Volume 700 Week 77 - Thursday 3 July 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 700 Week 77 - Thursday 3 July 2014[Sitting date: 03 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19201. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 3 July 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsChina—Ethnic Affairs Committee National People’s CongressMr SPEAKER: I am sure members would wish to welcome a delegation from the Ethnic Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress of China led by the Chairman Mr Li Jingtian.Business StatementHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House):Next week the House is in the first week of a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 22 July the Government intends to progress the Land Transport Amendment Bill the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill and the Māori Language (Te Reo Māori) Bill. With the agreement of the Business Committee there will be two extended House sittings. On the morning of Wednesday 23 July the House will progress the first reading of the Subordinate Legislation (Confirmation and Validation) Bill (No 3) the second readings of the Parliamentary Privilege Bill and the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill and the debate on the Privileges Committee reports. On Thursday 24 July the House will debate the third readings of the Te Urewera-Tūhoe Bill and the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Bill. Wednesday is a members’ day.Business of the HouseHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House):Following discussions in the Business Committee I seek leave for the reports of the Privileges Committee on the questions of privilege regarding the use of intrusive powers against members and concerning the agreements for policing execution of search warrants and collection and retention of information by the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service to be set down for consideration as Government orders of the day to be taken during the extension of the sitting on Tuesday 22 July 2014.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.Questions to MinistersEconomic Programme—Policies Results and Alternative Approaches1.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei)to the Minister of Finance: How will the Government’s responsible fiscal management help to ensure interest rates will remain lower than they were in the previous economic cycle?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance)on behalf of theMinister of Finance: The Government will continue to responsibly manage its finances by being careful with its spending and focusing on delivering better results to New Zealanders. It is important that we do not allow interest rates to increase to levels seen in 2007 and 2008 when homeowners were paying almost 11 percent on their floating mortgages. That would be irresponsible. So we have stuck to our very tight operating allowances for new spending and revenue initiatives for 2014-15 and that allowance will increase marginally to $1.5 billion in the 2015 Budget. Treasury has confirmed that this is around the upper limit of new spending before it starts to materially affect interest rates and it is well below the enormous $7 billion operating allowance under Labour in 2008.Hon Phil Heatley: What are some of the benefits of the Government’s responsible approach to carefully managing its finances?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are a number of benefits. Firstly the Government remains on track to return to fiscal surplus in the current financial year. Secondly the latest Budget projections indicate that net Government debt—and I stress that is excluding the New Zealand Superannuation Fund—will have fallen to around 13 percent of GDP by 2023. In dollar terms that will be about $150 billion less than Treasury projected before our first Budget in 2009. Thirdly we have been able to redirect taxpayers’ money to where it achieves the best results such as the $500 million package for families and children which we announced in Budget 2014. The Government’s responsible fiscal management is delivering many benefits to New Zealanders.Hon Phil Heatley: What other examples—[Interruption] Mr Speaker the crowds are cheering; I cannot hear myself.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just get on with the question. Otherwise we will move somewhere else.Hon Phil Heatley: What other examples can he provide of the Government’s responsible fiscal management delivering better results for New Zealanders?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are many. I could just give one example: my colleague the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment has released figures today showing the Government’s strong focus on results in tertiary education is delivering for New Zealanders. In 2013 a record 25800 domestic students completed Bachelor’s degrees which is 24 percent higher than those who graduated in 2008. Overall the number of qualifications achieved in 2013 by all students was 20 percent higher than 5 years ago. Also the performance of Māori and Pasifika students is improving dramatically. The number of Māori students who have completed Bachelor’s degrees has increased by 62 percent since 2008 and the number of Pasifika students has increased by 56 percent over that same period. Back in the 2000s the previous Government threw more and more money at tertiary education and the number of people achieving degrees stayed static at the 20000 mark. With a focus on performance and results we are lifting achievement and delivering a more skilled economy.Hon Phil Heatley: My last ever supplementary question. It is a big moment.Mr SPEAKER: Order! It will be a bigger moment if the member leaves the Chamber early.Hon Phil Heatley: What reports has he received of fiscal proposals that are not fully costed and would fail to deliver the benefits to families that their proponents claim?Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is some ministerial responsibility the Hon Steven Joyce.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen reports including one of a particularly irresponsible proposal that has not been properly costed or accurately explained. A press release issued yesterday claimed the proposal would “end ‘voluntary’ school donations” at a cost of apparently $50 million a year. One of the problems with that is that school donations—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have listened to the question; I have now listened to the answer so far and I cannot see any ministerial responsibility whatsoever.Hon David Parker: How is it fair and fiscally responsible to tax salary and wage earners on every dollar they earn while refusing to tax the capital gains of property speculators?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member makes an interesting point except I have not seen any proposals that propose to actually tax property and not tax for example people in businesses. In fact the only proposal I have seen on the table proposes to tax 100 percent of productive businesses—Hon David Parker: You’re on the wrong side of this one.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —I do not think so—and only about one-third of houses. Apparently it is designed to tackle housing speculation.Diplomatic Incident Malaysian Official—Confidence in Minister of Foreign Affairs2.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill)to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Foreign Affairs; if so why?Hon Annette King: He’s only the tea boy.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development)on behalf of thePrime Minister: Even the tea boy gets his day in the sun. Yes; because he is a competent and hard-working Minister.Hon Phil Goff: If the Minister is as competent and hard working as the Prime Minister alleges why did he take no steps between 12 May and 30 June to secure the waiver for diplomatic immunity that the Malaysians had on offer given the seriousness of the offence and given that high-level intervention was needed?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I reject the premise of the last end of the member’s question. It was reasonable for Mr McCully to believe that an appropriate process was under way and that he would be informed appropriately by the ministry if that process was not proceeding satisfactorily.Hon Phil Goff: Why was the incident apparently of so little importance to Mr McCully that he never even raised it with his Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade who was never informed of it?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr McCully did have the matter drawn to his attention as you know and he was of the belief—and I think it an entirely fair belief—that an appropriate process was being followed as is followed in all these situations and he would have been notified if there was an issue. That of course is the subject of an investigation that is being commenced by the chief executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to determine why it was that neither Mr McCully nor in fact the Prime Minister was informed earlier than they were.Hon Phil Goff: Is Mr McCully just a rubber stamp or is he paid a quarter of a million dollars a year to exercise leadership and oversight over his ministry and why did he not do it?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think Mr McCully looks a lot less like a rubber stamp than the member opposite.Hon Phil Goff: Why has the Prime Minister not asked for and accepted the resignation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs for being negligent and failing to do what any other Minister of Foreign Affairs would have done which is to take personal responsibility to ensure that the rights of that victim were upheld and the waiver was asked for?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member is suggesting an approach that in actual fact is not appropriate in the circumstances. The situation is simply this: the chief executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is undertaking an independent review into the circumstances of this situation the protocol processes to manage these types of situations and whether they are fit for purpose and the ministry’s communications and make recommendations for change. Out of that any particular decisions that need to be made in terms of repercussions will be made.Freshwater Management—National Standards3.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore)to the Minister for the Environment: What recent announcements has she made aimed at improving our freshwater management system?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The level of interjection from both sides of the House from relatively senior members is unacceptable in this question time.Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment):Today Minister Guy and I announced New Zealand’s robust national standards for freshwater. Included in the changes are an agreed science basis explicit recognition of tangata whenua values compulsory ecosystem and human health measures with new mandatory bottom lines for each and a requirement for full accounting of all water takes and discharges. Until now there has been nothing stopping councils permitting water to be of an unacceptable quality and in some places it is. Today this changes.Maggie Barry: How have the final amendments incorporated feedback from the submissions process?Hon AMY ADAMS: We have listened to feedback following the release of the discussion document and some of the key changes following consultation include ensuring the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management expresses the national significance of freshwater and te mana o te wai the creation of a single human health value making it compulsory for all councils to consider swimmability in all cases the deadline for implementation being brought forward by 5 years and the removal of the exception for historical contamination. It has been a very valuable consultation process and I want to thank all of those who took part.Hon Tariana Turia: Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. Is it true that specific proposals that were agreed to with the iwi leaders group were removed from Delivering Freshwater Reform and why were they removed?Hon AMY ADAMS: No that is not correct to my understanding.Hon Tariana Turia: So are we to believe that iwi leaders are not telling the truth?Hon AMY ADAMS: Iwi leaders have not communicated to me that that is the case. They made reference to a document that they had prepared. Unfortunately that document was never sent to my office which they have acknowledged.Diplomatic Incident Malaysian Official—Briefings Negotiations and Minister’s Actions4.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert)to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Did he seek any information from MFAT officials on the case of the alleged assault with the intention to rape and waiver of diplomatic immunity by the Malaysian diplomat after his initial briefing on 10 May 2014 and before the case became public; if not why not?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade)on behalf of theMinister of Foreign Affairs: No. The Minister was briefed as to the circumstances of the arrest and the New Zealand request for a waiver of diplomatic immunity on 10 May. The Minister was not made aware the Malaysians had declined the request for the waiver until Friday 27 June.David Shearer: Given the incident included an alleged assault with the intent to rape against a New Zealand woman why did it not occur to him to follow up and simply ask what was being done?Hon TIM GROSER: Because there are two procedures in place that require professional attention: the police inquiry into the facts of the alleged crime followed by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade protocol division’s handling of the quite complicated procedures around diplomatic immunity. It is a very bright line to cross when a politician starts to interfere in those processes.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am just requiring a bit of silence to assist the member to ask his supplementary question.David Shearer: Does the Minister believe then that he is blame-free in his handling of the case and that it is the complete fault of his officials; if not what responsibility does he take as the Minister of Foreign Affairs?Hon TIM GROSER: The Minister has already stated publicly that he takes responsibility for the issue but I think all of this is rather missing the point. The No. 1 requirement is to ensure that the young woman has proper support around her which is being done by the police I am assured. Secondly now that the accused is coming back to New Zealand we have the very real possibility that this victim may now receive proper justice.David Shearer: Given that the Minister stated yesterday that “There was never any intention . . . to let this matter rest” at what date was he planning to do something when he had done precisely nothing for 7 weeks?Hon TIM GROSER: I could repeat exactly the same point that I made in the preceding answer. The issue was that the Minister had every right to expect that he would be kept informed of the matter. He had been so informed and had every right to expect that that was being enacted.David Shearer: Does the Minister think that the New Zealand woman who was involved in this case would agree with him as he said this morning that it was a good and proper process when his chief executive was completely unaware of it the ministry had given the Malaysian authorities completely contrary advice to what was intended and there had been no follow-up whatsoever from his office?Hon TIM GROSER: Well I am sure the first issue is that the young woman who is the victim of this alleged crime is now in a position to receive some restorative justice. The Minister had immediate discussions with his Malaysian counterpart when it became evident to his surprise that what he had been informed of may not have been the same understanding on the part of the Malaysian Foreign Minister.Freshwater Management—Water Quality of Rivers5.EUGENIE SAGE (Green)to the Minister for the Environment: What percentage of river swimming sites where data is collected in the most recent Ministry for the Environment Suitability for Swimming Indicator Update were graded poor or very poor?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment):Of the few hundred river sites that are monitored 61 percent of them are graded poor or very poor. As the member is aware though these few hundred sites are monitored generally because there is a quality concern so that data set is therefore in no way representative of the 425000 kilometres of New Zealand rivers and streams which are generally regarded as being in good condition by international standards. However we are concerned that in the areas where fresh water quality is deteriorating we do need to take action which is why I was pleased earlier today to be announcing that from 1 August national standards for fresh water will be in place across the country which is a critical milestone in improving the picture of fresh water quality in New Zealand.Eugenie Sage: Why if she is concerned that fresh water is deteriorating did she announce a national bottom line for human health today that means that our rivers will have to be safe only for secondary contact—that is wading and boating—and not clean enough for swimming?Hon AMY ADAMS: At the moment of course the counterfactual is that there is no requirement for any particular standard for human health. Actually putting in place a minimum requirement that at the very least every fresh water area must be safe for wading and boating is a big step forward. What we have done today is confirm that every council must consider whether it is appropriate to also manage for swimmability. What has to be understood is that each time we move the bar up through that ladder it brings considerable extra cost on to communities and councils. If the member is campaigning that her party will set the standard there and not leave that choice to local communities it is welcome to do so but I look forward to seeing those billions of dollars included in its financial estimates.Eugenie Sage: Why is the Minister leaving it to regional councils to consider swimmability and does she not think that it is a national issue and a central government responsibility to ensure that rivers across New Zealand are clean and safe for swimming?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well I had always thought that that member was a proponent of local decision-making but actually we do think it is for communities to decide—above that minimum standard which is brand new and has never been there before—which areas are to be used for swimming and are to be protected for that and which are not. We are not going to impose billions of dollars of costs on ratepayers and communities in areas where they do not seek it. What we have put in place is a considerable step forward from what Labour and the Greens were happy to live with and we are very proud of it.Eugenie Sage: What does she say to the Otago Regional Council which said that the bottom line for human health should be contact recreation because such a low standard as secondary contact where rivers are fit for only wading and boating is “not consistent with the national identity New Zealand associates with its clean image of its water resources”?Hon AMY ADAMS: What I would say to the Otago Regional Council is that it is very welcome to set that standard across its water bodies if that is what its community chooses. The difference now is that we have a national expectation of a minimum standard which has never been there before. That alone is going to impose some costs on communities but the extent to which they want to go beyond that is up to them. It would be a nonsense to impose costs on water bodies that no one wants to use for swimming or that no one has contemplated for swimming. That is why regional decision-making then becomes important.Eugenie Sage: Why did the Minister ignore the approximately 90 percent of submitters who wanted the bottom line for human health to be rivers that are clean and safe for swimming?Hon AMY ADAMS: We have not ignored it. What we have done is made it compulsory now for every council to consider whether swimming is the appropriate standard for that water body. That was not in the draft and the reason we have done that is that we understand the cost impact that goes with that. As I have said if those members want to include the billions of dollars of impact from putting that standard in I look forward to seeing that in their alternative budgets.Eugenie Sage: Does the Minister still claim that no river quality is allowed to deteriorate when the Freshwater Sciences Society said that the proposed limits on nitrate in her proposals last November have the potential for “New Zealand’s rivers to become some of the most nitrogen-polluted amongst OECD countries whilst still remaining compliant” and her announcements today have not changed the nitrate limit?Hon AMY ADAMS: I do not accept that because as that member well knows there is already a requirement for water quality in a region to be maintained or improved. There is no ability—and nor do I imagine there is any desire—for councils to suddenly rush downwards in their water quality. In my experience communities and councils are absolutely focused on improving water quality but the important point is this: today there is nothing stopping our lakes and rivers from being completely dead environments. That is what Labour and the Greens were happy with. We are not. This is a step forward no matter how the member tries to spin it.Eugenie Sage: Did the Minister ask the Ministry for the Environment to tighten the nitrate limits in the national policy statement following the board of inquiry’s decision on the Tukituki plan change which rejected her Government’s approach of allowing nitrogen pollution to reach limits that are toxic to fish and algae; if not why not?Hon AMY ADAMS: First of all the member is entirely wrong in her categorisation of the impact of the Tukituki decision on this framework. It simply does not do what she is suggesting—which is typical—but more important the Government has made it very clear that we are not looking to re-engineer what has come out of the Science Review Panel. We engaged a science panel deliberately so that there would be a nationally agreed and settled science basis and in no instance have I or other Ministers directed it to change those numbers.Eugenie Sage: If the Minister engaged the Science Review Panel why was a basic and well-established measure of river health the Macroinvertebrate Community Index excluded when the Freshwater Sciences Society and many others said that it should be included?Hon AMY ADAMS: This is a question I have answered time and time again in this House and the answer is this. We do accept that the macroinvertebrate index is a very useful performance measure and indicator of ecosystem health. That is not the same thing as saying it is suitable or possible to include in a national framework like this. Actually the member may be interested that the advice I have had says that because of the way the Resource Management Act currently constrains what can go in a national policy statement I am prevented from including it as a performance monitor within the framework. We do encourage councils to use it in that regard and we do think it is useful but it does not fit into a framework set at a national level like this.Eugenie Sage: Is the real reason the Minister has ignored the advice of water quality scientists the calls by thousands of New Zealanders the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment the Otago Regional Council and many others for national bottom lines that provide for swimmable rivers that this Government stands up for polluters and irrigators and not for ordinary New Zealanders who want to swim in our rivers?Hon AMY ADAMS: I think the fact that the Green Party can stand there and not find one good thing to say about the fact that this is a step forward in water quality says far more about its politicking and ideology than any desire to actually see water quality improvements.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Can the Minister advise the House what progress Environment Canterbury—the Canterbury Regional Council—made in setting minimum water quality standards in that region over 18 years including the period when Eugenie Sage was a member?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well the member raises a very valid point. Over that time the regional council made zero progress. It completely failed to have an operative water quality plan leading to deterioration of water in our home region of Canterbury. This Government was not going to stand for that. The appointment of commissioners has made incredible strides forward. They are doing great work on pioneering the collaborative process and finally under a National Government we are getting some progress on water quality in Canterbury.Eugenie Sage: Is the Minister taking her ministerial duties seriously when the national bottom line for our rivers will keep the dairy industry happy as evidenced by its media statements today but will not make our rivers clean and safe for swimming for all New Zealanders?Hon AMY ADAMS: I take the fact that I had introduced any national bottom line incredibly seriously. That is something that Labour and the Greens never prioritised. They were happy for there to be no bottom lines and no requirements. They were happy for there to be no rules at all. We are not. We are lifting the game.Better Public Services Targets—Student Achievement6.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West)to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on Better Public Service Targets in education?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Today I was pleased to announce that thousands more young people are on the road to success. We now have 78.6 percent of 18-year-olds with a minimum of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. In the past 2 years alone nearly 1600 more kids are over the line and we are up more than 10 percentage points overall since we came to Government. On early childhood education participation the increase to 95.9 percent gives so many more children the right start in life. It represents another 3839 kids participating in early childhood education since mid-2011. Under this Government more kids are starting earlier staying longer and leaving better qualified.Tim Macindoe: What progress in achievement can the Minister report for particular groups?Hon HEKIA PARATA: We have focused on collecting good information across the whole education system. That has helped to identify which students need what kind of support. The results announced today show that our targeted approach to education works. Since 2011 we have seen a 6.2 percentage point increase for young Māori 18-year-olds achieving NCEA level 2 and an increase of 5.9 percentage points for Pasifika. As my colleague the Hon Paula Bennett announced today through better integration of education and welfare there has been real progress in the achievement of NCEA credits amongst those involved in the Youth Service programme. We know there is more work to do to ensure educational success for all and we are doing it.Tim Macindoe: What changes are being made across the system to lift achievement?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Changes across the education system and funding boosts will allow generations of children more promising futures. These changes include investing in teaching and leadership strengthening the parental voice and improving the quality and availability of achievement information. This information shows parents how well their children are doing in school. It enables our teachers and leaders to know how they can give more assistance to those students who need it most. We can look at the results of investments and not just at how much we are spending. We must ensure we are targeting our resources to the students who need them the most. We have made big strides; we will continue to build on that to ensure success for five out of five students. There is more work to do.Chris Hipkins: What evidence does she have to assure the public that improved NCEA achievement statistics have not come about as a result of lowering standards to fit required pass rates rather than a genuine lift in student achievement?Hon HEKIA PARATA: It saddens me immensely that the member wishes to impugn the professionalism of teachers who across the country are ensuring that young people are getting the best-quality credits possible. How am I sure? Because we have dropped unit standards—we have achievement standards—because we have monitoring every term of how well students are doing because every school now keeps an achievement profile by gender and ethnicity and because any assertion that that is occurring is investigated promptly and assiduously by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority.Chris Hipkins: No evidence.Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member says “No evidence.” Well I do not know what I have to give him to show what the New Zealand Qualifications Authority does what teachers themselves do and what the kids and parents themselves do. If the member wants to keep belittling that rather than celebrating the very success these numbers reflect it is a very sad Opposition over there.Public Service—Management and Report on Central Agencies Shared Services7.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First)to the Minister of State Services: What assurances can he give the public of the competence of senior management in the Public Service?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of State Services):Overall the senior management of the Public Service is performing well and working hard to deliver better public services. The Better Public Services programme results continue to show that public servants are making a difference for New Zealanders as evidenced by the very pleasing progress in our schools announced today by the Minister of Education. The Kiwis Count survey is an objective measure that shows a sustained lift in performance across the Public Service since 2008 with increasing public trust in our State services.Andrew Williams: How will the public have confidence in the competence of senior management in the Public Service in light of the Auditor-General’s recent report on Central Agencies Shared Services known as CASS and the recent debacle at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade over the Malaysian diplomat?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think that if you look at that Central Agencies Shared Services project it is a very worthwhile project that will deliver real benefits across the central agencies ultimately helping in the delivery of better services and better results to New Zealanders. I think that is something that the public really do appreciate.Andrew Williams: Why then did the central agencies—and I quote the Auditor-General—“not follow best practice in setting up CASS.”? Why is that and why does he not take responsibility as the Minister for it?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This is a pioneering project that will deliver real results but there are learnings from it that will be applied to similar sorts of projects in the future. In retrospect yes it could have been done better but it is actually delivering very very well.Andrew Williams: What accountability does he accept as Minister of State Services in light of the manifold failures set out in the Auditor-General’s recent report on the Central Agencies Shared Services?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Look I think it is incumbent on senior public servants as well as Ministers to apply the results and learnings from that study.Andrew Williams: As the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade Treasury State Services Commission and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet are all core agencies of the Public Service what steps have been taken to prevent this type of failure recurring?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: He is painting a very bleak picture there which frankly is completely unrealistic. If you look at the overall picture the Public Service is delivering for New Zealanders. We are achieving much better results than the Labour Government ever did and I think he should talk up some of the good news and take notice because we are delivering for the public.Student Achievement—Investing in Educational Success Programme8.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that spending $359 million on the Investing in Educational Success Initiative is the best way to lift student achievement?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Yes. Investing in Educational Success looks beyond the teacher in the classroom to strengthening all of the teachers in all of the schools over time. In my travels around the country teachers tell me that they want opportunities to collaborate and learn from each other. Evidence locally and from around the world clearly shows that raising the quality of teaching and leadership is the best way within schools to raise student achievement. Of course what works in one country cannot just be transported in its entirety to another. That is why Investing in Educational Success draws from the best features of several different education systems as well as our own and the final design is being carried out in consultation with the New Zealand profession and with critical contributions by very reputable New Zealand and international academics.Chris Hipkins: How will she ensure that removing expert teachers for 2 days a week from their own school and away from the students they have been so successful in teaching will not have an impact on the existing students’ academic achievement?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because the modern learning practice that is increasingly taking place in schools across the country is not the one that the member and I probably experienced which was only one teacher to one group of students for the entirety of their school year.Hon Trevor Mallard: They threw out open-plan learning in the 1970s.Hon HEKIA PARATA: There is a lot more team teaching as that other member may not know since he comes from the dinosaur era but there is greater improvement in the way that teaching is occurring. What we also know from the Learning and Change Networks which came from the sector itself is that they learn better when they learn from each other. Newer teachers learn better from more senior teachers so the provision is to ensure that we get better teachers in every class across every school across our entire country.Chris Hipkins: Why is she satisfied that the money will lead to a lift in student achievement given that a recent survey of school principals found that 54 percent were opposed to the plan outright 27 percent had concerns about the policy and only 4 percent were actually supportive of it?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am aware of that particular survey but I am also aware of the over 70 engagements that have been held with teacher groups with principal groups and with parents across the country many of whom want to understand what the proposal is and how it will work. There is a lot of growing support for this. I just remind the member that of the $359 million only half of it is for salaries for these roles. The other half of it is for inquiry time and the member himself has made speeches about the importance of that. The other half of it is for backfill time because we have about 30000 qualified teachers—Hon Trevor Mallard: Now we’ve got three halves.Hon HEKIA PARATA: I know that fact confuses that member but the other $10 million is—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is now long enough but it is not helped by the constant interjection coming from one member to my left.Chris Hipkins: Why is it not the Government’s goal to ensure that all New Zealand school students are taught by expert teachers given that it is limiting the number of roles to just 1000 across the country or about 2 percent of the teaching workforce?Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is our goal. That is indeed our goal and our intention is that over time the expertise and leadership quality across the system will be consistently raised. The member may know because he will be intimately knowledgable about this that in last year’s New Zealand Educational Institute collective bargaining it bargained for 800 of these very teachers in order to lift the quality. This is significantly more. It is heading in the same direction. The member should be leading the charge.Chris Hipkins: Has she seen the comment from Principals’ Federation—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to start that question again.Chris Hipkins: Has she seen the comment from Principals’ Federation president Phil Harding: “It’s vital the Government doesn’t steamroll another flawed model over the top of a profession holding significant and legitimate concerns.”; if so will she rule out legislating for the policy’s implementation in the face of such strong opposition by the people who are expected to implement it?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Indeed I have seen a number of quotes by Mr Harding and many of them are contradictory. Mr Harding led the response to the introduction of this policy by congratulating us and complimenting it. Sorry what was second part of the member’s question? Oh right; let me just say we are continuing to work with the profession and indeed the member may know that we have already entered bargaining with the Post Primary Teachers Association. We have across the country a lot of interest in this policy so we propose to continue consulting.Health Personnel—GP and Primary-care Doctor Training9.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National)to the Minister of Health: What investment has the Government made in new training places for general practitioners?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):The Government is announcing today that we are investing an extra $3.8 million to further increase the number of general practitioner and primary-care doctor training places. The additional funding will mean that up to 170 junior doctors will be accepted into the general practice education programme run by the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners. This will be the biggest intake ever. In 2008 there were only 74 general practitioners trained and this Government has more than doubled that number. The extra funding brings our total investment in general practitioner and primary-care doctor training places to $22 million.Paul Foster-Bell: How many applications have been received this year for general practitioner and primary care doctor training and how does this compare with previous years?Hon TONY RYALL: There has been a massive increase in the numbers of junior doctors expressing an interest in becoming general practitioners. This is thanks to the hard work of Health Workforce New Zealand the College of General Practitioners and the Medical Council of New Zealand. There has been a record number of applications this year. The college received over 200 this year compared with about 120 at the same time last year. Our plan is to keep building our own health workforce and to keep them here in New Zealand.Family/Whānau and Sexual Violence—Initiatives to Address10.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour)to the Minister for Social Development: What input did she have on the new suite of initiatives to prevent family violence and keep women and children safe that were announced yesterday?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development):I had significant input in regard to the announcements that were made yesterday. Actually this is a great opportunity for me to congratulate Minister Collins on her leadership in the justice sector and on the difference that those initiatives will make. I also want to acknowledge Minister Tolley for her leadership within corrections and police. Most certainly I want to acknowledge Minister Turia who has obviously announced her retirement. Her leadership over the last 6 years within social development and the issues of family violence quite frankly has been extraordinary.Carol Beaumont: How does yesterday’s package primarily focused on those who report domestic violence assist the 80 percent of victims of domestic violence who the Women’s Refuge says do not report that violence?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think that those justice announcements are significant particularly for those who are revictimised and are often the ones who actually end up dead. I think for that we should acknowledge this package as being very vitally important in terms of those next steps. There is a huge amount of work that was announced yesterday particularly from Minister Turia around the current work programme that is really focused on strengthening and improving the cross-agency response. Within that it is a long list so I will not go into it but there is young people’s healthy relationships developing that cross-agency research and evaluation data—there is an agenda that goes on there—raising awareness and changing attitudes and behaviours and improving the whole family violence sector workforce development and training. There are a number of initiatives there that I think will deal with prevention which is obviously where we want to put the biggest emphasis.Carol Beaumont: What NGOs if any were consulted with or even briefed about the social sector initiatives or the Achieving Intergenerational Change—A whole-of-Government approach initiatives announced yesterday?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually most of them were based on the work of the expert advisory group which did actually go out to the sector and talk to it extensively. Minister Collins made reference to the family violence ministerial group. She also made reference to the justice symposium that was held earlier this year which had everybody involved including those NGOs. She talked to Shine particularly around those Safe Network ones. We meet regularly with Women’s Refuge and other departments. But at the end of the day Ministers are here to design and implement policy. That is what is expected of us and that is what we have done.Carol Beaumont: Does she agree with the Hon Tariana Turia that “International research indicates that stopping violence from occurring in the first place is the key to the long-term reduction in family violence.”; if so can she explain why the announcement made yesterday had very little focus on prevention with no new initiatives and no new funding in the prevention area?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I encourage the member to actually read the information that is out there on the work that is going on. We will not make apologies for focusing on those who do report violence. As we say more often than not they are revictimised and these are more often than not really the biggest tragedies that happen in this country. So making them safe and putting around them those mechanisms that were announced yesterday is important. But there is a range of work that is going on in the preventative space. We are spending nearly $70 million just within social development. That does not recognise the contributions from ACC the police and other departments that go in. It is our focus. It is where we are going. Cross-agency work including those NGOs is actually where it needs to happen.Carol Beaumont: I seek leave to table Parliamentary Library research showing that three of the initiatives that seem to be the centrepiece of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just describe it briefly.Carol Beaumont: —Achieving Intergenerational Change which are the It’s Not OK campaign—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just briefly describe it and I will put the leave.Carol Beaumont: OK. It is Parliamentary Library research showing that three main initiatives were launched in 2007—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought if anybody can sort out exactly what we are tabling. It is parliamentary research information. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is objection.Sue Moroney: Has she had any input into the plight of the Sexual Abuse Survivors Trust an organisation with 20 years of experience supporting victims of sexual abuse in Christchurch which has been forced to shut down its service tomorrow because of a $34000 shortfall in funding?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have answered questions on this organisation in just the last 2 or 3 weeks so obviously yes if the member had taken any notice of that. What we are saying is that there are issues around that provider. It is not our desire to see it shut down. We have ensured that the services will be available for those who need them. We have worked with other NGOs that say they do have the capacity to fill that gap and that have had extra funding through this excellent Government which put more than $10.4 million more into sexual violence services under this latest Budget.Housing Affordable—Tauranga and Western Bay of Plenty Housing Accords11.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent)to the Minister of Housing: What if any specific progress has he achieved on completing housing accords with Tauranga City Council and Western Bays District Council?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):Tauranga and the Western Bay of Plenty were formally gazetted and added to schedule 1 of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Act 2013 early this year. I met with the mayors and chief executives of both councils on 29 April. My officials have subsequently been in detailed discussions on the terms of a housing accord including identifying potential special housing areas. I am hopeful that we will conclude negotiations prior to the House rising.Brendan Horan: What does the Minister have to say to Bob Clarkson who for 3½ long years has been unable to start building 1700 homes including 500 affordable homes with green belts cycleways walkways services and free infrastructure costs; does this mean the Minister has not delivered on housing accords?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has made a priority of housing accords in Auckland Christchurch and Wellington ahead of Tauranga because the housing affordability in those major centres is worse and required we give them a priority. Bob Clarkson is a colourful character from Tauranga. He belongs to a great political party and was a good member of Parliament in this House. My ears are always open to Bob’s ideas.Brendan Horan: Given the ranking that the Minister places on Tauranga will the Minister agree that it is one thing to rule by edict but another to deliver and is the Minister’s promise of affordable homes as shallow as the Prime Minister’s promise to four-lane the Hairini Bridge 6 long years ago?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If I look at the Roost housing affordability index it shows that when we came to Government 101 percent of an average Tauranga person’s income was required to service a mortgage—101 percent. That figure today is 57 percent showing that as a consequence of keeping interest rates lower and the other important work that we are doing housing affordability in Tauranga is 44 percent more affordable than when we took the Treasury benches.Health and Safety Workplace—Asbestos12.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour)to the Minister of Labour: What steps if any are being taken to protect working New Zealanders from asbestos or products with asbestos in them?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour):We are taking the issue of asbestos seriously particularly in the Christchurch rebuild. WorkSafe’s assessment inspectorate team in Canterbury has more than doubled since the beginning of this year. In the last 4 years inspectors in Canterbury have completed more than 2000 proactive assessments in construction focusing on key issues like asbestos and have issued more than a thousand enforcement notices. WorkSafe also provides guidance on the handling of asbestos and has been running seminars in Canterbury which have been attended by more than 1350 workers and contractors. We are also of course in the process of strengthening the regulatory regime on asbestos as part of the Working Safer reform package.Andrew Little: Is he aware that a product a 125 NB 150 ring gasket—an example of which I hold in my hand—which sits between the flanges in pipe connections and which is intended to be drilled is available for sale across the counter and this gasket contains no warning that it contains asbestos in this case chrysotile or white asbestos?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not aware of the precise matter that the member raises. I certainly will look into it given that he has raised it. I think the member alludes to the broader issue of a ban on asbestos or asbestos-related products. Certainly I think that is not a matter I have specific responsibility for. But I think I can tell the member that the Ministry for the Environment is doing an inventory of all imports and exports of products in this area which I think can foreseeably help us understand this matter better and form a policy position on that issue.Andrew Little: In view of the harmful effects of asbestos in particular as the cause of mesothelioma in thousands of workers in New Zealand over the last few decades does he accept that this is a substance that needs tighter control and will he take immediate steps to tighten controls?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well of course we have a regulatory regime that is adequate but as I said in the primary answer we are also consulting right at the moment through to 1 August on what I think it would be fair to say is a more stringent regime. I think that will certainly be helpful. Broadly speaking it is an adoption of the Australian approach and effectively one of preventing all work with asbestos other than where there are specified exemptions that do allow work. As I say we are consulting on that right now.Andrew Little: In light of that answer—or perhaps notwithstanding it—as it is Action Mesothelioma Day tomorrow will he take the opportunity to take meaningful steps to protect workers who would otherwise be exposed to products like the 125 NB 150 ring gasket such as encouraging his colleague the Minister of Customs to prohibit the import of it under section 54 of the Customs and Excise Act 1996?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As I have already made clear the Ministry for the Environment is currently conducting an inventory to inform that issue. But of course to be very clear even were a ban on asbestos to occur we would still be in the position of having many decades of asbestos products and installations in homes and the like. What I think we can say is that the Government takes these issues seriously. That is why we have beefed up the inspectorate. That is why we are doing much more in education assessments and enforcement. That is why we have an inter-agency officials group working on all of these issues why very recently we have set up an occupational health advisory group to advise on strategies for the board and why we are strengthening the regulatory regime.Darien Fenton: Does he accept that New Zealand is now out of step with other countries when it comes to a complete ban on the importation of asbestos-containing products and will he support a similar ban here in New Zealand especially given the epidemic of asbestos-related disease we are facing from the unnecessary exposure to asbestos in the Canterbury rebuild?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Firstly I just acknowledge what may be one of the member’s last questions and her sticking up for workers in this Parliament—better than some of her colleagues I might say. I do not accept her question though. I think obviously this is a complex matter that has a range of policies applied all over the world. I think we certainly have a sufficient regime as I have already said but as I have also said we are in all probability moving to a more stringent framework.Andrew Little: I seek leave to table two items. One is a document: a certificate of testing from Capital Environmental Services confirming that this gasket has asbestos in it. The second is the gasket itself.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. It is for the House to decide. Leave is sought to table both the certificate and the particular product itself on the basis it may be informative to members of the House. Leave is sought to table those two items. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.Objects by leave laid on the Table of the House.Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections):I move That the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Law and Order Committee to consider the bill. This bill will increase the safety of the public by ensuring that offenders who pose a risk of serious sexual or violent offending are managed by the Department of Corrections. Extended supervision orders are currently used to manage child sex offenders—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. Can I just ask members who are leaving the Chamber to do so with substantially less noise than is occurring at the moment.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Extended supervision orders are currently used to manage child sex offenders who have been identified as posing a high risk of serious sexual reoffending against children after completing a finite prison sentence.Under current legislation extended supervision orders last 10 years and cannot be renewed. This presents a risk to public safety as those offenders who still pose a risk of serious reoffending after the expiration of their orders can no longer be managed. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The Speaker has already asked members for quiet in the Chamber while a member is addressing it. Remember that courtesy is contagious and we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of the Standing Orders.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Offenders will begin to reach the end of their current extended supervision orders in 2015. In order to ensure that extended supervision orders are used appropriately the bill will allow extended supervision orders to be renewed for as long as they are needed.The bill will also introduce mandatory 5-year reviews for offenders who have been subject to an order or orders for 10 years. To further improve public safety the scope of the current extended supervision orders will be expanded to include high-risk adult sex offenders and very high-risk violent offenders.Finally the enhancements will introduce a special condition of intensive monitoring for up to 24 hours a day for up to the first 12 months of an order. This condition will be set by a judge to give judicial oversight of the most restrictive form of monitoring on the orders. I consider that the proposed amendments strike the right balance between protecting the public from serious sexual and violent harm and the rights of offenders subject to these orders by ensuring that they have as much autonomy as possible.Extended supervision orders are part of a wider Government focus on protecting the public from high-risk offenders which includes the introduction of public protection orders. Public protection orders are the subject of a separate bill which will place a very small number of individuals who pose a very high risk of imminent serious sexual or violent offending into secure residences on prison precincts. Although detainment in a civil residence is an appropriate response to the severe risk of harm those individuals pose there is a larger group of high-risk serious sexual offenders and very high-risk serious violent offenders who will finish a finite prison sentence but not meet the criteria for a public protection order.The changes to the extended supervision orders in this bill will complement public protection orders ensuring that offenders can still be safely managed in accordance with the risk they pose. As a Government we have a responsibility to protect the vulnerable members of society. This bill will ensure that offenders who are a risk to public safety can be managed safely in the community.I want to thank those parties that have indicated their support for these changes. It is a very serious imposition on a small number of individuals that we are proposing and I have appreciated the sensible discussions with colleagues around the House. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):I would like first to thank the Minister of Corrections for making an early copy of the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill available to myself and Jacinda Ardern and for taking the time to consult on it. I have got to say that is a rare practice amongst the Minister’s colleagues but one that I would encourage particularly when we are looking at potentially controversial legislation that has quite dramatic impacts on the rights of a small number of individuals in order to protect the rights of a much larger number of individuals.Labour is supporting the introduction of this legislation. Labour has consistently supported legislation for many years—as long as I can remember in fact—that is evidenced based that is likely to be effective and that is designed to protect the rights of those who deserve to be protected. In particular in this piece of legislation I am thinking about the rights of our most vulnerable citizens who are our children.We do not offer that support lightly. We do not offer it lightly because when I received a copy of the report of the Attorney-General Chris Finlayson pursuant to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act he says this in the New Zealand Bill of Rights vet: “I have considered this bill for consistency with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. I conclude it appears to be inconsistent with the rights against retroactive penalties and double jeopardy … which are affirmed by ss 26 and 22 of the Act.”Whenever we have a piece of legislation in front of us in the House that is found to be inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act we have to give it particular attention because we are cutting across rights that we would normally extend to all New Zealanders—the right not to face double jeopardy and the right not to have penalties imposed retroactively. Because of that it will be incumbent on those of us who sit on the Law and Order Committee to scrutinise this legislation very very carefully to ensure that we do get the balance between the absolute right of our children and others not to be subject to preventable sexual attacks and the rights of all individuals not to face as I said double jeopardy and retroactive penalties.The motivation and the timing of this bill are due to the fact that a particular individual is due for release into the community next year following the expiry of a 10-year extended supervision order. I have been following the history of this individual for 20 years. The individual’s name is in the public arena. His name is Lloyd McIntosh. Lloyd McIntosh was one of 35 people released from the Lake Alice Hospital by Jenny Shipley when she amended the mental health legislation in 1993. However well-intentioned she might have been in updating the legislation the difficulty is that the result of the National Government’s legislation at that time was to put out into the community without any supervision whatsoever over how they might behave in the community 35 people with extensive histories of sexual offending against children.I found out about this through a charge nurse at Lake Alice Hospital. His name is Neil Pugmire. I again pay tribute to him in this House because he had the courage that is the courage of a whistleblower who says: “This is wrong. I must speak out to protect the public.” In doing so he lost his job and was discriminated against by the then National Government. The truth is that Neil Pugmire was proven right and the National Government was proven wrong. Even the mother of that particular individual that I talked about Lloyd McIntosh opposed her son’s release into the community believing that he was not capable of changing his behaviour.Lloyd McIntosh had a condition known as a personality disorder. It is not a mental illness but it is something that meant for an individual like him with an IQ of around 70 and an understanding probably equivalent to that of a 9-year-old that whenever he was released and whenever the opportunity arose he would offend. The history of his offending is too dreadful to go into in this House. Needless to say one of the rapes that he committed was against a 23-month-old baby who almost died a 6-year-old child and an intellectually disabled woman.I opposed the releases of those individuals when I was in Opposition. In Government I introduced legislation in 2003—the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill which was designed to protect the community against people like Lloyd McIntosh. Again in Opposition I support the Government and the Minister of Corrections in what she is trying to do here. I want to quote from what I said when I introduced the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill in November 2003: “I do not lightly promote legislation which in part may conflict with Bill of Rights requirements. However in this instance the risk posed by such offenders is real and the vulnerability of our children and the need to protect them must be our paramount consideration.” I said that a decade ago and I stand by that comment now. That is why I am prepared to extend on behalf of the Labour Party our support to the Minister of Corrections in this instance.The extended supervision orders have been used to manage a relatively small number of child sex offenders who have a high risk of causing serious harm following their release from prison. The orders last currently up to 10 years beyond the end of the sentence when corrections can continue to manage offenders. The reason we are looking at this piece of legislation today is that that 10-year period has expired for the people who were the earliest recipients of the extended supervision orders and at least some of them continue to pose a risk. Most after 10 years of extended supervision will not some will and those who do will pose a serious risk to the safety and well-being of our children.This bill therefore enables the orders to be renewed. It also expands the scope of the orders from high-risk child sex offenders to include high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high-risk offenders at risk of violent offending. The numbers are relatively small. The regulatory impact statement says that probably between 29 and 41 offenders will be placed on extended supervision orders each year because of this legislation. The vast majority 25 to 30 of them will be high-risk sexual offenders against children. Four to nine of them will be high-risk offenders against adults and one to two will be at high risk of violent offending not over a period of a year but over 5 years. It is a very small number Minister Tolley and maybe as you point out it is necessary for one to two people every 5 years but we will be looking at whether this is a category that does justify being added to the legislation.It is not a cost-free exercise. It costs on average $27000 per offender per year to keep them on an extended supervision order and—wait for it—for those who are subject to intensive management which will be for the first 12 months of the sentence the cost of that will be approximately $300000 a year. For those who believe that is excessive it might be a high cost but just consider the cost to a child who is sexually violated in a way that some of the victims of Lloyd McIntosh were violated and then I believe that sort of cost can be and is justified.There are safeguards in the legislation. The orders will be subject to mandatory reviews by the court. So an order will be judicially and independently reviewed by the court. It is an important safeguard. People subject to the orders will be subject to them only as long as the risk of serious harm to the public from the offenders warrants it and the Parole Board will have to review every 2 years any high impact conditions imposed on the offender.I believe that this legislation is justified. Consistent with our past position the Labour Party will be supporting it but because of the effect on rights guaranteed under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act I think it really important that the Law and Order Committee examines these provisions very carefully to ensure that at each point of the legislation we have the balance right between protecting the rights of individuals against high-risk offenders and the rights that every New Zealander enjoys under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):Our children deserve to be protected against sex offenders whether or not those individuals have been convicted or not. That is the starting point for us as New Zealanders and it is the underlying theme of this very good bill the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. I am pleased that Labour is supporting this bill at its first reading and I agree with the previous speaker the Hon Phil Goff that one of the most important aspects that the Law and Order Committee does need to consider is the impact on human rights and the concerns raised by not only the Labour members but other members throughout this House about the rights of the victim weighed up against the rights of the perpetrator convicted of that crime. But due to the significant risk of serious harm posed by the small number of the worst sex offenders against adults and children and the very small number of violent offenders who would be managed on an extended supervision order it is believed by the Minister of Corrections and this side of the House—and hopefully the majority of this House—that extended supervision orders will be a vital tool for protecting our most precious citizens.The provisions in this Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill include enabling orders to be renewed for as long as they are needed. Currently supervision orders are extended for a period limited to 10 years and then it is extremely difficult to maintain any form of control and check on convicted sex offenders beyond that point. The previous speaker has outlined a certain individual for whom we have grave concern about their future offending and I will not dignify the individual by going over that evidence again. The bill will also expand the scope of orders beyond high-risk child sex offenders to include a small number of high-risk sex offenders against adults because adults too need to be protected. We are talking about very small numbers here and again I have referenced the concerns and share the concerns about the human rights of both the victims but also the offenders.The bill will allow these proposed enhancements to apply to extended supervision order applications made to and granted by the court after the legislation is in place. So if there is an offender already subject to an extended supervision order they would remain on that order under the existing regime which is of a period of 10 years but on application from the Department of Corrections they would be eligible to have a new order imposed upon them by the court under the new legislative regime. At that point when the new order takes effect the existing order would be automatically cancelled. So on the passing of this bill and when it is enacted there should be no gap between the existing protection orders and the new extended protection order regime.Very recently while in consideration of the Parole Amendment Bill members of the Law and Order Committee attended a number of parole hearings throughout New Zealand. I attended a parole hearing in Mt Eden prison and the prisoner wishing to apply for parole was a sex offender. He was trying very hard to convince the Parole Board that the fact that he was seen to be lurking around shopping malls and other places where he was forbidden to be and that he was trying to get his hands on a cellphone and send texts to targeted people was perfectly acceptable even though this was against his bail conditions. It was a kind of incremental creeping approach of saying: “It’s all right. I know I have offended in a shopping mall before but I’m not going to do it again. It’s all right. I have sent texts grooming potential victims but I have no intention of doing that again.” Well the Parole Board doing its job saw through that kind of argument and declined parole in that instance but it highlighted to me the danger that children and adults can be in from a determined high-risk sex offender. It is that kind of danger that this bill seeks to protect our most precious citizens from. Thank you.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to take a call on the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. I follow my colleague Phil Goff in confirming that the whole House is in the situation where we are finding our criminal justice system now dealing with a very small number of offenders whose offending behaviour might be otherwise described as extraordinary certainly unusual and behaviour that our criminal justice code has not found a way to deal with. Particularly when it comes to sexual offending and sexual violation in all its forms there is one thing that must be paramount and that the House must give priority to and that is the safety of our citizens—all citizens.When the criminal justice system comes upon somebody who having been convicted and having served their sentence on any reasonable and objective assessment still constitutes a serious risk to the community then it is absurd that the system whether it is the prison system the Parole Board or any other part of the criminal justice system is powerless to do anything about it. It would be absurd to allow people who meet this description and who have this sort of characteristic to be released back into the community. If we know that the chances of their reoffending and the chances of their seriously harming somebody else whether physically emotionally or psychologically are so great then it seems silly that nothing can be done about it. It is for that reason that we support this legislation.We need to make sure that as we scrutinise it as it goes through the Law and Order Committee process it does properly strike the right balance. The Hon Phil Goff talked about the expectations we are all under when we consider new legislation with regard to how it relates to the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and the Act’s requirement in a sense to ensure freedom liberty and all those sorts of things. But the problem we have in the human institutions we are responsible for here as part of the machinery of government is that we do come across people for whom the old sorts of conventional theories of correction and criminal justice simply do not apply. They are people who go through the system and because of their own psychopathic or sociopathic tendencies simply are not responsive to the measures that are exercised against them or that attempt to correct them and they continue to pose a very serious risk. So we have to be able to do something sensible about that and this bill allows us to do that.As I said before as the bill is scrutinised in the select committee process obviously a number of things will have to be considered such as the thresholds that might apply. I notice that in the list of crimes or “relevant offences” as they are described in clause 6 in the proposed amendment to section 107B of the Parole Act one of the relevant offences is conspiracy to commit various offences. I am not sure that “a conspiracy to commit any offence” which can apply to a broad range of low-level actions on the part of a person would constitute a relevant offence given the type of behaviour we are trying to address here but that is a consideration for the select committee.I think I am reassured later in the bill particularly by clauses 11 and 12 where it sets out the threshold that has to be met before an extended supervision order can be imposed on an offender. They are very high criteria that have to be satisfied. It states that “the offender has or has had a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending;” and either “there is a high risk that the offender will in future commit a relevant sexual offence:” or “will in future commit a relevant violent offence.” But if a pervasive pattern of serious sexual or violent offending is evident and also as a result of the person having spent time in prison a sensible assessment is made that this person simply is not rehabilitated and their behaviour still poses a high risk then it is right that action is taken to protect the public. I go back to the point that I made which is that the priority for this House in its legislation on these sorts of matters must be to ensure that the paramount principle must be protecting innocent members of the public. Then in clause 12 in new section 107IAA in the bill there is a further set of criteria or matters that the court must be satisfied with when assessing the risk.This bill is very thorough in the steps that a court must go through on receiving an application from the head of corrections before making an order of this nature. It will be for the select committee in its detailed scrutiny to make sure that these provisions amongst others are properly weighed against the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act entitlements that we all have but against the background that the paramount objective must be protecting innocent members of the public and preventing the nasty violent and insidious sort of offending that the bill is addressing.It is sad and it is tragic of course that we have citizens in our midst who meet the descriptions and the criteria set out in this legislation. They have become known and they have been reported on in the newspapers and in the media. It is a tragic reality of modern life that people have descended into those sorts of dark areas and dark spaces in their lives but we need to make sure that the State in the management of those people as they have been brought to book is not left in a position where knowing there is a high risk of further harm and danger to people it is powerless to protect innocent citizens. On that note we will give our support to the bill and look forward to the detailed consideration as it goes through the select committee.DAVID CLENDON (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to begin by also acknowledging the courtesy shown us by Minister Tolley who went to the trouble of inviting me and an adviser to a briefing on this bill the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. Although a briefing from a Minister will never secure our support on its own it certainly is helpful in terms of getting a good background to what is proposed. Given that there may be some—not haste but certainly if this bill is to go through then it would be helpful for it to go through sooner rather than later. The Minister’s courtesy certainly does nothing to impede that process.The Greens will support this legislation albeit with some reservations through to the select committee at least. The bill as we have heard will extend the imposition of supervision orders beyond the 10 years that is currently possible. Any legislation that allows for a continued imposition of restrictions on a person’s freedom of movement beyond the term of the sentence imposed on them by the court is not a trivial matter. That is something we need to think very carefully about in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and just basic natural justice. In this sense we are to some extent reassured by the fact that this legislation we know will affect only a very small number of people. The legislation as it is drafted does set a very high bar to have these further restrictions imposed on any individual.I read with interest as others obviously have the Attorney-General’s report in terms of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications and consequences of this legislation. I was interested to note that the Attorney-General found in terms of section 22 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act which deals with arbitrary detention that this bill improves the situation over what exists currently. It brings it into the criminal regime rather than the civil. I think that is a useful thing for it to have done. The Attorney-General obviously though does unequivocally state that the legislation as it is drafted is inconsistent with section 26 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of retroactive penalties and double jeopardy and as I say that is no trivial matter. It is something we need to consider very carefully before we give final sign-off to this legislation.The Attorney-General also looked at the relationship between this bill and the public protection orders legislation that is currently going through the House and considered in a sense the hierarchy of those. I think again we would need to think very carefully about what relationship this legislation will have with the public protection orders which of course are significantly more restrictive than what is proposed in this which will be the default in these circumstances. I do think we will need to look very carefully to ensure that by intent or by unintended consequence we do not end up somehow muddying the waters in terms of giving the judiciary difficult decisions to make. There will be a level of work that is required to be done on this legislation to ensure it does achieve what it is intended to do and that it does not create any unintended consequences further down the track.I would have to say that my own thinking on this bill in terms of us supporting it or not has been influenced by the fact that I had a conversation I suppose a month ago with a person who is currently under a supervision order and who with an admirable level of self-awareness recognises that he and the wider community are probably better off while he is under some form of supervision. I think that is a compelling influence on my own thinking through this bill—to have somebody recognise that there are circumstances where individuals even with the best will in the world are nevertheless compelled to keep offending. Unfortunately that is a reality and a piece of legislation like this if thoughtfully drafted and appropriately applied by the judiciary will plug a gap in a sense. It will ensure continued public safety in the appropriate management of some of these individuals.As I have said we will support this bill to go to the select committee. The Law and Order Committee is an interesting committee in many ways. We are fortunate in that we routinely get very good advice and input from the judiciary from lawyers from the Law Society from individual members of the public and from NGOs that are well informed and have an interest in this sort of justice legislation. I am quite sure that the Law and Order Committee will give this bill quite rigorous attention. I think we need to be very careful to see that we do achieve what we intend to achieve while imposing the least restrictions by doing the least harm to our shared commitment to human rights and natural justice. We will continue. We will support this bill. I look forward to the select committee process. Thank you.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. It is an honour to take a call on this the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge Mr Phil Goff firstly because obviously he spoke about his own involvement in bringing the Parole (Extended Supervision) and Sentencing Amendment Bill to this House.I think that the previous speaker David Clendon raised a very good point and that was around the Attorney-General’s report and his raising the concern around the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and double jeopardy. But the thing that I took great encouragement from in Mr Goff’s contribution was that this same issue was raised when they were taking the extended supervision orders bill through the House and they obviously found a way through it. That provides great encouragement to me.I hope that I am sitting on the Law and Order Committee in the next term if I am lucky enough to be returned to this House because I think that this is a very very good bill. I think that although we always have a very open mind of course when these bills come to a select committee and we have access to a lot of very very good advice the default setting for me is the point that Mr Goff made and that was around the fact that we saw serious sexual offending—as in one case involving Mr Lloyd McIntosh—of a 23-month-old child. The default setting must always be in terms of making sure that we do everything we possibly can to make sure that a 23-month-old child—the most vulnerable in our society and community—is protected.I would also like to acknowledge the Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley who has brought this bill to the House and through the select committee process and has given us the opportunity now to wrap more protection around and provide more protection for the most vulnerable in our society.With that like I have said I hope that I am a member of the Law and Order Committee next term and I look forward to receiving this bill. Thank you.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First):Talofa lava Mr Assistant Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): O a mai oe?Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: Manuia fa’afetai.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Fa’afetai lava.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: Kia ora and warm greetings. I would also like to acknowledge the Minister of Corrections and the efforts that she made to talk to us about the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. This morning I received a message from one of our community members. I am saying “our” because you and I come from the same electorate Mr Assistant Speaker.Jami-Lee Ross: But he won the seat.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR: I hear somebody trying to be smart on this side and I am sure he cannot remember or understand a single word he is saying. The message goes: “The problem here in this country is that the law has given younger people more authority which leaves parents hopeless and they can do so little to discipline their kids. Now they can commit more crimes knowing they can get away with it. What will the Government do—allow more laws for rehabilitating the criminals and nothing for the victims?”. Then there are 12 question marks and then the word “sucks” at the end. These words represent frustration and anger and it is not the fault of the person who sent it but the fault of this House. This House is responsible for the words of frustration and anger.It was 2009 when the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Act was passed through a rather rushed process from its introduction to its third reading. It is interesting because New Zealand First was not here at the time. There was no formal debate during its second and third readings because leave was given for the bill to be introduced and read on the same day. New Zealand First was not part of the process during that time and what a shame. What a shame. If that bill had been debated in a considered manner then members of Parliament during that time may have considered whether the bill was not just about fixing a technical error. We are here today debating the matter because of those who sat in this Chamber in 2009 and did not carefully scrutinise the bill. We are here today to fix up legislation that failed to protect victims of sexual assault and the most vulnerable in our society our children.The band-aid approach of a 10-year limit was not enough. It was not enough. The first extended supervision orders handed down in 2005 are due to expire early next year meaning that the Department of Corrections will lose its ability to manage those child sex offenders in the community. I am glad the Minister of Corrections has decided to address the issue of protection for our communities. I am also glad the Minister has accepted the need to address the issue of protection for the public against these high-risk sex offenders.We need to ask why it has taken recent cases of serious reoffending to finally decide that it is time to do something about it. We all remember Stewart Wilson—and it is a public case out there—who was released in September 2012 back in jail in April 2013 had 20 years for sexual and violent offending and whose sentence expires on 1 December next year. We are talking about the $27000 it cost for this area to be fixed per person per year and the time has come for it to be addressed. The ostrich mentality of locking them up and throwing away the key does not work for such offenders as we all know. The Department of Corrections needs to redirect its attention to serious rehabilitation programmes. It must put protection plans in place so that victims can be confident that they are protected. We are talking about victims. They need to be assured that they are safe to live free of fear and that offenders under supervision orders will not reoffend after serving their 10-year parole period.This legislation will expand extended supervision orders for child sex offenders beyond their current 10-year time frame. This is for those who pose a high risk of serious offending. It will also expand their use to include high-risk sex offenders against adults and very high-risk violent offenders. Managing those high-risk sex offenders and very high-risk violent offenders is imperative for the safety of our communities. There is no room for error. This bill must ensure that given the threat of serious harm posed by offenders the rights of New Zealanders to be free from sexual harm and violence is upheld. The bill provides for the courts to order the imposition of special conditions allowing intensive monitoring of offenders for the first 12 months of the extended supervision orders.The intentions of this bill are in line with a similar bill introduced by New Zealand First to amend the Sentencing Act. In fact the two bills work hand in hand. Both bills are focused on protecting victims. Where the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment bill maintains the safety of victims after offenders have been released New Zealand First’s Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill acts as an additional deterrent for potential reoffenders post-release. Our bill makes potential reoffenders think twice about re-entering a life of crime after they have served their time. Children and minors are involved in a significant proportion of total crimes and our bill is about keeping them safe. Would-be offenders cannot escape the fact that criminal activity and criminal behaviour almost always have an impact on children at some point whether it is in the home or on the street.Both bills are especially relevant for combating paedophilia child abuse and other such crimes where victims require ongoing protection. Both bills acknowledge that victims suffer long-term mental physical and psychological effects from the crimes committed against them which means that the law should support victims as much as possible. Both bills are not just about preventing criminals from reoffending; they are also about protecting the rights of victims and potential victims to live fair and free lives. It is also about protecting our communities. It is crucial that communities are at the core of our role when introducing legislation that is meant to address criminal activities. This Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill and our bill go hand in hand. Supporting our bill would double the effectiveness of this bill.This is an opportunity for the Government to do some serious consideration of the New Zealand First bill. It is important that the correct measures are put in place not only to protect the victims but to allow reintegration into communities at a safe and monitored level. Parliament must have the ability to change in order to validate the measure of intelligence and intelligence is what we need right now for the sake of our community and our country. New Zealand First supports this bill at its first reading. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Before I call the member I just want to advise the House that we have a split call. Thank you.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I am pleased to take a call in support of this particular piece of legislation the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill in particular because the group of offenders that we are talking about are really at the highest end of sexual offending and are the highest risk to the community.For the specifics of the bill in terms of its genesis we go back to 2004 when the extended supervision orders were put in place. The situation that the community and legislators are now faced with is the pending release of some of these people and the ongoing risk. That must always be the benchmark upon which we as legislators reflect or the lens that we look through to ensure that the safety of the community is held paramount with this particular subset of offenders which is a very very small group but capable of absolutely destroying the lives of victims. Usually in my experience they are very very troubled individuals so extending supervision orders beyond the 10-year time period originally discussed as part of the initial legislation but also looking to extend them to those adults who present a serious violent risk or sexual offending risk is very sensible. I am very happy to commend this legislation.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I agree with the previous speaker the honourable Mike Sabin and I hope that the members of the Law and Order Committee can as they do ask searching questions about whether the system of extended supervision orders is working as intended and whether it can be strengthened and improved. Those questions can be asked during their scrutiny of the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill. I support the bill. It looks to deliver on the determination of the New Zealand Independent Coalition for safe children safe whānau and a safe society serving New Zealanders.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):There have been some very good contributions already on this bill the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill and as my colleagues have said Labour supports this bill. There are some very important and difficult issues that the Law and Order Committee in considering it will need to consider.Before I talk about the bill specifically I do want just to acknowledge the work of my colleague the Hon Phil Goff. Phil outlined a little of the work that he has done in this space but as he was leaving the Chamber earlier he referred to the fact that he at times prior to the earlier legislation had lain awake at night worrying about what might happen with some of the individuals who are covered now by these extended supervision orders that were not at that stage in place. That was because the crimes that those individuals were likely to commit were of such a horrific nature. As a very responsible member of Parliament he was very concerned and troubled by that. He obviously has put in a lot of work in this area over many years and I just think that it is worth putting on the record the work of the Hon Phil Goff. As I say this bill flows on from the work that Phil Goff has undertaken. We do have some concerns around some of the matters in this bill particularly in regard to the definitions used for violent crime but that will be no doubt considered in the select committee.As has been already outlined the bill amends the Parole Act in as far as it relates to extended supervision orders which are used at the moment to manage a small number of child sex offenders who pose a high risk of causing serious harm after being released from prison at the end of their sentence. This bill will enable orders to be renewed as often as they are needed. Certainly my understanding is that in one particular case a person covered by one of these extended supervision orders understands enough that he himself is a risk to the community when his current order expires and he would seek to make a submission to that effect to the select committee.The bill also changes the legislation to the extent that it also then moves on to include higher-risk sex offenders against adults and we are talking about a small number apparently of very high-risk violent offenders. That is the area we have flagged. As the Hon Phil Goff has said there are some concerns that will need to be looked at in the select committee.This bill is part of the area of how we manage particularly high-risk offenders. I was interested to read in the regulatory impact statement about the highest-risk offenders—there are three main areas—and how we as a country try to manage that very very difficult situation. There is preventive detention which is effectively a lifetime sentence. There is the current extended supervision order which this bill seeks to amend. There are going to be public protection orders as well. They all play slightly different roles but they all have in common a primary purpose of protecting the public from further serious sexual and/or violent offending. So that is the common thread throughout them. This bill really is looking at a gap where somebody who has been on an extended supervision order post-release is coming to the end of the current period and at the need to be able to further put orders in place.As my colleague Andrew Little said there are some provisions in the bill to try to get the balance right. One of the difficulties we face as legislators is the fact that the Attorney-General under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act has indicated that this bill is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. He says so because of the imposition of retroactive penalties and double jeopardy. These are serious matters so this will mean the select committee will need to look very very carefully at the provisions in this bill and get it right. As others have said we have traversed this ground previously and I am confident that it is not beyond the ability of this House in this particular circumstance to get it right and to do what is in the best interests of the public and in particular of children in New Zealand.I do just want to take the opportunity at a more general level to talk about the issue of violence and particularly sexual and domestic violence. There is no doubt that we have a significant problem in this country. It is one that is currently under quite a lot of scrutiny. We have had the Glenn Inquiry report into domestic violence. We have had the Family Violence Death Review Committee report just last week. We have had some announcements from the Government just this week and certainly Labour will be making some significant announcements in this area. There is a serious problem with a violent culture and although the bill that we are talking about covers very severe situations and offenders who are at extreme risk of causing damage to the public particularly children the context in which that happens is interesting and I cannot help but wonder whether some of those people are part of what we know to be that intergenerational cycle of abuse.The damage that is done to our children is not only by abuse of them directly but also as witnesses of violence in their families. Seventy-two children were in their homes—in the period that the Family Violence Death Review Committee was reporting on which was a 3-year period from 2009 to 2012—when either a sibling or a parent was killed by another member of their family. You can only begin—sorry not you sir. Members in this House can only begin to imagine the damage that that would do to a child and all of the evidence says that in fact that damage is probably worse than the damage of the physical violence and the psychological damage to that child themselves which is quite interesting. I just say that and note that it is overwhelmingly women and children who are the victims of domestic and sexual violence in this country. We do need to make sure that we take that matter and finally start to address it.We need to be world leading in this area and our statistics are appallingly bad. To be frank one death or one rape is one too many. We need to look at issues around prevention and issues around how we provide support and services to those who have been victims of violent crime particularly sexual and domestic violence and how we hold the perpetrators of that violence to account. But we cannot do any of those things in isolation from the others and certainly the announcements this week by the Government seemed to focus very much on the criminal justice end and not so much on the prevention end. It seems obvious does it not that we should actually try to stop the crime rather than being the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and dealing with the consequences of the crime—either dealing with the consequences to the victim or dealing with the perpetrator of the crime.So I just say that we need to be much more aware of what we can do to change the violent culture that we have in this country and to prevent sexual and domestic violence from occurring. It is a human behaviour so we should be able to change it—maybe not ever completely eliminate it but certainly seriously reduce the incidents that we currently have in this country. So it has got those three elements. It needs real leadership and it needs real commitment. This is not something we can do overnight but it is something that as a Parliament we need to address.Dr CAM CALDER (National):I am wearing the White Ribbon. The White Ribbon is worn by men who stand against violence towards women and children and I am very proud of the work this Government has done in this space over the 6 years that we have been in office. I refer to the work that has been done and the plans that were announced just yesterday—further efforts to address domestic violence. They were greeted with absolute delight by the chief executive officer of Shine an organisation that works with women who are at the very highest risk of suffering domestic violence. I am very proud of the work the Government has done there. I want to give credit to Paula Bennett and her work for children and on the violence that is directed against them.I would just like to commend this bill the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill which sets out to allow the renewal of extended supervision orders for as long as they are needed with regular mandatory review by the courts for the very worst of offenders who are very likely to reoffend should they be released from prison without an extended supervision order in place. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the honourable member Kelvin Davis I advise the House that this is not a split call.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour):It is a pleasure for me to speak on the Parole (Extended Supervision Orders) Amendment Bill which touches on one of the priorities I set myself upon my return to Parliament; that is the elimination of sexual violence in New Zealand. I just have to take issue with my own colleague Carol Beaumont on a couple of things. She said that maybe we cannot fully eliminate sexual violence from New Zealand. I believe we must do everything in our power to ensure that we aim for the total elimination of sexual violence within New Zealand. It is not going to be an easy task but we need to have that as our focus and not deviate from it.I also want to just touch on the acknowledgments of the cross-party collaboration on this bill. It is good to see that on something as serious as sexual violence we can come together and put aside our party differences for the betterment of the most vulnerable in New Zealand.The extended supervision orders are used to manage a small number of child sex offenders who pose a high risk of causing serious harm after being released from prison at the end of their sentence. These orders can last for up to 10 years beyond which the Department of Corrections is not able to manage these offenders even if they continue to pose a high risk of serious harm to the public. The bill enables orders to be renewed as often as is needed and expands the scope of orders beyond high-risk child sex offenders to include high-risk sex offenders against adults as well as very high-risk violent offenders. It is really important to note that sexual violence and other types of violence often go hand in hand in particular in domestic situations.The regulatory impact statement says: “If a sex offender against adults or a violent offender does not meet the stringent criteria for a public protection order there are currently no other tools available to manage them at the end of a finite sentence. They would be unmanaged in the community as they have finished their sentence.” This bill addresses that. In other words there is another tool with which to manage the behaviour and manage the sexual offenders.I note that there is the concern that this bill may not be consistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act in terms of the retrospective penalties and double jeopardy so the Law and Order Committee does have a duty to really consider this bill to take it seriously and to try to maintain that balance between upholding the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and also protecting the most vulnerable in our society; that is our children and also I include our women in that.I also have to make the point here that we often talk about sexual violence and domestic violence as being only man against woman. I just want to make the point because people have had me up about it in various hui that we must remember that men are also victims of sexual and domestic violence. We should not downplay that. But it is a fact that about 90 percent of offences are committed by men.The Labour Party believes that public safety should not be put at risk as a result of extended supervision orders’ expiry. We need long-term options for managing the risk of serious harm caused by high-risk groups. It is good to see this bill taking steps to achieve that.Labour is deeply concerned about the high incidence of family domestic and sexual violence in New Zealand. Since 2008 there has been a 36 percent increase in the number of recorded sexual violence offences. It is now at the highest level ever recorded. It is a pretty well-known fact that one in eight men in New Zealand over their lifetime will experience sexual violence one in six women will experience sexual violence and for Māori women it is one in three. At a recent hui I attended at Hoani Waititi Marae in west Auckland an organisation called Tū Wahine Trust presented research on sexual violence. It came out with this pretty astounding set of figures that said in west Auckland central Auckland and on the North Shore there are between 8000 to 10000 young men and 15000 to 18000 young women who have experienced sexual violence. That is just sexual violence. Between 23000 and 28000 young people under the age 24 have experienced sexual violence. That is not including domestic violence that is not including witnessing domestic violence that is not including Northland and Tai Tokerau or South Auckland or Waikato or the Bay of Plenty or the rest of New Zealand; this is just central and west Auckland and the North Shore.We talk about the number of people who are not achieving in school to the best of their potential. When we think about that number of between 23000 and 28000 young people who have experienced sexual violence in just those areas of Auckland alone those young people are in classes each day trying to learn trying to focus on what the teacher is saying but at the same time their heads are probably filled with what happened to them last night quite possibly in the apparent safety of their own homes by somebody whom they know love and trust. And here we are; we are wondering why we have so many of our young people who are not managing to achieve their potential in school.There was a recent report I read that says sexual violence drives women into poverty. It says that sexual violence inhibits their sense of agency. “Agency” is a term used to describe how people rise above their own circumstances and the situation and achieve regardless. You think about it: the number of women who are sexually abused or are victims of domestic violence—they have this reduced sense of agency. They cannot raise themselves above their circumstances. They do not achieve as well as they could. They do not get the qualifications that they maybe should so they do not earn as much as they should. This has an impact on the economy in that if we think about it most women are mothers who do the shopping for their families and they have less money. But also what this does is it drives their families into poverty. So we can talk about feeding the kids as much as we want and for as long as we want but maybe what we need to consider is that if we want to feed our kids we need to look after their mothers first. We need to protect their mothers and the women in society.This House and the men in this House—I think we owe it to our wives and to our girlfriends our partners our daughters our mothers our sisters our friends and to our colleagues around the House to really take seriously this issue of sexual violence and domestic violence. It is for the good of the whole country. This bill is a small step to protecting our women and our children our most vulnerable. I am proud that Labour not only supports it but its genesis was back when Labour was in Government and Phil Goff kicked things off. Kia ora.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West):Tēnā koe to you Mr Assistant Speaker. I would like to associate myself with the opening remarks of the previous speaker Kelvin Davis and also to thank all those who have contributed to this debate for their very constructive contributions. It is very good to see the consensus that exists in the House for such an important measure. As it is unlikely that a party vote will be taken I do want to indicate that the usual support would have been coming from our confidence and supply partners and also from Brendan Horan. I too am very pleased to support this measure.Bill read a first time.Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee.Land Transport Amendment BillSecond ReadingHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Associate Minister of Transport):on behalf of theMinister of Transport: I move That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a second time. I want to thank the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their work on this bill. I also want to thank those who took the time to make a submission on it.The Government is committed to improving road safety in New Zealand and has had the Safer Journeys road safety strategy since 2010. The Safer Journeys’ vision is a safe road system increasingly free of death and serious injury. Drink-driving was identified as an area of high concern. The Government has already taken a number of measures to address drink-driving including lowering the limits to zero for drivers under the age of 20 years and repeat offenders. The Government also made alcohol interlocks available as a sentencing option for repeat and first-time drink-drivers with a high alcohol level. In March 2013 I released the second Safer Journeys Action Plan which set out the Government’s intent to make decisions on the drink-driving limits before the end of 2013. After considering the results of the research commissioned by Cabinet in 2010 and other advice the Government moved quickly to introduce the Land Transport Amendment Bill to reduce the legal drink-driving limits for adults.The bill as reported back will reduce the breath-alcohol limit from 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath to 250 micrograms. The blood-alcohol limit will reduce from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams. The bill will also put in place infringement offences for drivers who fall between the new and old limits. Consequential amendments to regulations will set the penalties at an infringement fee of $200 and 50 demerit points. In the case of a driver failing or refusing to undergo an evidential breath test they will be required to undergo an evidential blood test. If the blood test result is in the 51 to 80 milligram range the driver will face a higher infringement fee of $700 and receive 50 demerit points. If the blood test result is above 80 milligrams or the driver fails to complete the required blood test they will be subject to court-based sanctions.The bill was referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in December 2013. The committee considered 106 submissions and heard from 21 submitters. The committee has recommended a number of improvements to the bill. It recommended that all drivers who request or are required to provide a blood specimen pay for the costs of the blood test. The committee also recommended setting out that blood test costs can be waived if test results are under the applicable legal limit and evidence is provided of a medical condition having led to the need for a blood specimen being taken. Some adult drivers who fail or refuse to undergo the evidential breath test will be found to be in the infringement range following a blood test. In these cases the committee recommended the proposed $500 infringement fee in the bill be increased to $700. This will simplify administration for the police because no separate fee for the blood test and associated medical expenses would need to be recovered.As a consequence of the committee’s recommendation to recover blood test costs changes are needed to the provisions in the bill that set out the information drivers need to be given. The committee recommends that all drivers required to undergo an evidential breath test be told that they may be liable to pay the blood test costs. The consequence of not giving advice concerning liability for the blood test costs would be that the costs are not recoverable. Further to this the committee recommends an amendment to the bill to require that similar information is given to drivers who have taken an evidential breath test failed it and then requested a blood test. This will also apply to those drivers who are required to undergo a blood test. The committee has also recommended a number of minor technical amendments to the bill.The changes proposed by this bill demonstrate the Government’s determination to improve road safety in New Zealand by reducing drink-driving. I commend the bill to the House.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill as well. I also share the compliments of the Associate Minister of Transport Michael Woodhouse for the work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which was actually given a very short time to get this work done. As you also heard there were 106 submissions—a great deal of interest in this bill—so the committee did do its work diligently. I am really pleased that we finally have this measure back in the House and I hope that it will get through before the election.It has been a long journey for this debate about lowering the legal alcohol limit for adults. It started way back in 2009. We could have had this provision all of those years ago—5 years ago—when the former MP Darren Hughes introduced a member’s bill that would have done exactly what this bill is doing. That had a slightly different penalty regime but we would have had at that time if the Government had adopted it this provision as part of our road safety measures out on the roads in 2010 2011 2012 2013 and then of course well into this year as well. However I understand that the Government does not like taking good ideas from the Opposition so I understand why it did not do that.But in 2010 there was another opportunity to do something about this issue. There was a bill that came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that followed on from the Cabinet consideration of the issue. That was the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. During the submissions on that bill the No. 1 issue that was raised by submitters was this issue of the adult blood-alcohol limit. Again and again submitters came along and said it was missing from the bill and it could be dealt with under that bill. We had submissions from the Drug Foundation the Cycling Advocates Network Alcohol Healthwatch the Drink Driving Interventions Trust the National Addiction Centre and even the Herald on Sunday. The Herald on Sunday at that time ran a campaign on this. At the same time Darren Hughes’ bill was taken over by Iain Lees-Galloway. The Herald on Sunday supported Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill and it got New Zealanders to pledge to drink a maximum of two drinks before they got in the car. It was a very successful campaign. So the Government would have been getting the same feedback as we were at that time that the public wanted it. There was poll after poll saying that the public saw this as one of the No. 1 issues.During the Committee stage of the Land Transport (Road Safety and Other Matters) Amendment Bill Labour put up an amendment that would have reduced the blood-alcohol limit back in 2010. So there was another chance for the Government to take up the issue. But guess what? Guess what?Dr Megan Woods: They didn’t.DARIEN FENTON: It voted against it. It has consistently refused to support members’ bills and assistance from this side of the House to try to get this issue addressed from way way back. Then there were other opportunities. There was of course all of the alcohol reform process.There were amendments that went up during that process. There were as I say ongoing opportunities for the Government to address it. Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill was drawn from the ballot way back at the beginning of 2013. We could have progressed that got on with that quickly picked it up got it off to select committee done the work on it and had it in place by now.It is disappointing that for some reason—and I have never really understood why—the then Minister of Transport Steven Joyce was very resistant to it. Despite the evidence that came before the select committee the research from around the world and the evidence from other countries that have adopted these measures of their success in reducing accidents and deaths on the roads the Minister insisted that we needed to have New Zealand - based evidence and that it would take 2 years to do. So it got sent off to some deep dark hole and ignored basically until now. Maybe it took a new Minister to get it up and kicking. I do not know. I do not know what happened but I do regret the fact that we have had this opportunity to do something about saving lives with a pretty straightforward measure and we are doing it only now.I also do not believe that we had to go through the whole thing of convincing the public. I remember way back when Steven Joyce became the transport Minister and he introduced the cellphone restrictions. He said that was a no-brainer. I agreed with him actually. You know Labour did not do it and it was a no-brainer even though people still break the rules. So I never understood why he thought this issue was not a no-brainer particularly when he went on TV on Campbell Live downed a whole lot of drinks and demonstrated that there was just no way that a man of his size could consume something like nine standard drinks I think it is and be able to meet the current alcohol limit and get behind the wheel. He said that there was just no way he could do it. We saw other examples of even larger men getting up to 12 standard drinks—beer after beer being thrown down their throats—and apparently allegedly it was safe for them to drive.Moana Mackey: Put them in a simulator.DARIEN FENTON: Put them in a simulator. That is right. It was terrifying really.At the same time as I said there was evidence from overseas. Australia did it years ago in New South Wales. The result of that was an 8 percent reduction in fatal crashes and a 7 percent reduction in crashes causing serious injury. Queensland achieved an 18 percent reduction in fatal crashes and a 14 percent reduction in serious crashes and on it goes—Belgium France and country after country. But I reckon if the Aussies could do it all those years ago why could we not? You know if you can persuade beer-swilling Aussies that they should reduce their alcohol intake and you change the law in the way that this bill eventually does why could we not do it way back then? However I do not want to sound bitter about it. I am pleased that this is one of the last bills I am likely to be speaking on before I leave Parliament and I am pleased that it will be something that finally becomes law. It is a sensible piece of legislation.There were some amendments made during the select committee consideration and we spent quite a lot of time around the issue of what happens if a driver refuses to take a breath test and then has to have a blood test or if they are required to have an evidential blood test how much they should be charged for it and then whether that money is recoverable. That caused a bit of a glitch for a wee while. The bill sort of disappeared back to the Minister’s office for I think 3 or 4 weeks while Gerry Brownlee tried to get his brain into gear and figure out what he could do. The select committee has come up with and recommended a solution but we will see how that goes.Labour has supported this bill because as I said to the media when they asked me about it we just want to get the damn thing done. But we do have concerns. I do predict there will be litigation around this area particularly when it comes to the point of trying to recover the costs of unpaid blood tests—setting Baycorp on people. It will be interesting and I do predict that there will be some interesting legal ramifications for this. Having said that I am very genuinely pleased to support this bill and may it become law very very soon. Thank you.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):Thank you to a very honourable Assistant Speaker whom we have in the Chair today. I would like to thank that previous member Darien Fenton for her very good speech and also her commitment to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee over the years that she has been here. This may be our last chance to do that. [Interruption] No there is a lot of love there. I think that Darien Fenton is an excellent member of this Parliament and we have always enjoyed her company on the committee. She has done a very good job. She has represented her side of the argument strongly but in a way that everybody can respect and understand so it has been a pleasure to have you on the committee and it has been a pleasure to see your input on the Land Transport Amendment Bill and other things. I know that the whips are looking at me going “What are we doing?” but that respect is genuinely felt.The Land Transport Amendment Bill is a good bill and it is being supported by the parties through the House. I think it is a little bit unfair to ask why it has been waited upon and why it has not happened. Previous Governments have had that opportunity. The previous Labour Government had that opportunity. It did not do it. Amendment has been in stages. The first stage was in regard to youth drivers and the zero limit that was brought in in regard to them. You had the cellphone rule changes as well for safer journeys and safer driving. This is the next step. Research was undertaken to make sure it is the right step and the Minister of Transport has come to that conclusion. We are very very fortunate that the House has seen to vote for it in this regard.I think that everybody can sort of grasp what it is going to involve. It is going to be an infringement regime which is really a fine regime for the lower end of those people who may be caught driving under the influence. Then above that you go into the normal processes of a criminal offence which are for the more serious offences or the current limit as it is. The question then becomes around testing and that was a point that exercised the committee members’ minds for a long time. When the public look at this bill they may not understand it but there are some key principles and I think that if the public understand these key principles then it will help.First of all there does not seem to be a lot of difference between a breath test and a blood test. If anyone thinks “Oh if you fail one you’ll pass the other.” and such like the advice we had was that they are pretty similar and it would be very very rare to find that there would be a result in one case that would not be substantiated in the other. So thinking that if you fail one you are going to pass the other one and therefore you would not have to pay the fees and the fines and things like that just is not relevant. That is a key principle that underpins this. Another key principle is because it is an infringement zone to do that as easily and quickly—and probably as cost-effectively—as possible to enable most people to basically be aware that they have breached the law and suffered that infringement without going through a more formal process that you often see in the higher offence part of it.I think those two principles are key when people look at this. People will say and Darien rightly pointed out that there will be issues around the recoverability of funds and there may be court cases that eventuate over that over time but they are very simple rules and when you consider those key principles it actually means that it is very unlikely that anyone would be successful through that legal mechanism but you know that people will try that. That is the nature of human beings and the legal process. So just be prepared for that.But essentially the other principle is that the blood test is recoverable. So if you have a blood test you are going to pay. You are either going to pay through the fine or you are going to pay through that test being recoverable. That is the guts of it. To anyone out there who is thinking that they do not have to pay well you are. You are going to pay $700 for an infringement and $200 which is basically for testing and if you go through the other process and seek a blood test you are going to pay that money. Whichever way you look at it the fee will be about $200.Just in finishing I would like to thank one of the previous members of the committee who had an important role in other parts of the legislation around this area. That is Mr Scott Simpson who looked at one of the issues that we had faced in regard to testing. His valuable member’s bill the Land Transport (Admissibility of Evidential Breath Tests) Amendment Bill which progressed into this bill actually was a catalyst for making this very robust piece of legislation. To everybody out there this is a good piece of legislation. It is something that creates a system that I think all members of this Parliament should endorse and support. We have tried to get it in the best way we can. This is a system where you will pay for that testing. I would just like to thank the Ministers involved especially the Minister of Police whose staff were very helpful in getting us through this situation and also the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee especially Darien. Well done and thank you.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):Let me start where the member opposite the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee David Bennett left off and that is from this side of the House not only to join the National Government in supporting this Land Transport Amendment Bill but also to acknowledge the work of Darien Fenton on the select committee. Darien has been in the interesting position of dealing with both the industrial relations part and the transport part of the select committee and has obviously been a strong advocate in both of those portfolio areas particularly in transport safety.Of course in regard to the bill that we are speaking about that is really what we are talking about. This is a safety issue and the purpose of the bill is to address the problem caused by alcohol-impaired driving. Unfortunately I did not get to spend as much time on this bill as other members of the select committee because I was having to deal with legislation in another select committee. None the less I know that the select committee did put its mind to a number of issues around blood testing the payment for blood testing and all of that side of things. I do take the point that potentially there may well be matters that end up being litigated around this but the basic concept of lowering the blood-alcohol level is one that Labour has long supported and is one that is well overdue.Hon Anne Tolley: Nine years in Government.CAROL BEAUMONT: I certainly recall from the last Parliament that this was well traversed as part of the Law Commission work around alcohol and the impact of alcohol on our lives as well as in other transport legislation at the time that was dealing with younger drivers. The Minister Anne Tolley may go “Nine long years.”—well it has been 6 long years that National has been in Government and it could have done something. There were a number of actual opportunities to do something in the last 6 years but the Government has chosen to not prioritise this important safety measure.None the less here we are in the House on the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill and certainly as I say we are joining with National in supporting this bill. Obviously I think everybody—well pretty much everybody anyway—is convinced that the current level is far too high. It is out of line with overseas jurisdictions. There is a mountain of evidence actually that shows the difference that lowering the blood-alcohol level will make. One of the things that I recall from the last Parliament when we were talking about this was when we were making the changes for younger drivers.One of the reasons that was actually given was that we had to do more research—that was one of the reasons given for delaying. I think that it was probably more to do with people being concerned about whether they would have trouble with the public over the issue. But this is one of those issues where the Government needs to show leadership in the same way it did for example in the anti-smoking legislation even if it was not always that popular. Anyway we had to do more research and some of it I recall was because of the nature of our rural roads. I remember that was a particular reason the Australian research was not going to be that useful to us because we had different rural roads.But here we are. We are finally at this point which is great of having the second reading. As a select committee we received a number of submissions on the bill—106 submissions—and 21 of those were heard and the bill has undoubtedly been improved as a result. But just to note a number of people have died in recent years whose blood-alcohol limit was within the range that we are now talking about where we are lowering from 0.08 to 0.05. So we do know that there has been a cost to not passing this legislation earlier.So to just very quickly outline what the bill does it addresses the problem of alcohol-impaired driving with a number of amendments including lowering the adult legal blood-alcohol limits as I said from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood creating an infringement regime for adult drivers who return an evidential breath test in the range of 251 to 400 micrograms per litre and proposing that the penalties be an infringement fee and demerit points. There are then higher infringement fees plus the costs of blood tests for adult drivers who fail or refuse to undergo the breath tests and who then find that their blood test results are within that infringement range. So I do want to say that we are glad to see this legislation is here. People’s lives will be saved as a consequence and that is something that we can all be proud of. Thank you.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):Unfortunately I did not get the chance to sit in on very much of the select committee proceedings but I have followed the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee report with some interest. I have got to express some disappointment that the select committee has not in fact ended up taking on board the issues that I raised at the first reading and I do want to come back and speak about those again. The Green Party will be supporting the Land Transport Amendment Bill. We believe that it is a step forward; it is just a shame that it was not a larger step forward. There is no dispute that driving while intoxicated is dangerous. It poses risks to the health the safety and the life of the person who is intoxicated and also to others who share no culpability in that person’s behaviour or choices.That is why we have criminal sanctions for drink-driving. Those sanctions reflect the gravity of transgressing our law in that area. There has been as Carol Beaumont referred to it a mountain of evidence about the harm caused by drink-driving both while above the existing legal limit and while in the zone between 0.05 grams and 0.08 grams which is the particular area that we are looking at. As others have referred to it has been evident in fact for a very long time that harm was being caused by drivers who had blood-alcohol levels within that range.It is I think a source of embarrassment to this House that it has taken so long to actually lower the levels that are permitted by New Zealand law particularly when so many countries around the world have moved before us. This is not I would have thought an area in which New Zealand ought to be proud to be a follower whether that is a fast follower or as in this case an extremely slow follower. We should be embarrassed and ashamed by the slowness of our response in this area.It would have been sensible given the fact that drivers with blood-alcohol levels above 0.05 grams but below 0.08 grams are still posing a risk of serious harm to themselves and to others to respond to the situation by simply lowering the threshold at which criminal penalties take effect. Why not just lower the threshold to 0.05 grams? That is what the Green Party would have supported. Instead the Government has decided not only to lower the threshold but also to considerably lower the penalties and the gravity with which such offending is seen. We believe that that is a serious mistake. No doubt the Government’s argument is that the risk of harm from lower levels of intoxication is lower—so lower intoxication leads to a lower risk of harm—and therefore there ought to be lower penalties and I guess that there is an argument that could be made along those lines.However the fact is that for some people those lower levels of intoxication will in fact still lead to serious harm and serious impairment that creates bigger risk. Therefore it seems to me to be unacceptable that our law should treat that kind of offending with a lower level of seriousness. A person has infringed our law about what is an acceptable level of intoxication and we know that that level of intoxication will for some people create serious risk and will lead to deaths. It seems to me that that should be the trigger for criminal offending and for the penalties that go with that. It seems unarguable that that should be the case yet that is not what this bill does. Certainly if we were to do what I propose—if we were to simply lower the threshold for the criminal offending provisions—then it would still be within the discretion of judges to apply lower penalties and not to enter convictions if that seems to be appropriate in the circumstances of the offence and the offender yet this Government is choosing not to adopt that approach.The reason for our dismay that this weaker response has been taken is that surely the point of having penalties against drink-driving in the first place is in part for society to wreak some kind of response against those who transgress against the law. That is one of the reasons. But the other and probably more important reason is to try to change community behaviour. What this Government has chosen to do with its weaker response to intoxication below the level of 0.08 grams is send a weaker signal. It is choosing to take the smallest effect it possibly can on community norms. What we know about changing the kind of behaviour that causes risk of harm to others is that we will best do that not by targeting those with the most extreme behaviour but by trying to change the norm of the whole of society. What we want to do surely is achieve a situation where the community norm in New Zealand is that it is unacceptable to have more than a few drinks and then hop behind the wheel of a motor vehicle. It is unacceptable to do that.That is what Scandinavian countries for example have succeeded in doing. In those countries it would be extremely rare for anyone to do that. Their rates of injury and death associated with drink-driving are much lower than ours. We could have taken a giant stride towards those much lower rates by sending a strong signal saying that this lower level at 0.05 grams is still unacceptable in our society that it is still posing a risk of harm and that that kind of behaviour is not acceptable. Instead what we have done is we have chosen to have a lower penalty and that lower penalty and the infringement nature of the offence that is created is to say that this is actually not very serious. That will have probably some effect but little effect on those community norms that I spoke of.This could have been a much better bill. It could have been a bill that made a big amount of progress towards changing community norms and reducing harm associated with drink-driving. It is unfortunate that the Government has instead chosen to send a weak signal that will have little or no effect on those community norms.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):Although I do have a good deal of respect for the previous speaker Kevin Hague I take exception to the comment that he made about I guess the message that is sent through legislation like this the Land Transport Amendment Bill. I say that because what is very clear if we look at meaningful deterrents is that the scale and consequence of the penalty has far less effect than the degree of certainty that there will be a likely outcome or culpability for the given offence. I listened very intently to and noticed some of the submissions that were made in particular from some who have probably been on the wrong side of this discussion the criminal side of this discussion through their previous life experiences.It is clear that by shifting the tipping point I guess in terms of people’s decision making by saying that anything between 250 micrograms and 400 micrograms will likely bring a consequence the likelihood of being caught increases. I will come to that point and suggest why that may be. It was interesting to note how people would think well all of a sudden the idea of having a few drinks is not a good one. It is not a good one because although there may be a lesser consequence in terms of the infringement notice there is a consequence. Swiftness and certainty are the factors that are at play here and are very important in terms of affecting someone’s decision to ultimately get in a motor vehicle and drive after having consumed alcohol or mind-altering substances.One thing that is sure is when an individual drinks the first thing that is impaired is their judgment. What we do know is that their ability to make a good and rational decision at that point is impaired so we cannot expect someone who has decided to have a couple to know exactly where that line is. It is a false notion to suggest that they can. Of course the individual will think that they can but that is quite wrong. But what we need to do is ensure that the message that is given and is well understood is that even a very low level of alcohol is likely to result in a consequence. There is a degree of certainty about that occurring. I believe this strikes that balance.The important thing to note here is the ability of the police to be able to essentially carry out their road policing turn round a vehicle stop that results in a 250 to 400 microgram infringement notice and be back out on the street maintaining that enforcement presence. When a police officer gets involved in a breath-alcohol situation which may become a blood-alcohol situation the process in itself can take an hour. It can take a significant period of time in a more rural area. One thing that is important to note about this is the ability of the police officer to quickly apprehend to engage the appropriate sanction by way of an infringement notice and to get back out on the street and continue to provide that level of deterrence.What we are getting through this is we are sending a message that even a couple is too many. If you are out there on the road the likelihood is there will be a far greater deterrence impact because enforcement officers are far more able to carry out their duties and not be bogged down with paperwork sitting in a police station or behind a breathalyser machine in the booze bus. In that sense it is a pragmatic piece of legislation which I do think will send a message. The reality is that I think we are getting to a point as a country and as a society where we have to accept that if you are drinking you find another way to get home. Do not get behind the wheel of a car. It is as simple as that. Regardless of this legislation that is the message people should get. There is no excuse—no excuse whatsoever. This legislation will make sure that for those who choose to do so there will be a consequence.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First at first supported the Land Transport Amendment Bill as far as the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee because we wanted to hear what submitters had to say but we cannot support the bill any further. Although we in New Zealand First acknowledge that drink-driving in New Zealand is still a very serious problem and we know that there were 61 deaths between 2009 and 2012 plus over a thousand injuries this bill represents nothing more than minimal action and of course it is far too late.New Zealand First supports tougher measures to curb the worst cases of drink-driving but this bill is badly targeted and is aimed at the drink-drivers who do the least harm. The bill would lower the allowable breath-alcohol content from 400 to 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath and would reduce the current blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood. Disobedience of these new limits is to be addressed only in the form of infringement penalties on the grounds that they are in the less serious range of offending. That actually is the real issue here because these people are not in the range of those who cause the deaths and injuries so targeting these people is not likely to have the desired effect of reducing the death and injury rate on our roads as we would all require.The lower infringement limits as proposed in this bill may in fact have an unintended perverse effect. There will be some people who will convince themselves that drinking to an estimated blood-alcohol range of 50 milligrams to 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood or between 250 to 400 micrograms per litre of breath when driving is OK because it is only an infringement offence for which a small fine and few demerit points are incurred if caught. It could have an unintended perverse effect in that way.Although there is some evidence and research that shows driver impairment between the proposed limits and the existing limits there is very little convincing evidence that people are likely to harm themselves or others if they do so. That is not the range in which the harm really occurs. It is therefore clear to me that New Zealand’s existing alcohol limits in relation to driving are unlikely to be too high and that lowering them would be unlikely to be effective. The main value of a significantly lower blood-alcohol limit is that it could result in drink-drivers making decisions much earlier in their drinking sessions about how much they will drink and whether or not they will go out and drive afterwards. That may in fact be true initially but the effect is very likely to wear off over time as people get used to the new norm so nothing much will have been achieved.We in New Zealand First believe that a better long-term effect could be achieved by firstly significantly increasing the penalties for offending against the existing alcohol limits of 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and 400 micrograms per litre of breath and secondly by making the possibility of being caught actually a probability and to that extent I agree with the last speaker Mike Sabin. Having more police on the road and more random breath tests are what will actually make the difference. When people understand they will be caught then they will think twice. There is no indication however that the Government has any intention of improving the situation with more police on the roads or by having more random breath tests carried out.The new breath-alcohol limit of between 250 and 400 micrograms per litre of breath will not even be a criminal offence incurring the full force of the law and instead will provide for only a small infringement fine of $200 and 50 demerit points. The new blood-alcohol limit of between 50 and 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood will incur a fine of only $500 and 50 demerit points. Demerit points will eventually lead to only the loss of a licence so that does not have much of an immediate effect on people’s thinking and the fines are nothing more than derisory and will clearly not be an adequate deterrent. These new penalties do not reflect the seriousness of drink-driving offences generally. In fact they are likely to undermine the seriousness of drink-driving habits.The Government has yet again shown the same weakness on alcohol issues as it showed recently with the reforms for the sale of alcohol in New Zealand. Clearly the Government yielded then to the alcohol industry lobby on that legislation and it seems to me that this bill adopts a similar half-pie approach. The public actually wants stronger action and leadership on drink-driving than what this Government is apparently prepared to take. New Zealand First wants penalties to reflect public opinion but in the end what we really need is a culture change towards more sensible drinking habits especially among young people. That change and achieving the road safety objective will not come from penalties perceived especially by young people to be soft. They must reinforce and underpin the process for social change and better drinking habits along of course with continued education and promotional efforts.To summarise New Zealand First will vote against the bill because we want better detection of drink-driving with more police on the ground and that means more random breath-testing. When people understand that if they go out and drink and drive they will be tested and there will be very significant penalties then that is what is likely to be effective not these sorts of proposals. We want to target the offenders who do the real harm—the people who drink a lot of alcohol and then drive—where the blood-alcohol content is over 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood and we want significantly tougher penalties for those people. So for those reasons New Zealand First does not see the value of non-criminal infringement offences for 50 to 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood and 250 to 400 micrograms per litre of breath. The public wants tougher action. The public wants more effective action. The public will not be impressed by half-pie actions of this kind. Remember we are particularly speaking to younger people who have a very poor drink and driving culture in this country. They will see this almost as an invitation rather than a deterrent and it is not good enough. New Zealand First will vote against it.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):It is a pleasure to stand to support the Land Transport Amendment Bill. This bill has received pretty much all-round support for its intention and I might join the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee chair David Bennett in saying how it has been nice to work with all members working in the same direction. Particularly we would like to pay tribute to Darien Fenton who has worked very heavily on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It is her retirement year this year and it is nice that we are going out passing a bill where we expect a fair degree of unanimity.The basic purpose of the bill is to lower the alcohol limit. Lowering the alcohol limit will make roads safer while still allowing New Zealanders to go out and socialise responsibly so it is not punitive from that point of view; it is a behaviour changer an encouragement to behave properly. We are making some significant changes as well as investment to ensure safer roads for all New Zealanders. There is a lot of work going on at the moment with that. National is committed to addressing drink-driving in New Zealand particularly the repetitive nature of that problem as part of our drive to deliver better public services. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):I rise to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill and acknowledge the contribution of my parliamentary colleague opposite Chris Auchinvole who talked about the great unanimity on it. Normally of course that would be an opportunity for me to stand up and say what a complete scumbag he is to make such an outrageous claim but it would be wrong because there was a considerable degree of cohesion of thinking around this piece of legislation. We all share the concern about the issue of drink-driving—driving under the influence—and we have known for some time it has been apparent for some time that the thresholds that we have been operating under simply are not enough to deter people from getting behind the wheel when they have had not just a couple of drinks but significantly more than a couple.We have seen the TV programmes showing people who have had significantly more than a couple of drinks and who are testing below the existing threshold so changing the threshold is a sensible move. It has been Labour Party policy for some time and my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway has been promoting that move for some years so it is good to see that it is now happening.This bill enacts that particular aspect of it. It does a few other things too. It slightly complicates the issue because we now have this threshold this 250 milligram and 400 milligram threshold. If you are in breach of the law between 250 milligrams and 400 milligrams a set of consequences follows and a set of rights ensues but not the same number of rights and consequences or the same magnitude of rights and consequences as would ensue if you are found to have over 400 milligrams of alcohol in the blood or the breath-alcohol content.There is one aspect I have to confess—notwithstanding the almost unanimous view of the select committee and notwithstanding the views expressed by New Zealand First today—that still does cause me some concern. That is the fact that a person who has been pulled over and breath-tested by an officer is liable for the cost of a blood test irrespective of whether they are found to be over or under the relevant limit. It is true that the bill says that the officer administering the test has some discretion about whether to impose the testing fee on a person who is found to be under the statutory threshold but that is left up to the officer—no doubt for officers who are dealing with a stroppy individual and there are a fair few of them. I can imagine the odd lawyer who is stopped; in fact there are a few of them because they appear before the lawyers disciplinary committee frequently. They can argue the point and that can be offensive to an officer trying to act in the execution of their duty. But it just seems to me to be an unusual thing to leave it to the discretion of the police officer on the beat.I also am concerned that somebody who is innocent who is confident that they are not over the threshold may still be liable for a cost. In a sense they are being asked to pay for the cost of proving their innocence and that offends against a pretty basic principle—the right to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. Of course there will be others—and experienced officers will know when they are dealing with people who are over the limit—who attempt to resist blood tests and other evidential breath tests and who are trying it on. The officers must be free to exercise their professional skills to ensure that they persuade such people to undergo the relevant test. I just draw attention to that part. No doubt we will consider it and see through the Committee stage whether or not it is something that might lend itself to some improvement.Notwithstanding that the bill otherwise achieves the policy objective that we all want which is to reduce the thresholds of breath and blood alcohol when it comes to testing people behind the wheel. The reality is that we do have an unfortunate and somewhat shameful track record of traffic accidents—some fatal and many causing serious injury—where the root cause is people driving under the influence of alcohol. We do have to get on top of that problem. We know that when we went through the alcohol law reform legislation this issue was adverted to at length. The Government did not see it necessary to do anything about it at that point but we now have this bill here.We do have to get on top of the shameful record that we have of alcohol abuse by those who then put themselves in control of a motor vehicle. We have to send the signal that the thresholds are lower and that actually the tolerance for drinking and then driving straight afterwards is very low. There will be those who say it is one or two drinks and they are fine to hit the road and there will be some for whom even one or two drinks may be a step too far. I think that with this bill lowering the thresholds and with the regime that it sets up notwithstanding the issue that I have raised it is a responsible step forward to ensuring that we have safer roads and safer drivers behind the wheel.Dr CAM CALDER (National):As a junior doctor working in accident and emergency far too much of my time was spent patching up people who had been injured as a result of alcohol-related violence and accidents. One of the most compelling things I remember as a medical student was assisting on one occasion when two young men in the prime of their life had died as a result of road traffic accidents because of consuming excess alcohol. I am very pleased to commend this Land Transport Amendment Bill to the House a bill that reduces the chances of that happening.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. Dr Megan Woods 5 minutes.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):I am happy to take a call on the Land Transport Amendment Bill. After sitting in the House listening to the speeches I do want to commend the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It sounds like a lot of work has been done on this bill to bring it to the House. As my colleague who spoke before me Andrew Little acknowledged notwithstanding New Zealand First not voting for it at this stage it sounds like it has been a genuine example of parties across the political divide working together to find a solution for what I am sure we can all agree is something that we have to find a solution for. We as legislators simply cannot have New Zealanders dying on our roads because we are not putting in place the right legislation in order to send the right messages to New Zealand about what is a safe level of alcohol to consume before getting behind the wheel.Other speakers before me have brought to the attention of members the fact that although we support this bill we do acknowledge that it has taken us a very long time to get here. This legislation first appeared some time ago. It was kicked to touch by Steven Joyce in 2010—this was when it was introduced as a member’s bill from the Hon Darren Hughes and was subsequently taken up by my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway. This is something that National has not been willing to grasp early enough and do what is needed so we are pleased that we are here seeing the second reading of this bill and being able to do something.The fact of the matter is that New Zealand does have until we pass this legislation more permissive drink-driving laws than evidence-based research would suggest we should have. The evidence is clearly there and we do not need complicated logic to get to the point where we understand that when people drink too much alcohol and get behind the wheel of a heavy piece of machinery such as a motor vehicle and attempt to drive it their judgment is impaired and deaths ensue.Other countries have acknowledged that we simply have to lower the thresholds of what we deem to be a safe amount of alcohol to drink. If you look across the Tasman at what the Australians have said is a safe amount of alcohol to drink we can see that we actually are allowing people to drink far too much and then get behind the wheel. Other people have talked about some of the work that has been done while this bill has been circulating and while the whole issue has been swirling around. That work includes getting people to actually consume the amount of alcohol that is deemed safe and under the legal limit and then putting them in driving simulators so we can see what the results are—and that is not something that we should condone at all.The simple fact remains that there is a huge cost on a personal level in terms of the number of lives that are lost and the families that are touched when people die in car accidents. We know that many motor vehicle accidents are simply avoidable—that if people had not consumed excess alcohol and got behind the wheel of a car then they would not have occurred. We know that 3.4 lives could be saved annually and 64 injury crashes could be avoided. This would save $200 million in social costs over a decade. The evidence is overwhelming that we as a Parliament need to bring in the requisite changes and for this reason Labour is happy to support this bill at the second reading.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Julie Anne Genter—5 minutes.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):I rise to speak on the second reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill which we are very happy to support although we do note that it has taken quite a long time for the Government to finally realise that this is an issue that does need to be dealt with. As has been noted by previous speakers it is unclear why this has taken over 4 years to come before the House. So many lives could have been saved if it had been implemented earlier.There is no question that simply changing the law is not enough to reduce the harm of drink-driving. The single most effective thing we could do to reduce the risk of harm from drink-driving is to actually reduce the need for people to have to drive to and from their sources of entertainment. It is quite an anomaly because in New Zealand as in some other countries we have the very intriguing situation where we require pubs in most towns and cities to provide large off-street car-parks while at the same time hoping that people will not be driving to and from the pub.In fact I am aware of one bar in Christchurch that was required to provide a huge number of off-street car-parks simply to comply with district planning rules. Of course you would hope that most people would not be driving to and from the pub. The off-street car-parks which it had to provide a building for were actually one-third of their overhead. So it is an example of where there are some significant opportunities for New Zealand to move from regulations and transport planning that assume that every single trip will be made by car to giving people better choices. Having better public transport services in our towns and cities and having pubs within walking distance of where people live and work are actually an opportunity to reduce the risk of motor vehicle accidents as well as to reduce the cost of infrastructure.So we are happy to see that finally the National Government listened to the evidence and the research and has taken action on something that will save a significant number of lives on the road. We do believe that it could have an even more ambitious target for reducing road deaths and road injuries. There are many other comparable jurisdictions that have a vision of a zero road toll. I think it is about time that New Zealand started to adopt that because when we aim for a zero road toll and zero harm from our transportation we will start implementing the sorts of policies that will get us there. At the moment the National Government is pursuing a very status quo approach to transport planning and funding which will not do much to reduce the cost of transport and certainly will not reduce to any significant extent the injuries and deaths that happen on the road because ultimately we are still building everything around the idea that everyone has to drive everywhere whether that is to the pub or not.I did not follow this bill through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee process but my colleague Kevin Hague did and he did mention that there were some aspects of the bill that he was disappointed that the select committee did not take up. I think we still probably have some concerns with the new procedures for dealing with blood specimens and whether or not there is any infringement on the rights of the defendant someone who is being prosecuted to have access to the sorts of—it is about how the evidence is presented in court and what evidence is available. Obviously there was a loophole in the Act regarding drivers who cannot give blood samples and there have been times when that allowed the prosecution of a driver for refusing to permit a blood specimen to be taken. We still have some concerns about the way that that was introduced and dealt with. But ultimately we do like seeing this small step on the road to progress in reducing the harm from alcohol-related motor vehicle accidents. We would also like to see an even more ambitious target for road safety and reduction of harm. Thank you.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I am very pleased to take what is the final call in the second reading debate on the Land Transport Amendment Bill. A lot of work has gone into this bill. One of the primary catalysts was the Government’s concern with getting New Zealand - based evidence around driving and what would be appropriate. That was done very early on during our term and the bill has now gone through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. As those of us who have sat through this whole process up until now in the second reading know it is has been quite fraught as we tried to balance the rights of drivers hospitality and responsibility and also safety on our roads. This bill has landed I think in a very good space. Colleagues across the House have mentioned most of the details. I will repeat what is really the key one which is not to drink and drive.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a second time.Ayes108New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 12; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes7New Zealand First 7.Bill read a second time.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 111 Noes 7.Accounting Infrastructure Reform BillSecond ReadingHon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce):I move That the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill be now read a second time. The main purpose of the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill or the “AIR Bill” is to enable the accounting and audit industry to be more efficient and effective. The bill achieves this with five key amendments to existing Acts. It amends the rules on who may perform statutory audits to enable more people to perform audits. It replaces legislative references to “chartered accountant” with references to “qualified statutory accountant” or “qualified auditor” to enable more people to perform statutory accountancy functions. It reduces restrictions on legal form for audit firms while maintaining the quality of audit through standards and checks. It introduces a requirement for independent assurance of financial statements for medium-sized and large charities. It allows the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants more freedom in how to structure itself.A more competitive and efficient accounting market will provide better business advice for New Zealand firms. An effective audit industry that gives better assurance for users of financial statements will build confidence in financial markets. This supports the aims of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda.The Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill builds on the changes in the Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 and the Financial Reporting Act 2013. Together these three pieces of legislation contribute to an overarching policy of developing fair efficient and transparent financial markets and promoting the confident and informed participation of businesses investors and consumers.The Commerce Committee’s report includes many sensible recommendations that will help ensure the bill achieves its objectives. These recommendations relate to two areas in particular. The first is the approval of overseas auditors. The Registrar of Companies already has powers to approve an overseas individual as a qualified auditor and to approve overseas professional accountant bodies whose members may then act as qualified auditors. An overseas auditor can then conduct statutory audits of non-financial markets’ conduct in New Zealand provided they are eligible to do so in their home State. However the system has two weaknesses: first the registrar has been given no criteria to apply in considering applications; second there is no ongoing check that professional bodies and auditors continue to meet the approval standard.This issue was raised with me during drafting and I agreed that it needed to be addressed. When the bill was referred to the Commerce Committee I wrote to the chair outlining the issue and a suggested approach. Submitters agreed with our approach and suggested that the guiding principle should be that overseas auditors be subject to New Zealand - equivalent monitoring competence reporting and professional development requirements. The committee has recommended the introduction of a regulation-making power to set criteria for the registrar to apply. It is recommended that auditors be recognised by their professional body and that approved bodies and individuals provide regular reports to the registrar to demonstrate that they still meet the criteria. This will ensure clients and users of financial statements have confidence that overseas auditors meet the same high standards as those based in New Zealand. I therefore welcome this improvement to the bill.Another change I would like to mention relates to professional bodies and audit companies. The New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants submitted that the changes contained in the bill to allow audit companies to perform statutory audits may have an unintended effect that is preventing it from investigating and disciplining their members who operate within an audit company. It is crucial to our policy that professional bodies can effectively discipline their members. The select committee has recommended amending the bill to state that if a company is appointed as an auditor that will not affect an accredited body’s powers to investigate and discipline its members under its rules including cancelling and suspending a licensed auditor’s licence. I support these changes.One of the original aspects of the bill is a requirement for certain registered charities to have their financial statements independently assured with the aim of maintaining and strengthening public confidence in the charitable sector. The bill requires large charities to have their financial statements audited and medium-sized charities to have their statements reviewed or audited. The committee did not make any significant changes to those provisions.There are other minor changes in the bill that the Commerce Committee brought about. For example another minor change relates to the requirement to declare non-activity. Some companies that would have had an obligation to deliver financial statements for registration are relieved from doing so because they have not been active in the relevant accounting period. The committee has recommended that those companies deliver a declaration of non-activity to the registrar. This means the registrar can avoid unnecessary compliance action.In conclusion I thank the members of the Commerce Committee for their work in considering and improving the bill. I would also like to acknowledge those who provided submissions. Their suggestions will ensure that the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill will promote efficiency competition and an international outlook for the New Zealand accounting market. I commend this bill to the House.Debate interrupted.VotingCorrection—Land Transport Amendment BillThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Before I call the next member I need to correct the vote on the Land Transport Amendment Bill. The Ayes should be 108 and the Noes 7. The record will be corrected accordingly.Accounting Infrastructure Reform BillSecond ReadingDebate resumed.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North):I rise to speak in support of the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill or the “AIR Bill” as referred to by the Minister of Commerce. The Minister’s stated objective with the bill—the fair effective and transparent functioning of our markets—is an admirable one and in so far as this bill supports that we are keen to add our support on this side of the House. The opening up of audit activities to move trans-Tasman competition effectively to ensure that standards are consistent between Australia and New Zealand introduces an interesting dynamic into the audit world. It comes with risks and with opportunities. One would hope that our New Zealand firms and our New Zealand - based firms will take advantage of the opportunity to secure business in the audit area through being competitive professional and indeed just generally good at what they do. The risk of course is that the business of audit becomes concentrated in larger more successful firms in Australia as we have seen in our banking sector. There are always risks that accompany opportunity.The good provisions that are in here are actually about simplifying things and about making things more transparent. One hopes that New Zealand’s interests as new accounting standards are set are taken into account in a proportionate or more than proportionate manner so that the accounting standards are suitable for New Zealand purposes. Something that we have observed on the Commerce Committee and on the Finance and Expenditure Committee in the past is an increasing requirement for reporting that is more detailed more complex and more expensive. The intention behind that increased reporting generally is to ensure greater protection for consumers and to ensure that effective transparent and fair functioning of markets. We—I am sure others in this House as often as I am—are reminded again and again by constituents by business people and by those in the accounting profession who have a mind to the future and to the better interests of our country that the overcomplication of financial reporting requirements can hinder the productivity of our business sector. So I ask that those who implement this legislation—which we are supporting here and which I expect will pass through the House relatively non-controversially—will take note of this Parliament’s wish that they do not overly complicate matters when it comes to audit and reporting and indeed that they take into account the interests that we have in seeing that fair efficient and transparent market without being overly burdensome in their requirements. I do not hear any loud objections from the other side of the House on this point. It is something that I think we will all agree on.On this side of the House we are always motivated to see a fairer system in place and to see red tape reduced. Again an opportunity here to simplify standards across the Tasman will mean a reduction in red tape for people who do business on both sides of the Tasman. It will make New Zealand firms potentially more competitive as they are complying with only one set of standards for the products that they export rather than two in the broadest sense. The trick comes when the bigger neighbour which dominates the professional body sets the standards if they are not in our interests. We see this in things like the housing sector. When it comes to setting common standards for the building industry New Zealand is sometimes on the wrong end of the deal where standards that are appropriate in Alice Springs or Brisbane may be different to those required in Gore or Invercargill—different priorities different materials.Grant Robertson: Colder.Dr DAVID CLARK: It is not that cold in Brisbane Mr Robertson.Grant Robertson: It’s cold in Gore.Dr DAVID CLARK: Gore is a lovely place and a nice place to visit. It is the case that we want to see standards that are open to the interests that are represented across the professional body.I would like to congratulate the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants on its work in bringing a full submission. The institute is a body that makes a constructive contribution in my experience to the legislation that we put through Parliament. I note that in my own field—or the field where my interest lies—of tax simplification the institute has had a proposition on the table for many years that would see our tax system in New Zealand simplified. It would reduce red tape for businesses and would make sure that we are not performing compliance unnecessarily. The institute is a body that is open to expressing New Zealand’s wider interests even where in the case of tax simplification it may actually lose professional fees through suggesting a more simple tax-reporting process. The institute’s proposal I have to say has not been addressed by this Government and that is a personal disappointment that I have. I speak to many constituents who feel aggrieved that they have to prepare retrospective accounts for their businesses that add no value. When they are a small business these are simply for tax-compliance purposes.I would appeal to the people on the other side of the House who are pushing through this bill on making the market and auditing fair effective and transparent that they also look at the other suggestions that the Institute of Chartered Accountants has brought. I know it is setting up a tax simplification board at present and Minister McClay has expressed a desire to proceed with this work but I would suggest that this work has not proceeded fast enough. We know very well that this proposal has been around for years. Minister McClay is pushing a lot of useful tax work out beyond the election because this Government has not repaired the Inland Revenue Department tax system. It has not upgraded it in time to handle the kinds of changes that would actually make life a lot simpler for New Zealand’s small businesses that would enable business in New Zealand to get on with doing the things that it is good at that add to our exports that add to our gross domestic product and that mean that we can afford the kind of infrastructure in New Zealand that ensures that future generations get ahead—that hospitals and schools are funded to an adequate standard so that kids can have the opportunities that those of us sitting in the House had once upon a time when we were attending school or had to attend a hospital.An economy that works for all New Zealanders is something that we on this side of the House want to support on every occasion. We are told by the professional bodies that this will make their lives easier. We want to see a fair and just society where all live in dignity. In the Labour Party we have a view about equity of access. We hope that that will be taken care of as professionals deal with these audit requirements—that they have an eye to making sure that they are accessible to everyone that the legalese and the technical aspects of audit compliance are kept to a minimum that an eye is kept out for those who are new business people who are small-business people and who are people on the margins of requiring new processes and accountabilities as they wrestle with the need to be fair effective and transparent participants in the market.We look forward to seeing this bill pass through the House. Reducing red tape is something that we always support. Not enough of that happens at the moment. As spokesperson on small business for the Labour Party I visit businesses all the time that are affected by unnecessary regulation. It hampers New Zealand’s competitiveness internationally and it is something this Government has not worked hard enough to address. Tax simplification is another one. Making our tax system compliant useful and easy to access for our citizens so that they can hand over their information securely and not worry about the kinds of privacy breaches that have dogged this Government over recent years must be a priority. We need a functional tax system. We need these functional audit capabilities. We need a Government with energy. I am hoping that people watching this broadcast and following the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill at home on their TVs are considering that it is important to change the Government—to vote for a Labour Government which will see a fairer more just society in future.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):It is a pleasure to stand and speak at the second reading of the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill. Just following on from the previous speaker David Clark I am glad that he has finally got what this is all about. He was quite a feisty contributor in the Commerce Committee before he was demoted and went to the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Yes this bill achieves many things. One of the things that it does is create I guess an ability for New Zealand and Australian institutes to work together in a common organisation Chartered Accountants Australia and New Zealand. In fact I went just the other night to its brand launch and no doubt it will be thrilled to see that the second reading is happening this week. On its website just to give a little bit of a look at where this is all heading it says: “In the same way there are many different types of doctors and lawyers the same is true of accountants.” They are not just people who count things; they are people who can investigate analyse and recommend. They become the sort of people who help our companies and our investors to make some pretty solid decisions. Some people think that accountancy is boring but in fact it is not. It is very dynamic and it enables people to make some great—Hon Maurice Williamson: Ha ha!JONATHAN YOUNG: I see one of my colleagues here is probably not in full agreement with that but it is very much part and parcel of a very strong economy going forward.One of the things the previous speaker mentioned was the cost of compliance. If he was on the Commerce Committee at that point in time he will remember in respect of the Financial Reporting Act that particularly around charities we determined that there were different levels of reporting needed because if a charity had an income of less than $140000 a full-blown audit was too high a percentage of its cost. So instead of having an accrual-based accounting system we are looking at it as a cash-flow - based system. Likewise in this bill when charities are brought into the audit realm for a charity that has expenditure under $500000 it would have a review as opposed to an audit. Then it would have to have expenditure of $500000 for 2 years in a row to qualify to go up. When I say the member understands it he understands that what we are trying to do is require a higher level of compliance where there are higher levels of risk to contributors to investors to donors etc. so that is what is happening.It has been an interesting process as we have gone through the select committee consideration. As the Minister of Commerce mentioned there were a few additions and amendments to what we did but by and large they were quite small. I think this is quite an exciting—if I can say that about accountancy—step forward for our accountancy firms and our financial advisers out there and they are all very keen for this process to go through in a very timely way.As I wrap up in the next minute the main purpose of this bill is to allow the accounting and audit industry to be more efficient and effective. That seems to be a call right across every sector of our economy—that people are more efficient and more effective. We know that that drives down costs to consumers. We know that that is a great thing to happen. The principal amendments proposed in this bill would amend the rules as to who may perform statutory audits to replace references in legislation to “chartered accountant” with “qualified statutory accountant” or “qualified auditor” allow audit firms to incorporate introduce a requirement for the independent assurance of the financial statements of large and medium sized charities and allow the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants to enter into an arrangement with its Australian counterpart the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia to form in effect a trans-Tasman institute of as they say around 100000 members. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First):I am pleased to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the second reading of the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill. New Zealand First will be supporting this bill. Initially we had a few concerns about some aspects of the bill but we were pleased that this received close scrutiny through the select committee process allowing New Zealand accounting firms auditors and all those involved to have their say in the legislative process.New Zealand First supports the bill due to the fact that it will help reduce compliance costs for small companies. We are a party that supports New Zealand enterprise and we stand by the reduction in cost to operate small companies in New Zealand which are increasingly burdened by compliance costs. The audit and accounting industry will be more efficient as a result of this legislation. Accredited bodies will allow members to conduct audits under their umbrella controls. Therefore as a result if you are part of an accredited body and auditing company there will be controlled accreditation to conduct such audits. Longstanding terminology of “chartered accountant” will be replaced with a new terminology of “qualified statutory accountant”. It will be interesting to see whether this is just playing with names or whether there is any real substance to that name change.This bill will also when enacted allow overseas audit companies to operate in New Zealand. We are advised that many companies that have international auditors currently have difficulties because they have to have a local auditor undertake the work which provides some difficulties for some international firms. There is merit in this. We would hope that as result of this bill many international firms might see fit to establish offices here in New Zealand to conduct such audits on behalf of some of their global companies. Therefore New Zealand will gain by the local establishment of audit branches of international audit companies.The bill requires larger charities to be audited by qualified auditors. We see merit in that as well. When you are the purse-holders of money given by the public and are taking public money in excess of $1 million we must ensure that those funds are managed and audited correctly. New Zealand has a reputation for being one of the highest-donating countries in the world per capita so this added scrutiny is more than justified.This bill also brings the opportunity for New Zealand and Australian accounting bodies to come together as one trans-Tasman statutory body to oversee Australasian auditing. This is an interesting process bringing those trans-Tasman accounting practices together. We operate in a Closer Economic Relationships situation with Australia and there are significant advantages from having harmonisation with our Australian cousins. This can potentially bring great benefit to both sides of the Tasman by being able to offer standard accounting and auditing practices for businesses operating on both sides of the Tasman.In closing New Zealand First has always stood on the basis of supporting New Zealand commerce and supporting New Zealand domestic and export businesses and we support reducing compliance costs. We hope that New Zealand citizens and businesses will operate more effectively as a result of this bill. We commend the bill to the House.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):I rise to speak on the second reading of the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill. When this bill was introduced in the House the Green Party did not vote to support it. We had significant concerns and we said that we would be watching carefully during the select committee process. Even though there were things that we initially thought were good—for example we thought requiring large charities to comply with standard audits was quite good to bring those in line with other organisations—generally our concern was that this bill was part of an overall movement towards less regulation in a sector where it is absolutely critical that we do have good standards and careful regulation. Particularly in the wake of the global financial crisis I think it is absolutely critical that citizens of New Zealand and investors can feel confident that the people conducting audits and financial reporting are complying to an absolute maximal standard. We have to have confidence in the reporting that is being done.Ultimately the changes that the bill makes are minor enough that we will be supporting them. Unlike other jurisdictions in the world New Zealand is very light on regulation on the spectrum of regulation in this sector. We rely on self-regulation and this bill does nothing to take us towards a more standard and centralised type of regulation that might be beneficial. The Green Party would like to investigate the merits of that particularly in the wake of the global financial crisis. I think it would be worth looking at but ultimately that was beyond the scope of this bill. The minor changes that are made within it I think make minor improvements so we have to support them.The changes ultimately around the definitions of “qualified auditor” and “qualified statutory accountant” make sense. It does continue this type of regulation which is ultimately self-regulation and there are going to be accredited bodies that are able to register people as qualified auditors and qualified statutory accountants. Obviously there is a merger of the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants with its Australian counterpart the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia. We never really saw any major problems with that. All of the members of both organisations did support it so I think it does make sense to allow for that to happen. The changes in terms of approval of overseas auditors again make sense. We hope that the Registrar of Companies will be carefully scrutinising when they approve overseas individuals to act as qualified auditors in New Zealand and approve associations of accountants. I think that is something that I guess we will just have to keep our eye on to see how it is working once the legislation comes into force. Of course it is entirely possible that there will need to be some changes in the future.As I said initially we always did support the fact that there were provisions regarding the Charities Act and we think that there are some benefits to doing that. Ultimately what the Green Party wants to see is a progressive economy that is going to look after people in New Zealand in the short term and in the long term. We cannot have an ideological approach that all regulation is bad. There is an important role for the State to play in rectifying market distortions in upholding standards and in ensuring that consumers are protected because we do not live in a world of pure and perfect information on markets. There is an important role for the State to play in regulating that. Particularly I think we need to be looking towards making changes in these sectors that are going to allow us to meet some of the greatest challenges that we are going to be facing over the next few decades.Even though this is the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill I think that it is absolutely essential in all areas of financial reporting that we start moving towards having a more holistic type of reporting that actually looks at the impact on people and the environment because ultimately that is what the economy is here to serve. The economy is here to serve people and we cannot have an economy if we do not have a healthy environment. If all we look at is the dollars and cents we are quite possibly going to miss out on changes that would actually leave us all better off in the long run. So it is a core component of Green Party economic and finance policy that we be very careful about what we measure and what we count and that we do start to move our economy on to a more sustainable path to meet the challenge of climate change which is incredibly urgent and is going to require action from all of us—all companies all citizens. It is the Government’s role to show leadership on this and the Green Party would like to see more leadership from this Government. Thank you.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier):It would appear that peace and harmony has broken out in the debating chamber this evening I think. Maybe I have got it wrong but I am thinking that there might be 100 percent support for this bill. In some worlds that could mean—I doubt it but it could—that it makes the front page of the New Zealand Herald that there is peace and harmony in the House or maybe the front pages of the Press or the Dominion Post. [Interruption] But possibly not to be fair.I rise to support the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill as well. The National Government is proud to bring this piece of legislation through the House. Can I briefly acknowledge the Minister of Commerce Craig Foss who has steered this bill through the House and the Commerce Committee which is led by Jonathan Young and I acknowledge all the other members of the select committee from across the House who have also contributed to this.This bill is another part of National’s Business Growth Agenda and another of the small steps that we have taken to continue to grow the economy and to take New Zealand forward. It is part of our recipe for building growth building wages and building better prosperity for New Zealand so I must say on that note that it is fantastic that we do see support for the bill from across the House and agreement for this part of our recipe. So without any further ado I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):I am pleased to take a call in the second reading of the Accounting Infrastructure Reform Bill. This is an example of the Commerce Committee doing pretty good work—Andrew Little: Its job.CLARE CURRAN: —pretty solid work and doing its job on what might seem to the listening public to be a fairly stolid subject but a subject that is actually quite important. It shows that there is an important synergy across the Tasman between New Zealand and Australia around how the business of commerce and the regulatory environment is actually being worked out and established. This is very important and we are in support of it. We had some very good discussions in the select committee and good advice from the officials and I think what we have come out with is quite a professional piece of legislation to put before this House. It shows the ability of that select committee to get on and do the job within a wider stable of work that has been worked on over the last few years.There were some very interesting components and pieces of discussion on this bill. In fact I have to say that the vast majority of the discussion in the select committee concerned an exception to the accounting body—the trans-Tasman converged accounting body that is being established as part of this bill. It was an interesting conundrum because it was essentially on the grounds of conscientious objection that the submitters who came before us were asking for an exemption and therefore that did exercise the committee. It took us quite some hours to determine the rights and wrongs and the ethical issues that might result from a body or a group of individuals who wanted to exempt themselves from being recognised under a particular part of this bill on the grounds of their religious affiliation.I refer to a pair of submitters. It is important because I think the House does need to be aware of this exemption. I think it is clause 31 which inserts a new section 36M—I think that is the part of the bill—that allows for an exemption. The pair of submitters who came before us contended that the changes in the bill requiring auditors and qualified statutory accountants to belong to professional bodies was a limitation on the right of freedom of association under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. They said that their religious beliefs prevented them from joining groups with non-believers. In particular the extension of the requirement to those assuring large and medium-sized charities meant that those submitters could no longer perform this work. They recommended that the Financial Markets Authority be empowered to directly approve auditors so that they would be accountable under a wider regime rather than accountable to a body to which they would have to belong.Hon Simon Bridges: Take us to the bell.CLARE CURRAN: The member across the House may laugh about this but it was quite a serious issue which did as I said exercise the minds of the committee members. I am sure the two submitters would not mind their names being used because they were actually publicly submitting to the select committee. They were Brian Prestidge and Michael Powell and their group was the Exclusive Brethren.It was a very substantial discussion that occurred because ultimately the discussion came back to a principle. Essentially there we were as a select committee referring back to the House a piece of legislation that related to all of New Zealand. It will be the law of the land and it will create a new updated regulatory regime. Here was a pair of submitters who wanted to be exempt from having to belong to the professional authority which would be accountable on the grounds of their religious beliefs. How we came to accommodate them is going to be heard in the next instalment of my speech on this bill I would presume.In summary though before I get to that next instalment we do support this bill because it is an important upgrade to the accounting infrastructure in New Zealand. It is solid and I guess modern.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.