indeed be imposed. That is not something that we can have full control over because it is up to the courts to decide. But we have given the courts the flexibility toimpose a sentence proportionate to the seriousness of the offending in each particular case. So the court is required to take into account the seriousness of the type of offence committed the circumstances of the particular offending including aggravating and mitigating factors and the circumstances of the offender. I think that all makes good sense.So on that basis I would be very pleased to commend this legislation to the House and to commend Jacqui Dean the MP for Waitaki since 2005 for this very good bill. Thank you very much.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It was quite something to hear Paul Goldsmith the man who has done much to protect that most endangered of political species John Banks revealing a very soft and sensitive side to his personality that he has hitherto never revealed to the House: this deep concern that he has for endangered species. I must say that it makes a nice change—it makes a nice change—from his sort of flimsy fiscal conservative face. He is the man who will surely be the future member for Epsom—who will surely be the future member for Epsom if he can just stop people running around putting up hoardings—Iain Lees-Galloway: With his own name on them.PHIL TWYFORD: —with his own name on them. It is very good to follow the future member for Epsom.It is interesting—I noticed that the last two National Party members who got up to speak in spite of warbling endlessly about what a wonderful member Jacqui Dean is and what a great bill this Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill is both appeared to be asleep when the call was available. Actually both of them—Maggie Barry and the future member for Epsom—did wonderful impersonations of Gerry Brownlee when he is having his afternoon nap and the dinner bell goes. They jumped up from their seats all kind of confused and disorientated shuffling through their papers desperately trying to work out what bill it is that they should be talking about.I thought that the member Eugenie Sage actually made a very good comment in her contribution which was that this bill really is useful tinkering. I do not think that anybody is going to disagree that consolidating the penalty provisions across half a dozen different pieces of legislation to improve the protection of our conservation and natural heritage is a good thing. That is fine. But I was sitting here listening to the earlier contributions thinking about Eugenie Sage’s comment and reflecting on what it is that really makes this National Government tick. What is it really all about?Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Money and privilege.PHIL TWYFORD: Money and privilege my colleague Clayton Cosgrove says. So when the Government members are not actually selling off publicly owned assets—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: And botching that.PHIL TWYFORD: —they are indeed botching it—when they are not rewriting our employment laws at the behest of Warner Bros when they are not handing $30 million over to Rio Tinto—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: There’s no jobs.PHIL TWYFORD: —with no job guarantees when they are not rewriting our gambling laws as part of a deal to get Skycity to build a $400 million convention centre when they are not creating Draconian new penalties at the behest of Anadarko against the right to peaceful protest on the high seas—when they are not doing all these sorts of things well what are they doing actually? What are they about?We can make some observations about what they have done in the environmental and conservation area. What we have seen under this Government since John Key became Prime Minister is a systematic undermining of the environmental protections and bottom lines. We have seen the gutting of our climate change policy and the KyotoProtocol walked away from. We have seen countless numbers of pieces of legislation that they brought to this House that weaken the protections in the Resource Management Act for the natural environment and the right of communities to have a say. We have seen the systematic weakening of local government and really a determination to tilt the playing field in favour of developers and in favour of capital and away from the environment and away from people. The recent fiasco around Nick Smith and the Ruataniwha Dam about which he gagged his own department—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! It is a third reading speech.PHIL TWYFORD: Yes. I am coming back. I am coming back to the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill which has been described as a piece of useful tinkering. It would be remiss not to observe and remark on the difference between this bill and the Government’s record generally on conservation and the environment. Nothing reveals that more than the fiasco around the Ruataniwha Dam.This bill does some good things. It does some little practical things to actually improve the administration of the protection of our natural heritage. But there is a huge irony in the fact that the bill actually increases the penalties for things like illegal whitebaiting and fishing in marine reserves and yet this Government presides over the systematic overfishing of many many marine species in New Zealand under the quota system.Jacqui Dean: No.PHIL TWYFORD: It does. There is a huge irony in that. This bill actually increases the penalties for people who illegally fence off a slice of national park and chop down a few trees. Yet it was this National Government that recently stripped out the protection for urban forests and has deliberately hobbled the ability of local councils to use tree protection rules to preserve urban forests. If that is not an irony I do not know what is.The Local Government and Environment Committee agreed with Maryan Street’s amendment to incorporate the Marine Mammals Protection Act along with the various bits of legislation whose penalty and compliance provisions are consolidated by this bill. Yet this Government has consistently refused to do anything substantial to protect either Māui’s or Hector’s dolphins our two most endangered marine mammal species. So there is no shortage of irony in this debate.It has to be remarked that although the member is happy to bring a bill to the House that will increase the penalty for people who are cruel violent or abusive to for instance a baby seal washed up on the shore this Government has stripped out resources from the Department of Conservation. It is worth pointing out that in the 2009 Budget the Department of Conservation had $54 million cut from its budget over a 4-year period. There have been 400 jobs cut from the Department of Conservation under this Government. That is around one in six staff. In September 2011 the Government announced that it was restructuring again—cutting 96 members of staff and saving $7.5 million. So it is just not on for members on the National Party benches to get up and warble about their commitment to the conservation estate and their commitment to the natural environment when time and time again they have presided over and voted for legislation in this House that weakens our environmental protections and has cut resources from the Department of Conservation which is the very agency that New Zealanders have charged with the responsibility of protecting our natural environment and protecting endangered species.Having said that we are voting for this bill. We do think it is worthwhile to create a consistent consolidated two-tier schedule of penalties that will both act as a greater deterrent for people who are behaving in a destructive and abusive way to our natural heritage and also make it easier for the authorities to deal with the seal clubbers the people who smuggle geckos and tuatara out of the country illegally and the people whomill a stand of trees on the edge of a national park. It will make it easier for the authorities to deal with those kinds of offences. Thank you.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill sets out to better protect our special places and species by increasing penalties for non-compliance with laws administered by the Department of Conservation. It also implements a consistent approach to penalties across the amended laws. The bill proposes serious consequences for serious offending against our natural heritage. The bill proposes bigger fines and longer jail sentences for people who endanger our wildlife or damage our protected natural habitats. That includes theft and smuggling of our taonga.We have had theft and smuggling of our beautiful resources this year and last year but in previous centuries we had mass smuggling and theft of our taonga. Can you imagine standing in a room this size at the Australian Museum and seeing on the shelves our taonga—beautiful taxidermied weka rows and rows of weka? Can you imagine looking on those shelves and seeing taxidermied beautiful takahē rows upon rows of them in the museum? Can you imagine reaching out and touching the feathers of tīwaiwaka and touching the feathers of kiwi? That is what happened to our taonga centuries ago: theft and smuggling because people could. This bill ensures that they now will not.Our flora and fauna are an important part of New Zealand’s culture and our heritage. We need to protect ourselves our species and our special places for future generations. What that means is that this bill is a kaitiaki of those tamariki within Tāne Māhuta and those that fly between Tāne Māhuta and Tawhirimatea. We are continuing to improve the environment and build a cleaner greener and brighter future for all New Zealanders. It was heartening to see the Tūhoe settlement come into the House today and to have the members here talk about their relationship with Te Urewera. There is no more special place than Te Urewera. Within those boundaries and upon that whenua we have our taonga our beautiful flora and fauna. Within those boundaries as well we have the patupaiarehe. They are those beautiful taonga who live within those reaches of Tāne Māhuta. This bill will protect those stories and those pūrākau around our taonga such as the gecko.I hear my colleagues talking about the beautiful gecko; we know them as mokomoko. We also know that a lot of our tattoos our tā moko are based on the designs of our moko. Our tattoos our moko are also named after the god of earthquakes Rūaumoko. It is the ridges within the landscape when he moves tosses turns and breaks up the landscape that are also the ridges and turns upon the backs of our mokomoko and our tuatara. So this bill not only protects the physical taonga but also entrenches in law what we know to be our spiritual taonga associated with our beautiful species of flora and fauna.I think that at this time when looking at this bill I will also pay tribute to our rangatira who work in this area: the beautiful Dell Wīhongi from Ngāpuhi and Dame Ngāneko Minhinnick and Joe Harawira who also worked very closely across the conservation areas. They also fight and struggle to maintain our heritage which is what this bill will do for us.It is about kaitiakitanga and it is about the physicality of our conservation. We hope that this bill will also bring about a retelling of our history. I talked about our tā moko Rūaumoko mokomoko and tuatara. This bill should also bring forward into our education system the telling of these stories—why these taonga are so important to Māori why they are so important to iwi and why they are now very important to all New Zealanders. It is about the sharing of our natural history. It is also a telling of our history in stories across the centuries and across people. So while we debate this bill inits practicalities in its legislative framework where there are lots and lots of words deep in the heart of this for us for Māori is intrinsically our taonga our roots and threads that bind us to this land and to each other.This bill—going back to the legislation—is comprehensive. As introduced it applied to five pieces of conservation legislation which my colleagues have already talked about. On the recommendation of the Local Government and Environment Committee it now also applies to the Marine Mammals Protection Act. The bill does not apply to the Marine Reserves Act. A consistent approach to penalties across the laws administered by the Department of Conservation will ensure appropriate and effective penalties punishments and enforcement. I suppose that on the one hand we are lucky that it is about penalties as in monetary repayment and also incarceration. Perhaps if we had introduced pre-colonial penalties it might be a whole lot more severe. I do not think we would want to revisit that.We New Zealanders pride ourselves on our clean green image. It is imperative then that we look after our natural environment and this bill will assist in doing that. Vote Conservation is now $444 million almost double the $226 million in 2001-02. We are investing in recovery programmes for 35 percent more threatened species. Under this Government we have done that. We also intend to review—Maggie Barry: Quite right.CLAUDETTE HAUITI: That is right. Thank you. We also intend to review New Zealand’s threatened species management framework. Under this Government we will do that. Our natural environment is a valuable resource that we need to protect and preserve.I would like to congratulate my colleague Jacqui on bringing this bill to the House and I congratulate my colleagues and those on the select committee on supporting this bill. Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Kia ora.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call—Moana Mackey.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Can I acknowledge the fine words from the member Claudette Hauiti who has just resumed her seat. I wish National Party conservation policy even vaguely reflected the words she just spoke. Unfortunately it does not and this bill the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill does not do any of the things she was talking about. That is not to say that it is not a good bill and we should not be supporting it because we are and I do not want to take away from Jacqui Dean’s fine moment. But none of the fine things that were being spoken about in that speech are being achieved by this bill and none of them are to be found in the conservation policy direction of this National Government. I hope that Claudette Hauiti takes up a more senior role within the National Party so that she can further those conversations because she obviously has a lot to contribute.This bill as I think Eugenie Sage said is some tinkering around the edges which is positive but that is all it is. Really I would say to the Government members who have been speaking so passionately about how wonderful this is that if it is that wonderful why did you not put it in Government legislation? Why did you leave it to a member’s bill put it in a ballot at the whim of the ballot and then go through a process that is much slower because we have members’ days only every 2 weeks? If this is as important and crucial and game-changing as the National Party is making out then why did it not make it a Government bill? Why did it not make it a Government bill? I will tell you why. It is because it wants to block up the members ballot so that Labour Party and Green Party bills that will actually do something about conservation in this country do not get drawn. That is why this bill is being dealt with on a members’ day instead of on a Government day which is where it could have been dealt with far more quicklythan through this process. But as I said I am not wanting to take away from Jacqui Dean’s fine moment in the sun. I congratulate her on bringing this to the House but if the National Party really cared about conservation it would not be a member’s bill. I just make that point.I want to also raise the concern that penalties are only as good as enforcement. It is all very well. You can have a trillion-dollar penalty but if you do not have the enforcement capability it means absolutely nothing. Our concern is the cuts we have seen where one in six conservation staff has lost their job and there has been a $54 million drop in budget over 4 years—what are they going to do to the capability of the Department of Conservation staff to actually enforce the penalties we are putting in place here? The penalties are only as good as our ability to enforce them and we have serious concerns that the National Party has on the one hand lifted penalties and on the other hand taken away the ability to actually police those penalties and enforce them. That is not just in Vote Conservation; it is actually in terms of the funding for biosecurity which is also being cut. My colleague Damien O’Connor has raised consistently in the House concerns around our ability to police biosecurity which has to be one of the most important things for an agriculture-based economy. So it is all very well to raise penalties but it means nothing if the enforcement capability is not there.The other thing I want to raise is that the promoter of this bill has said that she wants to see New Zealand’s wildlife and natural and historic resources better protected. Again that is a very laudable vision but I have to look at what is happening in the conservation estate in terms of handing over half of the decision-making powers over oil and gas and minerals exploration in the conservation estate to the Minister of Energy and Resources. I wonder whether the Minister of Energy and Resources is going to be subject to the penalties under this piece of legislation if in fact he approves a project that results in unlawful reduction of wildlife or harming of wildlife in the conservation estate. I have to say when I saw Minister Bridges’ performance onCampbell Live last week I do not have a whole lot of confidence that he is ever going to say no to a mining company. I do not think there is a mining company in this world he is going to say no to. I think that that is of deep concern. It is one of the reasons why Labour will be repealing that role of the Minister of Energy and Resources. As someone who works in the mining sector the Minister of Energy and Resources cannot be seen as neutral in making those decisions as opposed to the Minister of Conservation who is there to protect and preserve the conservation estate. They are the appropriate person to be making those decisions. Will the Minister of Energy and Resources be subject to these penalties if the activities he is approving—or she if that changes—result in the kinds of infringements that Jacqui Dean is trying to address here in this piece of legislation?I want to finish off by just pointing out that the biggest threat to our conservation estate is in fact pests. In fact only one-eighth of our conservation estate is currently being actively controlled for weasels for stoats and for possums. If the Government was serious about protecting the conservation estate it would do something about funding for the Department of Conservation and increase its ability and its capability for pest management which would also be great for biosecurity and for the protection of our agriculture industry when it comes to bovine TB and other such things. But we will be supporting this bill and congratulations to Jacqui Dean.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I will take just a brief call on the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill which the Green Party is happy to be supporting. I understand that Jacqui Dean has worked hard to get it to this point and I know that that is an excellent effort. I would agree with Eugenie Sage that useful tinkering is one description. If we put it in the context of conservation as a whole it is more like dancing on the deck of theTitanic in terms of the effects ofthe cuts that have taken place in conservation. So with those provisos we do support this particular and very specific and valuable effort.I looked up how people do some of the smuggling. It is quite fascinating. There are people who strap iguanas to their legs and people who are stopped at customs and asked: “Is that a snake in your pants or are you just pleased to see me?”. There are people who are running baby shark smuggling rings out of churches. There are birds of paradise that have leapt out of suitcases at customs. There are leopards found in people’s backpacks and monkeys down people’s trousers. I mean this is the international scene of $10 billion worth of endangered species smuggling. It is pretty bizarre stuff. Added to it our own precious taonga and our own endangered species are also smuggled in bizarre and interesting ways. It is clearly a very bizarre group of people who make a lot of money out of ripping off our unique taonga. Our country being even more unique in many ways is vulnerable to those kinds of very strange and depressing behaviours which do need penalties and we support the increase in penalties.In my first reading speech I talked about the sanctioned theft of the taonga of Aotearoa which the member Claudette Hauiti also referred to and some of the historically sanctioned rip-offs that took place and that fill the museums of the world. I will not go on about that again. But I think it is important to remember that the greatest threat to our endangered species in Aotearoa is not smuggling but pests and the loss of habitat. The conservation estate is clearly under great stress. So we welcome this measure to protect individuals but like much of the Government’s programmes dealing with individual violations does not change structural and systemic violations. It does not change structural risks and collapses of species. When you cut 400 jobs and rely on the market to do conservation—sorry not you Mr Assistant Speaker; when the Government does—there is a real problem because the market is not consistent and the market is going to do what it feels like when it feels like it.The corporatisation of the Department of Conservation will result in even less rigorous and consistent pest control. The finest example of a bad policy is the proposal to mine the Denniston Plateau where the two wonderful endangered species that are at risk from smuggling—the green gecko and the great spotted kiwi to name just two—are at risk. They are at risk not because smugglers are rushing down there to find them—and one of these species was found only during a Forest and Bird bio-blitz last year—but because this place is going to be turned into an open-cast mine. That is conservation and heritage destruction. It is not going to be saved because we have put some penalties on smugglers. It is going to be lost because of the Government’s economic policy and because it refuses to acknowledge the broader context in which this bill sits. That is very very disappointing.Smuggling is directly evil but greenwashing is no better. Let us not pretend what is really going on when we talk about the biosecurity cuts and when we talk about the cuts to the Resource Management Act and the Crown Minerals Act which as Moana Mackey said has created joint decision-making on the Department of Conservation estate putting more species at risk—all of those changes that the Government has brought in in the last few years that put endangered species at high risk. So we cannot replace a commitment to conservation at Government State and community level with the prioritisation of the Department of Conservation estate and expect that we will actually protect these species.However we are happy to support the bill. We are glad that we have got to this point. I think that it is really important. These species are intrinsic to our identity—the mokomoko the gecko the ngārara the reptiles the manu and the marine life. We should be protecting them at every level. This bill does take a tiny little step forward. Iwelcome every step but I would like to see the Government drop its belief system that destroying the environment will support the economy. It is simply not true. Our environment is our economy as indeed are endangered species.I would just like to say that we support this bill in any way that it makes good progress. We will support good things. We have always voted for things that are worthwhile but we will not pretend that this solves the problem of the conservation crisis that faces Aotearoa New Zealand right now. Thank you.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): It is a great honour for me to take the final call in this final stage of what I think is a very commendable bill the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill. I am delighted to be able to add my support to it and to commend my hard-working colleague Jacqui Dean the member for Waitaki who has put considerable effort into bringing this bill to the House and seeing it through all its stages. It is a great credit to her that it is on the verge of being passed this afternoon. Those of us who have members’ bills in the ballot who have been unlucky enough to this point not to have had them drawn are always a little bit envious of those who have enjoyed that success. But it would be churlish to be jealous. I think it is just a fantastic achievement for her and in particular because she is focusing on something that is such an important issue.I want to thank all members who have spoken in this debate and who have supported the bill right through its passage through the House. We have all acknowledged something that we share and that is that as New Zealanders we do hugely value our environment and we appreciate the importance of conservation. There will always be political debate between the parties as to priorities and whether the correct focus is being given to this issue or the other but we are pretty universally concerned when we hear some of the dreadful things that happen. Catherine Delahunty who has just resumed her seat referred to some of those things and other members who have spoken before me have done likewise.We are outraged when people try to smuggle our treasured and endangered species out of the country when dreadful acts of cruelty are inflicted upon precious birds or animals or when our native flora is in some way abused. The vast majority of New Zealanders love the outdoors. We love being able get out into our superb environment to take advantage of living in God’s own country. I choose that phrase deliberately because I do not think that I have ever visited another country that is as naturally appealing as New Zealand. There are many other countries with wonderful places to visit and beautiful environmental attractions but it seems that wherever you go in New Zealand we are blessed with an abundance of greenery and of relatively clean air and we all want to protect that.As I say I want to thank Jacqui Dean for the fact that she has focused on an issue and brought a solution to a problem that many identified as being long overdue for a remedy. The fact that—and I think some speakers have mentioned it—there has been no significant change in the penalties for several decades indicates that there probably is a real need for this bill to come into force as soon as possible. I note that a number of the submitters particularly supported that aspect.So as this is the final stage I want to thank all who contributed to this debate. I want to acknowledge the many parties across the House that have indicated their support for the bill. I want to thank Jacqui Dean again and congratulate her. This is a very significant day for her in what has already been a very successful political career and I am sure all members of the House would want to congratulate her on her achievement and more important thank her for what she has done. Well done.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Conservation (Natural Heritage Protection) Bill be now read a third time.Ayes117New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes3Māori Party 3.Bill read a third time.Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment BillFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 25 September.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members when we were last on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill Melissa Lee had the call and has 3 minutes remaining if she wishes.MELISSA LEE (National): I would indeed like to continue a little bit because as we draw closer to the dinner break I was wondering whether I was once again going to have to break up my speech. If I remember correctly I was speaking in support of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I wanted to bring a little bit of the ethnic perspective into it and I talked specifically about my mother who is raising my child.As members of Parliament we often leave our homes and given that I am a single woman my son who has just turned 15 is often at home with my mother. My mother I sometimes joke has become my wife. It is so in many ethnic communities and I think people have often talked about the goose parents the goose mums who migrate to New Zealand and often their husbands go back to their home countries because they cannot get a job. The wives then try to find a job here while looking after their children and when a wife does in fact find a job often the young children are looked after by grandparents.The Government recognises this incredible work being done by family members who are raising children who have lost their parents or who are unable to live with their parents. At the moment kin carers are entitled to assistance to help with the cost of raising orphaned or unsupported children and in 2009 National ensured that kin carers would get the same weekly amount as foster carers which I think is excellent.You know traditionally in ethnic communities grandparents played a very big role in teaching young children about their culture about their language about their tradition and about their family history. They play a significant role. But the thing is that when they are lumbered with the care of children whom they do not necessarily have responsibility for after they have raised their own children they have to relearn how to be parents. I think it is a wonderful job that they are doing and we need to support them.More than 12000 children are being cared for by wider family members for one reason or another and I know that we have agreed with New Zealand First MP Tracey Martin who has introduced this bill to look at further options within that $10 million capped fund that we have already committed to in the Vulnerable Children Bill. I look forward to the submission process in the select committee and I look forward to building on the good work that is already under way. I commend this bill.JAN LOGIE (Green): I too am pleased to rise and offer the Green Party’s support for the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill proposed by New Zealand First’s Tracey Martin. It is a good bill though I must say that there are shades of Dickens in this in that the House needs to be debating the merits of a clothing allowance for orphans and unsupported children.Tracey Martin: There is.JAN LOGIE: There is. But what this bill does is it makes a simple change which is appropriate for a member’s bill to remove an inconsistency between funding for foster children and funding for unsupported children and orphans. Currently caregivers of foster children receive a quarterly allowance for clothing for those children paid at a rate set by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development. Caregivers though of unsupported children and orphans are currently not paid this allowance. This allowance for foster children is often used to apply for clothing such as school uniforms and just everyday clothing—important thing that that is.So supporting children especially those who need a bit of extra attention and care as a result of having been through loss or family breakdown is really important to the Green Party. I would just like to say that the clothing allowance fits within the context of a family’s ability just to manage the financial pressures of caring for children but specifically I think that clothing has a meaning that often may not be recognised particularly for children who have been through really tough times. Some of those children will have developed coping mechanisms through what they have been through that may not be working so well for them now in their current life. There may be behaviours around anxiety and anger—just a whole range of behaviours that are often quite a challenge for them and those around them. Having family to care for them through that transition and working through those issues really can help but it does not lessen the challenge for them or their new carers.Although I am a really strong advocate for second-hand clothing and I love op shopping I recognise that if young children and young people are not in that group of young people it adds a layer of difficulty for them in terms of fitting in and feeling that they have a place to belong in the world when their clothes are not the same as their peers. So the clothing allowance is particularly important to give them and their family a bit more choice around how they are seen in the world particularly as they are dealing with some of those challenges in terms of behaviours.It is also really important to acknowledge that this bill arises in part from the inadequacy of current wages and benefit levels. It sits within what I consider a context of absolute meanness—a situation where 8614 people about half of whom are grandparents who care for over 12000 orphans and unsupported children are currently being work tested. That needs to be acknowledged in this debate. Grandparents who have spent years raising troubled grandchildren are being told to get back to work sometimes just months from retirement. Some grandparents nearing retirement age have been required to attend job training courses where they are asked what school they attended and what their long-term career goals are.That is the context that this bill sits within. It is a context of absolute meanness it is ridiculous and it is worthy of a Dickens novel. But it is nice to have a moment of hope within that of a little thing that we can do as a House to make the lives of those families a little bit easier. So we are very very happy to be able to support that and we hope that it inspires the Government to a little bit more kindness in the future.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour): It is a pleasure to also take a call on this Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. In doing that I congratulate my colleague Tracey Martin on picking this up—firstthinking about it designing it and then having it drawn. It is part of her advocacy for vulnerable people which is consistent with what we believe in here.But as we reflect on the period through which we have as a State developed approaches for providing assistance to vulnerable people particularly to vulnerable children we have always done that with strings attached. The history that New Zealand has of providing support to families or individuals in vulnerable families is a chequered one. It is beginning to change now as we are beginning to realise that the outcome for many of these families is not the result of their own behaviour but of where they find themselves and there are a lot of external influences on outcomes for families.In that period when we have had this approach—a residual approach if you like—to providing support to these families we have been providing them with only as much support that ensured that they were no better off and decidedly worse off than children of those families who were in work. So we have had this struggle throughout the period of child welfare history in New Zealand in terms of providing support for families of the type that this particular bill addresses. Throughout the period of the Child Welfare Act 1925 which was in existence until the late 1970s that certainly was the case.I remember many many cases working in the field with vulnerable families. A parent might have been in work but they were poor and trying to get some assistance little though it might be through the then social security system was impossible because a moralistic set of principles prevailed saying that you could not do this and if children were living with family or relatives then you could not provide financial assistance for them.We saw some of that in our foster care system for a long time. That system was not dissimilar to what this particular bill is trying to do because foster parents were in a sense required to have their own input into the contribution they made to the lives of vulnerable children often those in the care of the State because the assistance provided for them was not all of what was required. There was a gap between what they needed—Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: It has been an interesting 1½ hours in the interlude. When I was talking before the dinner break what I was saying was that there has historically been a reluctance in the New Zealand social policy and child welfare systems to do too much or to do more than a little for families whose children have been in difficulty but whom they are caring for themselves. Then I moved from that to talk about the foster care system. Indeed it took a long time—and we still are not there—for us to develop a support system for foster parents looking after vulnerable children who are in the care of the State and to provide them with everything they require to enable them to go through that period of development and come out the other side in good shape. So foster parents do a great job in difficult situations but they have always had to fight very hard for the kinds of services they require.We come now to what this bill is about: the unsupported children who require assistance. Giving them just a small amount of money is not enough. What the bill is doing is saying that we should go to this next step as Tracey Martin has proposed and which we support and actually provide them with a clothing allowance that at least enables them to do one thing that is important. Clothing is important particularly for young people at that stage. The Green member Jan Logie was talking about this before as well. Clothing is an element of identity and having the clothes that will enable them to interact with their peers etc. in a way that enables them to have an identity that is not negative but positive is really important.So the provisions of this bill enable that to happen. I am glad that all sides of the House are supporting this bill and I look forward to the debate in the Social Services Committee. Thank you.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): National happily supports this bill the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill at first reading. I must say that colleagues certainly passed back to me—as someone on the Social Services Committee which is probably going to receive this legislation—that they have enjoyed their engagement with Tracey Martin on this particular issue. It has come from a very genuine concern for those people who are caring for vulnerable children and from wanting to make sure that the foundations of those families looking after the children are strong and in this particular case are economically strong. That is why she is bringing this bill to the House. We recognise that she has seen an issue that needs to be addressed and we certainly acknowledge that so we will support the bill at first reading.National believes we can provide further financial assistance to what we call kin carers in a better and more targeted way. She will be well aware that we have committed $10 million in a capped fund as part of the Children’s Action Plan to provide further support to kin carers. We have set up a ministerial reference group which is currently working through the options for how this extra funding will be applied. The select committee I hope will explore these options in good faith building on the good work already under way but will also more specifically work on the issues that Tracey Martin raises. So we have agreed to explore further financial assistance options. I want to make that assurance. We are supporting the bill at first reading because we agree with the bill’s intent but we would want any funding to be within the $10 million capped amount. We have sort of made that clear as well.We have got lots of demands on our welfare spend. This is by no means a least or a lower order priority. That is not the case at all. We know that more than 12000 New Zealand children are being cared for by members of the wider family because of the death of a parent or because of family breakdown. Currently kin carers are entitled to assistance to help with the costs of raising orphaned children but this whole issue around clothing allowances needs to be dealt with.The circumstances of grandparents raising grandchildren are often complex. Families find it complex navigating the myriad of assistance options that they could be eligible for. We are hoping that during the select committee process in the advent of this particular piece of legislation we can clarify it more publicly and get much more of a public discussion so that those who are kin carers are much more aware of the assistance and options that are available to them. Conversely we want members of Parliament across political parties to get a better understanding of what is available to kin carers and what is not available to kin carers. We may very well identify areas where we can do more.We know that Work and Income has been quite involved in making some changes to make things better for those people who take on children in these circumstances. It has assigned a manager at the national office to work with grandparents who are raising grandchildren. Field officers will be a single point of contact to work through the trickier more detailed elements in some cases. In partnership with the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust and The Parenting Place we have also developed a tailored tool box programme specifically for kin caregivers at a cost of $600000 a year.What I do want to signal to the House and to Tracey who raised this matter above many other matters that have been discussed in this House over the last 5 years and that have not gone anywhere near this issue is that we are very very interested in the points that she raised. They are legitimate. We have enjoyed the professional approach that shehas undertaken in engaging with the National Party team and we absolutely support this bill at first reading. We the select committee members will be approaching this with an equal amount of genuineness and openness to her suggestions. We support the bill. Thank you.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. We have to congratulate Tracey Martin on two particular aspects.Firstly this is an excellent bill. It is well overdue and as the previous speaker Phil Heatley said nothing has come into this Parliament on this particular topic.Secondly we congratulate Tracey Martin on getting her bill drawn from the ballot. It is never easy to get a bill drawn from the ballot. It is totally dependent on luck. I am very pleased that one of our new members has had a bill drawn from the ballot.The fact is that many families are changing and we do not want children to be disadvantaged because of their family circumstances. It is not their fault and therefore they should not be disadvantaged. We know that a lot of grandparents and other kin carers are raising children who are not their own. This is not an easy job. This group of carers gets the same basic payment as those fostering children under the care of Child Youth and Family. But the bottom line is that they do not receive additional assistance for things like clothing which the Child Youth and Family caregivers get through the foster care allowances. That makes a significant difference of up to $1700 per year—$1700. That is an inconsistency that does need to be removed and rectified. The family caregivers do not receive the foster care allowance although many of them will be eligible for the unsupported child’s allowance which is now paid at the foster care allowance rate. Minister Paula Bennett made this adjustment in the Budget in 2009 and we recognise that good work in this area.In 2009—also a very good year—the Government provided 500 respite care places a year for grandchildren in week-long holiday health camps. Grandparents do need a break. It is not an easy job bringing up a child especially in these difficult circumstances. There are many challenges that can be experienced by these families.We have to be clear: this bill proposes to give the orphan and unsupported child clothing allowance parity with the foster care allowance. How much will it cost? Well not a significant amount. The bill will cost approximately $16 million a year for parity. When we relate that to other areas where money is spent by the Government it is not a massive amount.As at February 2012 the membership of the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust stood at 5024 grandparent or kin carer families representing a significant number of grandchildren. It is conservatively estimated that the number of children in full-time grandparent or kin care is in excess of 10000 and I would say that 10000 is the very minimum number that we can expect. In fact it will more than likely be more because not everybody is recognised in this way. However it is well-known that a lot of the caring for these children occurs informally rather than formally. The Families Commission in 2009 commissioned a UMR Research report to survey the changing role of grandparents. We know that that role is changing. I must say that looking after children is never ever cheap and I am sure we all know that.This is a good bill. We do not want these grandparents and kin carers to face any more challenges than they need to. They are largely unappreciated. We support this bill totally.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I rise to add another voice to Labour’s support for the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. The purpose of the bill is to ensure thatunsupported children or orphans receive parity with foster children when it comes to clothing allowances. The Work and Income weekly benefit for the unsupported child and orphan is currently the same as for a foster child under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. However the unsupported child or orphan is not eligible for the clothing allowance which is graduated according to age. For children over 13 years of age this quarterly allowance usually covers the child’s secondary school uniform.It is pleasing to see an outbreak of peace in the House this evening. A couple of bills so far have received near unanimous support from all sides of the House and it is hopeful—or at least we on this side hope—that that outbreak of peace may carry on as we venture further into the evening with the bills that are further down the Order Paper. But for now let us discuss the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill.A foster carer can apply for a quarterly clothing allowance and an allowance for Christmas and birthday presents. Health and education costs are met and depending on the child’s care plan a carer may also be able to apply for financial assistance towards recreational items. All of this should be extended to unsupported children as well. The policy must be fair so that children are not disadvantaged. Where other items are not extended to unsupported children they should be extended or equal value for them must be received. Quality between the two allowances is a must and that is what Tracey Martin is trying to achieve I believe.Labour believes that if New Zealand really wants the best outcomes for children then we need to invest in and prioritise policies that put a real focus on parents and children. All children in New Zealand regardless of their background regardless of their upbringing regardless of their parents’ situation deserve the best and the same opportunities in life. We believe that this Government needs to do a lot more than it has in its 5 years in office to try to alleviate child poverty. What we needed back at Budget time this year was for the Government to set out a clear plan for child poverty including setting targets to reduce it. Instead basically the cupboard has been left bare. If Budgets show where a Government’s priorities lie then the 2013 Budget shows that this Government is not interested in child poverty.The National Party has started to talk a reasonably good game but it has been a late party on a number of initiatives initially proposed by Labour. These include food in schools for which we have not one but two members’ bills on the Order Paper now to address and that gives the Government two opportunities to get in behind that programme and support it. There is also the Housing Warrant of Fitness a social lending initiative. These are all ideas that National now appears to at least be lukewarm on but it has been a long way behind the Labour Party and other progressive parties in this House in promoting those ideas.The Government has spent the last 5 years talking about the problem and refusing to acknowledge the advice from experts including the Children’s Commissioner that measures and targets must be set to eradicate child poverty. Labour unlike National is serious about ensuring that the 270000 Kiwi children who are living in poverty do not miss out on the many things that most of us take for granted including basic health-care good nutrition and educational opportunities.Over the last 5 years there has been a widening gap between the rich and the poor between those who have and those who do not have. It has been to a certain extent a result of the international financial crisis. In times of recession the gap between the rich and the poor does grow but it has been enormously exacerbated by Government policies—decisions that this Government has taken to give more to those at the top and to take more from those at the bottom. Our inequality gap is shameful. Although wesupport this initiative from Tracey Martin to try to alleviate that gap for some children in our society what we need is a Government that is prepared to tackle the whole problem.ALFRED NGARO (National): That last speech from the member Iain Lees-Galloway started off by celebrating peace in the House and then all of a sudden went on to the attack. It did not last very long did it? Those words of peace did not last. In fact he even challenged us that hopefully throughout the night peace would reign and then the very person who did that then started attacking. It actually went away from the intent of this bill.We are talking about the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge Tracey Martin. Barbara Stewart did talk about luck and yes luck plays a part in it absolutely. All of us who are new first-term MPs would hope and wish that our member’s bill is drawn from the ballot. But I think it has to go further than that. I want to acknowledge the fact that luck plays a part in when your bill is drawn from the ballot but in actual fact what surrounds the support is the intent of the bill. I just want to acknowledge that.The intent of this bill is not only good but does good to those who most need it. I have been fortunate to be part of the Minister for Social Development’s ministerial reference group along with Tracey Martin. The thing that stood out for us was that the purpose of this bill is around allowance parity. I think that is quite critical and that is important. It is to increase financial support to kin carers who look after children such as grandparents raising grandchildren. One of the things I really enjoyed being in that group was the feistiness and the ability of some of our members to really give us a reality check.There was in that group a number of representatives who are part of the sector. I want to acknowledge Diane Vivian who talked about grandparents raising grandchildren. We know that there are over 8500 carers who are out there and what she said to us is that there is a growing number of grandparents raising grandchildren. It is important because they need to have a voice. She brought their voice. She talked about their concerns. She had done some surveying around them. Therefore we were not only informed but also had the aspect of shaping the options that would be submitted to the Minister with the intent of recognising the role of grandparents raising grandchildren.I also want to acknowledge Linda Surtees who is a representative for foster care. She too gave us a reality check of some of the concerns from foster carers who are there. Again she raised the areas of need that they have. That was important.Lastly I want also to acknowledge the iwi representative Katie Murray—the feisty Katie Murray from up in Kaitāia who often would give us that sense of the reality of what they were receiving. But what I appreciated from Katie was her saying that there were also times she was asking the hard questions to carers themselves about the allowances that were given: “Are you making the most use of the support that you are getting as well?”. That becomes important.This bill is a very good bill. I think that people will be pleased with the options that will come through. We have worked hard on that. One of the things that was important which was put forward to the ministerial reference group and which the Minister said was for us to think outside the box. That was important because we saw that there were not only needs about clothing—and I think we have talked a lot about that—but also a variety of other needs there as well. I suppose the intent now is to say with the support that was given how we could unbundle that and how we could prioritise where the needs were. But there were some interesting ideas. I will not go into those because thoseoptions papers are still there but needless to say I think that what will come forward in those options papers will be things that are really important to us.One other point that I want to raise which I think is a significant point is that we began to look around the geography of where some of these kin carers are. Firstly what was quite clear from the statistics around the carer ethnicity is that over 45 percent of kin carers are of Māori ethnicity. I think that is really important. Katie Murray acknowledged that and asked then whether we were targeted in our approach. I think that becomes important because one of the key things we talked about was whether to have the universal approach or a targeted approach. I think what we came to was having a combination of both those things coming together. I think that this is going to be important.I look forward to the submissions that will be heard in the select committee along with the options paper that has been delivered to the Minister. Again I want to acknowledge Tracey Martin for her integrity and for her passion in this whole process. It has really truly made a difference. Most important at the end of the day—and I finally finish my speech—we hear about children in poverty and we hear about their needs absolutely. In this case for this bill it is about children in the care of the kin carers who most need our support. I support this bill and I look forward to its first reading and its select committee. Thank you.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora. Can I firstly thank members of the House for their kind words and their support for this bill the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. This bill does have personal meaning to me but over time I have gained a deeper knowledge of the many and varied families that it affects.I want to take this 5 minutes to be very very clear not only for the members of this House but also for the public and for those families particularly that they should submit their stories to the select committee to make sure that the picture of what they are dealing with is understood by the wider community of New Zealand taxpayers so that when the $16 million possible price tag is put out there it does not stop conversation. This is about children and their equity in circumstances beyond their control. We can talk about the money and we can move money around but really what this is about is that an orphan is an orphan. It is interesting to me that when I have been asked to speak on this bill people have asked me not to use the term “orphan”. They do not like it; it is not a word for today. But they are orphans.Today I spent lunchtime with a grandmother whose daughter was murdered. She is now raising her 6-year-old grandson. She gave up a six-figure income because that child needs her to be there. She is a grandparent. She is not of retirement age. She requires and lives on this benefit for that child—$10700 a year—but because she is a kin carer because she has a blood relationship with that child she does not receive the $1000 to $1700 a year that she could receive. She does not receive an allowance for psych services for that child. There are some ACC payments of $134 a week. I want New Zealand to hear that this is not massive amounts of money. This is not grandparents becoming rich off this as a scam. This is a real equity issue for these children.I want to acknowledge Melissa Lee and just take up the comment about the role that grandparents play in different ethnicities. My mother was raised by her grandmother. My mother was then taken in under a whāngai relationship by MaudeMohi. My mother now lives in an extended family situation with our family and assists with our grandchildren. Grandparents do it all the time.I ask every member of this House who is a grandparent and every member of this House who is an aunt or an uncle to now take a moment to remember the last time you played with and visited those grandchildren or nieces and nephews. Now I want you toimagine that tonight in the dead of the night there is a knock on your door and a police officer with a Child Youth and Family officer shows up saying: “Somebody has to take in these children.” There has either been a murder or there is now drug addiction mental illness or another very very real reason why these children need to come into your home. Can you continue working? Is your home big enough to take those children?There is another grandmother I am working with in Wellington here. She got a call from the Australian authorities. She flew to Sydney to pick up four grandchildren and bring them back here. She gave up her $60000-a-year job. Due to the drug addiction of the parents she now is looking after four grandchildren. I ask you to think about it in your own life before we make a decision that this is something we cannot do.I thank the House for its time I thank the House for its support and I look forward to working with the select committee going forward. Kia ora.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Social Services Committee.Care of Children Law Reform BillFirst ReadingJACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I moveThat the Care of Children Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. Adoption law in New Zealand was set in the 1950s. As you can imagine at that time the circumstances under which a biological parent sought to adopt out their child were often very different from what they are today. The law was predominantly based around the idea of stranger adoption—the notion that women often young women may need to adopt out their child quickly and in secret to avoid what was then perceived to be the shame of a child born out of wedlock with these young women often never seeing their child again. I want to put on record my acknowledgment of people in those situations who have shared their stories with me in light of this bill coming before the House.Children were given at that time entirely new birth certificates. A father’s permission was not needed prior to an adoption order and nor did the law stipulate that the best interests of the child were the primary consideration when considering the long-term legal relationship between a child and their future guardians. The law did not then and does not now cater for whāngai adoption. It has struggled to grapple with the complexity of intercountry adoption and it certainly is not up to date when it comes to surrogacy and new developments around assisted human reproduction.In short our law in New Zealand is antiquated at best and certainly not fit for purpose. It is time for that to change and I acknowledge all of those who have lobbied long and hard for that change to occur.The purpose of this bill is to carry out a complete overhaul of our adoption laws in New Zealand by making use of the work already carried out by the Law Commission over 10 years ago now. My bill will see the Law Commission update the work that it has already carried out and will turn it into legislation to be tabled in Parliament for debate. I acknowledge that this is an unusual approach but it is one that we on this side of the House have ultimately deemed to be necessary. Let me explain briefly why.The Law Commission’s report if anyone has seen it or indeed dared to read itAdoption and its Alternatives: A Different Approach and a New Framework which is what the report is titled is an almost 350-page report. The contents page goes on for pages and pages. It demonstrates the considerable work required to overhaul our adoption laws. Although the commission’s report led to the introduction of the Care ofChildren Act when Labour was in office this Act did not include adoption at that time. There are many reasons why this work was not completed not least the additional consultation that was required over the issue of whāngai adoption. My hope is that under this bill this large and important piece of work will continue but will be completed.It is also important to note that since the Law Commission’s first piece of work it has also published report No. 88New Issues in Legal Parenthood. Many of the issues that it addresses arise in the context of adoption and that is before we get into the additional issues around surrogacy. Again I have seen cases there particularly where you get the added complexity of international surrogacy and the issue of intercountry adoption as well. All of these are issues that need to be included in the Law Commission’s update but ultimately need to be taken into account in our legal framework. Currently they are not and that is leaving many families without any legal certainty and without any legal framework for providing a stable relationship for their child.I mention this because there are those who believe that modernisation of adoption simply requires the Adoption Act to be amended to modernise provisions that are inconsistent and out of date—for instance around just who can legally adopt children. But it requires much much more than that. Our adoption laws need to be fully integrated into the Care of Children Act which has children at the centre of all decision making. The concept of enduring guardianship best describes the modern open adoptions that have replaced the closed stranger adoptions that were the norm in the 1950s when our current and existing law was drafted.It makes sense that as Parliament we make use of the expertise of the Law Commission and the work that has already been done. Doing so would be an unusual practice though and I do acknowledge that. Embedding this process into a member’s bill is however a very very unique approach but as I have said given that this work is so overdue anything that can help us speed up reform in this area surely must be welcomed.Some have argued that adoption is nowadays so rarely used that reform is simply not necessary. It is true to say that last year there were fewer than 150 adoptions in New Zealand but I would argue that we simply do not know to what degree this is a result of the fact that we have a completely antiquated legal framework that is not fit for purpose. As I have mentioned it does not even cover whāngai adoption.In the past there has also been some debate over the effect this bill would have on the inconsistent and discriminatory approach as to who can and cannot adopt. In fact when this bill was first introduced unfortunately the debate was seen to be solely around that one question which although important—extremely important from an equality perspective—is only one part of the debate.I sought permission from the Business Committee because of this element of the debate to delay the first reading of my bill until after the passing of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill so that there would be greater clarity around this point. It is with delight that I now come back to the House with that bill now passed and I am able to give greater certainty to that part of the bill. The passage of the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act essentially means that same-sex couples who are married will be considered spouses under the Adoption Act and will be eligible to adopt. Ambiguity however remains—and this is where it gets a bit farcical—for civilunioned couples because there was an explicit reference during the debate around civil unions to exclude adoption for civilunioned couples. That leaves us with a situation where a married same-sex couple can adopt but a civilunioned same-sex couple cannot—where even now a de facto heterosexual couple can adopt but aheterosexual civilunioned couple cannot adopt. And then you get into the farcical nature of where our laws sit in this area and why they absolutely need to be fixed.But there is the wider question though that even just fixing up the inequality that exists in the law does not necessarily mean that couples will want to use it because of the way that it is currently shaped. Take for instance the situation of a same-sex couple with children. They may care for that child but they may have an ongoing role for instance with the biological mother in that child’s life. If however that couple wish to be recognised in legal terms in their relationship with the child and they seek an adoption order that would have the effect of severing the legal ties that child has with their other biological parent. That is simply not a track that many couples want to go down and this is why I believe that our adoption laws are not being fully used.It has been as I have said unfortunate that this debate has been narrowed solely to around who can and cannot adopt but I do want to address the issue though. I do believe that allowing access to adoption for all couples is a basic human right and that ultimately the decision that should be made by the courts is solely whether or not the best interests of a child are being served in that decision. I want to step away from any moral arguments because when you put the simple fact that there are 5000 children in New Zealand in State care who would not want the best interests of those children to be served by the most able and loving couple available to care for those children?I know there are concerns on procedural grounds around my bill. I would ask members in this House to put those aside to give this bill a chance to go to select committee.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): The sponsor of this Care of Children Law Reform Bill Jacinda Ardern has nominated the Justice and Electoral Committee to scrutinise the bill should it pass this first reading. Therefore as chairman of the committee it falls to me to have a first go at what can really be described only as a very sloppy and lazy member’s bill by this member.The purpose of this bill on the face of it is to facilitate an evidence-based modernisation of the law relating to the care of children in New Zealand. The bill if passed would require the Minister of Justice to request the Law Commission to review the law relating to the care of children in New Zealand including preparation of a draft bill. The Government is absolutely aware of issues surrounding adoption legislation and the Government has identified this as clearly an area for potential review. A review of the Adoption Act is on the Government’s work programme.But at a practical level adoptions currently in New Zealand function pretty well. Most adoptions are open adoptions and there is a much-reduced demand for closed adoptions these days. As the sponsor of the bill indicated same-sex adoptions can now be dealt with under both the Adoption Act and of course the recently passed Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Act which makes it clear that the term “spouse” absolutely includes a same-sex spouse.The background to this bill according to the sponsor is that in the year 2000 the Law Commission produced a reportAdoption and its Alternatives: A Different Approach and a New Framework and Parliament then enacted some of the report’s recommendations when it enacted the Care of Children Act in 2004. The Care of Children Act replaced the outdated Guardianship Act 1968. It firmly centred all decision making around the care of children on the principle—the very firm principle—that the interests of the child must be regarded as the paramount consideration when making decisions affecting children’s care health and well-being.However adoption was left out of that Act so therefore this bill would require the Law Commission to update the 2000 report and the 2004 Act on the basis of subsequent relevant developments and then this bill would require that the report back from theLaw Commission be presented by the Minister of Justice to the House of Representatives with its recommendations as a draft bill. This is in complete contradiction to the work already being undertaken by the Government on the care of children by way of the Family Court reforms and the work being done by the Ministry of Social Development in terms of its reforms.So as I said earlier if this bill were passed it would require the Minister to request the Law Commission to review the law relating to the care of children in New Zealand. Doing so would involve the preparation of a draft bill and the reality is that there are very few stranger adoptions in New Zealand these days—in fact fewer than 100 a year. So I think that although most New Zealanders would support the modernisation of our adoption laws they are as one commentator has said “literally a relic from the 1950s.”But I am very aware that in contrast to this once-over-lightly bill that is being presented by Ms Ardern the Green MP Kevin Hague has actually done a very significant and substantial piece of work and has a bill in the ballot on this very matter. His bill remains in the ballot. It is a hugely complex area. It is emotional and it has huge impacts on people’s lives. Just identifying the key policy issues is itself quite a task but if Jacinda Ardern genuinely wants to make a real contribution to serious and meaningful law reform in this area then she needs to put in a bit of serious work. This bill that she has put forward is basically little more than a legislative request for the Government to do something. It is not a solution; it is not even an attempt at a solution. The sponsoring member has acknowledged in her opening speech that it is an unusual unique approach and that it is.This bill is a very light piece of work. Essentially it requires the Minister to ask the Law Commission to review the law relating to the care of children and update its September 2000 report on adoption. It requires the Law Commission to report within 12 months with a report recommendations and indeed a draft piece of legislation and further it requires the Minister of Justice to introduce that bill as drafted by the Law Commission without amendment within 7 days—without amendment within 7 days. So there are significant constitutional flaws in this member’s bill. There are absolutely shabby constitutional issues that the member clearly has not addressed or even thought about.The first major flaw with this very sloppily drafted piece of legislation is that if passed under this bill there would probably be no law change for at least 4 years or more. Let us just have a look at the likely timings. A select committee would take about 6 months or more to give this member’s bill consideration given the looming summer break ahead of us. Then there would need to be a second and a third reading—that would easily take a further 3 months or more. Then the Law Commission itself would need to draft its report and that would take at least a year—probably longer. Then of course once it came back from the Law Commission under instruction the Government bill would have to have its first reading scheduled and that could take up to another 12 months. Then there would be a select committee process which would be another 6 months or more. Then there would be a second and a third reading and at least another 3 months after that.So the problem is that the member sponsoring this bill is essentially trying to use her member’s bill to get the Law Commission to write her bill for her. That is sloppy. That is lazy. It is a lazy approach. It is politically lazy—it is politically lazy—and it is intellectually lazy. It is symptomatic of what we so often see on the Opposition benches. We see that the members of the far left the socialist side of the House make a lot of noise but they do not offer any solutions and then they ask someone else to sort it out for them. That is the approach that we see so often from the far left on that side of theHouse. The member is trying to legislate to force the Minister to introduce a bill but via the Law Commission.The second flaw with this bill is that it does not actually specify a single policy principle—not one. It does not identify a single policy principle. It actually gives no direction at all to the Law Commission as to what should be in the bill or what its scope should be. The bill does not even indicate whether it should discriminate against same-sex relationships. Every single detail is left to the Law Commission. It would effectively give the Law Commission a blank piece of paper. It is a constitutional affront to this House and to the members who sit in this House. Surely if the Law Commission had an opportunity it would merely go back to what it reported in 2000 in its initial report.The third flaw that is worth noting about this bill is that the Minister of Justice would be required to introduce whatever the Law Commission drafts without amendment—without amendment. Putting aside the rather important constitutional issues of making the Law Commission able to bypass Cabinet it means that if the first reading is scheduled the MPs have to vote on whatever the Law Commission drafts. It could not be amended unless it survived until the select committee stage. I am doubtful that the sponsoring member has even given any thought to the constitutional consequences or the precedent-setting aspects that this bill should it be passed would cause.It is very easy to write a nine-clause bill and trumpet that as some kind of solution claiming that it would address a wide range of concerns about the outdated Adoption Act. But sadly for the member sponsoring this bill lawmaking is not that simple nor is it that easy and it absolutely should not be. If she wants to do some serious work then she should put in the hard work. She should put some intellectual grunt into it and actually apply her not insubstantial brain to the matter at hand and actually proffer a solution—she should actually proffer a solution.Simply drafting this bill and asking someone else to do the job for you is a lazy way of ensuring that a prospective glittering political career falls in the dustbin. The National Government MPs will be opposing this bill. It is a sloppy lazy piece of legislation and it deserves to be consigned to the legislative rubbish bin.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Talking about a light piece of work the member who has just resumed his seat Scott Simpson could well apply that definition to himself instead of using it in this House against other members. He is indeed a light piece of work. I am normally really reluctant to attack members opposite using pieces of legislation that are here to assist and support children but that speech I am afraid deserves a firm response. If that member his Government and his colleagues firmly believe that Kevin Hague’s bill is what they want to pursue make it a Government piece of work. Put it on the Government orders of the day Mr Simpson. Will he do that? No because he is a light piece of work. And he is the chairperson of a select committee that I am informed by my colleagues has very little work in front of it. Talking about lazy and sloppy he is the chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee which I am reliably informed has very little work in front of it.That is the mark of a lazy Government. There are many many things that should be getting addressed in the justice and electoral field but is this Government doing any of it? No.Hon Member: What has this got to do with the lazy member’s bill?SUE MORONEY: It has got to do with that member’s very vitriolic speech when he should have been talking about an issue that actually affects families and children in this country. So having put that on the record now I will move to debate the actual Care of Children Law Reform Bill. This bill is about actually updating the abortion laws and even the member the light piece of work opposite—Hon Members: The abortion laws?SUE MORONEY: Adoption—the adoption laws. Even the member opposite said that this was a piece of work that needed to be done by the Government. Even the member opposite said that and then he said that the Government would not support this bill.Hon Member: It’s on the work programme.SUE MORONEY: Oh it is on the work programme. How often have we heard that? We are going to hear that a bit later tonight by the way—“It’s on the work programme.” It has not been tabled and there is no work in front of the Justice and Electoral Committee but “It’s on the work programme.” Well this is on the debating floor of the Chamber right now and Scott Simpson could move to actually have it put before the select committee and that Government should do it.The member opposite Scott Simpson was criticising the Law Commission and its work. He criticised it and said that the Government should never be put in the position where it has to introduce a law that has been prepared by the Law Commission. Well this is not the first time we have heard that from this Government because it would not do it with alcohol law reform either. The Government took the Law Commission’s work on alcohol law reform and gutted it—the Government absolutely gutted it. So it is no wonder that my colleague Jacinda Ardern wants the Law Commission to do the work on this complex piece of legislation and she wants the Government to introduce it without amendment for its first reading. Without amendment at its first reading means that in the select committee process if there were issues to be addressed then that is the very time at which those issues could be addressed.Adoption law as Jacinda Ardern said is something that does need updating. It seems to be that we have agreement across the House on that. Here we have a piece of legislation that will actually begin that process but it will do it in such a way that a comprehensive body like the Law Commission actually can draft this because it is complex. It involves whāngai adoption surrogacy issues and intercountry adoption—a whole range of issues around who can and who should be able to adopt children and to fix up the irregularities.That is not a piece of work to be done lightly. It is a piece of work that an organisation like the Law Commission should be involved in and if the Government opposite was prepared to actually engage with the work of the Law Commission in a way that it was not prepared to engage with it on alcohol law reform then we would have a very good start to this complex issue.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): The Green Party agrees with Jacinda Ardern that the Adoption Act 1955 is obsolete and not fit for purpose. Just as with the Marriage Act from that same year the values and culture of that era are preserved in that legislation and they fail the test of contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand. The Adoption Act deals with children as if they were the property of their biological parents and adoption as the transfer of that property to a new owner. Birth outside of marriage especially was seen as casting a shadow and disadvantage on both mother and child. Adoption was often seen as a means of providing a fresh start for both of them while also meeting the wishes of other couples to be able to raise children.As the bill before us the Care of Children Law Reform Bill correctly observes these arrangements are very much focused on the needs of the adults rather than those of the children. The Act also embeds other value judgments about the suitability or otherwise of particular parenting arrangements rather than treating each application on its merits and allowing the best arrangement for a particular child to be selected. We have certainly come across situations where adoption under the 1955 Act has seemed to work well but very often it has not and significant harm has resulted to parents and particularly to children. These issues and a number of others were well canvassed bythe Law Commission’s report from 2000. We believe that it was a shame that the commission’s recommendations relating to adoption were not implemented when the Care of Children Act was passed in 2004 as we believe that modern legislation is well overdue.The member Jacinda Ardern announced her intention to place this bill in the members’ ballot back in 2010. On that same day the Greens indicated that we did not support the approach that she proposed. We reiterated that position again when the bill was drawn from the ballot and as a result we will be voting against the bill today. Although we do not doubt the member’s sincerity—and we certainly are not as abusive as the opposite side was over this—in wishing to address the issue and we do commend her for doing so we believe that this approach to reform is not the right approach to take.First and foremost the Law Commission has already expressed its views and any changes in law or public opinion since that time that might alter those views are minor. The ball has now been in Parliament’s court for 13 years and it is our responsibility to take action. We believe that batting the issue back to the Law Commission is an abdication of the responsibility to act now. One of the reasons that this is important is that drafting a bill to give effect to the Law Commission’s recommendations requires political judgment calls to be made on many policy issues not just legal or technical ones. It is Parliament that has the mandate to do this not the Law Commission.Secondly this bill incorporates another form of abdication of responsibility to a future Parliament. A future Parliament cannot be bound of course—we know that well enough—by what we decide today so there is no greater likelihood that the process will advance the cause of adoption reform any further than the Law Commission’s 2000 report did. More to the point although it is inevitable that issues first raised by a particular Parliament will not be completed until a future one some time this bill would effectively defer any action to a future Parliament. We need to take action now.Thirdly the Law Commission already has a busy programme and even under the very best of circumstances this bill will not result in an actual bill on adoption for us to debate for at least another 2 to 3 years. In other words this bill delays law reform further. There is no reason why a bill cannot be drafted now and indeed one already has been saving us those years.Back when the member first announced this bill colleagues from Labour and National had joined Green members in a cross-party approach addressing adoption reform. We still believe that this is the best way of pursuing the change and indeed have continued to work with National and other parties in the House and with community organisations to develop a bill. Today the bill that was developed in this collaborative way sits in the ballot under the name of Kevin Hague. We would certainly welcome the Government’s intention if it chose to adopt it as a Government bill and invite the current Minister of Justice or the next one to pick up that bill and advance it as a Government measure.We need to take action. We can take action. We have legislation that is available to the House. We have cross-party agreement that action is necessary and can be taken now. There is no justification for any further delay. Thank you.Hon TAU HENARE (National): Catherine Tate uses the line “What a liberty!”. What a liberty this is.Tim Macindoe: Am I bothered?Hon TAU HENARE: “Am I bothered?” Fancy coming to the House and putting up a bill the Care of Children Law Reform Bill which is actually just a wee bit shorter than a press release that basically says nothing—it does not say anything. It does not say: “We are going to do this. It is my intention to do that. It is my intention to takeaway this and replace it with that.” It does not do anything other than abrogate some member of Parliament’s responsibility to come here with a few ideas—it does not. In fact it gives another organisation the right to make laws in this country. It forces a Minister to do something regardless of whether they want to or not but it does not require the person who is putting the bill up to do anything.It is grandstanding in its entirety. It does not require anybody in this House to do anything other than think that Jacinda Ardern has saved the world with her view on adoption while at the same time Kevin Hague and Nikki Kaye work behind the scenes without any fanfare whatsoever on a comprehensive—Jacinda Ardern: Which you’ve adopted? Have you adopted the bill?Hon TAU HENARE: Well let us talk about adoption. Let us talk about adoption. We will not be adopting this rubbish. We will not be adopting the grandstanding of the member who wants to be the member for Auckland Central and wave around a piece of paper and say to all the upwardly mobile people in Auckland “Look what I did. I did something for adoption.” But she did not—she did not. If this bill was to pass she would not do anything because there is nothing in the bill for her to do.Fancy coming to Parliament and sitting on the front bench. Fancy coming—Scott Simpson: Lazy sloppy.Hon TAU HENARE: It is lazy. It ismāngere. It is lazy. It is a terrible piece of work.I have put in a member’s bill once or twice and one of them got through. Somebody from over that side said: “Well that bill didn’t do anything did it?”. Well I tell you what. It did a hundred times more than what this bill does. Fancy having on a piece of paper: “I request the Law Society to go and make a bill.” What a joke. If the Law Commission was a member of Parliament I could agree. I could agree if the Law Commission was Cabinet. I could agree if the Law Commission was the Government. But it is not. Why does the member not get off her behind and do the hard yards like the two members whom I just mentioned? Why do they not get off their backsides and do the hard yards and write down maybe on a couple of pieces of paper: “Well this is what we intend to do and by hook or by crook it is going to go through the select committee.”Do you know what this bill is going to do? This piece of paper if it gets through will go to a select committee. The committee will hear submissions on it. Hundreds of people will want to make a submission on it until they find out that there is actually nothing in the bill and they will be very very disappointed. The bill is about smoke and mirrors about talking and telling the community that I Jacinda Ardern am doing something for adoption. She is not doing anything. She is not bringing the old relic from the past into the new world. She is not doing that. She is asking somebody else to think about it. She is asking somebody outside Parliament to do the job of a member of Parliament. That is why we are here to think about things and put ideas on a piece of paper not abrogate our responsibilities and send them down the road for somebody else to make a law. I do not support this lazy piece of work.KATRINA SHANKS (National): I was going to say that it is my pleasure to take a call on this Care of Children Law Reform Bill. It is actually a very very unique bill. I have never seen one actually drafted like this in the House before. Normally when you look at a bill especially a member’s bill you see the person’s passion coming through that bill their principles what they believe in how they want it to go and what they want to achieve. But in this bill you do not see any of that. All you see in this bill is the member saying that she directs the Minister of Justice to direct the Law Commission to write a report to draft a bit of legislation to come back into the House and for it to be tabled. Nowhere in this bill does it actually talk about adoption in between clauses 6 and 9 where all the information should be about what you want to achieve in this bill.Between clauses 6 and 9 adoption does not come up once. You do not mention the word “adoption” once between clauses 6 and 9 where all the action actually happens—where the Law Commission has been directed. There is no reference to that word.So when we have it in the select committee and we have submitters come forward what are they going to submit on? Are they going to submit on those clauses and say: “We do not want it referred to the Law Commission.” or “We do not want the Law Commission writing legislation that has to be tabled in the House.”? Is that what they are going to say? There is no clear direction in this bill about what you actually want to achieve.We all agree that adoption is very important for many many families in New Zealand. It is a very emotive topic for many many people in New Zealand. So let us have a piece of legislation that actually talks about what you want to do with adoption what your vision is where we should be going with adoption in New Zealand and what people in New Zealand actually want. The bill does not give us that. It does not give us direction. It does not give us clarity about what that member wants. What really concerns me is that if the Law Commission does a report reports back to the House and there is a piece of legislation attached to that and the member does not like those recommendations then she has put forward a bill that will have recommendations that she does not even agree with. I cannot support this bill.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the Care of Children Law Reform Bill in its first reading.Hon Tau Henare: Well that’s the bill that we are talking to.Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I am actually not sure what it is about the Law Commission that Tau Henare does not like. But one thing I know for sure is that the purpose of this bill is that it intends to modernise the Care of Children Act 2004. I commend the sponsor of this bill for her vision to explore the possibility of improving the current legislation.It is noted that the principal Act wants to give weight to protecting and promoting the welfare and best interests of the child and to ensuring that their well-being is the first and paramount consideration. It is why the Act should include legislative and social changes that have occurred since 2004. More important it does not pertain to adoption laws. Instead adoption laws have been left untouched since the 1950s. Improving and enhancing adoption laws promotes the welfare and the best interests of the child. The time has come for the Adoption Act 1955 to be reviewed and it needs to reflect societal change and developments. I acknowledge that the bill intends to facilitate an evidence-based modernisation of the law relating to the care of children in New Zealand. It is not possible to have a legal system that is out of touch with reality because that is how loopholes start to surface and create a mismatch between what the law is and how things actually are.New Zealand First supports the need for the Law Commission to review the current legislation. Adoptions in the 1950s were primarily closed and stranger adoptions. Today less than a quarter are closed or stranger adoptions. It is high time that the Law Commission undertook a review of the legislation and incorporated social changes to the care of children and adoption. Some of these developments are human-assisted reproduction technology and/or surrogacy arrangements decreasing closed and stranger adoptions and also the need for whāngai adoptions to be acknowledged by the law.I had to do some research into the whāngai adoption and I must admit that it is very similar to the way Pacific Island people operate. However from what I am able to read reasons for whāngai include providing a home for an orphan taking in a child from a larger family that is struggling with a lot of children taking in a child whose parents were too young to be parents grandparents taking in a mokopuna and teaching themtribal traditions and allowing children to inherit land. These are some of the reasons why the Law Commission should review the Care of Children Act 2004 and overhaul our legal system.It would be wonderful if the Minister of Justice ensured that the Law Commission is afforded the opportunity to carry out the task of reviewing the original report which is from about 13 years ago in order to include developments that have been made since. All legislation that pertains to the care and well-being of children is paramount for their well-being and society. This is why the principal Act needs to be updated and reviewed by the Law Commission. It has the expertise to consider what is relevant in this particular case. Our children’s well-being is plastered across media outlets far too often and we need to ensure that any piece of legislation pertaining to children that goes through this House puts their interests and well-being first. Policy makers decision makers and the machinery that drives legal and social change need to work together.Let me explain why there is a need to combat issues that prevent our children from growing up in a healthy environment. With this in mind action needs to be taken so that the changes to the Act can be effectively implemented. Children’s rights are important and so too are parental responsibilities. Changing family structures and norms need to be included in our legislation so that children get the best start in life and do not fall through the cracks due to unintended outcomes.We do have some concerns and they are around the whāngai institution as the Māori customary practice embraces the principles of orphans and kinship. This is something that we wanted to hear more about from the sponsor of the bill and it would have been a lot better if this bill was given the opportunity to investigate or to explore that side of adoption. Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): I am glad to be able to speak in this first reading of the Care of Children Law Reform Bill. I understand that the intention of this bill as expressed in its purpose is in fact to enable an evidence-based modernisation of the law as it relates to the care of children in New Zealand—specifically around the adoption of children.As members speaking before me have noted adoption law reform is on the Government’s legislative agenda but there is much more pressing work that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency in this country. We on this side understand that and are well aware of the issues raised by this bill. Although at a practical level the adoption system in New Zealand by and large works fairly well despite being rather outdated—and this applies whether these are adoptions from birth or later in life due to the orphaning of a child or other circumstances—this is not to say that there are not improvements that could be made but there are other pressing priorities that we are focusing on.Adoption is not a new thing. I am sure our learned Attorney-General will be aware of this example: 1900 years ago a non-patrician soldier born in Spain by the name of MarcusUlpiusTraianus became by adoption the EmperorTrajan Caesar of the Roman Empire.Trajan later went on to be considered one of the best Roman emperors a virtuous pagan as Edward Gibbon characterised him. It is unfortunate that at some points in our history there has been a certain stigma around adoption and discrimination against adoptees—for instance in the right to inherit—but I am encouraged by the fact that this has largely abated with the majority of adoptions in New Zealand now being open ones.Speaking from our own family experience in a situation whereby my brother had a daughter at a very young age my parents raised my niece their granddaughter in what some might call a whāngai arrangement—not a formal adoption but an open familial-based adoption—which the previous speakerLe’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylorreferred to. These systems and approaches are working in New Zealand. There is not an urgent or a pressing crisis here that needs to be addressed although there are obviously some areas where there could be some improvement.People adopt among other reasons because they want to create a family or take into the care of their family a child who has been neglected abandoned by its parents or orphaned. New Zealand has some of the easiest most straightforward and least stressful adoption procedures in the world when you are looking at other countries that operate adoption systems. I acknowledge that this bill has the best interests of children at its core. However it currently contains no workable provisions. It is impracticable. It would require a large amount of dedicated resource to make operable any of its suggestions.Even though National does not support this bill I would like to highlight some of the initiatives that this Government is taking that do significantly improve the lives of the most vulnerable children. Since National came into office in 2008 we have increased spending on early childhood education by 75 percent. At the end of the last financial year we celebrated the fact that almost 96 percent of children starting school had previously participated in some form of early childhood education.Under this Government we have also seen large increases in the number of 8-month-olds being fully immunised from diseases such as whooping cough and hepatitis B including some outstanding results among Māori and Pasifika communities which have previously and traditionally lagged behind their peers in immunisation rates. Again in the health sector we have seen a reduction in rheumatic fever rates in young children. More than 47000 schoolchildren have joined the Government’s programme to reduce rheumatic fever and we now have 211 schools and nine community-based clinics taking part in this with 146 new schools joining in the last 12 months.Perhaps one of the most significant measures National has taken to reduce the plight of vulnerable children was to introduce the Vulnerable Children Bill. There is not one member in this House who does not want to give every child a better start in life. In New Zealand there are far too many children who have been the victims of physical or psychological abuse and quite frankly New Zealanders have had enough. So I believe that it is quite right that these sorts of measures which address the real pressing and urgent issues ahead of changes to adoption rules—which although outdated affect a far smaller group of children than these major problem areas—are prioritised.As part of National’s Children’s Action Plan we have already expanded social workers in schools and hospitals increased funding and services for children in care and introduced children’s teams to work with at-risk children. I also welcome the member’s bill that was introduced by Tracey Martin—let us face it a far more carefully worked out member’s bill—that addresses some issues around clothing for orphans and kin carers.As I have previously said we are here to support the most vulnerable children in society. The Government is attending to this pressing business. I hope there will be more practical and more carefully considered legislation in this area brought forward in the future.Dr Rajen Prasad: Mr Speaker—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Oh dear! This’ll be sanctimonious.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call—Dr Rajen Prasad: That sanctimonious—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! [Interruption] Order! I have not called anybody yet. Calm down guys. Calm down. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Right.Dr Rajen Prasad: Mr Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Dr Rajen Prasad.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):Namaste. Is it not interesting that some people like to make comments but do not stop to listen to the response? That particular member Chris Finlayson who has not stopped to listen has done that before. He is the sanctimonious person he is the nasty person and he will not even face up. If he does I will remind him of his own sanctimony.That sets me up in a good mood for responding to this particular bill the Care of Children Law Reform Bill and the way in which Scott Simpson responded to this bill. I would have thought that the Government’s approach to the bill might be principled. What we got was surprising. It was indeed lazy. The Government’s response to the bill as articulated by Scott Simpson was one that paid no attention at all to the problem that this bill which Jacinda Ardern has put before us is trying to address. At least she did design something. At least she did put something before us which is more than that Government has done in almost 5 years of being in Government.Katrina Shanks: She’s doing nothing.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: The member had better stop to listen because she may learn something. She may learn something. The Government has not done anything. All it did was attack the proposer of the bill for no good reason at all. If the member Scott Simpson had wanted to be taken seriously he would have shown us what the Government has in train and we could have discussed that. The member did not do that at all. He simply called it—what did he say—sloppy and lazy. Well the response that Scott Simpson gave to this House would have been written by one of those lawyers who because of some principles unknown to me is actually against adoption the modern type of adoption that this bill would in the end regulate. I do not know who wrote that speech but it certainly was an unreasoned attack. It did not provide any solutions.It did do something and I wonder whether the member will stand by this. He said that the proposal that is in the name of a member of the Green Party is a better one. Well is the Government now saying that it is going to support that? Is the Government now saying that? I bet you that it is not. There is no programme of work. It has been a long time coming to this House. Here is a solution.I think that this bill proposed by Jacinda Ardern is actually quite elegant. It is quite elegant when you think about it because what it does is says that we should look to see what the problem is with an Act that was passed in 1955 the Adoption Act. I worked with the legislation in my first 10 years as a social worker in the field. It is still basically the same. It does not actually fit the modern environment that we have with adoptions. What the bill is saying is that we should go back and have a look at when the last major piece of work was done. Let us ask the Law Commission in this case to take all of the residual bits that have to do with adoption that were not taken up in the Care of Children Act. Let the commission have a look at it again bring all those proposals together and propose a bill to the House. At least that piece of work can start and would go alongside anything else that is happening in the House at the moment. That is quite elegant because the grunt work has already been done. The expertise resides there. It would have taken the considerations of modern adoptions a lot further.The members opposite have not done that. In fact all that they have done is pilloried the proposer and the proposal. No good reasons at all no arguments at all; it is just something that this Government does not have any plans about and if it has not got an idea nobody can have a better one—nobody can have a better one. So I think it is the response of Government members that has been lazy. I will say that the last member who took a call Paul Foster-Bell at least spoke about the bill and had somethingadditional to say but the others did not. I do not think that the third member from the National Party who spoke in this debate Katrina Shanks had even read the bill and understood it because she was talking about something that is supposed to be between clauses 6 and 9 without reading the preamble to the bill the explanatory note—that said it particularly well.The 1955 Act is old. It is now no longer relevant. How does it apply to open adoption adoption following care and protection step-parent adoption surrogacy intercountry adoption adoption for citizenship and a whole range of other arrangements that are now being developed around adoptions? Here at least was a proposal that could have taken that further and had some good good considerations. My final point is this: the Government could have said yes and let the Justice and Electoral Committee work through those things that the Government does not like. It could have been amended. But in fact the Government has thrown the baby out with the bathwater and in the process has shown and displayed its own ignorance. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO (National): Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker.Meitakimaata. I stand to take a call on the Care of Children Law Reform Bill. The previous speaker Rajen Prasad has been talking to us tonight about his concern about the way that the Government—and not only him but also other members the Greens have noted that it is not only about the baby that has been thrown out; it is about the bathwater. It is about the process. Although I do know that Ms Ardern has a true intent and would like to see legislation that does address this issue around adoption I think it is fair to say that it is the process we object to—hence the reason why as a Government we will oppose this bill.The purpose of this bill indicates that it is to facilitate an evidence-based modernisation of the law relating to the care of children in New Zealand. We would agree with that but I think what is quite clear is that the bill again is requiring the Minister responsible for the Law Commission to ask the Law Commission to review the law relating to the care of children. In a sense it is creating a bill to get the Law Commission to write a bill. I think that is where the concern has come from.Mr Prasad talked about the fact that the Government has not talked about the things that it is doing. In fact I think that my colleague here—my learned colleague Paul Foster-Bell—actually talked about those things. He talked about those things. He talked about things that are important such as the Family Court Proceedings Reform Bill that is in place around family disputes resolution and refocusing on the Family Court. He also talked about the Crimes Amendment Act that is there and again more work that the Government is doing in this area. There is the Vulnerable Children Bill which is quite conclusive in its role and also the Children’s Action Plan.This Government has been and is looking at the care of children—very much so. But in relation to this bill there are three key reasons why we oppose it. First of all the bill requires the Minister responsible for the Law Commission to ask the Law Commission to review the law relating to the care of children and update its September 2000 report on adoption. We know that the Law Commission produced a report around adoption and its alternatives. But in actual fact—and it is clear—it said firmly that all decision making around the care of children is to be based on the principle that the interests of the child must be regarded as the paramount consideration when making decisions affecting the child’s health and the child’s welfare.However adoption was left out of the Care of Children Act 2004. In a sense this is the response that is coming from Ms Ardern as well. Therefore this bill requires the Law Commission to update this. In our view this is a complete contradiction to thework already being undertaken by the Government on the care of children by way of the Family Court and also the Ministry of Social Development reforms.The other thing that we are also concerned about is that the bill requires the Law Commission within 12 months to report recommendations and draft legislation. This does concern us because again this legislation has only nine clauses. So the bill in itself is incomplete. We feel that it is incapable of addressing some of the concerns that even Ms Arden has put up as well.The last thing is that the bill requires the Minister of Justice to introduce legislation as drafted by the Law Commission without amendment and within 7 days—within 7 days. Again this is the reason why so many of us oppose this. The reality is that if this law were to be introduced it would take at least 4 years. So let us take this. After its introduction it would probably be 3 months before its referral to a select committee—around about 6 months just in the traditional process. The second and third readings would be around about 3 months. The Law Commission report would be around about 12 months. The Government bill then in its first reading schedule would be up to another 12 months the select committee another 6 months and second and third readings would be 3 months. In total we are probably talking about 4 years before legislation was introduced.That is a very good reason why the majority of the House—not just the Government—is opposed to this bill. I would have to say that we are not opposed to the intent of the member because I have observed that the intent of the member has always been the right intent. What we are opposed to is its process. I know that this member can do better and does do better. But in this instance I would have to say as is the majority of opinion in the House tonight this is not appropriate. This is not a bill that we feel will address that issue. So quite clearly we oppose the bill.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I thank members for their contributions to this debate—with the exception of Tau Henare. I think it is a low point in this House to be called lazy by Tau Henare. That is definitely going down in my book.I think the ultimate frustration for me in this debate has been that there is an acceptance across this House that our adoption laws need to be updated. That did not seem to be something that was disputed in this debate. No one seemed to argue that point. So there is agreement generally that our adoption laws need to be updated yet still nothing has come before this House in the way of reform in this area.The last time that I approached a Minister in the National Government and asked about it I offered to them and said: “Look we are looking to progress this piece of work. We want to get it right. Ultimately we would prefer it if the Government did it. You are better placed to do something of this complexity because members’ bills are drafted by members not using the expertise of parliamentary counsel and drafters.” We went to the Government. We asked it to pursue this. I had a meeting with the Minister. His response was this: “It is not a priority for this Government.” So I find it absolutely offensive to have members on that side of the House abuse Labour members for trying to pursue this issue and for trying to claim that we do not care about it when that Government has refused to further this any more than it has in the last 5 years which has been absolutely nothing.I want to refer to some of the comments that were made by the likes of people like Scott Simpson who claimed that this bill the Care of Children Law Reform Bill was a blank piece of paper. This bill essentially enacts 350 pages of work. So my question is this—because it was not only Scott Simpson who made that claim; it was Tau Henare as well and Tau did not even mention adoption I should add—how many of the members across that side of the House have read the Law Commission’s reportAdoption and Its Alternatives? Who has read it? Who has read it? No wonder they do not understandwhat this bill does. This bill is essentially saying that we agree with the 350 pages of policy work that has already been done. We agree to the point that it is about time that it was progressed by this debating chamber.If members on that side of the House like to claim that adoption is a cross-party issue that we all agree on why would they have any objection to adopting the work of the Law Commission? So for members on that side of the House to claim that there was nothing in this bill and for that side of the House to claim it was a blank piece of paper all that proves to me is that they know nothing—know nothing—about the history of the work that has gone on in this area and that they would rather sit back and say: “It’s not a priority.” than use a mechanism to fast track a piece of work that is well overdue. So quite frankly I found that offensive to say the least. Let us be honest—let us be honest. If we had translated the Law Commission’s 350 pages of work including its recommendations which essentially is a bill—if we had presented that to the House I can bet your bottom dollar that the first thing members on that side of the House would have said is: “There is an error in paragraphs 4 5 12 10 and 18. We cannot agree with this piece of legislation.” I can guarantee they would not have supported it to go further to a select committee.And what am I basing that argument on? Well there is another bill currently on adoption reform—there is. It is in the ballot right now. It is sitting there wasting away taking a gamble to be drawn and members on that side of the House had the audacity to say: “Well why don’t we use that instead?”. Well why do they not? If this Government genuinely believes in adoption reform and the paramountcy principle in putting children first I challenge it to adopt Kevin Hague’s bill tomorrow as a Government bill and progress this work; otherwise everything that Government members have said in this House tonight is utterly hollow if they are unwilling to do that.Ultimately the people losing out as the result of Parliament being unwilling to progress this work that everyone agrees needs to be done—ultimately the losers are not me who was ritualistically abused by some members of the House tonight. It is not me; it is those families who desperately want a law change in this area. I challenge the Government members to respond to the kinds of emails I got through this debate and tell them that this work is not a priority. I challenge them to adopt that member’s bill that is in the ballot if this one is not to their liking. Or I challenge them to present a bill of their own before the next election when we finally get the chance to do the work ourselves.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it. [Interruption] The Ayes have it. [Interruption] Right. In that case the Clerk is instructed to carry out a party vote. Thank you.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a requirement for someone to call for a party vote after—[Interruption] Well no—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Can you hear the point of order first? With all due respect I did hear someone call for a party vote but it was after you said you would ask the Clerk for a party vote. My understanding of the way that these things are meant to be ordered is that you declare a result and if the people do not like it then there is a requirement for a party vote. Although it is probably reasonable given the debate for you to anticipate that there might be a division on this particular question the point I would like to put to you is that you should wait to make sure that they are actually voting with their votes as opposed to just on their voices. As you will know Mr Assistant Speaker although there is a tradition in this House of having votes after voicevotes there is a long-term tradition of members being able to vote on the voices but not force a division. My view is that it is up to you to wait and make sure that members do want a division before you decide that there should be one.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): As is your custom you called for the Ayes. Members opposite said “Aye.” You called for the Noes and members on this side said “No.” I immediately said “The Noes have it.” and I was joined in that by several of my colleagues. Immediately after that I said “Party vote.” as you were saying “The Noes have it.” The member’s point is totally wrong.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I think that the member has absolutely proved my case because what he has to do is to call for the vote after you have declared the result. So you quite properly said “Those in favour say Aye those opposed say No.” But you went then from saying “The Ayes have it.”; you declared the result but then immediately called for a party vote rather than wait until after the member had himself called for a party vote which he can do only after you have declared the result. He cannot call for a party vote against a result until he knows what the result is. That is the way things work. You have got to declare a result and then that is the point when he calls for a party vote.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just instruct the House that the declaration of the result was challenged and I took it from this side that there was a party vote called for so I instructed a party vote to be taken. I now instruct the Clerk to please take the party vote.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That cannot possibly be right because you called “The Ayes have it.” Why would people on this side of the House who supported it call for a division on a vote when you had already declared that we had won? That cannot be right.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well can I just say that the thing was challenged and because it was challenged I instructed a party vote to be called. So I now call the Clerk to conduct a party vote.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you might be confusing a challenge with people voting different ways. There have got to be two things. First of all people have the right to vote—Ayes and Noes—but there is a division only if your declaration is challenged as I have tried to indicate to the House. I can give you the case of the immigration legislation of I think 1983 where there was a group of seven or eight Labour members who voted No. This was the Samoan legislation of 1983 which ended up going to the Privy Council. Rosenberg I think took it to the Privy Council. But the point that I am trying to make is that it is always the right of the members to vote with their voices but not to call a division. And they can call for a division—they can challenge your result—only when you have declared it. The point that I am making to you is that you had not declared the result before Mr Macindoe was calling for a party vote. He has got to wait for you to call for a party vote before he can challenge your ruling because you cannot challenge a ruling that has not been made.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well can I just say to the member that my declaration was challenged and so on that basis I instructed a party vote to be taken. That is the reason why I asked the Clerk to please conduct a party vote. I would appreciate it if the Clerk would now do that. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Care of Children Law Reform Bill be now read a first time.Ayes42New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent Horan.Noes78New Zealand National 59; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment BillFirst ReadingSUE MORONEY (Labour): I moveThat the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill as I hear it does not have much work in front of it.This Government has played fast and loose with the privacy of New Zealanders. From ACC and EQC to MSD right through to the GCSB and every acronym in between this Government has demonstrated that it has absolutely no regard for the privacy of everyday New Zealanders yet it would have us believe that the litany—the litany—of privacy breaches is the result of human error performed by some inept faceless public servants. But what could we expect when the first shocking privacy breach was a deliberate breach by a Minister?I am a bit old-fashioned when it comes to the role of Ministers. I believe that they should lead by example. So what example was Minister Paula Bennett setting when she released to the media the private details of two sole parents in retribution for them daring to speak out against her cuts to the tertiary incentive allowance? Did she stop to consider the impact on them or their children when she launched her spiteful attack on their private information? Well perhaps she did but then she must have decided that using the power and information held by a Minister against two women with much less power and fewer resources than her was the ministerial thing to do. Even the Prime Minister John Key was quoted in theDominion Postas saying that he was “comfortable” with the women’s information being released. He was pretty relaxed about it. We are kind of used to John Key being relaxed but I thought it was really quite a low blow for the Prime Minister to not even stand up for the privacy of those women.However the Office of Human Rights Proceedings was not comfortable with the women’s information being released by that Minister. The director of that office told the Minister that she had breached their privacy. That Minister responded by writing to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings saying “I do not accept that view.” Well how very arrogant. How very arrogant of that Minister to decide that she knows better than the Director of Human Rights Proceedings about whether or not those women’s privacy had been breached.So if I am correct and if Ministers do lead by example then what happened next is no surprise. In that Minister’s own department there were many privacy breaches that followed. In 2011 there were 10 Work and Income staff who were sacked after two inquiries into breaches of privacy. Seven staff were dismissed for appalling breaches including sharing information with family members but the allegation that personal details were sold to a debt collection agency was not proven. Three people were sacked from that Minister’s own department for breaching the zero-tolerance policy. One ofthem was sacked for emailing their partner about a client. Another one of them was sacked for emailing someone in another Government department. And the third of them was sacked for accessing and processing records of people they knew. But when they had a Minister who went out and deliberately as an act of retribution breached the privacy of two women who dared to complain about her cuts then why should we be surprised that that was the next thing that happened?Of course it was also at the Ministry of Social Development where the infamous privacy breach happened with the new system that it had in place where people could go and access their own information on a computer screen. Of course what happened was that the ministry had taken such a lax approach to it that other people were actually able to get sensitive information about other clients of Work and Income and their private information. The rest of that is history.She is not the only Minister under this Government who has led by example in breaching people’s privacy. The Minister of Justice Judith Collins—in fact in her role as Minister for ACC—was also embroiled in a privacy scandal. This was the ACC information that related to a complaint by BronwynPullar. We would never have known BronwynPullar’s name except that somehow her name as the complainant in this piece got leaked to the media. By the Minister’s own admission there were only four people who had BronwynPullar’s details—the Minister herself one staff member the then chairman of ACC John Judge and ACC’s chief executive. There were just four people. We still do not know to this day which of those four people leaked that information. [Interruption] Well I have not seen it publicly disclosed but I think we can all guess what the answer would be. Even Michelle Boag who is closely associated with the National Party—in fact she is its former president—said: “When you can’t send a communication to a Government Minister without fearing that the privacy of that communication is going to be breached that’s very very dangerous.” That was Michelle Boag a friend of the National Party and what she had to say when commenting on how BronwynPullar’s information happened to get in front of the media.While I am speaking about Judith Collins she promised at a conference that she spoke to during Privacy Awareness Week in 2012 that during the first half of 2013 she would table in this House a privacy bill that would replace the outdated Privacy Act. Well we are heading into November and we still have not seen hide nor hair of that bill—lazy Minister lazy Government. Obviously they are not on top of this issue and are not taking privacy issues seriously.So what does this bill do? Any party that is taking privacy breaches seriously will be supporting this bill tonight. If parties do not support it they cannot get up and say that they take privacy breaches seriously. So I look forward to the Government’s support on it.What does the bill do? It does two things. They are two things that were recommended in fact by the much-maligned Law Commission—the Law Commission that National has just spent the last hour maligning in this Parliament. The Law Commission does indeed do some very very good work. The two measures in this bill are the following things. First of all the bill gives the Privacy Commissioner the ability to investigate any privacy breach without having to have an individual complain to her first. That is very important because often as with the sole mothers in the example that I gave before people actually do not want to make complaints particularly against Ministers and with the power relationship involved in that. It is very difficult for individuals to make complaints.The second measure that it brings in is that the Privacy Commissioner can actually require agencies to do particular things to fix up their privacy settings within theirorganisations. Currently as the law stands the Privacy Commissioner can make recommendations but agencies do not have to take any heed of that. This bill will fix it. It is an important step forward for actually getting to the heart of this litany of privacy breaches that have been happening under this Government and I know that parties that take these privacy breaches seriously will indeed use this opportunity tonight to support this legislation.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Scott Wilson.Scott Simpson: Simpson.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Simpson. It escaped me for a minute Mr Simpson.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. It was aRangitīkeimember who used to have that name of Wilson I understand. However good evening to you Mr Assistant Speaker and members. It is a pleasure remotely to take a call on the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill introduced by that member “SueMoroner”—Sue Moroney not “Moroner”.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!SCOTT SIMPSON: The Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think we all know the Speakers’ ruling in this particular area relating to deliberately attempting to mock a member in that way. The member did not stumble. If he had done it once it would have been a stumble. But he did it twice. He did it deliberately and my view is that you should at least require him to withdraw and apologise. I will take the next point of order soon. If you are going to take it really seriously then you would terminate his speech.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well can I just say that it is actually a form of unparliamentary language and it can probably be seen as a personal reflection under Standing Order 117. I would just like to take the opportunity to remind all members that all members are honourable and that is it. We refer to each other as honourable despite what we may think is otherwise. We call the member what we would want them and us all to become. So I caution the House that we see the world as it is not as it can be. So I just caution the member to please be careful when he addresses the House in the manner that he has done.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The other point that I thought you might have ruled on without me having to draw it to your attention was the interjection during the point of order on the part of the—what is he called? The fourth whip? The National Party junior person—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon Trevor Mallard: No he is an assistant deputy whip or something like that. But when you are sitting in that chair you are meant to obey the rules and you are not meant to interject during points of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is perfectly understood Mr Mallard and I am sure members have learnt from that but unfortunately there was an interjection on the member’s own side that did not actually help. We are back now with Mr Simpson.SCOTT SIMPSON: The honourable member opposite Sue Moroney who has introduced this bill the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I know that it is members’ day and it is members’ time but interjections are not permitted betweenmembers who do not have the floor. If they want to interject on the person who is speaking or addressing the House that is another matter but not on each other. I call the honourable member Scott Simpson.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was defending you. He was saying you are a grumpy old man.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I know it is Wednesday evening Mr Mallard. I call the honourable member Scott Simpson.SCOTT SIMPSON: The honourable member who has introduced this bill the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill has in her introductory words spent an awful lot of time citing a variety of cases where privacy has been breached by various agencies of the State. It is fair to say that the Government does take privacy issues very seriously but we live in a time of great change of speedy change and of technological change. I think one of the things that we have all done from time to time is make an error when we have pushed a button on an email or hit the send button when we thought we should not or copy in people whom we thought we should not. It does happen from time to time. I am not making excuses for other people’s failings; all I am saying is that from time to time human failings do occur to us all and computer technology glitches can from time to time occur.They are however a significant matter of importance when people’s individual privacy is impacted on and when there are matters to do with their interaction with State agencies. So the purpose of this bill that the member has introduced—and it is a short bill—seems to read that it is to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner has sufficient investigative and enforcement powers.The Government agrees with the Law Commission’s recommendations to replace the Privacy Act with a new one and indeed as was mentioned in the mover’s opening speech already action is being taken for that to occur. I understand that a paper is going to Cabinet later this year and we expect new legislation to be introduced next year. The National Government actually wants to have legislation that appropriately and fully balances the need and the right of individuals to have their privacy against the need for particular Government agencies to be able to share information and to perform the roles and requirements that the State agencies have to do on behalf of the taxpayer. It is a question of balance and it is a question of ensuring that systems and procedures are in place.I would think that most people in the House would probably agree that ways to improve the protection of personal information and how it is collected and stored and how it is used to help people are positive things and things that this House should be taking note of. Indeed over the last little period of time there have been a number of quite high-profile instances where privacy breaches have occurred through various Government agencies. In order to prevent breaches of that magnitude from happening again it is important that the Privacy Commissioner is able to undertake investigations to identify gaps in process and systems and maintenance and in terms of bringing agencies into a compliance regime. That compliance regime needs to be in terms of the Privacy Act 1993.The honourable member who introduced the bill believes that giving the Privacy Commissioner the ability to issue compliance notices and demand information-handling audits across the public sector and the private sector is indeed the only way to ensure that private information in New Zealand held by agencies is not misused or breached by the public sector or outside entities. I am not sure that that is the only way. I think that there are a number of other options. The concern I have is that although on this side of the House we agree with the Law Commission’s recommendation that the Privacy Commissioner be able to issue compliance notices the point where we differ with themover on this bill is that we do not support an audit power being given to the commissioner. We want to ensure that the commissioner’s role is strengthened and that it is going to be able to have the teeth to ensure that the systems are robust and that maintenance and privacy can be protected.This bill from Sue Moroney takes only a very narrow and small number of the selected recommendations of the work that the Law Commission did. It does not consider for one minute the combined impact of the wide-ranging recommendations by the commission. We actually have to I think take the commission’s recommendations as a whole rather than just sort of picking bits and pieces out of them. I do not think that that will provide the kind of balance and structure and form that is going to provide for good system and good process.Since the 1993 Act was passed of course technology has developed at a scary rate for many of us. As I said earlier there are a number of times when human error can intervene so it is up to agencies of the State to ensure that they do have the robust processes. This piece of legislation introduced by the honourable member is not one that we will be supporting because it does not complete the whole package. It does not address the whole issue and of course we are pursuing our own piece of work on it. For the second time tonight we are presented with a very small piece of work from a member opposite that really does not do justice I think to the process of members’ bills. It is a short six-clause piece. The explanatory note is indeed longer than the proposed piece of legislation. Really I think that the process of members’ bills deserves better and more fulsome analysis and consideration than to have pieces of legislation like this brought to the House. We will not be supporting this bill.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill and to say how disappointing it is that a member from the Government side should say that the reason they are opposing this very important bill on this very important issue is that it fails to take account of the Law Commission’s recommendations as a whole. The problem with that proposition is that the Law Commission’s recommendations were reported more than 2 years ago—August 2011. Then more than a year ago we had the Minister of Justice Judith Collins saying that there was going to be a bill in the first half of 2013. We are still waiting.It is not good enough for members on the Government side to say that this bill does not go far enough when they cannot present their own schedule of changes—an upgrading of our privacy laws. “Show us what you’ve got.” I think is the response to that—“Show us what you’ve got.” In the absence of anything—[Interruption] We have moved on from Len Brown I think Mr Mallard. In the absence of anything at all this bill actually does make some meaningful difference and some meaningful change.This bill does two things. It allows audits of agencies and “agency” of course is defined in the primary legislation. It is pretty widespread—both public and private organisations. It also allows the Privacy Commissioner to order compliance to take a coercive approach to those organisations that demonstrate a systemic failure in their privacy management. That is long overdue. We need that. Actually we need an Office of the Privacy Commissioner that is better resourced than it is at the moment. We have a very good Privacy Commissioner who does—Hon Trevor Mallard: Have they finished with that complaint about Judith Collins yet?ANDREW LITTLE: Well we would like to see some complaints actually brought to fruition. One of the most important complaints in the last couple of years was the complaint against the Minister of Justice who happens to be effectively the “Minister for Privacy” because she is the Minister responsible for the Office of the PrivacyCommissioner. We are still waiting for the conclusion of the investigation into the breach of privacy from her office.As Sue Moroney said in her opening gambit we know that there were four people who had access to the information about BronwynPullar—who actually had access to the email from Michelle Boag that had the information about BronwynPullar—and that was the Minister herself a staff member and two senior personnel from ACC. I think it is pretty clear that the people from ACC had nothing to do with the disclosure to the media. They were under the hammer. They had no interest in it. But the Minister and her office are well in the frame and they are still in the frame for that breach of privacy.There have of course been other breaches of privacy for which that same Minister is in the frame. We had the leak of theKitteridge report. Of course we had a different person investigating that leak because of course you do not want the person who has investigated the first leak to investigate the second leak because then they start to see the pattern of conduct. So we did not have the Privacy Commissioner investigating the leak of the report on the Government Communications Security Bureau; we had RebeccaKitteridge. She did a report and the report was leaked. It was pinned on Peter Dunne. I have to say I do not believe that Peter Dunne leaked that report. I am going to say that I think Judith Collins leaked it because she had the most to gain from that leak.Hon Trevor Mallard: And she’s got form.ANDREW LITTLE: And she has got form. Then of course associated with all of this is her relationship with a person called Cameron Slater otherwise known as Whale Oil. He has been in the news a bit lately for another breach of privacy not Len Brown’s privacy—he is a public figure—but the breach of the privacy ofBevanChuang.I just say that it is no wonder that this Government does not take privacy seriously. It is no wonder that we have a Minister in charge of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner who has no interest in beefing up our privacy laws because she sits at the centre of some of the most egregious breaches of privacy that we have seen in the last 2 years. She is not going to change them. She has no interest in it. She is the source of the greatest privacy breaches.We support this bill. It is an important bill. It will do important things. This House should support it.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): Thank you to my Opposition colleague Andrew Little. You can always tell when a bill is not quite the way it should be when you hear Andrew speaking noisily—noisily—and he was quite noisy there. He was quite noisy.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand the member referred to the member as “Andrew” and I think that is unparliamentary.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well to be honest it is not unparliamentary. However the rules are that when you address someone in this House it must be by either their title or their full name so the member is quite right.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you Mr Speaker. I was referring of course to Andrew Little. We do have a pretty good personal—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is Wednesday night.Hon Trevor Mallard: I do not want to be a pedant but I think it is generally at least by their first name and their surname. There are a number of people who have titles and it is appropriate for them to be used but I am not sure what MrLittle’s full name is and I am pretty sure that Mr Auchinvole does not know it. I think for you to require him to use it would be a little unfair.Hon Michael Woodhouse: It may assist the House if I draw the member’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 27/7(2). It may not have the definition of what “full name” is but it certainly does require the member to use “a person’s full name”.Hon Trevor Mallard: I am now Mr Assistant Speaker going to invite you to give a ruling to the House that for this purpose “full name” means either “Mr Little” or in my case the “Hon Trevor Mallard” or the “Hon Mr Mallard” would suffice—Clare Curran: What about the surname?Hon Trevor Mallard: Well this is the point. I am inviting you to rule Mr Assistant Speaker that the middle name is not necessary and “full name” means at a minimum “Ms Curran” or “Clare Curran” but you do not have to say “Clare Mary Curran”.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you for your help Mr Mallard. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Mr Mallard has asked me to give a ruling so I am going to quote my own ruling actually. It is Speakers’ ruling 28/1 and it says: “Members may not be addressed by nicknames first names and so on. They should be addressed by their proper name or by the position or portfolio they hold.” So there you are—done. I call the honourable member Chris Auchinvole.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Mr Speaker. Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have already called the honourable member—it is your time.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I just thought the other members may not have heard you. I would like to thank you for your guidance on this issue and of course I also thank the Hon Trevor Colin Mallard born on 17 June 1954 for his very precise requirement that he and others be identified in clarity. I do actually have quite a good personal relationship with Andrew Little and indeed I have been known to refer to Mr Mallard as “Trev” during select committees not that I would do so in the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No and the member should not.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: As I would not let alone should not.Hon Trevor Mallard: And I’ve only ever called the member “darling” once.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Ha ha! But perhaps we could start with the bill the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill. This is of course from Sue Moroney.In another theatre I might say: “Sue Moroney you’ve over-egged the cake a little with this one.” which is such a pity. I am put in mind of the sort of ragbag collection of members’ bills that Charles Chauvel had his legal firm assist with when they came forward and this one has got more in the description than in the substance which is such a pity because it is quite an important subject. And when one compares it with the other bills that you have promoted this would not be I expect you would agree a six-star job really. No I did not think so.Sue Moroney: If you take privacy seriously it is.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Oh I take the process very seriously and indeed the Government takes the process seriously. That is why we cannot in spite of the best intentions support this bill—because we do take this matter seriously. We have spent time citing cases.I reiterate that the Government takes privacy very very seriously. Errors occur—errors occur. You know we have the Green Party members who believe in catastrophic revelations—everything they touch is a catastrophe. Everything is catastrophic in its proportions. Nothing is human error.Scott Simpson: The sky is falling!CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The sky is not only falling; we are all being absorbed and consumed by it no matter what it is. So a case of a breach of privacy is a catastrophe.Oil that is yet to be drilled is going to cover New Zealand—it is a catastrophe. It has not happened yet. But the Government takes privacy errors seriously. Errors occur. We are not talking about excuses but we are talking about the reality with computers and technical information. It is a matter of importance when these errors occur and when omissions occur.This bill is to ensure that the commissioner has sufficient powers which is OK. The Law Commission though has reported on this matter. National has agreed to bring in legislation to do this may I say properly. It is important that the Privacy Commissioner can investigate and bring organisations into the correct code. However this member believes empowering the commissioner to issue compliance notices will do that. The Government thinks a broader view is required. We want to strengthen—Clare Curran: What’s your plan then? Where is the plan?CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well if you listen—you have probably missed half of it already—you will hear. We want to strengthen the Office of the Privacy Commissioner. We want to strengthen its role but not to the same narrow extent that this bill does which would in effect imprison the commissioner to a relatively limited range of activities. We want to take the Law Commission’s report as a whole and reform the 1993 Act and for that reason and in spite of the member’s best intentions we will not support this bill.JAN LOGIE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. In 2011 the Law Commission’s landmark report on privacy law in Aotearoa New Zealand made two key recommendations for empowering the Privacy Commissioner to protect against the sorts of breaches that we have been seeing happening in this country. The first of these was that the commissioner should be able to issue compliance notices. The second was the power to require an audit of an agency’s practices and systems for handling private information. These would have brought New Zealand’s Privacy Commissioner’s powers into line with the majority of comparable overseas bodies charged with the protection of privacy. This Government did not follow through on either of those recommendations and that is why we have this bill in front of the House tonight. The Government had promised a bill for earlier this year; we have not seen it. We are still waiting. It has promised and it is still promising—next year.Andrew Williams: Promises promises.JAN LOGIE: Well I think this House does take privacy seriously so rather than waiting and forcing the Government into the position of breaking more of its promises the member Sue Moroney is offering this House the opportunity to actually do something and not have the Government break its promises in the future. I would like to offer my congratulations to the member Sue Moroney on her excellent choice of issues and luck in getting her bills drawn which I am seriously envious of.The Green Party will be supporting this bill. This bill enables the Privacy Commissioner to issue compliance notices and demand information-handling audits across the public and private sectors without the need for people to make complaints. The current system as has been noted is complaints-driven and the commissioner is very limited in her ability to take initiative. That limits the commissioner’s ability to address underlying systemic problems. It is important that she has the ability to compel action in response to her concerns.In a lot of the annual round-ups for 2012 privacy was at the top of the list of items of importance for this country. Earlier this year we saw a full town hall in Auckland on the Government Communications Security Bureau and Related Legislation Amendment Bill which was another demonstration that New Zealanders have actually been pushed over their trust threshold with this Government and they want their privacy back.The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has been significantly underfunded and its funding has remained static for the last 8 years. It has been told that that can be expected to continue for a while longer. It has funding of around $3.5 million a year to fulfil all of its functions except that it told a select committee earlier this year that it cannot fulfil all those functions within that funding it does not have the capacity to do everything and it is having to prioritise.In that context this Government has had oversight of multiple very significant privacy breaches within Government departments namely the Inland Revenue Department ACC Work and Income Ministry of Justice Immigration Novopay the Earthquake Commission and the list goes on. That means that potentially every single New Zealander has at some stage in the last few years had their privacy breached.We need to be focusing now as a Parliament on how we can increase people’s confidence in their information rather than increase the risk that potentially undermines that confidence. This bill is something that we can do as a House to help rebuild people’s trust in the State’s ability to handle their information and in their ability to get redress without having to make a complaint personally. This initiative is not covering everything. It is a member’s bill and members’ bills are not supposed to supposed to cover everything but it is one action that we can do to help rebuild trust and the Green Party is happy to support that.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): Firstly I might take a moment to congratulate Sue Moroney on drawing yet another lucky number. She has been busy on members’ day ever since I have been in this House.Sue Moroney: Come to the races with me.IAN McKELVIE: Yes we might get a bit of luck there too Sue might we not? We are not far out from the Melbourne Cup now. This bill the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill does touch on some areas that are of great importance and interest to all New Zealanders. Like in many countries worldwide the new age of technology has led to some issues with security breaches that were not previously experienced and are certainly not desirable. Some of the discussion of course has taken place during the recent discussions on the Telecommunications (Interception Capability and Security) Bill introduced to enable our law enforcement agencies to operate in the new era which is an increasingly complex and testing area to understand as members opposite have demonstrated in the past few weeks. Mr Scott Simpson has spoken at length on the reasons we are not able to offer support for this bill so I will merely agree with everything he has said and get on with matters of interest to us all.Andrew Little then said “Show us what you’ve got.” Well I went and got a copy of this bill and if that is all we have got we ain’t got much—it is a page. It is a page. He then went on to talk about some other nefarious stuff with respect to “Show us what you’ve got.” I did not believe any of it. He then got muddled to some extent and started talking about the Minister of Justice and in fact what a wonderful job she has done with that portfolio in her time with it. So I thought really that Andrew Little did a great job.Trevor Mallard’s performance tonight on the other hand has me wishing that the America’s Cup was still running. We certainly got a lot more done during the running of those cup finals and I did quite enjoy the House in that couple of weeks. Mr Auchinvole then got up made an outstanding speech about this bill and then started talking about the black gold. I really thought for a minute that he had joined the Greens but we were saved from that because they then got up and started talking about the Government Communications Security Bureau legislation. They told us that the Privacy Commissioner is underfunded. Well I understand that the Government raised another$1.8 billion today. That should alleviate some of the problem with our funding of issues throughout New Zealand.So with those few words I am afraid that I cannot support this bill and I will resume my seat.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First supports the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill to the appropriate select committee the Justice and Electoral Committee. It has a very long name but it is an appropriate name because it describes serious issues with our Privacy Commissioner. One of those issues is about resources another issue is about status with regard to an initiating power for investigations and a third issue is about enforcement. Those are very important issues that certainly do need to be considered so New Zealand First welcomes the bill for that reason.The bill amends the Privacy Act 1993 in two ways as recommended by the Law Commission in 2011. It is amazing of course that the Government has not acted on this itself and I hear that it has probably just forgotten to do so because there is apparently no other good reason given for that. In any event the first thing the bill does is empower the commissioner to carry out an investigation or an audit into any Government agency’s privacy practices. It says: “for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the information is maintained according to the information privacy principles.” There are 12 such principles set out in detail in section 6 of the principal Act the Privacy Act. Under this proposed amendment the commissioner would be able to investigate without first receiving a complaint. We in New Zealand First believe that is in fact what is now needed.It is a natural evolution for New Zealand’s privacy laws and it is needed because State agencies have demonstrated that it is needed by their repeated failures—in some cases—to ensure even basic compliance with the privacy principles set out in section 6. Indeed in the last 2 years we have seen some very gross breaches of personal privacy—in fact far too many of them. This is likely to be only the tip of the iceberg. Most people will never know about the breaches that agencies successfully cover up. They do not have the expertise or resources to know and they do not have the ability in many cases to do anything about it even if they did know. Many people are also unwilling to make a formal complaint and have to face up to the procedures required to do that.So for those reasons it is now clear to us that the commissioner must in the future be empowered to initiate their own inquiries. This will change the Office of the Privacy Commissioner into an investigations entity not just one with reactive powers following a complaint. So it is a fundamental change and it is one that should come. New Zealand First supports it. It is clearly time for this change. It will get a very large degree of public support. The Government should in fact embrace it and adopt this bill as a Government bill forthwith—otherwise why has it done nothing?The other thing that the bill does is to empower the commissioner to issue a notice requiring compliance with the Act. That is what is needed following an investigation. It would add a discretionary enforcement power to the current power to simply make recommendations. There is significant public dissatisfaction with the toothless Privacy Commissioner and agencies too often do not take full notice of recommendations.There is another issue also not dealt with by this bill and that is the issue of resources. The Privacy Commissioner is getting more and more work mostly generated by the public through complaints but some generated by recent Government legislation such as the recent Government Communications Security Bureau Act amendments. If this bill is passed there will be significantly more work if the Privacy Commissioner begins to initiate their own investigations. So I call on the Government to avoid its usual penny-pinching as far as the Office of the Privacy Commissioner is concerned and toimprove the resources of the office to enable it to cope with the current increase in complaints and also the additional work that the bill is bound to generate.Finally the bill is one that as I have said I would have expected the Government to have brought forward. It has not done so. It should now support the bill. New Zealand First will do so. We want to see it go to the select committee with a view to it proceeding to a successful final reading.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Dr Paul Hutchison.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua): Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. You did indeed get my name right. It is an unexpected pleasure to speak on this Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill. The title is a bit tortuous but then again might I too congratulate Sue Moroney on having it plucked out of the ballot.But what I do think that Sue Moroney does need is a small lesson on how to win friends and influence people. I was a little concerned when she said that it would go to the Justice and Electoral Committee because it had nothing much to do. Well I think that is a deep insult to the hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee so ably led by Scott Wilson. [Interruption] Mr Assistant Speaker you can help me with that. His name is Scott Simpson—so ably led by Scott Simpson.I was deeply worried that I was not going to get the chance to speak because of the time taken during the numerous liberal interjections by none other than the Hon Trevor Colin Mallard born 17 June 1954 schooled at that illustrious—Hon Trevor Mallard: Where did he go to school?Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Yes. That illustrious institution Onslow College.Hon Trevor Mallard: Who else went there?Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: Well I must say several other very eminent parliamentarians went to that great school as well and benefited from it. Just to add some other information the Hon Trevor Colin Mallard was born in 1954 first elected in 1984—a different millennium than we are in—to the seat of Hamilton West and then slid southward to his present occupancy.This bill indeed covers a very very important issue and sadly—sadly—the bill that Sue Moroney has presented to the House takes only a very very small section of the Law Commission’s recommendations. As we know the Law Commission always takes these things very thoroughly. I am hugely aware from my professional background of the importance of privacy in this country having lived through the unfortunate experiment at National Women’s Hospital which was then compounded by the Gisborne cervical cancer scandal some decades later and then followed by the Green Lane Hospital heart issue all of which involved deeply profoundly personal privacy issues. The point to be made is that any legislation covering this issue of privacy must indeed be a thorough and appropriate response to the Law Commission. Sadly this bill is woefully scant in that respect.The Government in the meantime is working hard and appropriately to make sure it introduces a bill that is appropriate to the complexity of the issues required. Of course one of the issues that we are all aware of and I know that all members of the House support is the vulnerable children’s legislation. There information sharing is absolutely necessary between various Government departments and agencies and to have that right and correct has required a lot of thought. I understand Sir AnandSatyanand is leading the committee looking at that because it does require the balancing of all sorts of personal—[Bell rung] Oh thank you. One more minute to go? How excellent—Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s what he was indicating. Don’t worry.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I am delighted once again that the Hon Trevor Colin Mallard has leapt in to try to assist the House. Sometimes it does not quite happen that his interventions are all that helpful but we do give him marks for his frequent interventions. But the point is that National wants legislation that balances the rights and needs of privacy for individuals against the need for particular Government agencies to be able to share information to deliver better public services for New Zealand. It is indeed one of our priorities but to get it right is absolutely vital.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.