Volume 706 Week 18 - Wednesday 3 June 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 706 Week 18 - Wednesday 3 June 2015[Sitting date: 03 June 2015. Volume:706;Page:4245. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 3 June 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsIndia—Minister of State and Goodwill Delegation to New ZealandMr SPEAKER: I am sure that members would wish to welcome Mr Rajiv Pratap Rudy of the Lok Sabha Minister of State in the Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs and members of the Indian goodwill delegation to New Zealand who are present in the gallery. [Applause]Questions to MinistersFree-trade Agreements—Saudi Arabia Negotiations and Al-Khalaf Group1.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: When he said that part of the reason for paying $4 million of taxpayer money to a Saudi business was “wanting to resolve the issues that were holding back the Gulf States free-trade agreement”; what were those issues and why did he think paying Hamood Al Ali Al Khalaf’s company $4 million would help resolve them?Mr SPEAKER: In calling the Prime Minister my office has been advised that the answer will be longer than normal.Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my full statement which was that there was a range of different issues including the potential exposure to a legal claim wanting to resolve the issues that were holding back the Gulf States free-trade agreement the fact that we thought we could promote New Zealand in an international environment and that we thought it was the right thing to do. In respect of what the issues were it has been well canvassed in this House that New Zealand’s relationship with Saudi Arabia had been damaged by the events relating to Mr Al Khalaf’s business. Minister McCully took steps to resolve that issue and those steps included a contract for service between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Mr Al Khalaf’s company. The $4 million relate to costs associated with shifting operations that were previously based in New Zealand to a new hub in Saudi Arabia. The Cabinet was satisfied that the full partnership outlined in the Cabinet paper resolved fully the prospect of any litigation.Andrew Little: Given his answer yesterday that part of the $4 million payment was to settle a potential legal claim why did he admit on Breakfast TV today that the threat of legal action was withdrawn a year before the Cabinet paper was ever written? Is it his Cabinet’s normal practice to settle legal claimsthat have already been withdrawn?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the point that I was making this morning—it is not new information—is that people do set aside on the basis of negotiation legal claims that they might want to take. The second point I would make is that these issues are issues that have actually been dealt with by successive Governments. I would take this opportunity to encourage the member to speak to Annette King and Phil Goff about the warnings that they received on these issues when they were in Government and about the actions that they were looking to take. He might be amazingly surprised to hear the answers.Andrew Little: Is he aware that on 14 May Murray McCully stated that he was unaware of any threatened domestic legal action by Mr Al Khalaf?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not seen all of the comments by Mr McCully but if you look at the Cabinet paper it spells it out quite clearly that there was the threat potentially of legal action. As I said just before in my rather fulsome answer it is not just this Government that was aware; actually it was the previous Government. I encourage the member to look to his right and speak with Annette King and with Phil Goff because he will become very aware that he has just been set up by his deputy leader. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This interjection between the two front benches is to cease immediately.Andrew Little: Can he confirm that in 2010 his Government renewed the live sheep export ban that lies at the heart of Mr Al Khalaf’s claims against the Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Actually as paperwork may one day show the heart of the issues was not actually with this Government; it was with the actions taken in 2007. And by the way the previous Government was well and truly aware of that.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question by Andrew Little was very direct—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I agree totally with the point that the member is raising. I am going to ask Andrew Little to ask the question again. [Interruption] Order!Andrew Little: Can he confirm that in 2010 his Government renewed the live sheep export ban that lies at the heart of Mr Al Khalaf’s claims?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What lies at the heart of this problem are the actions taken in 2007. The record will show that the previous Government was well and truly aware of that. Mr Little has just been set up by Phil Goff and Annette King.Grant Robertson: Point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I can appreciate the point that the member is going to make. The way forward is that I will allow the member two additional supplementary questions.Andrew Little: If he now accepts that the payment was not in settlement of a potential legal claim will he now admit that it was a pay-off to stop Mr Al Khalaf using his influence to hold up the Saudi free-trade agreement?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not accept that. As I said in my answer to the primary question there were a number of factors: firstly the legal action that could potentially have been taken; secondly the potential for it to be an irritant to the free-trade agreement; thirdly the opportunity to showcase New Zealand; and fourthly as maybe the record will show in 2007 the previous Labour Government was well and truly aware of the situation and was looking to take its own actions. That member has been set up by Annette King and Phil Goff.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question—[Interruption] Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Prime Minister—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the member yet. I am just dealing with a little bit of noise down here.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Prime Minister advise why if he has got all this ammunition that implicates the Labour Party in Government and if he has this legal opinion that backs up his actions he is not prepared to show the public rather than seeking to go on covering up a blatant bribe?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am surprised the member is asking that question. I thought he would be aware of the Cabinet Manual.Andrew Little: Can he confirm that his Government renewed the live sheep export ban in 2010?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes this Government did renew the ban put in place by Labour and what I can also confirm is: firstly the 2007 Labour Government was aware of the problem; secondly it was looking to take its own actions; and thirdly the Leader of the Opposition has been set up by Annette King and Phil Goff.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to the last part of that answer. On three occasions he has claimed that I set somebody up. I object to that. It is a lie.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that the member has taken offence I am going to ask the Prime Minister to stand and withdraw that part of the answer.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw.Andrew Little: Given that he has jetted Murray McCully out of the country for 3 weeks in order to avoid questions has he told him that it might be better not to come back or is he waiting for a “Sepp Blatter road to Damascus” conversion to strike Mr McCully?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The person in danger is not the person who is not here to answer the questions—Mr McCully. The person in danger is the person who is asking the question as he might just find that it is a bit of a boomerang.Andrew Little: In light of all the irregularities around this payment of taxpayer money to a foreign sheep farmer obstructing a free-trade agreement and given the high trust required in the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs how can he possibly justify retaining Murray McCully in that role?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the Minister of Foreign Affairs is doing an outstanding job and he has done absolutely nothing wrong. He has looked for a commercial solution—and those might be words that will ring true soon. He has looked for a commercial solution. He has acknowledged that there was a problem—those words might ring true soon. He has done the right thing to remove an irritant to the relationship with Saudi Arabia—those words might ring true soon. He has done a good job of promoting New Zealand on the world stage—those words always ring true with this Government. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has done an outstanding job.Budget 2015—Support for Vulnerable New Zealanders and Growth2.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s economic plan continuing to support the most vulnerable New Zealanders while at the same time encouraging economic growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government is focused on striking a good balance between responsibly managing a growing economy keeping spending under control and supporting the most vulnerable New Zealanders. Despite tight fiscal constraints the Government delivered several important gains for families from 1 April this year. Paid parental leave increased by 2 weeks and it will increase by another 2 weeks next April. The adult minimum wage increased from $14.25 to $14.75 an hour. New Zealand superannuation increased by another 2 percent and average ACC levies paid by employers and self-employed people fell by over 5 percent. From 1 July children under 13 have access to free general practitioner visits and prescriptions. An average ACC levy for a private motor vehicle will fall by around $130 a year.Stuart Smith: How will Budget 2015 advance the Government’s programme to support more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealand families?Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the most important things we can do for families particularly vulnerable families is to support an economy that is generating more jobs. The growing economy has generated 194000 extra jobs since 2011 and Treasury forecasts that another 150000 jobs will be created by mid-2019. Average annual wages have increased by $5700 in the last 4 years and they are forecast to rise by another $7000 in the next 4 years to $63000 a year. That is a $13000 increase over 8 years or about a 25 percent increase in the average wage compared with inflation of around 14 percent over the same period.Stuart Smith: How will the $790 million child hardship package in Budget 2015 deliver more support for families in need?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It will certainly deliver more support for family budgets. Benefit rates for families with children will rise by $25 a week which is the first increase—Andrew Little: Why do they have to wait 10 months?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually they have had to wait 43 years because it is the first increase—which I think is through two Labour Governments. It is the first increase separate from inflation adjustments for 43 years. Interestingly Labour voted against it yesterday in the House.Stuart Smith: What further steps did the Budget take to help vulnerable New Zealanders particularly in the area of finding work?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not just families with children who need work to get out of welfare dependency; there are also large numbers of other New Zealanders who are on or who will be on benefits for a long time without additional support. The Budget provided $28.8 million for four social bonds programmes. The first will expand on a small and successful pilot delivering employment services to New Zealanders with mental health conditions. Social bonds which have been used overseas will become another part of the Government’s drive to deliver better results with innovation between the public and private sector organisations working together. Some of course would rather leave people with mental illness isolated alone and out of work than try something new to get them into work.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that his so-called economic plan willmean in fact according to the Budget that growth will halve to less than 2 percent within 4 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The forecasts do show that after several years of growth at around 3 percent which is regarded as the economy’s potential that growth will drop back a bit. Of course part of this Government’s intent is economic policy that supports the rates of growth that we currently have and we will be trying very hard to support those businesses that invest employ and create higher growth rates than those projected.Grant Robertson: With reference to that answer is it correct that Treasury’s forecasts that show a halving of growth actually rely on dairy prices rebounding and now they have dropped 54 percent since last year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No the member is not correct. The growth forecasts do not rely only on the dairy prices. Many other aspects of the export economy are going very well. The wine industry is growing strongly; the IT industry is growing strongly; the meat industry is not doing too badly; our biggest industry tourism is going gangbusters; and our third-biggest international education is also growing strongly. Those things are also part of the forecasts.SuperGold Card—Transport Review3.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister for Senior Citizens: When can my office expect a response to the letter sent to her on 27 May 2015 regarding SuperGold Card concessions?Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister for Senior Citizens): As the member’s office was made aware on 27 May after his email to the office Minister Foss will respond in due course because the transport concessions around the SuperGold card fall under his delegation and not mine.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister for Senior Citizens please explain to the House and to the fool over here—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is the sort of remark that will lead to disorder in this House. [Interruption] Order! If the member wants the opportunity to complete his line of supplementary questions I advise him to cooperate. Would he simply ask his supplementary questions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister for Senior Citizens please explain to the House the New Zealand Herald and seniors what arguments she has made against the Government’s continual delays in the SuperGold card review and the lifting of the moratorium on new transport allocations?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: As that member may or may not be aware there was a review that began in 2013. That will be released in due course. It is not very far away now. That member asked me to make it apparent to the readers of the New Zealand Herald. I wonder whether “Peters yet to act on promises made to Northland” is not prompt—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is about what arguments she has made to stop the delay in the review. That is precise.Mr SPEAKER: Well I wish the supplementary question had been as precise as that. Would the Minister please address that—because I had trouble listening to the answer.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: There has been no delay. The review has been going on since 2013 and will continue until it is finished. It is appropriate to give good time and attention and care to detail—something that member could well learn from.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: If she is as has been described by her colleague the Hon Craig Foss very robust in representing seniors as he advised me on 18 February this year then why is she saying that there has not been a delay when it was planned to announce that that review was completed in June 2014?Hon MAGGIE BARRY: That member is entirely incorrect about the dates so the premise that there is a delay is totally flawed. As the Minister for Senior Citizens I am very proud indeed of the progress that this Government has made with the SuperGold card. From its very very humble beginnings in 2008 there are now more than 12000 businesses that the card is able to be used for. This is a great gain for seniors. In the last 3 months we have increased that by 650 further outlets to do with things that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been answered.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What is she doing on behalf of seniors to advocate for an end to the SuperGold card review described by Mr Voss on 18 February—Hon Members: Foss.Rt Hon Winston Peters: —Mr Foss—as being completed in June 2014—he gave the date back then—and what is she doing about new applications being made for example from the Paihia to Russell ferry the Ōkiato to Ōpua ferry the Kohukohu to Rāwene ferry or for example the Bluff to Stewart Island ferry all of which were stopped by the closure of all applications until the moratorium is over?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Maggie Barry—either question.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: The moratorium was put in place in 2010 so the member is somewhat behind the times. The member may be stung by the notion that he has done little to serve his electorate but let us not cloud the issue. Minister Foss said in this House in February—and I checked the Hansard because I am in the habit of checking facts rather than just burbling off the top of my head like that member—in response to a question from that member that there would be he expected an answer by the end of June this year. That may happen; it may be a little longer. Those were his expectations. We do things thoroughly—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has now been answered.Rt Hon Winston Peters: In answer to the Minister as to what she is doing is it not a fact that a moratorium exists that prevents new applications for the transport allocations and that has been extended now by over a year; if so can she explain to this House and the confused New Zealand Herald journalist what the facts are including the one in the Dominion Post yesterday saying that she was particularly ineffective?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Either of those two supplementary questions.Hon MAGGIE BARRY: When it comes to ineffective I take lessons from the master and that would be you. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I need to remind all members particularly those to my right that this is a point of order. [Interruption] That is the very sort of interjection that will have that Minister leaving the Chamber.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that I am asking whether or not the moratorium prevents any new applications.Mr SPEAKER: No the member can resume his seat immediately. He also asked about the effectiveness of the Minister and the Minister took the opportunity to respond.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: I have just addressed the matter. If the member is raising a fresh point of order I will look forward to it.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a new matter and it goes to numerous answers from the Minister. Of the four answers she gave all attacking me personally none of which I objected to—none of which I objected to—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. This member gives as good as he gets.Housing Auckland—Housing Developments on Crown Land and Consultation with Iwi4.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister for Building and Housing: Did he consult Auckland iwi on his plan to use vacant Government-owned land for private housing developments before he made the announcement on 21 May?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing): My ministry met with the Tāmaki Collective representing 13 Auckland iwi and hapū about a month before the Budget on 23 April to outline the proposed Auckland Crown land housing programme and some of the sites that were under consideration. Consultation is not specifically required under the policy as the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act passed by this Parliament last year specifically makes provision in section 136 for Governments selling Crown land for housing purposes.Peeni Henare: Did he consult the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations and/or the Minister for Māori Development on whether or not offering surplus Crown land to iwi under the right of first refusal would expose the Government to judicial review that could completely overturn his Budget housing policy?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The entire Parliament was consulted on the policy because the 2014 Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act voted on by members opposite specifically makes provision for land owned by the Crown to be used for housing purposes and not being subject to the right of first refusal. In respect of my colleague Chris Finlayson he is a member of Cabinet and was part of the Budget decisions relating to Crown land.Peeni Henare: Does he think that deliberately cutting out the iwi of Tāmaki-makau-rau so he can do a deal with the Australian property developers is consistent with the Crown’s obligation under the Treaty settlements to act in good faith?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can only read to the member section 136 of the Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act entitled “Disposals for State housing purposes”. It specifically says that the Crown can sell land and dispose of it to support the Crown’s social objectives in relation to housing or services relating to housing—legislation that was voted upon by every member of this Parliament.Phil Twyford: Why did it take his office 10 days to hand pick the 30 hectares of clean sites for his media stunt mystery bus tour out of the 500 hectares that he promised and can he confirm that his refusal to release the full list of 500 hectares is down to the damage that it would cause his collapsing housing policy and his crumbling reputation?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know the member was very jealous that he was not able to come around Auckland and see the thousands and thousands of houses that this Government is building. I would also note that in the most recent building consent figures coming out on Friday we are now building 8000 homes a year in Auckland. That is double the number of just 3 years ago. I cannot help the fact that the member is jealous of the progress this Government is making on the issue.Phil Twyford: Does he recognise this quote from the latest Metro magazine as an accurate description: “No matter what he took over it would never take long before it would look as though things really were a complete shambles.”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would draw to the attention of this House that 3 years ago one of the real challenges we had was housing issues in Christchurch. I have not had a single question from that member on Christchurch housing issues because we are on top of the problem and that member has not been on the ball to be able to challenge those.Budget 2015—Research and Development in Regional Areas5.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (National—Papakura) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: How does Budget 2015 support research and innovation in regional areas?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): Budget 2015 will see the Government invest up to $25 million over 3 years to support the establishment of new privately led regional research institutes and centres outside the main centres. Regional research institutes will be funded from a mixture of public and private sources and modelled along the lines of the successful Cawthron Institute in Nelson which is a specialist not-for-profit institute for aquaculture marine biosecurity and coastal and freshwater ecology. We envisage funding a launch of up to three new institutes over the next 4 to 5 years depending on demand.Hon Judith Collins: Why will the new research institutes be located in regional areas?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Regional economies have different resources and strengths but can lack important components to their innovation networks that help drive economic growth and regional benefit. The regional research institutes will focus on scientific research relevant to a particular region with a strong emphasis on the effect of transfer of research into new technologies new firms and new products and services. This investment in innovation growth and jobs in the regions comes alongside the Government’s $1.5 billion science spend in 2015-16 which is more than a 70 percent increase in the last 8 years.Hon Judith Collins: What other support does the Government provide to encourage innovation and investment in the regions?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are many things but I will pick just a few examples. The regional business partners are a network of specialist business advisers who give guidance identify opportunities and provide access to business development funding. Through New Zealand Trade and Enterprise we have developed regional investment attraction programmes to encourage new investment in the regions. Government agencies like Callaghan Innovation and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise are working more closely with local agencies through initiatives such as the Hawke’s Bay Business Hub which I helped to open last month. We are investing strongly in regional infrastructure with things like ultra-fast broadband and the Rural Broadband Initiative and with Callaghan Innovation we have established an incubator network with incubators in the main centres plus in Palmerston North Hamilton and Tauranga.Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Targets and Economic Costs6.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his answer to a supplementary question yesterday about carbon emissions that “A target of a 40 percent reduction on 1990 levels would be disastrous for the New Zealand economy”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.James Shaw: Does he agree with the Infometrics modelling commissioned by his Government that shows that the impact of a 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2030 would be just one-tenth of 1 percent of GDP growth compared with no reduction in emissions?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There has been a wide range of modelling done but one of the models I have seen indicates that if we were to take a 40 percent reduction target off 1990 levels that would come at a $5 billion cost to the economy. Probably more interesting is that by about $1800 a household per year households would be worse off. Of course that impact would have the biggest impact on lower-income households.James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just ask that the Prime Minister table that document.Mr SPEAKER: Well only if the Prime Minister was quoting from an official document. [Interruption] It was not an official document.James Shaw: Does he agree with the Infometrics modelling commissioned by his Government that shows that whether New Zealand has an emissions reduction target of 5 percent 20 percent or 40 percent by 2030 our GDP will still grow at 2.1 percent on average throughout the 2020s?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Our GDP will continue to grow. What is true is that if you have a 5 percent reduction it comes at about a $3.5 billion cost. So the biggest cost actually comes in doing something off a 1990 base. But there is no question that a bigger target has a greater impact on the economy. I think it is worth for a moment to actually look at some comparisons because for the same level of cost as the EU’s minus 40 percent target New Zealand should be setting a target of a 10 to 20 percent increase. The facts of life are that New Zealand has had a large population increase since 1990 half of all its emissions come from agriculture and it has a very high level of renewable energy. In fact setting targets at the sort of level that the Greens are advocating is very expensive for households and New Zealand businesses.James Shaw: So would he agree that the Infometrics modelling overstates the cost of acting to prevent climate change because it deliberately does not take account of the rapid adoption of new lower emissions technologies like electric cars or solar panels which have trebled in the last 18 months?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is no question actually that modern technology will help New Zealand meet its climate change targets. That is likely to be the case I think not just in transport actually but equally when it comes to agriculture where half of our emissions come from. That is why New Zealand was at the forefront of establishing the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases and why we think we will find scientific solutions. But for New Zealand to go to Paris on the whim of a hope that we will find a solution without one is I think actually a bit irresponsible for households and the economy.James Shaw: I seek leave to table a document dated 2 June 2015 showing that solar panels trebled in New Zealand in the past 18 months from the Electricity Networks Association.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular information. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.James Shaw: Why is his Government making it more expensive to prevent climate change by under-investing in clean transport options like Auckland’s City Rail Link meaning that New Zealanders will have to pay to offset our emissions rather than saving money to lower them?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not true. The Government has made it clear that it is committed to the central business district rail tunnel in Auckland but it wants to do that under a time frame that is actually fair on Auckland ratepayers who also have to pay half of the costs.James Shaw: Why has the Government not released any economic modelling to show what the costs of doing nothing to stop climate change are?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There will be plenty of people who will want to put up their own models and the truth is that all of them rely on some form of assumption. But the Government has released a discussion document which the member will be aware of. The discussion document makes it clear actually that the Government’s intention is to set what it believes is a realistic target and to do the right thing. I simply make the point that for New Zealand to achieve the sort of reduction targets that you are seeing proposed in the EU is far more expensive. In fact actually if the member wants to go and use the Official Information Act or go on to the Treasury website and have a look at the recommendations from Treasury the Treasury’s recommendations are that the Government should do a lot less than what it is proposing to do because it believes the relative costs to New Zealand compared with our competitors is much greater.James Shaw: Given his reference in that last supplementary answer to the Government’s discussion document in relation to the current consultation that ends today the modelling in the document shows that a 40 percent reduction in emissions would be one-tenth of 1 percent of GDP growth. Does he still believe that that would be disastrous?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said the consultation document includes—or I did not say but the consultation document does include some modelling from Infometrics. But it is also true that if you look at other modelling—which I think is also in that document though I would have to check—it shows that the costs to the consumers in New Zealand would be about $1800 a household. That by the way is assuming carbon prices are $50 a ton. But in 15 years from now carbon prices could be a lot greater than that and the costs could be a lot greater. In the end New Zealand has to do the right thing but putting our businesses—particularly our trade-exposed ones—out of business simply to meet some target that most other countries find much easier to reach when some very large emitters are not prepared to take those steps isnot I think an economically rational thing to do.Education National Standards—Data Quality and Purpose7.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement that national standards data has been “remarkably consistent”; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes. The picture of achievement in reading writing and mathematics that national standards presents has been remarkably consistent since public reporting began in 2012. The information collected through national standards is highly comparable with other domestic and international studies. Prior to the introduction of national standards there was no systematic collection of information on student achievement from years 1 to 8 to make sure that those kids who need the support get it. Many many teachers today are more confident in using data and are relying on it to identify and grow achievement for their students. I see this as I go around the country—as recently as Friday at Whakatane Intermediate School which I visited with the outstanding local MP the Hon Anne Tolley. We saw highly competent really engaged very inquiring teachers developing data maps of the specific learning needs of individual students and then sharing them with those students so that they too could be excited and track their own progress. So yes—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is long enough.Chris Hipkins: Why does she continue to claim that national standards provide in any way an accurate picture of student achievement when the latest study by the Ministry of Education of 15838 children at 100 schools found that 60 percent of the national standards results were wrong?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As usual Mr Hipkins is quoting selectively out of a really big context. First of all that report was indeed commissioned by the Ministry of Education. We were so interested in seeing where we needed to improve in the implementation of national standards that when this was commissioned for 3 years we extended it by 2 years. Why is the member continuing to attack teachers who are themselves trying their very best to improve the consistency of their overall teacher judgments? National standards now give them a very clear and very consistent way of measuring these against the New Zealand curriculum.Chris Hipkins: What evidence does she have to support the claim that she just made that national standards data is getting more accurate given a September 2013 report found that they had incorrectly measured achievement of four out of 10 students and the latest report suggests that they are now incorrectly measuring the achievement of six out of 10 students—in other words it is getting worse?Hon HEKIA PARATA: In the report that the member is referring to it actually said that 90 percent of principals were confident that their teachers were making good use of national standards. In the same report Mr Hipkins and in the New Zealand Council for Educational Research of 2013 it said that 70 percent of teachers were becoming more confident about their own assessments. If the member wants even more numbers the reason why I am confident is that about 30000 teachers are making independent judgments of 400000 kids in 2100 schools. The difference at the macro level is about 1 percent or 2 percent. That is how I know; it is because I trust the teachers’ judgments.Chris Hipkins: How can parents have confidence in the accuracy of national standards when the Ministry of Education’s analysis of 352 children who were judged to have met the maths standard for their age showed that only 28 percent—less than a third of them—had actually met the standard?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Under national standards it is the first time that parents have had reporting to them twice a year in language—Chris Hipkins: It is wrong.Hon HEKIA PARATA: No. The alacrity with which the member jumps on the potential of failure is really really depressing because actually what this showed was how committed the Ministry of Education and the education sector are to getting this right to finding where it is not working and to working with the teachers to get it right to ensure that parents do understand exactly how well their individual child is doing.Chris Hipkins: What action has she taken to address the finding of the latest report that there is growing concern amongst principals that the standards will have unintended consequences such as narrowing what is taught creating league tables of school results and demotivating the very children whom they are supposed to be targeting?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member is so out of date. It is really rather sad that he is quoting things that are really out of date. What action have I taken? What action have I taken? Let me count the ways: the 78 moderation workshops for teachers last year and the 128 workshops this year; the design and development with the sector of the progression and consistency tool which is an online tool that works on the curriculum with national standards; the learning and change networks which are focused on a particular achievement challenge; and the Investing in Educational Success policy that this Government introduced last year for $359 million in order to form an end-to-end pathway for kids from early childhood to senior secondary. We have been a Government that is absolutely putting its money where its mouth is and we are seeing the results both in national standards and at the National Certificate of Educational Achievement level. Sorry to bore you with success.Chris Hipkins: If national standards were supposed to improve children’s learning why 5 years after they were implemented does an independently audited national monitoring study show that less than half of year 8 children were performing at or above level 4 of the maths curriculum—the level they are expected to be performing at?Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is inappropriate to blame the measuring system for what it found. What it has found is that we have particular challenges.Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon HEKIA PARATA: The members may well laugh but we are interested in understanding where exactly kids are in their learning and what we need to do about it to help them to do better and in then doing it. That is what national standards do and every review of parents says that they welcome them. There have been reports subsequent to the 2013 one that the member is basing his comments on.Chris Hipkins: Why does she continue to use national standards data to claim that the Government’s education policies are working when the Ministry of Education’s own evaluation has found that increases in the percentage of children at or above the standards should not be read as indicating that children are performing better over time?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because the system was relatively new when that report was written. We have been publicly reporting in 2012 2013 and 2014only. We are working with the sector to get better at this and that has been the case with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement.Chris Hipkins: It’s getting worse.Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is not getting worse. I understand that the member hopes that it is in the absence of his being confident about kids but the fact of the matter is that all around the country schools are using national standards and they are getting better and they are getting more confident in using data—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Question No.8 Denis O’Rourke.KiwiRail—Turnaround Plan8.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) to the Minister of Transport: Does he intend to fully implement the Ten Year Turnaround Plan for KiwiRail announced by Hon Steven Joyce in 2010 to get rail working for all New Zealand to have all modes of transport working to complement each other and priced appropriately so importers and exporters have clear choices?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): I thank the member for the question. The Government is committed to the Turnaround Plan for KiwiRail. We have always been clear that it is an ambitious plan and progress for the implementation of it has been impacted on by the global financial crisis the Christchurch earthquakes and for example international commodity prices. To take account of these impacts KiwiRail has recently completed a commercial review of the business with the aim of developing a new 30 year long-term plan. As part of the new long-term plan the Government has asked KiwiRail to work with the New Zealand Transport Agency to investigate an integrated approach to transport planning and investment.Denis O’Rourke: Why will the Minister not act to accelerate Auckland’s City Rail Link project when rail patronage has increased by 22 percent in the last 12 months and the system is now facing gridlock?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I disagree with the assertion of course. We brought the funding of that forward by a decade. But as the Prime Minister has said today in response to an earlier question we also need to be fair to the ratepayers of Auckland who will be funding a good half of it.Denis O’Rourke: When will the Minister prevent KiwiRail from de-electrifying the main trunk line from Hamilton to Palmerston North and stop it instead buying substandard diesel locomotives from China to replace the EF class electric locomotives which could be economically reconditioned in New Zealand; if not why not?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think that as we have heard from other Ministers in this House—the Minister for State Owned Enterprises—those are operational matters for KiwiRail which it is working through. But what we also know is that KiwiRail and rail is an environmentally sustainable solution. That is part of why we have been backing it so strongly.Rules Reduction Taskforce—Submissions9.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Local Government: What progress is being made by the Government’s Rules Reduction Taskforce?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government): Excellent progress is being made by the Rules Reduction Taskforce which is identifying the loopy rules that just do not make any sense. The task force which is being run very well by that member herself has held 46 community meetings all around the country and received 844 online submissions. It is hearing from property owners business people and tradespeople who are frustrated by the bureaucratic and often petty rules that are costing them time and money. Given how successful it has been so far we have extended the deadline for submissions and I encourage people to keep submitting.Jacqui Dean: What are some of the loopy rules the task force has come across?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The task force has heard about anything from a person being told they needed to have round handled handrails rather than a square one to match the picture in the building code to one farmer who was told he had to turn his vehicle lights off at night because rare birds flew over his property despite the fact that they did not land or nest there. Although some of these rules may have been well intentioned they have ended up becoming costly frustrating and sometimes seem to have no real reason at all.Jacqui Dean: What are the next steps for the task force?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would like the member to keep doing the great work that she is doing but also of course the most important part will be the process of getting rid of some of these rules—some that are unintentional some that have grown over time—and working closely with local councils and those bureaucrats to make sure they understand the intention of Parliament. The task force is reporting back in late August and we will be carefully considering those recommendations and then making plans forthwith.Economic Development Minister—Oversight of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment10.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s expenditure of $43000 on a sign show it is achieving one of its principal goals of realising efficiency gains over time?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): Firstly although the cost and installation of the sign itself was $43490 I was advised before the House sat today that there were a number of associated costs and I would like to take the opportunity to keep the House informed of themnow. These associated costs include more than $900 for lighting $13500 for the construction and installation of the foundation $2000 for resource consents plus fees and margins for the construction company—Hon Member: Is this in addition?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes it is in addition—to the total of $67339. So in answer to the member’s question no I do not think that it is indicative of the broader efficiency gains that are being achieved. In fact it underlines what I have said previously: that the cost is clearly over the top. I have made that very clear to the chief executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and I have sought and received a strong assurance that nothing like this will be spent on signage again.Dr David Clark: Was the $360000 that his department spent on comfort couches motorised desks and apple stools part of the same programme of realising efficiency gains over time?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In fact the article that the member is relying on for that information was incorrect in some details. The motorised tables were not purchased and the prices of the sofas were incorrect as well. However the member makes a valid point overall. It is part of the overall cost of the shift of the agency which will save taxpayers $40 million to $50 million over 20 years on top of the savings from merging the agencies which are around the $9 million a year mark. Nevertheless I agree with the member that—Hon Trevor Mallard: More than that on consultants already.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I agree with the member—[Interruption] Shh Trevor! I agree with the member that those costs are over the top and I have made that clear to the chief executive.Dr David Clark: Did he choose the colour of The Small Business Sector Report choose landscape over portrait orientation for the same document and criticise the clarity of language that was cut and pasted from his own previous report?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well we are really on the big issues here. I can confirm one thing for the member: I often criticise the lack of clarity of written information and seek that it be clarified. But beyond that I think the rest of it is up to the member’s imagination.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table an internal email dated 24 February 2014 released under the Official Information Act which shows the Minister’s demand to change a document to landscape style.Mr SPEAKER: The email has been described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table an internal email dated 18 February 2014 in which officials ask him to choose between colour options.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Was there objection from my left? No there was not. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a third exchange of emails—Mr SPEAKER: Is this your final one?Dr David Clark: —it is—dated 23 February 2014 in which it is recorded that the Minister despite officials borrowing language directly—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just describe the email quickly.Dr David Clark: —insisted on clearer language.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr David Clark: Who is the Minister responsible to this House for the expenditure referred to in my primary question and also in the last two supplementary questions?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well the Minister responsible for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is me. I have made it absolutely clear to the chief executive that I do not condone the expenditure on the sign. He has accepted that and has given me a very clear assurance. Overall the ministry has done a good job at reducing costs and actually through the move to a refurbished building—unlike the new buildings that the Labour Government used to build all around Wellington all the time—it has actually saved $40 million to $50 million over 20 years. On top of that the merger will save around $9.5 million a year. Nevertheless those particular items were over the top.Dr David Clark: Is his officials’ assessment accurate that the Minister often does not know what he wants until he sees what he does not want?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Golly gosh! This is a case of the member perhaps burying the lead. Nevertheless I think Ministers often decide what they want once they have seen something they do not want. I do not think this is a particularly marvellous revelation from the member.Security and Intelligence Agencies—Review11.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the ActingAttorney-General: Will the terms of reference of the New Zealand security and intelligence review be amended to reflect the views of other legislatures which are protecting civil liberties including the United States Congress which yesterday passed the Freedom Act to end mass collection of American phone records?Hon AMY ADAMS (Acting Attorney-General): The terms of reference have been finalised and already provide for consideration of how civil liberties are protected. As required by the Act the terms direct the reviewers to consider the legislation governing the agencies and the oversight of those agencies while protecting individual rights. Furthermore as the responsible Minister has said there is no mass collection of phone records in New Zealand; therefore the issue is moot.Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the terms of reference in fact allow for additional matters to be considered will the Government include the adoption of the Freedom Act in the United States and its implications in New Zealand?Hon AMY ADAMS: The terms of reference already contain considerable width for the reviewers to consider the appropriateness of the legislation for the agencies and their oversight but I would note that the Freedom Act in the United States has moved their regime from being far more permissive than ours to being more permissive than ours. It is hardly a model for New Zealand. It would be a backwards step.Dr Kennedy Graham: Was the Prime Minister himself not wrong to call the Snowden documents incorrect out of date and just plain wrong given that the US Congress has used those documents as a basis to pass the Freedom Act to limit the National Security Agency’s spying powers?Hon AMY ADAMS: My capacity as the Acting Attorney-General is very narrow and is simply limited to appointing the reviewers and setting the terms of reference. But I can assure you that the Prime Minister is not wrong.Dr Kennedy Graham: Why are New Zealanders being forced to accept lower levels of privacy protection given that Europe has become more transparent and that the National Security Agency has had its ability to spy hauled back?Hon AMY ADAMS: As I mentioned in my answer to the previous question my responsibilities as the Acting Attorney-General are to set up the review to appoint the reviewers and to set the terms of reference. I do not however accept any part of the member’s assertions in that question.Fire Service—Review12.BRETT HUDSON (National) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What recent announcements has he made in regard to New Zealand’s Fire Services?Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs): Last week I announced what is potentially the most significant review of New Zealand’s fire services since the aftermath of the Ballantynes fire in Christchurch in 1947. The review concentrates on three main areas for change: an enhancement of the status quo; a move to coordinated service delivery which continues with separate rural fire districts; or the option of moving to one integrated national fire service.Brett Hudson: Why is this review necessary?Hon PETER DUNNE: There are a number of challenges currently confronting the Fire Service: a changing expectation of the way fire services are performed a lack of coordination and variable leadership and inconsistent investment for community needs. If I can put it in a nutshell much of what the modern Fire Service does it has no mandate for. The irony is that we have an internationally acclaimed urban search and rescue service that is mandated now by the United Nations but strictly speaking probably outside the mandate of the New Zealand Fire Service. That is clearly absurd.Clayton Mitchell: In light of his answers can the Minister explain why in the relatively short time since 1994 when the present funding arrangements came into force there have been no fewer than 16 reports and reviews—Rt Hon Winston Peters: How many?Clayton Mitchell: —16 reports and reviews—addressed at improving the commission’s funding arrangements and these reports were generally critical of the present funding arrangements and still nothing has changed?Hon PETER DUNNE: I make two points in response to the member’s question. Firstly just in the last 2 weeks there was a very significant Supreme Court decision relating to the way in which the levies were being applied by insurance companies and second as part of the current review we will be looking at a range of financial options excluding using general taxation. So the matters the member raises will be addressed as part of this review.Brett Hudson: Keeping that in mind will the review also look at how the Fire Service is funded?Hon PETER DUNNE: Yes it will. As I said in my previous answer we have ruled out looking at general taxation as an option but beyond that all other funding options are under consideration.Brett Hudson: What feedback has the Minister received on this announcement so far?Hon PETER DUNNE: It is early days. It has been just a week since the document has been released but so far the United Fire Brigades Association the Professional Firefighters Union and the Insurance Council of New Zealand in a range of public meetings I have been to have all expressed support for the notion of a review. Over the next 6 to 8 weeks while the review is going on I will be getting around the country and conducting a number of meetings with interested parties before decisions are made later in the year.Questions to MembersSocial Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill—Purpose1.RIA BOND (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill: What is the intention of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill?TRACEY MARTIN (Member in charge of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill):The intention of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill is to place recognition in statute that an orphan is an orphan whether placed with foster parents or kin carers and that any State support should be based upon the circumstances of the child not the circumstances of the adult.Ria Bond: How will orphans and unsupported children be better off under the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill?TRACEY MARTIN: When the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill passes into law all orphans and unsupported children will be recognised equally by Government services as should always have been the case. This will bring the focus of service provision back to child-focused provision which was I believe the original intent of previous Parliaments.General DebateHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The Budget debate began with the best speech I think I have heard our Prime Minister make. It was a fantastic speech and it set the scene for what was an amazing Budget debate by the members on this side of the House. It concluded yesterday with an outstanding speech from the Minister of Finance laying out quite clearly I think for anyone listening the difference between this side of the House—the Government benches—and what is that rabble on the other side of the House. The reality was as both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said that Labour had nothing to say. Labour members sat in the House yesterday with their heads down as they have sat through the Budget debate because they had nothing to say.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Tells us about the surplus.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member over there who was so outdone by Maggie Barry today—I mean he really was outdone by Maggie Barry today—says I should talk about the surplus. In fact this Government showed that it was more interested in supporting vulnerable New Zealanders than it was in reaching surplus because we probably could have done it if we had done what the party over on the other side of the House is talking about which is cutting services. We probably could have done it but this Government showed it really cares about vulnerable families and is prepared to put its money where its mouth is. That is what indeed the last two Budgets that this Government has produced in this House have done.If you come back to what the Minister of Finance said yesterday about the Labour members having nothing to say as they sat there in the House—just a few of them actually—and there being no leadership. Well they were probably all out fighting over who is actually the real leader over there. There are so many factions out there so many past leaders so many wannabe leaders and so many failed leaders on the other side of the House. But there was no one in the House to actually even lead the voting. They ended up voting against their own leader’s motion of no confidence.Hon Member: How embarrassing!Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That was so embarrassing for the Opposition. It has absolutely no direction as compared with this side of the House which is focused confident and out there delivering on the things that actually matter to New Zealanders.We are focused on those things like transport an economy that is providing jobs an increase in wages—all of those things—and at the same time we are confident enough to stand in this House and deliver a Budget that for the first time in 43 years increased the income of the people with the lowest family incomes in New Zealand. Those beneficiaries have waited 43 years for a Government to have the courage to do that over and above the CPI. In the very best of economic times when Labour was in Government I remember it talking about the very best of economic times. Even then it did not do anything for those very low-income families. It did not help them whatsoever. It heard their cries and it did not help them.This Government had the courage to do that because we know that the welfare reforms that we put in place are supporting those families into work in record numbers. Under this Government the number of solo parents reliant on a benefit is at the lowest level it has been since 1988. That is what gives this Government the courage to say yes we will increase benefits by $25 a week and yes we will support those low-income working families.The Opposition members have nothing to say because they know it is the right thing to do. They never believed for a minute that a National Government would do it and we did do it because we are serious about helping our most vulnerable families. This Government over a number of Budgets has put money into supporting those families but we want to know that our money is making a difference because taxpayers work hard for that money. They pay it out of their salaries every week and they want to know that the Government is using it wisely. So yes this Government makes no apologies for the fact that we are saying to all those who provide social services that we want to make sure that every single dollar whether it is from education or health—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): This is a dodgy tired out-of-touch Government mired in scandal. It is led by a Pinocchio Prime Minister who continues to make unfounded allegations in this House that he would not make outside it. That tells you a lot about the Government. It is making accusations that it just cannot back up. It is writing cheques that it just cannot cash. Then there are its foot soldiers of course. Murray McCully was sent out of the country for 3 weeks for his part in an $11 million scandal that should lead to his resignation. On top of that Saudi sheep scandal we have got foot soldier Joyce who has obviously been to the same school. He has attended the Murray McCully school of micro-management. Just today we heard from him about his obsession with the small things in his department but heard his refusal to take overall responsibility for the bigger mess-ups there and the flagrant abuse and misspending of taxpayer money. This is of course fresh from the Northland by-election. That was not so long ago.Mr Joyce’s obsession with his $40000 erection—which would be funny if it was not so serious—is a symbol of what is going on with this Government. It is distracted. It is focused on the small issues because it is out of ideas on the big issues. Mr Joyce himself as we have learnt today is concentrating on the layout of documents on the colour of the covers and on the full stops. This is a Minister who is out of ideas and it is no wonder that he is failing to reach his own targets. Forty percent was his target for raising exports as a proportion of GDP. Well it was 32 percent when his Government took office; now it is down to 27 percent and the best projection we have at the moment is that it is down as falling to 26 percent next year. It is a Government that is out of ideas out of touch and that is failing to achieve its own goals. Now Mr Joyce is concentrating on improving the feng shui of his reports. Well Minister I am saying now that it will not work.We know of course that this is a Minister who is responsible for the Skycity deal where we have a 10 percent smaller cut again on top of the other cuts to the centre. He talked originally about a maximum of 5000 people at this conference centre when the other players were knocked out of the bidding. Now he is down to 2850 which is just 57 percent of the size of the convention centre originally promised and to be built off the back of problem gambling.Then there is the Chorus deal. I cannot talk about that given the limited time but this is a Minister with a failed reverse Midas touch. He has tried to set up his glorious empire in the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. He has sent a hospital pass though to officials who have an interfering micro-managing Minister. Treasury said from the start that the ministry would never achieve the efficiencies that were promised and it is showing every day that this is the case. This is an MP who is out of touch. He has set up this Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment empire to rival Bill English’s Treasury and he is failing.We have seen that in the Budget. Bill English is cutting his expenditure Budget by Budget by Budget. In 2013 just two Budgets ago he had $470 million of new expenditure. Then it was $363 million last year. This year it is $259 million. He has got fewer dollars to spend because the Government is losing faith. The Government is losing faith with its main foot soldiers. It is deep in scandal and it is out of touch.Northland should have delivered a clear message to this Government but it does not seem to have done so. The list MP who ran the Northland campaign could not win one of the safest National seats in the country—the list MP who ran the campaign could not win one of the safest seats in the country. The public is sending a clear message: the regions can no longer be neglected. The 10-bridge bribes were seen for what they are—74 percent of New Zealanders said that those bridges were a bribe. The pig in front of the sign said it all.That was not a unique set of circumstances there either. Mr Joyce claimed it was but of course Taranaki used to have a real wage premium over Northland; now it does not. Gisborne - Hawke’s Bay used to have a real wage premium over Northland. Now its wages are actually behind those of Northland. And of course we know that the West Coast - Nelson-Marlborough area is struggling too. Moving on to unemployment we know that Manawatū-Wanganui used to have 3 percent unemployment when this Government took over. Now it is up to 9 percent.This is a Government that is failing. It has no new ideas no plan and the regions are hurting. Then we have the wasteful spending which caps it all off. There was $43000 on this Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment monument $360000 on luxury couches motorised desks and apple stools. Skycity is going to the pot. This is a Government not taking responsibility. It is breaking promises and it is failing. It failed to achieve its central election campaign promise to get the Government to surplus. It was the seventh failure in a row.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Question time today highlighted a number of ways in which the National Government is being cute when it comes to the economics of climate change. For one National members like the polluting industries that they are trying to protect can see only the costs when it comes to rolling up our sleeves and doing something meaningful to address climate change. Climate change for National is not about the costs that polluters will pay for the damage they are doing to our climate; it is all about the costs that New Zealanders will have to pay on their behalf so the polluters do not have to change. We have made it clear that putting a real price on carbon will flow through the economy. It has to have the transformative effect that we need but it will not leave households and businesses worse off. All the money raised from our carbon tax is paid straight back to families and businesses in the form of a personal and company tax cut. Only those who pollute will actually pay for the pollution.So what is the impact on the wider economy? Government modellers Infometrics has forecast that a 40 percent emissions reduction target by 2030 would cost the economy just one-tenth of 1 percent of GDP growth per year—one-tenth of 1 percent of GDP growth to secure a stable climate and a prosperous future. The other way that National members are being cute on the economics of climate change is how they say nothing about the costs of doing nothing. National will not add up the costs of increasing severe weather events rising sea levels and the millions of dollars of subsidies being paid to polluters through the failed emissions trading scheme. Failure to take action on the climate carries a higher economic cost alongside the moral one. There is also a significant economic opportunity cost of doing nothing meaningful on the climate. By not setting ambitious targets for reducing carbon we will be slow to decarbonise our economy. We will fail to send the kinds of price signals that businesses like Fonterra need to stop investing in new coal-fired plants rather than in renewable energy-fired plants.On the world stage without incentives to innovate and invest in smart green ways of doing business New Zealand companies will miss playing our special part in one of the world’s fastest growing sectors—the cleantech economy. We will be slow to invest in renewable energy plants solar panel installations energy-efficient retrofits the development and production of significant volumes of biofuels electric cars fast trains and all the cleantech services that we are so good at developing in niche fields. A well-regulated market is what is needed to send the clear signals that business needs to divest and then reinvest. A smart use of Government procurement processes is what is needed to help small and medium sized cleantech businesses to scale up to take on the world. A stable consensus across this House on carbon budgets would give the confidence and the certainty that all businesses need to make long-term capital investment decisions. National is getting increasingly out of touch with how modern 21st century economies are going to need to work for them to be able to work at all.I stood for Parliament and for co-leader because I want to change the things that matter. Our current collision course with our climate is something that matters. Despite recent set-backs I would like to build common cause across this House on climate change. The Government is about to set an emissions reduction target to take to the Paris climate talks in December. I want us to talk to each other rather than past each other and agree on an ambitious target that New Zealanders can be proud of. This century will be the century of sustainability. The countries and the businesses that lead the shift to sustainability will prosper the most. Thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): Last week I received an answer to a written question to the Minister for Primary Industries regarding the number of possums that have been found to be carrying TB—bovine tuberculosis—which the Animal Health Board now known as TBfree New Zealand is attempting to eradicate using aerial 1088 poison. It turns out that over the last 9 years or so TBfree has autopsied something like 124213 possums and of those 54 were found to have TB. So that is 54 possums out of more than 124000 which works out at a touch over 0.04 percent.David Bennett: Ha ha! What’s the percentage?RICHARD PROSSER: Four one-hundredths of 1 percent of the possum population.David Bennett: Oh good on you.RICHARD PROSSER: Mr Bennett be quiet the adults are talking. From that number we are invited to believe that the humble possum is putting our dairy and deer industries in some kind of deadly peril.So I got to wondering whether in fact any of the other justifications that are given for the continued use of 1080 poison are actually capable of holding water—and holding water is a very valid argument because next month Auckland Council is planning to drop 1080 poison 50000 kilograms of it about 50 tonnes of 1080 poison baits over the Hunua Ranges in what is explained as an attempt to target possums and rats not for the purpose of eradicating TB but because the rats and possums are blamed according to Auckland Council’s website for harming native plants and animal life and their habitats. Maybe they are. Possums eat plants—this we know. Possums live in the bush and they eat the bush and one could be forgiven for asking how after 150 years of possums eating the bush we still have bush. The Hunua Ranges are covered in lots of nice green lush bush and that is the way we want them to stay. The possums do eat the bush so we kill the possums and that is the way everybody likes it.But how much of this is actually based on reliable data? I ask because if the farming sector and TBfree New Zealand and the Animal Health Board can justify carpet bombing thousands of hectares of New Zealand with 1080 in order to wipe out a problem that is present in just 0.04 percent of possums how can we be sure that Auckland Council has good data to back up using 1080 over what just happens to be its single largest and most important drinking water catchment? It is targeting rats as well of course and rats do eat native birds and we need to do something about that. But do we need to do it by dropping tonnes and tonnes of deadly poison over the most important water catchment of our biggest city?We know there are better ways. There are better ways and we know that because all the initial survey work that is done to ascertain what the pest populations are and what the native bird populations are before a poison drop and after it are done on the ground. It is all groundwork. It is all trapping which is used to establish what those numbers are beforehand and then again afterwards to see how successful the drop has been. So it can be done and it can be done even in the rough country in the steep country. This is important because quite a lot of the ground in the Hunuas is rough and steep. It is just this sort of country where if something is going to go wrong it will go wrong there. In steep country there is no way of guaranteeing that poison pellets are not going to bounce and slide and end up in places where they are not meant to be like in the reservoirs and in the creeks that run into the reservoirs.The thing about Watercare Services which is the arm of the Auckland Council that runs the water services is that it does not control the catchment itself. It has control of the dams and the access roads and a wee strip about 20 metres wide around the outside of the dams. The rest of it Watercare Services has no say over.Tim Macindoe: This member has a future as a racing commentator.RICHARD PROSSER: It all looks very good on paper Mr Macindoe and the presentations are all very slick and professional. We have got all sorts of reassuring technology like GPS maps with their pretty coloured lines and exclusion zones and all that sort of thing. But as anyone who has ever been on the ground will tell you as soon as the choppers start flying a lot of that stuff goes out the window. They cannot take account of the vagaries like wind gusts and so forth.We know that Watercare Services which looks after Auckland’s water has some very strict protocols in place. It is very concerned about the safety and security of its dams. Watercare Services would also very much rather that no one messed around with the potential safety of Auckland’s water supply. It is very professional and it is very worried.Maybe the people of Auckland need to be worried as well because have they been told? Has anyone actually taken the time to explain properlyto Aucklanders what is going to be done in their water catchment next month and what might happen if something goes wrong? The Auckland Council website says very reassuringly that “Each hectare will receive around 2-3kg of cereal pellets containing 0.15 per cent of the active 1080 ingredient. That’s about one teaspoon of 1080 per hectare.” Well just to put that into perspective. A lethal dose of 1080 for an adult is about 200 milligrams which is about a twentieth of a teaspoon. So that is enough poison to kill 20 people per hectare which over 17000 hectares is enough poison to kill 340000 people. No one believes it is going to go anywhere near that wrong but it does show us just how dangerous this stuff can be. There are sub-lethal effects that can be very nasty as well.But all that aside it is a very great concern that this operation will require half of Auckland’s Hunua dams to be taken out of commission two at a time for an unspecified period until the poison drop is over and the tests have all come back clear. That is if nothing goes wrong. Never mind the cost to the Auckland ratepayer—$500000 roughly and that is on top of the cost of the drop itself. It might all be based on faulty inaccurate or massively overstated data just like with TB. Thank you.Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for ACC): I am very pleased to speak in this general debate. The other day I was chatting to some constituents and they said to me that it is phenomenal what National has been polling because of a couple of things. Firstly leadership. Andrew Little is at 9 percent and I will tell you why. There are a couple of reasons. Firstly ultimately politics is a contest of ideas. That means it is about not only putting up good policy for our country but also supporting when the other side has really good policy. What have we seen from Labour members in the area of social innovation? They oppose the ACC cuts they oppose mental health bonds they oppose everything but they do not have good policy for New Zealand. Under our Government we have embarked on a very significant programme of both economic and social reform. That is why New Zealanders are voting for us. It is because they can see the results. They can see that 170000 jobs have been created. They can see that we are on track for another 2.8 percent growth. They can see another 150000 jobs on track to be created. They can see that we are making real results in areas like vulnerable children—whether it is the $790 million package or whether it is the thousands of houses that have been insulated in this country. How about the policy of free GP visits for the under-13s? This Government has done a significant amount not just in the economic area but also in the social area.What do we have from Opposition members? They just say no. We saw that this week with mental health bonds. It is significant because ultimately people ask the basic question: is the Opposition focused on the issues that matter? This week what have we heard from the Opposition? We have heard about Saudi farms. Actually there are a whole lot of people in New Zealand who care about our most vulnerable children. They care about the issues of housing. They care about tax reform. They care about ACC levy reductions. These are the issues that matter to New Zealanders. We have an Opposition that is not focused on the issues that matter to New Zealand. Compare that with a Government that is absolutely achieving the results.Let us look at some of those results. We have seen a 38 percent reduction in youth crime. In terms of the number of teenage sole parents they have dropped by 40 percent since 2011. This Government’s social reforms have been phenomenal and the reason the left is in trouble is they know they are bereft of ideas. They cannot compete at the social level. National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results are improving and they are improving across some of our most disadvantaged groups. The NCEA results for Māori and Pasifika students are up. Why are we able to do so well in terms of targeting those students? It is because of national standards. It is actually saying that to be able to help those children we need to know where they are and that means knowing those schools in Northland—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Been up to Northland College lately?Hon NIKKI KAYE: That is right Mr Peters. It means knowing the schools in Northland where those kids are actually targeting them and ensuring they have got the teaching support to be able to raise achievements and ultimately give those kids a passport to a better future. That is what this Government is focused on. That is what this Government has policy for. This Government has leadership.Compare that with the Opposition which is not focused on the things that matter. That is why Andrew Little is at 9 percent. I saw it better than anyone. At the end of the day when you look at ACC what were Opposition members’ comments? What were Mr Little’s comments? Firstly he started to talk about pay as you go. In a situation where we have finally got a social investment approach we are finally able to help some of our most vulnerable in terms of the seriously injured Labour wants to unravel ACC it wants to gut the assets and it wants to go back to a situation where we cannot have long-term meaningful injury prevention. It is very clear that we have got a party on this side that has good ideas and new ideas in terms of social innovation like mental health bonds. We are doing things right across education reform. We are doing a huge amount in terms of ACC reform to make sure the scheme is more transparent for our most vulnerable New Zealanders. Compare that with an Opposition particularly the Labour Party that will oppose everything and propose nothing. Thank you.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): At question time today just a moment ago I asked the Acting Attorney-General whether the terms of reference of our intelligence review would be amended to reflect the views of other legislatures that are moving to protect civil liberties. This included the US Congress which yesterday passed the USA Freedom Act to end the mass collection of metadata. Minister Adams was not especially forthcoming in her reply. She stressed the adequacy of the terms of reference and then confessed that she basically lacked the ministerial competence to comment further on the question the question having been passed on to her by the Prime Minister. So let us analyse the issues that were passed over so lightly by the Acting Attorney-General. The terms of reference contained two general tasks. The first is to determine whether the legislative frameworks of the intelligence agencies are well placed to protect New Zealand’s national security arrangements while protecting human rights. The second is around whether there are sufficient safeguards to ensure the agencies act lawfully and maintain public confidence.Well if we are talking about public confidence it is time that New Zealand emulated the United States in restoring the principles of civil liberties laid down by Jefferson and cherished in the United States and presumably here as well. There is a distinction between the general review requirement that is in the statute and the precise terms of reference that the Attorney-General has crafted. The statute foresees a review of any matter relevant to the functions of effectiveness and efficiency of the agencies in their contribution to national security. But the terms of reference are more focused. They are on whether the legislative frameworks are well placed to protect national security while protecting human rights. It may be a coincidence and it is good to have human rights included but what we have here is national security as the primary value and central framework with human rights as a secondary value something to be protected from the onslaught.A specific task identified in the terms of reference is whether the recent foreign terrorist fighters legislation should be extended or modified beyond March 2017. This is an issue of some moment. Just last Friday the Security Council adopted its latest presidential statement on foreign terrorist fighters. The overriding concern is that foreign terrorist fighters have increased in numbers to 25000 from 100 countries. Receiving one back into one’s own country is proving too dyspeptic for Australia but New Zealand at least is maintaining for the moment a level head on the matter. The Attorney-General’s statement to the council had many good elements—in particular the stress he placed on countering violent extremism through supporting individuals in communities in having a positive stake in society. The key he said is to be inclusive not exclusive—to integrate not marginalise. We agree and commend him for this. But that approach needs to be buttressed with legislative reform on mass surveillance. It needs to lead with the principle of human rights and make national security compatible with the inalienable rights of the individual.That Jeffersonian principle has just been rediscovered in the United States in the past few days following the loss of its constitutional compass 14 years ago. Sanity at last is being restored. The USA Freedom Act replacing the notorious Patriot Act limits the Federal Government’s ability to collect phone data. It requires the FBI to formally declare a statement of facts showing reasonable grounds to believe that the information sought is relevant to a particular investigation and that the facts give rise to a reasonable articulable suspicion of activities associated with a foreign power or its agent. Under the terms of reference here in New Zealand the review will also have regard to any additional matters that arise during the review as agreed by the Attorney-General. We therefore recommend that the Attorney-General notify now in writing in the New Zealand Gazette that the modification of intrusive surveillance powers and restoration of civil liberties as legislated in the United States be taken up as a matter that has arisen and that New Zealand consider emulating the US initiative.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): It is a pleasure to speak here in this general debate in the first week of June. As we have already heard the polls were quite clear in the last week. National continues with our ability to stay in the high-40s. The Labour Party of course is wallowing in the early-30s. We have got Winston and his crew hovering around 5 6 or 7 percent. And you have got members opposite who complain and whine and moan and say that the sky is falling. Well clearly according to New Zealanders across this nation the sky is not falling. You have got to ask yourself why. I was at the Warriors match on Sunday night and a few Australians were asking me why this Government is so popular. They asked what we were doing that leads us to have these types of polls in our third term. I said to them that it is because we have got leadership—clearly. We have got John Key an extraordinary politician an extraordinary man and a man who is leading this country admirably. Clearly we have got a caucus that is capable that is competent and that is doing its job of leading this country. But the other thing we are doing is focusing on the things that matter to all New Zealanders.On top of that list is jobs—on top of that list is jobs. When I survey my electorate of Maungakiekie and I get 2500 responses from the 46000 people who live there they say the No. 1 issue that they want me to focus on that they want John Key and our caucus to focus on in this Parliament is jobs. Today this morning in New Zealand 2.36 million people—2.36 million people—got up and went to work and that is the most New Zealanders who have got up and gone to work than at any time in our history. We have got unemployment falling steadily to 5.8 percent and we know that that is heading towards 4.5 percent in 3 years’ time. We know that we have created over 194000 jobs in the last 4 years and in the next 4 years we estimate that we will create another 150000 jobs.Jobs are important. Why? Well let us just give members opposite a little bit of a lesson as to why jobs are important. They help families. They help families feed clothe and raise their kids as well as look after their elderly as well as look after their communities. That is why jobs are important and that is why our focus our primary focus of this Government has been on jobs. Jobs also release people from the dependency of welfare. I know that the Hon Anne Tolley as the Minister for Social Development will know this. It gets people off welfare and into jobs and away from the dependency on welfare that you get. It also helps with the reoffending rates because we know that if people are working—people are in employment people are occupied and earning money looking after their families looking after their communities building up this nation—they are less likely to reoffend. That is why it is important that we focus on jobs and this Government’s track record on jobs is unsurpassed.But it is not just about jobs. We know that there are families there are kids suffering out there and that is why at the heart of Budget 2015—at the heart of this Budget—we are focused on a support package: $790 million. Yes that is right. If you did not hear that right: $790 million will be spent on helping children in our poorest households. That is $25 a week for the beneficiaries out there who are struggling. I went to my local budgeting agency just after the election. I spent 5 hours there listening to people who were suffering listening to people in hardship and they told me that they needed a hand up not a handout. The $25-a-week increase in benefits for families with children is the first time in 43 years that any Government has raised them above inflation. It is the first time and it is a National Government. I am proud of this package. I am proud of this Government for focusing on jobs for focusing on those who are impoverished and for putting together a Budget—the seventh Budget in a row—that is actually committed to the welfare and the well-being of all New Zealanders.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): For me the member who just resumed his seat the Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga personified the arrogance that has taken over the National Party going into this third term of Government. He modestly said: “People ask me all the time: ‘Why do you do so well? Why are you so popular? Why are you so well-liked?’ ”. How modest can he be? The Government has stopped connecting with what ordinary New Zealanders really feel. One of the examples that I am increasingly hearing frustration about from members of this House is the Ministers’ arrogance and dismissal of select committee procedures where members of select committees—including National Party members who are the chairs of the committees—hear about determinations of bills that are the property of the committees through a ministerial statement. How arrogant and disrespectful of the process and of members of the select committee—including members of their own party—is that? It really is just one of many indications of the increasing arrogance and dislocation of this Government that its members must be a little bit despondent. They all went into the last election—and actually the election before—with their No. 1 promise being to deliver a Government Budget surplus in the 2015 Budget. And what did we see? Yet again Bill English—failed leader now failed Minister of Finance—after seven Budgets each failing to deliver a surplus. It was not just an expectation or a hope; it was the No. 1 election promise in the 2011 campaign and the 2014 campaign—another broken promise.Judith Collins seems to be the only one who is reasonably excited about the future of the National Party. She recently led the caucus revolt. I have heard a number of people saying about the National caucus being revolting—but she led the revolt in relation to the health and safety reforms that Michael Woodhouse had promised. She ruined his speech to a very large workplace safety conference. Michael Woodhouse had said “I will be there and I will be giving a speech with great promises and detail.” and he had to turn up and say “It has all been put on hold.” because of the revolt that Judith Collins had led. Then there was her less-than-subtle attack on Gerry Brownlee where she launched an attack about the doors that he has required to have put in. I am not sure whether he thinks the doors will keep Judith Collins out of their caucus room or just out of our corridor but it certainly was Gerry Brownlee’s idea.That pales into insignificance though—pales into insignificance—beside what Murray McCully has done. An $11 million bribe—there can be no other word to describe it—paid to a private Saudi farm. I disagree with the politics of a number of members of the National Party thank goodness but I do not challenge the integrity of every single member and I know that some of them will be squirming because they like many other New Zealanders deeply value the integrity of our country of our representatives and of people who travel overseas to represent us. And our international reputation has been tarnished by Murray McCully’s bribe. He is off on overseas leave now; he is having a bit of a rest.Meanwhile we have got Steven Joyce causing bother for the National Party. He said he did not know much about the sign that cost—what?Hon David Cunliffe: $43000 for a sign.Hon RUTH DYSON: $43000 for a sign saying “MBIE”—“MoBIE”. It seems like quite a lot of money to pay for a sign.Hon David Cunliffe: It’s a whale of a time.Hon RUTH DYSON: It certainly is. I will leave that to your contribution Mr Cunliffe because that was a very good interjection. But Steven Joyce today during question time was exposed as not only knowing details about the sign but having personally chosen the colour. This Minister for Economic Development is right into the details of his portfolio. It is just another example of the disconnect between Ministers their departments and ordinary New Zealanders. We have had poor old Maurice Williamson. How he sits in the House every day watching hapless Ministers struggle through questions when he is still consigned to the backbench. And now he has been publicly rejected by the ACT Party—publicly rejected. There were the Northland by-election bribes with the bridges and now we have got the Prime Minister distracting once again with boat people coming to New Zealand. It is a really Tony Abbott trick.Can I conclude on an Australian point a serious point that I want to make. The first-ever—and only actually—woman Premier of Victoria passed away this week. I want to conclude with a tribute to the memory of Joan Kirner and all she did for women internationally and for education. Thank you.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Just following on from that point about the death of Joan Kirner the first woman Premier of Victoria National members pay our tribute as well.In this House today we had a question from the New Zealand First Party around the SuperGold card access that they were supposed to deliver for the punters who voted for them. I will just read from an article that quotes the words of the member for Northland: “I’ll get you a Gold Card across there. But it goes like this: you’ve got to vote for us first.” Well they did that. They voted for them. They voted for them. And have they been delivered the SuperGold card access? No not at all. What I am going to say next—there will be points of order from the New Zealand First Party because they will not like this but this is the truth of what happened. There was an email on 27 May from Winston Peters to the Minister for Senior Citizens. That is only because he knew that the media was on to the story first. He did that email only after the media was on to the story to cover himself. That is the old Winston Peters New Zealand First - approach to politics. What they did is they came into this House today and said “Oh we sent you an email on 27 May.”—only a week ago not even that—and “We are looking after our constituents.” What a load of rubbish. The people of Northland will never get anything out of the New Zealand First Party and they know it. That is the reality of that political party.Denis O’Rourke: Why did they vote for us then?DAVID BENNETT: Oh why did they vote for you? They voted for you for some unknown reason that nobody can find out but they will not do it again I know that much.Ron Mark: 70 years.DAVID BENNETT: Seventy years. OK—43 years it took for this Parliament to deliver for the people of New Zealand who were on welfare 43 years. Labour could not lift a finger and deliver for those people and National did it. Labour never did it. It cannot even get a decent leader who can do a decent speech. Labour members sit there now ignoring the reality of what is going on.Bill English did a great speech yesterday He talked about the reality of left-wing politics. In the left wing it is about control of people. That is all it is about. It is not about empowering people it is not about giving people education and the ability to make their own futures. It is about control by having a group of academics on that side of the House who think that they are holier-than-thou and can come in and tell other people what they should do with their lives. We have seen the newest of the holier-than-thou come in as the leader of the Green Party. I say to the Labour Party you should be worried about that man. You should be worried about him because he is putting across a rational image for the Green Party—which is unusual I know but he is doing that. And he is actually talking about the environment which is something they never talked about and was one of their big failings. But he is doing those two things and in doing that he is eroding the left-wing vote from the Labour Party. He will be eroding the left-wing vote from the New Zealand First Party.But I tell you the public of New Zealand you cannot trust anyone on that side. Even if they come into this House saying what you want to hear they do not believe it. There is no way a leader of the Green Party can actually have a rational thought. That is not possible because that party is the party of extremes. They do not vote in people like that. People who will have rational thoughts will not be in that party and you can do all the messages you like but your party is in exactly the same boat—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I have a point of order—well I hope I have a point of order.Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I find what he is saying personally offensive and I would ask that he withdraw it—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No—this is a robust debate. If that offends the member she is frankly in the wrong game.DAVID BENNETT: Look I just want to back that up with a bit of proof if anything. Richard Prosser spoke and his line of the day was that possums live in the bush and eat the bush. So let us talk about rational thoughts coming out of that side of the House. That is your best speaker and he talks about possums living in the bush and eating the bush. Are we not lucky to have a bush at the end of the day? That was Richard Prosser. Well the Green Party—do not trust them. Do not trust that man. That man is coming into this House professing to be some kind of neutral leader of a political party. The Green Party will always be the extreme in this Parliament. It will hurt the Labour Party at the next election because it will go out there and try to take those rational left-wing votes. So the Labour Party will have to take out the Green Party at some stage and well the New Zealand First Party is just a protest party. It is just a party where if nobody can find anything else to vote for they vote for them. It is a shame that its members actually believe that they stand for something and that they are of any worth in this Parliament because they are not. It will be a good thing when they go because then this Parliament will actually be a much better place. It has been a great Budget it has been a great time to have these speeches and we look forward to it following through the House.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): The member who has just resumed his seat David Bennett personifies this National Government. Instead of making a logical argument he just gives us abuse. Whether you allow it or not Mr Speaker it is just abuse. This is a Government that is mired in distractions in scandal and in corruption—which is not too strong a word—while New Zealand lacks a plan that will put more money in the pockets of hard-working Kiwi families relieve the housing crisis and get New Zealand back to work.Let me tell you about the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—what a multi-headed hydra. It was created by the Prime Minister to give Steven Joyce a sandpit almost as big as Bill English’s. It was divide and rule at work balancing the lieutenants to give Mr Joyce an empire. It has been a miserable singular failure. Steven Joyce can micro-manage the portrait and landscape on his slide pack but he cannot oversee cost control on a $43000 street sign. What an embarrassment what a failure of ministerial responsibility and what a failure of cost management in his department.It is no surprise because this is the same department that spent $360000 on luxury couches for its staff. It is the same department that screwed up the negotiations with Skycity which was not helped by the Prime Minister giving the casino a lucky break or two or three or four. It screwed up the discussions with MediaWorks and gave it a $43 million suspensory loan. Oh and what did happen to John Campbell recently when he got a bit uppity with the Prime Minister? I wonder. The Government folded for Rio Tinto—a $15 million roughly bribe to stay in office. That reminds me somewhat of Murray McCully’s exploits building sheep farms in the desert.This is a Government mired in scandal mired in distraction and without a decent idea about how to effect change in our economy. We face a choice ladies and gentlemen. The choice is between muddling through banking on milk powder earthquake rebuilds and bits and pieces or being a country that undertakes a proper change programme for the future. To do that it has got to be high value. It has got to be driven by innovation science and technology.Today in the Education and Science Committee Minister Joyce showed what a complete waste of space the Government’s science and technology programme is. The chief executive officer of the MacDiarmid Institute no less says that the Marsden Fund is a shambles. Only 7 percent of project bids get through and the Minister admitted they have no idea of the overhead costs of the 93 percent that do not.The Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman whom the Government just made a member of the Order of New Zealand said the system is beset by “short-termism” and that the Government has no strategy. Shaun Hendy an eminent professor of physics and co-author of a book with no less than Sir Paul Callaghan said that is because they have to go cap in hand for co-funding to the dairy industry because it is the only one that has any money. The science system reinforces the old economy instead of building the economy of the future. That is why we have had a Budget of broken promises and seven deficits out of seven instead of Labour’s nine surpluses out of nine.Chris Bishop: Also not true. $4 billion deficit in 2008—$4 billion.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: There is a growing international deficit as exports go backwards Mr Bishop from 32 percent of GDP not to the Government’s target of 40 percent but in this Budget by its own admission down to 26 percent from 32 percent. That is an amazing snatching of defeat from the jaws of the victory of the post global financial crisis rebound. It is a spectacular failure and we have hundreds of billions of dollars of external debt and savings debt.What is the Government’s solution? Knacker KiwiSaver and take away the kick-start to fund some public relations for beneficiaries that it never believed in in the first place. That is the game of this Budget: spin above substance fiddling while Rome burns. This is a Government without a plan a Government beset by distractions and a New Zealand that deserves better.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country): In the words of Minister Anne Tolley this afternoon this is a Government that really cares. As you have heard from other speakers National is the party that is investing another $790 million over the next 4 years—money that is going to go into families on benefits and low incomes and help those children. A $25 weekly increase in benefits for families is going to be immensely helpful.Also this Government is the Government that is interested in what works. To help us make the right decisions and investments for taxpayers’ money in the future we are actually using data to get a better understanding of the people who use our services and have the need for that support. Just as an example right now if you take the most vulnerable 1 percent of all 5-year-olds which is around 600 children in any one year and we know who these kids are and actually help them get on to a wonderful track as 5-year-olds—at the moment the trajectory says that three-quarters of those children will not get National Certificate of Educational Achievement without help. It also says that 40 percent will have been on a benefit for 2 years by the time they are 21 years old and probably it is likely a quarter of those children will be in prison by the age of 35.We know that actually taking these children now investing in them and changing services in order to intervene will help these people lead more fulfilling lives. Imagine the self-esteem of being able to be on the straight and narrow as opposed to the other options that are currently the tracks where they might head.The other impressive thing about this Government is it is actually putting a lot more money into education and health. I was very very impressed in the last adjournment week about 3 weeks ago when I had a day out around Te Awamutu and Ōtorohanga with the Hon Hekia Parata and we looked at some of the money that was going into special education particularly around literacy. It was really worthwhile to hear from a young girl standing up with an iPad who had been really struggling with literacy about 8 months prior and through having a wonderful school principal who cares sharing their knowledge and information with young people—she was so proud of herself this young girl. That very same principal is actually working with other schools in the community to share those programmes and share those skills.The other thing is that this Government also is a caring Government. Mental health funding has increased by over $200 million since 2008-09 and today was a classic example. I have just been out for a couple of hours at a function at lunchtime where a programme was released called Farmstrong. It is there to help connect rural communities help well-being and help farmers get through this stage in their life where actually the payout is not brilliant. It will come right and we all know it will come right; we just do not know when it will come right. There are going to be a lot of farming families out there who are going to be struggling in the meantime until it does come right.How do the Green Party members show they care about that? They stand up in the House this afternoon and they talk about carbon taxes—more targets on farmers who have already got enough on their plate. We are doing so much work at the moment trying to hold them all together and trying to solve as many issues and save potential suicides as we possibly can. The money that the Greens are targeting in terms of wanting to put carbon taxes on these people might just be the money that helps those people to feed their families and take part in their family activities over the next little while.So I actually applaud what this Government is doing. I applaud the money that is actually being put into exploring these social bond programmes particularly around programmes that will expand on pilots that are delivering employment services to New Zealanders who have mental health conditions. I have been witness to those people in my own community and some of the organisations in Te Awamutu that are helping those people get into work. They are doing a fantastic job and we will help communities to help themselves. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): Transport is one of the most vital functions for any Government but in New Zealand regional transport is being shunted aside. New Zealand First is the party for the regions because we would put that right. We deplore it that only $97 million has been set aside in the Budget for regional roads and only $210 million has been set aside for rail. These are drops in the bucket and show no real commitment to regional transport issues by this Government. Northland has suffered transport neglect for far too long. An improved highway from Pūhoi to Wellsford is a high priority. Everybody agrees with that but only the link as far as Warkworth has been actually planned and budgeted for.Rail is also seriously neglected there. You can have a look for yourself as I did on the weekend at the rail link from Auckland to Whangarei which is in a shocking state and needs significant improvement and maintenance to service the deep-water port at Whangarei which is the main alternative to the struggling Ports of Auckland. Passenger rail for far too long has been neglected in north-west Auckland and it is being run down. There is a special housing area of 2500 homes planned for Huapai Kūmeu but the Waitakere Station is to be closed in July and the station at Huapai has been closed for some time yet it is a modern fully functional station built only in 2009. North-west Auckland has got the railway line it has got the stations it has got the rolling stock and it has got the population growth. What it needs is that rail link upgraded and not for stations to be closed.Let us look at Hawke’s Bay. We have the dumb decision by KiwiRail and this Government not to reopen the Napier-Gisborne rail link. Currently there is 1.6 million tonnes of logging per year there and 390 trucks on the road projected to go to 2.2 million tonnes and 430 trucks by 2022.Hon Anne Tolley: Logs have never used that railway line—never.DENIS O’ROURKE: The cost is only $4 million and local MP Anne Tolley once supported the reopening of that line at home but not when she is in Wellington. She is a lion in public at home but a lamb in Cabinet. That is her record on regional transport; that is her record in the Hawke’s Bay—not one to be proud of.In Wellington the Capital Connection serviceis planned to close. It is the only commuter service for up to 700 people per week between Palmerston North and Wellington but poor management by KiwiRail and a lack of maintenance and development of the route are the problem there. Incompetent KiwiRail management actually wants to de-electrify the main trunk line from Hamilton to Palmerston North. Ditching a core existing electrified rail route is nothing short of vandalism. New Zealand First would instead electrify the entire Auckland to Wellington route.In Canterbury the earthquakes caused a huge outflow of people north to Rangiora Kaiapoi and Pegasus and south to Rolleston. Road traffic to the north especially is now chronic. Surplus carriages and locomotives are available and so for just the cost of a few temporary low-cost railway stations we could have an effective passenger rail system from those places to the centre of Christchurch. It could easily be done but nothing of course is being done by this Government.In Auckland the completion of the Auckland City Rail Link is urgent but this Government dithers. There is also a need for a passenger rail link to the airport in Auckland via Onehunga and there are many opportunities for new light rail networks in Auckland City.Rail should have a great future but it needs a better development strategy and I am not confident that this 30-year strategy talked about by Simon Bridges today would be what we need. I would have very little confidence in that because as a consequence of the National Government’s underfunding and downgrading of the rail network KiwiRail has degraded and undermined the entire rail network and has ignored any opportunity to enhance and expand it.Finally other countries develop and electrify rail networks; in this country the opposite happens.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust BillThird ReadingHon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): It is with great pleasure and delight that I bring this Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill for its third reading. As we have heard in the House over the last few weeks—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The Minister must move the third reading—not the preamble—just move the bill’s third reading and then you can go into the substantive matter of what you want to say.Hon NICKY WAGNER: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I move That the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill be now read a third time. This bill is very important for Christchurch and for the Arts Centre so it is my delight to be here at its third reading.As we have heard in this House over the last few weeks the Arts Centre is beloved by the people of Christchurch and actually also by the visitors and tourists who come to our city. It is a magnificent site. It is the site of 23 neo-Gothic buildings it is something that every Christchurch person has spent time in and it is part of our everyday life. The Arts Centre has been a centre of activity full of arts events. It has a weekend market that I think most tourists visit it has craft stalls it has the Dux de Lux—and we have heard about lots of events there over past years. It also has Le Café which was also frequented by many of us often.Of course the site suffered dreadfully in the earthquakes. In fact it was damaged in both the September and February earthquakes and 23 of the 24 heritage buildings were badly damaged. The first of these buildings was built in 1876 and the rest were built over a period of time until the last one was built in 1923. They have been such an important part of our city as they were used for different purposes and so it has been enormously difficult for the people of Christchurch and also very sad for us to see them damaged.It is fortunate that the buildings were well insured. What the trust board is now facing is about a 7-year restoration and rebuild period and nearly $300 million worth of restoration. Actually the work is well under way. It is going very well. We have already seen the Registry Building on the corner of Montreal Street and Worcester Street completed and now that is tenanted. The gym has also been completed. That is now used as a performance space and people are able to go in there and enjoy that art.The grand hall is the next one to be completed. This is a magnificent building. It had a turret which has been put back up there. It also had immensely special stained glass windows which fortunately survived the earthquake and will be put back into that building. The trust board is also expecting that the work on this restoration will be finished earlier than in 7 years and so I think it is really a feather in the cap of the people working on that to see that this work is being done beautifully. It is really restoring these buildings and also it is going to be on time and on budget.This Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill is a really important element in the protection and the preservation of the Arts Centre for the future. It sets out to modernise the governance arrangements of the trust and sets out the charitable objects of that trust in legislation. This is to give greater certainty around the original intention of the trust deed and to formally recognise the heritage and cultural significance of the Arts Centre.The modernising of the governance arrangements brings the trust in line with currently accepted best practice and this is absolutely vital. It is really important that the trust board maintains a strong set of skills not only during this restoration phase but also into the future as the Arts Centre is repopulated and again becomes a central important part for the people of Christchurch and those who visit our city.I really want to commend the work of the Arts Centre board—commend it for the way it developed this bill. As we know people are very fond of the Arts Centre and they also want to have their say on the Arts Centre so there have been quite a lot of controversial debates over the years. The way that the board discussed talked to stakeholders consulted widely and explained its rationale to the people of Christchurch was very well done indeed. I would like in particular to recognise the Hon Margaret Austin who has talked about the Arts Centre I have to say to all and sundry probably for decades but she was particularly active in this area explaining what was going on and putting people’s minds at rest knowing that this was a good thing for the Arts Centre.I also want to acknowledge the work of Jen Crawford the chair of the board and André Lovatt the chief executive officer. Both of them have led this process and while they have been leading this process it was on top of managing this huge restoration but also future planning for the site. So it has been a huge job—a lot of energy a lot of effort a lot of enthusiasm and a lot of hard work by a lot of people to get it to this stage.I just want to recap on the bill. What it will do is first modernise the trust governance arrangement; second set out the objects of the trust in legislation to reflect the cultural and heritage significance of the Arts Centre; third provide legal foundations for the trust board to continue to recover from the earthquakes; fourth provide for a skills-based board appointed by an appointment committee; and fifth ensure that there is a safe pair of hands in the short term if the circumstance ever arose that the board could not perform. I think that is really important. It gives us much greater certainty than there was in the past. Finally the bill sets out in legislation the trust’s current objectives—again giving that certainty.I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee for its hard work on this bill. Committee members took it very seriously. They even visited the Arts Centre and I think that was really important because it gave them an opportunity to see why it is important to the people of Christchurch. I would like to commend the work of Scott Simpson as the chair.The committee made some very helpful amendments. In particular it introduced a new subclause 5(2) for clarification which requires all income to be used to advance the charitable purposes of the trust. It also deleted clause 8 which provided for the transfer of the trust property to the Crown on an interim basis. That is what clause 8 was going to do. Instead the committee inserted clause 9 and that states that the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 applies. So that is standard right across the country and I think it is a better solution. Basically I think the work the committee did improved the bill and made it a much more certain and more acceptable bill to the public of Christchurch and actually to the board itself.I just want to make a comment about the importance of the references to the historic stone buildings. The buildings were central to the intentions of the original trust deed so it is particularly important that the stone buildings are referenced in the preamble and in clause 4 of the bill.Finally it is my great pleasure to be here at the third reading. The Arts Centre is a magnificent cultural and heritage site for New Zealand. It is beloved by the people of Christchurch and beyond by our visitors and our tourists. It is a hub of activity. It is something that we all go to for arts for crafts for the market for entertainment to the pub—something that all Christchurch people can enjoy. The passing of this bill gives it a fantastic footing for the future and it will be there for many many generations to enjoy. Thank you.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my great pleasure to speak in this third reading of this bill. I think that this bill is an incredibly important and symbolic piece of legislation in terms of the recovery of Christchurch and part of that recovery needs to be our cultural recovery.I too want to pay tribute to the work of a number of people. The member who has just taken her seat the member for Christchurch Central the Hon Nicky Wagner has worked hard on this bill and I would like to commend her for that work. I would also like to pay tribute to the chairwoman of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board Jen Crawford and to the chief executive officer André Lovatt who are here for the work that they have put in and to other members of that board who have done the work. Also I pay tribute to my fellow members of the Local Government and Environment Committee one of the most productive committees in this Parliament who work very well together to find good solutions. The Minister who has just taken her seat has talked of some of the changes that we were able to achieve at that select committee which I think has led to the strengthened piece of legislation that we are now seeing here today for its final reading.I think what this bill has done besides modernising the governance arrangements and setting in place the future of our Arts Centre in Christchurch which are incredibly important is that it has given many members of this House also the opportunity to reminisce about the site of the Arts Centre through the course of its readings and what it meant to them. I think it is clear from all stages of the bill what an important cultural symbolic and emotional heart of Christchurch the Arts Centre has become since—well it was the university—it was transferred from the university to the city in 1973. I think a reading and consulting of Hansard will be a very important record of just how important this set of buildings has been.I think it is incredibly important that we do have the proper provisions to ensure that we can preserve these buildings because heritage and the heritage fabric of our city have been one of the victims of the Christchurch earthquakes. We have lost far too much of our built heritage and I think that is something that we in Christchurch all feel strongly. As of February 2015 there have been 1240 demolitions within the four avenues. That is compared with 292 building consents by the by. But 20 percent of those 1240 buildings have been heritage buildings that have been demolished. I think it is with great sadness that all Cantabrians look on at the loss of this built history of their city. It was in the aftermath of the quakes of course when the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority through section 38 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act was given the power to demolish damaged heritage buildings without consultation. I think it is an important time to put on record while we are talking about the way in which we are going to preserve an incredibly important set of heritage buildings in Christchurch that we on this side of the House believe that the time for that has passed. We believe that we do need to return to a proper discussion about our heritage in our city.At previous readings of this bill I have spoken about the part that one of my predecessors the Rt Hon Norman Kirk the member for Sydenham—a very fine seat—played in the preservation. [Interruption] Yes the Hon Ruth Dyson is also claiming the Rt Hon Norman Kirk—quite rightly so—and the Hon Clayton Cosgrove can claim him as a Mayor of Kaiapoi as well. It was the Rt Hon Norman Kirk who had a dream about the Arts Centre buildings becoming the cultural and educational centre for Christchurch. It was he in 1973 at the university centennial convocation who made the announcement that these buildings were to be gifted to the city. When Norman Kirk made this announcement about the buildings being gifted to the city he made the point that it was about drawing together the various strands of culture in New Zealand to produce something that was uniquely New Zealand. I think these are the words that we need to hold dear to because Norman Kirk did have a very firm grasp of the importance of culture and our history in the place of the making of a modern identity in 1970s New Zealand.In 1973 that same year the Rt Hon Norman Kirk said that “Politics is the conscious projection of a country’s identity … and not something removed or remote from everyday life.” I think they are important words for me to leave the final passage of this bill on because I think the passing of this legislation and the preservation of these buildings are not something removed or remote from the everyday life of Cantabrians. Thank you.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As the first non-Cantabrian to speak in this third reading debate and as chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee it actually gives me enormous pleasure to support my colleague the Hon Nicky Wagner the MP for Christchurch Central who has been sponsoring this bill through the House. This is a very good and momentous piece of legislation and it is a good and momentous day for Canterbury and for the Arts Centre of Christchurch. Seldom in this House do we get unanimity and I am hopeful that we will get it today on this piece of legislation.It is an opportunity for this House to actually put in place a piece of legislation that will provide for a modernised governance structure for the Arts Centre of Christchurch one that will help it cope with the massive rebuild that is under way at present and also one that will set it up for the future for years to come for the children grandchildren and great-grandchildren yet to be born of Canterbury to enjoy and learn to love the Arts Centre as much as Cantabrians clearly and obviously do already.As other speakers have already indicated I want to also acknowledge the leadership and contribution of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board chair Jen Crawford and chief executive officer André Lovatt who came and presented to the select committee when it met in Christchurch. We took the trouble as the sponsor indicated to travel to Christchurch to have a look at the site to have a look at the restoration and to have a look at the work that is being done with such care and skill by the many able craftspeople who are using skills that probably have not been used on a building site in this country for many many years. These are craftspeople from around the world who are bringing their stonemasonry skills to the Arts Centre for what is believed to be the largest heritage restoration project of its type in the world currently under way.As a non-Cantabrian there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that there is a very special place in the hearts and minds of all Canterbury people for their Arts Centre. It is a place that holds fond memories for many Cantabrians. As this bill has been making its progress through the House we have heard some of those stories.The purpose of this bill is actually quite simple: it is to enshrine the trust’s objects into statute to ensure that the Arts Centre continues as a cultural centre for the people of Christchurch and Canterbury and for people from other parts of New Zealand and indeed international visitors as well who care to visit the site. The bill consolidates the terms of the trust’s structure and it modernises the governance arrangements. Both the consolidation and the modernisation are required for the trust to adapt to its changed circumstances which are largely as a result of the Canterbury earthquakes.Modern governance best practice calls for the establishment of skills-based boards. This piece of legislation seeks to put in place a board that will be able to draw from the broader wider community skills that will assist with the restoration project as it continues over the next 7 years or so and that will indeed set the governance trust up for the future. It will mean that there is a strong set of skills on the board during the major phase of the restoration that is currently under way. A truly skills-based board will create an enduring governance structure for the future and it is the future that I think is most important even though this is a very significant heritage project. The current deed that the trust is operating under does not actually provide sufficient certainty or robustness to protect the site as most of us would want it to be protected. If the trust was ever to be wound up the current trust deed does not provide sufficient robustness to ensure that safe hands would be able to manage and secure the future of this nationally important heritage site. This bill actually fixes that process.I want to spend just a minute talking as others have done about the history of the site. It is true to say it is not just one building; it is an amalgam of a number of buildings built over a number of years some dating back more than 100 years of which there are 24 buildings in total. All but one—23 of the 24 buildings—were damaged in the Canterbury earthquakes. It was very fortunate that the trust had the good sense and wisdom to be well insured. This has meant the $290 million restoration project can be funded adequately and appropriately. I think that is going to be enormously important for the future of the site. The site was of course originally occupied by the University of Canterbury plus it was the site of two of Christchurch’s original secondary schools. It is an absolute cultural icon for Canterbury and its people housing these days—or in fact before the earthquakes—a variety of arts-focused facilities not the least of which was the regular market. The current Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board was established way back in 1978—over 40 years ago. It is fair to say a lot has changed in the 40 years subsequent not only on the site but also in terms of what is now considered to be best governance practice for trusts of this sort.The earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 resulted in very significant damage to the site. We were able to see that firsthand during our visit. We were also able to see that bizarrely as a result of the earthquakes some quite unique original work has been rediscovered because some of the fascia work done in the period between the original construction of the stone buildings through to modern times had actually covered up some of the really intricate and lovely beautiful fretwork and other stonework over the years.Tim Macindoe: Is it now on display?SCOTT SIMPSON: It is now on display Mr Whip and it is good to see it. I commend to people who want to visit Christchurch that it would be a good thing to do.Paul Foster-Bell: “Professor Whip”.SCOTT SIMPSON: He is “Professor Whip” to most of us. “Sir Whip” sometimes—“Mr Whippy”. He is a very fine and highly regarded member of this team.It is $290 million that is being spent on this site and it is a 7-year project. I am delighted to hear from Nicky Wagner that there is a likelihood that the project will be concluded earlier than the 7 years and that it will likely come in under budget as well. A revitalised Christchurch Arts Centre is actually symbolic and goes to the heart of the whole Christchurch rebuild. For many Cantabrians it is a visible tangible sign and manifestation of what the future holds for a new rebuilt Christchurch while at the same time protecting the heritage and the history of a site that is so important to so many people. This legislation provides an opportunity for much greater certainty around the intentions of the trust and for the preservation of the architecture and heritage values of the site. The rebuilt centre will in my view be an outstanding icon of Canterbury and indeed of national significance.One of the things the bill does is codify the charitable objects of the trust into statute. What that means is that a couple of things have been achieved. One of them is that the objects of the trust have been separated from the powers of the trust. That separation—dealing with the trust’s powers—means that if there is ever to be any future change it will require a further passing of legislation in this Parliament. I think that kind of protection is very useful and very powerful. The new governance structure follows a comprehensive review that was initiated by the trust itself. That review included the commissioning of an independent report by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. It also involved as part of that process a very extensive consultation with key stakeholders. So this has been a very good process all round.In my concluding comments I want to again just thank the leadership team—the chair and the chief executive—for their guidance and steady hand through this process. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the result of this legislation will provide an enduring governance structure for the trust and for the people of Canterbury and indeed of New Zealand. I have great pleasure in commending it to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I begin my contribution in support of this bill by acknowledging the member who has just resumed his seat Scott Simpson and thank him for the manner in which he chaired the select committee that considered this bill the Local Government and Environment Committee and particularly for taking the trouble—and it is quite a lot of trouble—to pack everything up and come to Christchurch. It is a local bill but it means a lot to us Mr Simpson that you took that effort and that leadership so I acknowledge that. I want to also acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner member of Parliament for Christchurch Central for her role in shepherding this bill through to this stage. I guess for the National Government that this is a bit of a bright light in a sea of disasters post-Budget so it is nice to be part of the good feeling around what I think is going to be unanimous support of this legislation. That is a pretty unusual thing for this Parliament so we should celebrate that.As Scott Simpson noted in his speech it is not just Cantabrians who are proud of this beautiful collection of buildings but also people who have been part of the life of the Arts Centre in one way or another over its long life so having the opportunity which this legislation accords to ensure that the passion we all have for the Arts Centre is translated into a very robust governance structure that will ensure the continuance and protection of this building is a very good thing for us all. It is a sharp juxtaposition when we look at the loss of so many beautiful heritage and historic buildings in Canterbury over the last 4½ years many of which could have been restored could have been repaired and could have remained part of our landscape if it was the desire of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery to offer some leadership in that area or indeed if the property owners themselves had had full insurance. Some buildings were demolished despite their having very good insurance because the owners decided it just was not worth the bother and that they would rather put their money somewhere else. I think that is a tragic lack of support for the beauty and the part in our culture and our understanding of ourselves that heritage and historic buildings play.Other buildings of course have been demolished by what I strongly consider is inappropriate use of the extraordinary powers of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Minister. A beautiful theatre was demolished because Manchester Street was not wide enough to meet the Minister’s desire for a new part of the city and a different landscape there and that was a big loss. But in this bill we are celebrating not a loss but a restoration and a preservation and our Parliament’s desire to make sure that the governance structure is robust and supports that.A lot has been said through the various stages of this legislation and I do not think there is much more to add. There were some parts of the bill originally that were not clear enough. I think the select committee has done an excellent job in ensuring that we are clear about the mandate of the legislation and what it covers so that the concerns of people who were registered right in the very early stages have been put to rest and I certainly hope that is the case. I think it has been a jolly good job done by the select committee and it is great to see the bill progressing in its final stage through the House.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I rise to spend just a few minutes here in the third reading debate obviously speaking very much in favour of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. It is has been quite a journey actually to follow this bill through as a new backbencher. It has been of course great to be on the Local Government and Environment Committee with our chairperson and our colleagues from across the House.This is one of the first bills that were essentially put in front of us as a new committee to progress. Can I add my voice to those who have spoken already and acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner and the leadership she has brought to this issue. I acknowledge also our chairperson Scott Simpson. I think it is worth taking a moment to reflect—during what at times have been a pretty rancorous last few weeks particularly on one side of the House—on hearing the collegial comments mostly from the other side of the House on the approach we took as we walked our way through this bill and provided opportunities for people who are interested in this to make their submissions felt and heard. As noted—and I will talk about this shortly—we had the opportunity to visit the site.As we know this bill is all about establishing in perpetuity the purpose of the trust and giving the appropriate governance arrangements for the Christchurch community and for this world-class precinct. As we have heard the 23 buildings are made of stone—various durations as we have heard going back to 1878—and all but one building was impacted on severely by the earthquake of February 2011.One of the highlights for me as we have gone through this bill has been the opportunity to go and visit the site and see firsthand what we are trying to put in stone in a legislative context down in Christchurch. To be able to see the wide array of stonemasons working on their craft and to see the pallets of stone ready to be put into the new buildings I found quite an enjoyable experience. As Mr Simpson mentioned in his comments it was quite extraordinary seeing parts of the buildings that have had their old fascia removed and they have suddenly revealed something of even more moment standing behind. We were able to see that and know that through this tragedy there will be something that is more enduring and more powerful for the community of Christchurch and indeed the country.We saw the rooms where Lord Rutherford was a young student. An area that was an old swimming pool is now being turned into an outside promenade and even though it was a very cold summer’s day we could picture what it will look like when the community of Christchurch fully engages with the site in the next few years once the building project has been completed.What a building project this is—7 years and $300 million—and it is absolutely worth adding my voice to acknowledge those who are very close to this: Jen Crawford the chair and André Lovatt the chief executive officer. I think it is a very well-made point that not only have they had a business-as-usual requirement in their jobs but they have been able to oversee what has been declared to be the largest heritage rebuild going on in the world at the moment. That I think is a testament to them and the skills they bring to the table and the team they have around them. So they should be acknowledged for that.One of the key deliveries of this bill discussed here already is setting out the charitable objects of the trust and enshrining them in law so there is absolute clarity for the community around the purpose of the trust and what it is there for. I think the moves and the changes in respect of the governance structure are very well-thought-through and the community of Christchurch and the stakeholders of Christchurch should be acknowledged and recognised. The University of Canterbury the Christchurch City Council Heritage New Zealand the Christchurch Civic Trust and Papatipu Rūnanga are the key stakeholders that historically have had a very direct linkage into the governance of this organisation and it was a representative governance model which so often is the case in organisations like this.But it takes some courage to be able to look at the scale of the rebuild that is occurring in Christchurch in this precinct and realise that if you genuinely wish to be world class in terms of protecting and enhancing a series of buildings that are in place in that precinct then it is appropriate to have world-class best-practice governance arrangements as well. It is not easy to move from a representative model to a skills-based model particularly in a tight community such as Christchurch which has always had such direct representative governance around the Arts Centre. So they should be acknowledged. I think that is a very strong step forward and obviously a key component of this bill.I do hold the view though that once we have had the third reading and the bill becomes law there is an opportunity for those who are going to participate in this new governance structure to ensure that they take off their parochial lenses. It is very easy for communities to think that they are the sole harbinger of what is good and best practice when it comes to precincts like this. But as we have heard earlier from Megan Woods when she reflected on the comments of former Prime Minister Norman Kirk around the importance of bringing a wide strand of perspective and engagement around this precinct so too does it fit in my view that a wide strand in diverse governance skills should be brought around this board.So now there is an opportunity for those stakeholders to be able to put forward people. I would ask them to consider not necessarily putting forward people just from their own organisations or from whence they have come; they should look externally not only externally to Christchurch but externally potentially to New Zealand to ensure that the mix of skills that sits around that board are genuinely world class.Ultimately for this legislation to endure in time these phenomenal stone buildings need to engage with people and with communities and as we have noted through this process the community of Christchurch is very different from the one that built these buildings all those years ago. The community of Christchurch in the next 10 15 20 or 30 years and beyond will equally change and become more diverse.Buildings are ultimately just stone buildings however beautiful they may be if they do not have people connected with them and inside them. If they are not evocative to people then they are simply that—just stone buildings. This precinct is far more than that. It has got an incredibly evocative power for the people of Christchurch and for that to be maintained enhanced and to grow they must ensure that that precinct continues to engage in a way that is quite profound and that moves with the evolving nature of the community.The other key change that we reflected on—and that I think is a good one from a good-practice perspective–is the removal of the requirement for the Minister to be informed of vacancies. I think that was a minor change but one that I thinkwas an appropriate amendment if you are looking at it through a belt-and-braces lens which we did.Also we had quite a lot of debate about the requirement to have the conservation plan available at the annual meeting. Again I think it is a very sensible amendment to this bill and one that by the sound of it we will have cross-party support for. It ensures that those who have a strong connection with this Arts Centre precinct can have visibility at a time every year as to the vision around conservation that the board has and it will give them comfort that the institution is heading in the right direction.Can I conclude by adding finally my congratulations to the Hon Nicky Wagner. This is something that she has championed well as a local MP. She is a great MP for the people of Christchurch. That is why they have voted her back with the strength that she has and I can see why because she is a great advocate for Christchurch. She knows what is important for Christchurch and she has through her leadership facilitated a bill that is going to benefit the community of Christchurch for many decades to come. Thank you very much.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a call on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill and to help it on its way to becoming law. I like other speakers congratulate the Hon Nicky Wagner on her work on the bill and also Scott Simpson on running a very collegial process around the Local Government and Environment Committee’s consideration of the bill. Certainly this bill is an example of how parties can cooperate. It is really disappointing that there has not been a similar cross-party agreement on one of the most important issues of our time—our climate. It is really disappointing that the Prime Minister has dismissed the Green Party’s invitation to build a broad cross-party consensus around the emissions reduction target that we take to Paris and the changes that our country needs to make to its economy to ensure just as Scott Simpson talked about present and future generations enjoying the heritage of the Arts Centre. We need to have that cross-party agreement around reducing our emissions so that we get a stable climate for future generations.The Arts Centre as others have noted is one of Christchurch’s major heritage assets. MPs at the select committee talked with submitters and each other on this bill in a very constructive way to make some changes in response to some of the issues that submitters raised. All of the parties have been able to agree on how the objects of the Arts Centretrust should be translated into the legislation and how the trust should be governed in future to ensure that it guides the management of this wonderful heritage precinct at the heart of the central city.We should also be able to do that on our climate because the issues—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! This is not about climate change; this is about Christchurch—EUGENIE SAGE: Well the issues in terms of—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No this is a narrow debate specifically as mentioned by previous speakers and I will ask the member to come back.EUGENIE SAGE: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Well in terms of the bill and the heritage restoration project $290 million is being spent on that. When MPs visited the Arts Centre on our field trip a lot of us were excited about what we saw in terms of the traditional craftsmanship that was evident there with the stonemasonry work that was being undertaken the huge scale of the challenge of repairing the buildings after the earthquakes the dedication and commitment of all of the contractors staff and consultants engaged in that very ambitious project and the leadership and vision of the trust board chaired by Jen Crawford and the chief executive officer André Lovatt in ensuring that the work was happening across the complex. It is quite a complex project and I think everybody was very proud of the work that was being done there.I would also like to acknowledge the foresight of the former trust board and the former chief executive officers in ensuring that the Arts Centre was very well insured. This meant that post-earthquakes it was able to get a good settlement and had the financial wherewithal to begin the restoration work. So it has been that combination of a lot of dedication competence craftsmanship and expertise that I think is contributing to the rapid progress that the Hon Nicky Wagner alluded to in getting the project potentially completed ahead of target. We still need that same commitment on the climate but I will finish talking about the climate there.Everybody agrees that the Arts Centreis worth saving and restoring—Ron Mark: The climate of the House.EUGENIE SAGE: And so is the climate—thank you Mr Mark. In fact it is worth saving even more. The purpose of this bill in terms of setting out the objects and powers of the Arts Centre trust in legislation is updating revising and consolidating the trust’s governance arrangements and revising its winding up arrangements. Of course we hope that those provisions will never be called upon.Others have certainly canvassed the scope of the bill and I would just like to talk a wee bit about the changes to the appointment process. The original Arts Centre trust deed provided for a mix of trustees appointed by both the board and by nominating bodies. As Historic Places Canterbury noted in its submission over the years this split model had become quite a source of contention because successive boards altered the bodies that could appoint members and those changes tended to reduce the community appointees. That led to a perception that the board had become quite unresponsive to the beneficiaries of the trust—the public—and also that it did not result in the most appropriately skilled trustees being appointed. So this bill actually changes that to provide for the appointment of a skills-based trust board of no more than nine members and the board invites nominees for consideration.It was reassuring that organisations such as Historic Places Canterbury said that the appointment processstrikes a good balance between the desires of interested groups to put forward potential trustees and the need of the board to obtain trustees with a range of skills. The fact that the bill also provides for trustees to serve a term of no more than 6 years instead of the previous 9 years means that the board will be regularly refreshed. One of the other changes that the select committee made was to ensure that the conservation plan was presented at the annual meetings of the trust in the same way that the strategic plan is also required to be presented at those meetings. That helps promote accountability and engagement with stakeholders.In this final reading I would like to repeat a call that I made earlier for the Church Property Trustees who are responsible for the Christchurch Cathedral to visit the Arts Centre to see what can be achieved in terms of restoration. The Church Property Trustees in the way that they are treating the cathedral leaving it open to the elements and to continue to decay—really refusing to engage with any of the many initiatives that the Great Christchurch Buildings Trust has put forward to restore the cathedral—are really lacking in vision. The cathedral has become a huge source of contention and opposition in Christchurch because of the Church Property Trustees’ reluctance to progress its restoration.The Arts Centre in contrast shows what can be achieved with a commitment to restoration and with dedication and energy. That is particularly important because of the huge loss of heritage in Christchurch thanks to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s overzealous approach to the demolition of heritage buildings. We have seen 235 significant listed heritage buildings be demolished. If anyone has visited shop 7 in Cathedral Junction they will have seen where those interested in heritage have got a roll of honour in terms of the 235 buildings that have gone showing us what we have lost. That is why the Arts Centre is so important because of what it represents in terms of Christchurch’s Mountfort buildings and the heritage of his architectural legacy and Hurst-Seager’s legacy—all of the basalt stone the limestone the Oamaru stone the woodwork in those buildings which represent huge craftsmanship and the ability to restore those. That could also happen at the cathedral but it is not.I commend this bill and the Green Party is very pleased to support it.RON MARK (NZ First): Good afternoon Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise on behalf of the New Zealand First to take this call on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I am very pleased to do so. It is an interesting thing when you stand up and talk to a bill that enjoys such a high degree of support across the House—well actually unanimous support across the House. When one listens to the speeches that have been made it is sometimes a bit of a challenge to find what contribution you might make that is a little different from all the other contributions that have been made.In fact looking back over the course of the progress of this bill through the House in the time that I have been back here with the 51st Parliament I think we have all pretty much recognised the same reasons as to why this legislation needs to proceed and the importance of it. We have talked somewhat affectionately particularly those who were university students who over their time spent a little time socialising and conversing in places like Dux de Lux which is one of the places within the precinct that is affected.I am going to start by doing something a little different I guess. The reason we are able to stand and support this piece of legislation is one because the Minister Nicky Wagner has quite rightly brought it before us and brought it before the Local Government and Environment Committee in good form and two because of I think the tone and flavour of the select committee. I am very aware that this piece of legislation came in in the 50th Parliament and in that time I think there were other people on the committee—and you might have to help me out over that side. I remember coming to the House as a mayor to look at and to watch proceedings around the local government amendment bill that went through at the time.I do remember the now Minister Nicky Wagner being on that committee. I do remember Maggie Barry being on that committee. I do remember Nick Smith being on that committee. I know there are others and I apologise; I cannot remember who they all were right now. But this committee is a very good committee. It might seem a little unusual for an Opposition MP to stand up and to compliment Government MPs but this is a very good committee. It is very well chaired by Scott Simpson—and I see in the future a very strong Cabinet Minister—along with Todd Muller as the deputy chair.I think it is the way in which people manage committees—the collegiality that you enjoy—that actually helps people break through some things that might actually appear as political barriers for the sake of politics or barriers where people do not want to move across because they do not see value they do not share the view and they do not share the philosophy. So I do want to pay my respects to Scott Simpson and Matt Doocey—a good Rangiora man. He is looking after my previous home town very well and my family who live down there—Matt good on you.There is Paul Foster-Bell who enjoys something in common with me in that he has been to Oman and I am enjoying having that time with him on the committee. Julie Anne Genter is on the committee and Joanne Hayes. Joanne is a Wairarapa girl so of course we would hear a lot of common sense and good contributions out of Joanne would we not. Tu Korako—well he is whanaunga down there so likewise I always expected good sound logic good reasoning and collegiality and good performance from Tu as we have seen. There are Eugenie Sage and Su’a William Sio—people who are very experienced in local government and that is what makes bills like local government bills easy to move through at times.We are blessed in this committee with having a good number of people on the committee who have strong local government experience and can see straight to the core of legislation such as this beyond what appears on the paper. They are able to understand the background and the depth and the effect it has on the communities because they have served those communities in a local government capacity. Of course there is Dr Megan Woods who continues to impress me each time I go into that committee.So having shared some compliments across there I think we also need to recognise the former board who like Eugenie Sage from the Green Party has said did a sterling job—unlike some other people we could probably talk about in Christchurch who maybe did not insure their facilities in the same way that this trust did. It is from that platform that the board is now with the new trust able to proceed forward and do the work that has to be completed. I want to congratulate this board particularly Jen Crawford on the way in which she chairs it.I also want to reiterate the importance of the clause that deals with trust vacancies and how people are appointed. I think it has been a very good decision to change the way those appointments are made so it can focus on skill sets. I do think that the amendment adding new clause 5A which deals with conflicts of interest is absolutely essential. So often when you change the way in which a board is selected and you bring on board the governance skills and the executive skills that you need to run what is going to be a $300 million project affecting 23 category 1 heritage buildings and people like that are appointed they are appointed for a range of skill sets. Very often they have a strong business background and very often you unfortunately have to deal with the issues of perceptions where those business people are seen to have vested interests in some way or another because of their business background. They might be property developers in their private life or they might be real estate agents—I do not know—but having strong clauses around dealing with conflicts of interest is very important and I think this bill has done that.As a former mayor I want to also talk about why this bill is important and about the deeper meaning. This bill is important to New Zealand First for a number of reasons. One is through having lived in Canterbury myself for 30-odd years on and off and having family who still reside there. I went down in 1974 and one of the first things that struck me about Christchurch was that it was different to the Wairarapa—really different. It was almost English. The culture the architecture the way in which people socialised and even the way in which they spoke in some parts of Christchurch in 1974 was very English. In fact the first question I got asked when I went down there was not where I was from but what school I went to. I found that quite unique because when I said it was Tararua College people did not have a donkey’s idea as to where the hell Tararua College was. And I think that situation still exists today.But it is a very English city built on the back of those pioneers and those settlers who came in the first four ships and the idea and the notion that every cultural and every heritage building—particularly in a precinct where you have 23 category 1 buildings—would not be rebuilt and would not be restored would be devastating to the community and the people of Christchurch. It is bad enough that the cathedral is in the state that it is in and is most likely not going to be rebuilt. The other buildings that you can see—churches throughout Christchurch—that will not be rebuilt and that are going to be replaced have all taken with them something of the character of Christchurch. So it is that important. It is so good to hear that legislation like this is going through and that we will see these buildings fully restored.There is also the wider issue of community and the great thing about the Arts Centre is the way in which it provides for the culture the community of the people of Christchurch and the people who wish to visit and enjoy its precincts. That ability to socialise to display art to display culture to display those things that are so Christchurch is something that would be difficult to replicate in a modern building built to modern designs and modern specifications. Being a mayor I understand and in fact it is probably one of the reasons why I railed against the National Government’s changes to the Local Government Act 2002 when it removed the four well-beings. Having been a mayor I understand completely the importance of community and the importance of having a centre like this for a town and its people. It is a place where they can go where they can communicate and where they can display and show their arts and show everything that is positive about them and different about them.That is probably the one area where we will have conversations and discussions going forward. They will be the debates around why it is so important that the Local Government Act has to have the four well-beings reinstated in it. I actually think that this piece of legislation is in a quiet sort of way a message and an affirmation from Parliament that culture the council’s involvement and the Government’s involvement in providing cultural and social facilities and amenities is important should be supported and should be maintained. I just think maybe we should reflect on that as we get into a debate where we will take different sides in this House going forward from here. Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Before I begin my contribution on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill in this third reading debate I would like to make a couple of acknowledgments that I think do bear some pertinence to the matter at hand. Firstly this is the first opportunity I have had when speaking in this House to acknowledge the passing of respected New Zealander Ērima Hēnare. I was fortunate enough to have had Ērima as my third form social studies teacher at Whangarei Boys High School in 1990. He was someone who in his lessons and in the way he conducted himself in the classroom encouraged a love of arts history and culture through his social studies lessons which carried me forward and encouraged me to take on courses in history classics archaeology and art history whilst at university. So I would like to acknowledge the passing of Ērima. It is a great loss not only to his whānau but to us as a country.Secondly as chair of the New Zealand - Scotland Parliamentary Friendship Group I would like to acknowledge the unexpected and shocking death of Charles Kennedy former leader of the Liberal Democrats at the young age of 55. He was the youngest MP when admitted to the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. I think this news comes as a shock to all of us who follow British politics.But getting on to the bill I do want to acknowledge the Minister and member for Christchurch Central the Hon Nicky Wagner who has sponsored this bill. Nicky Wagner is a very impressive member of this House. This is the first of two bills that she brings before us today to advance issues in her local area. She is a very assiduous and hard-working member and there are many of us who follow what she does with great interest because we think there is much we can learn from such a successful and hard-working member. It is a pleasure to speak on such a bill that enjoys cross-party support—in fact unanimous support on all sides of the House. I do want to thank the speaker who just resumed his seat Major Ron Mark for his comments acknowledging the excellent chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee Scott Simpson who does work very hard to conduct the committee in a very non-partisan cross-party and I think cooperative way to make sure that we deliberate carefully on all such issues that we address.In the particular case of this bill I did enjoy the opportunity to go down to Christchurch where we heard about another matter which we will come to later in the day but also we did have the opportunity to tour the Arts Centre guided by the staff. I particularly want to single out the chair of the board Jen Crawford and the chief executive officer André Lovatt who have made an enormous contribution to ensuring that this precious asset this cultural asset—which not only is important to Christchurch but is actually significant to all New Zealanders and is world heritage—has the opportunity to be restored and to be saved from the almost certain destruction that the earthquakes threatened upon it.As a student of history I would like to touch on a couple of particular parts of the story of the Arts Centre because I think they are perhaps not as well-known as they could be among New Zealanders. The first is the fact that Lord Ernest Rutherford Lord Rutherford of Nelson did his undergraduate studies at the University of Canterbury or as it was then Canterbury College of the University of New Zealand. He did groundbreaking work which he later continued when he went to McGill University in Canada. He later went to Cambridge University where he became director of the Cavendish Laboratory. Of course he is famous for having split the atom—I think that is how we might describe it in common parlance. But Lord Rutherford in his early days did groundbreaking research including on differentiating alpha and beta rays. It is the sort of science upon which much of our modern learning and knowledge in the area of physics is founded. The fact that we now have preserved the rooms in which Lord Rutherford did some of his seminal work is very important. We have to I think take heed of the fact that Lord Rutherford was not only the first New Zealander but actually the first antipodean—the first person from our part of the world more generally—to receive the Nobel Prize before he actually split the atom. So a lot of that early groundbreaking work that Lord Rutherford did was conducted in the Arts Centre and it is a wonderful thing that that laboratory is going to be preserved.Another factor that I think is very important is that the Arts Centre represents one of the very very few—it may even be unique—coherent and cohesive neo-Gothic collegial precincts that exist not only in New Zealand but in the world. We can go to the places where this sort of architecture originated and it is clear that the college buildings were designed to replicate the colleges of universities such as Cambridge University Oxford University Edinburgh University and Glasgow University in the United Kingdom. This is the sort of architecture that I was quite accustomed to at the University of Otago where you have a slightly different Scots baronial neo-Gothic architecture in the original buildings of the university. But this is a unique site because you have not only the college buildings but what is now the Canterbury Museum buildings where work is under way to make sure that they can reopen to their full potential. A lot of the galleries are already open and they are available to visit. I would encourage not only Cantabrians but visitors from overseas to make the trip down and pay a visit to the Canterbury Museum because it is well worth a look. But you have Christ’s College and sadly of course with the destruction of the cathedral one end of that streetscape precinct has unfortunately been affected. But we have had some positive news in recent days and weeks around the potential for the Catholic cathedral to be restored. There are modern means that allow even heavily damaged buildings to be economically brought back to something approaching their original status to preserve some of those heritage values and I think that is a very positive thing.This bill has been improved upon by the Local Government and Environment Committee in hearing submissions from obviously those intimately involved with the current governance and administration of the Arts Centre. We have reported back and made a few changes including some small technical details such as the removal of clause 8 which if it had been allowed in as originally proposed would have provided for the transfer of trust property back to the Crown in the event of the winding up of the trust. As laudable as that goal in itself may sound it carried the unfortunate consequence of a debt incurred by the trust also falling to the Crown. There has been some reorganisation and new clause 5(2) has been added requiring that all income benefit or advantage received by or accruing to the trust be used to advance its charitable purposes and objects. I think this sets the trust up well. It was originally founded some 40 years ago and of course after 40 years it is time for a bit of a spruce-up. But I think we are going to leave the trust in a very strong position in which it will be able to conduct its affairs including some commercial activities provided that the profits and proceeds from those activities go back to deliver on those objects of what is quite rightly a charitable and non-commercial trust. This could include for instance the leasing out of premises to act as cafes. Those of us who visited the Arts Centre pre the earthquakes will remember what vibrant cafes and restaurants it had.Those of us who visited pre the earthquakes will also remember the theatre that served up some wonderful productions. My personal favourite of course was David McPhail starring as Muldoon in the eponymously entitled play. He has moved on. I do not know whether other members have seen David McPhail’s more recent interpretations but he has moved on from the comical caricature of one of our great Prime Ministers into I think a very sensitive and highly dramatic portrayal of Muldoon the man. That was done in a theatre that has been acknowledged by people who I think are experts in the world of theatre and stagecraft. People such as Sir Ian McKellen and other great performers have singled out the Court Theatre as one of the pre-eminent venues that should be rightfully restored. It should be preserved and it should be put back into a use whereby the proceeds from ticket sales and hiring it out can actually go to further making it a sustainable project on an ongoing basis and assist with renovations.Other members have touched on the artistry and artisanship and craftsmanship that are going into the stonework. I do not think it is necessary for me to go on at great length about that other than to say that these are wonderful skills not only to have in the Arts Centre itself but to be deployed more widely throughout New Zealand and in fact even perhaps commercially exported including to such places as Mr Mark mentioned as the Sultanate of Oman where His Majesty Sultan Qaboos has an enormous aesthetic and an unlimited budget for doing such works. I would like to see that move forward in the future. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jan Logie—a 5-minute call.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on this Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill in its third reading which has unanimous support in this House including from the Green Party. I would also just like to acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner who is the National Party member for Christchurch Central for bringing this bill to the House.It is a bill that was originated by the trust board itself from a proposal that it took to the member and that was a result of a quite comprehensive review and consultation. The development and the drafting of this bill were also done in collaboration with key stakeholders Crown Law and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. So it is lovely for the House to have the opportunity to consider bills that have come from the community in concept and in design and it is wonderful to be able to offer our support for that—to have the opportunity for this House to consider and help progress the needs as identified and developed by the community itself—particularly in Christchurch at this time. It is sad that this is in such sharp contrast to some of the design plans that have been coming out of the council and through the Government and that do not meet the needs of that community.Some of the key parts of this bill and what it does is to shift the structure of the governance board from a representative structure to a skills-based structure and to limit the terms of membership on that committee from 9 years down to 6 which will help keep freshness on that committee which I guess is the hope of that. It will ensure that all the members of the committee have the skills to be able to best meet the needs of the Arts Centre—that very precious national resource that I am sure anyone who has been to Christchurch absolutely adores and appreciates and that we recognise has been part of what has defined the heart of Christchurch and has drawn so many people from all around the world to Christchurch.The Arts Centre which consists of 24 heritage buildings with the first one dating back to 1876 was built progressively over time right through to 1923. The buildings are just so distinctive and so beautiful those stone buildings that mark the heart of Christchurch. So we are very very pleased to be supporting this bill and the governance and the protection of the restoration of that. It has been noted in the House already that the restoration project is apparently the largest heritage rebuild project in the world at the moment—$290 million going into it over a 7-year period. It is due to be completed in 2019. It is right that this House provides the best possible governance structure for the oversight of that rebuild and the future of this taonga.I know it seems a little bit mean-spirited of me to bring it up but this is in contrast to the lack of protection for some of the other heritage buildings in the centre of Christchurch where we have lost 200 other significant heritage buildings alongside Cranmer Court and the Majestic Theatre and buildings that sat alongside the Arts Centre and created this soul to the centre of the city at least in the colonial centre of the city of Christchurch. So we are finally just so pleased to have the opportunity to provide protection for at least one small part of that city and for the heritage nature of the city. It is a shame we were not able to do it and provide it for the rest of the city. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Jacinda Ardern—a 5-minute call.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): There have certainly been members on the other side of the House who have not let a second go by in terms of an opportunity to speak in great length on this bill. I instead think that this bill has been pretty well canvassed in this House now and the good people working on the Arts Centre probably just want us to pass it at this point in time. So I will not talk about any great sultans; instead I will use my short address to acknowledge the commitment and the real sense of purpose that is driving the people who are working on this project and I thank them for their work. I have been lucky enough a little while ago now to take a tour of the Arts Centre. It is indeed a great treasure for the people of Canterbury but also of New Zealand. It is a huge burden of work that the people on the ground working on this centre have taken on but they have done so with such passion.Although this bill provides a legal foundation for the trust board and for the governance structure one that is more fit for purpose none of that can capture all of the additional layers of work and passion and love and commitment that go into a project like this—23 heritage category 1 buildings dating from 1876 to 1923. Of course despite the terminology in the bill we in this House have not forgotten the importance and I am sure the trust will not forget the importance as well of the student union building. I know that those who have advocated for that building will look forward to an ongoing working relationship with the trust around ensuring that that too is well looked after but this is a $290 million project and even then that figure does not capture all of the human spirit that will go on behind the scenes to ensure that this project is a success.My final word is to acknowledge that as of February 2015 there have been 1240 demolitions in Christchurch. We absolutely acknowledge—absolutely acknowledge—that for safety reasons some of those demolitions were absolutely legitimate but 20 percent of those demolitions were heritage buildings. For a long time Labour advocated that the powers that sat within section 38 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act were being used beyond their necessary term of life and that it was becoming overzealous and we should revert back to our normal decision-making process. That was the argument that Labour has made for a long period of time and that is because ultimately we do believe that heritage often captures all of the flak when it comes to safety concerns in earthquake-prone cities and we need to make sure that when balancing those safety concerns we do not lose some heritage buildings that can absolutely be saved and used safely by a city and its people. So I wanted to make those closing remarks.I endorse what Eugenie Sage said as well about ensuring that while decisions are being made around the Christchurch Cathedral we do not allow the continued rot of that building because that then makes a decision inevitable and that would be unfair to the city. With those closing remarks I wish those working on the Arts Centre well. Thank you for your work. I look forward to visiting the buildings in the future.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is an honour to rise and speak to the third reading of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I am very proud to stand and speak to this bill as a very proud born and bred Cantabrian. As Ron Mark indicated and was first asked when he was in Christchurch I have heard they ask in Christchurch: “What school did you go to?”. In Wellington they ask where you live as the first question and in Auckland it is what job do you have. So I am a proud person from Christchurch who went to a very good school St Bede’s College which until recent boundary changes was in my electorate and interestingly enough currently six MPs in the House are former students.This is a great day for New Zealand it is a great day for the South Island and it is a great day for Christchurch thanks to this legislation. In fact just before speaking I took a call from my wife who was feeding my 14-month-old daughter. Like anyone in this House we all make commitments and sacrifices for our families. For me part of this job is to ensure that New Zealand is moving forward and also the regions such as Canterbury and cities such as Christchurch. When I think of my daughter who is now 14 months old I think to myself: “What sort of country and what sort of city will she inherit in 10 12 and 15 years’ time?”. It gives me great heart that because of this legislation the Christchurch Arts Centre will be a part of Christchurch and very much a part of her growing up and a part of the memories that she will have over the next decade and further on.As a proud born and bred Cantabrian I too have great fond memories of the Arts Centre. Like most people who grew up in Christchurch we have very fond memories of a fantastic city. I go back to thinking about the early 1980s when really there was not a rugby team in New Zealand that could beat our Canterbury rugby team the undefeated Canterbury rugby team through the 1980s Ranfurly Shield era. I vividly remember sitting as a young fellow on the embankment and watching Larry the Lamb running around before the game. And who could forget Larry the Lamb? Those were the days of Andy Earl and Bruce and Robbie Deans. Before the game there was a parade. Those were the days when you could go out on to the field and everyone had their own banners which they had graffiti on. It was a time when Christchurch got together.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Come back to the bill.MATT DOOCEY: And I will just—yes Mr Deputy Speaker. So there are memories like that as well. The Arts Centre—I have great memories when growing up and probably more as a young adult of spending time in the Dux de Lux. It was not one of the stone buildings obviously that are part of the Arts Centre but a key part of it and very well frequented. Thursday nights you would go along to listen to a good Christchurch band. In the 1980s and now Christchurch had very good local music.Any good Cantabrian will remember a great New Year’s Eve spent out in the courtyard having a few local craft beers. It is very much like sitting in Cathedral Square listening to the Wizard and watching the Birdman. Who will forget Radio Ron? I saw Radio Ron the other day and interestingly enough he does not seem to have aged unlike myself. He is still going strong. So there are great memories of the Arts Centre Lancaster Park Cathedral Square going for a hot dog in the Dog House and frequenting places like Cashel Mall. But really for other people they might remember the Court Theatre in the Arts Centre. They might remember going to the markets and the art studios.It is great because Canterbury and Christchurch and the South Island are very much tourist meccas for this country. I have never met one tourist who has not said: “If I had known how beautiful the South Island was I would have stayed there longer”. That is what everyone says. They come down to Christchurch—I mean it is the gateway to the whole of the South Island—and they spend time in Christchurch. The Arts Centre is a key part of that. It is fantastic that this legislation will keep the Arts Centre at the heart of the tourism industry in Christchurch whether that be going for a ride on the tram or punting down the Avon River.I just want to take some time to acknowledge the very hard-working Minister Nicky Wagner who has brought this local bill to the House. I think as a Canterbury MP what a role model what a mentor. But we are a great team of Canterbury National MPs. And Canterbury—obviously at the last election National won the party vote in every electorate in Canterbury. I think the Hon Gerry Brownlee had a lot to do with that in respect of the earthquake recovery. Could I also acknowledge our very hard-working chairof the Local Government and Environment Committee Scott Simpson. If I could name just a couple of bills it gives you the breadth of the work of this select committee—from the earthquake-prone building legislation—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! A whakataukī in respect of a kumara and how sweet it is is coming to mind. I suggest the member stick to the bill rather than refer to any others that may be on his mind at the moment.MATT DOOCEY: Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker. So the Arts Centre is very much a beacon of the Canterbury recovery. We have very much got a mixed economy in this recovery. It is about central government and local government investment and it is about private investment. That is why it was so fantastic to hear in the Budget that the earthquake recovery will get an extra $1 billion. But it is interesting when we look at the Arts Centre restoration which at around $240 million to $290 million is currently the world’s largest restoration project. It must be acknowledged that a lot of that is to do with funding that has not come from the Government. It is people getting out there raising the funds and investing in something that is very much the fabric of Christchurch.I think too of when we went down to Christchurch as a select committee. We held the select committee meeting at The George hotel and then walked down to the Arts Centre—and thank you to chief executive officer André Lovatt and trust chair Jen Crawford for showing us around. What a fantastic story. There will be plenty of people who will have a go at the pace of the recovery and what is happening with the recovery but if you do not take stock and have a look at what is happening you will miss and forget great stories like the Arts Centre. That is why legislation like this is much needed because the Arts Centre is like I say currently the world’s largest heritage restoration project.On that tour around the Arts Centre it was fantastic to see the flags from all around the world that were in the room. They represented every different nationality of the stonemasons. Most of them had off their own bat engaged with the Arts Centre to come to New Zealand and to come down to Christchurch to be part of this amazing story. It was quite pertinent that one of the noticeboards still had posters from 2010 and 2011 of events at the Arts Centre before the earthquakes struck.The Arts Centre very much has a pivotal role in Christchurch. As we know we are called the most English city outside England and it is no surprise with an Arts Centre that is modelled on parts of Cambridge University. And we have our archaic one-way street system and of course the Avon River and the cathedral. So it is quite right that we have got legislation that will support the Arts Centre and very much make it continue to be at the heart of what is a fantastic city.Another key part of this legislation is the board moving from a representation model to one of a skills-based model. I would encourage all people from Christchurch—and of course Canterbury; even from out my way in the Waimakariri electorate in North Canterbury whether it be Kaiapoi or Rangiora—who think they have the skills to put their hands up because it is not always about the State. It is about big communities. What we want to do is support big communities to support things like the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It is a pleasure to rise to take a call on this bill. I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker Matt Doocey and his ramblings through Canterbury. It was a little bit like a tourist brochure for Canterbury so I am—Dr Megan Woods: He’s no Chaucer.POTO WILLIAMS: Yes. I am going to confine my comments to the bill at hand. Firstly I do want to acknowledge Minister Wagner for her stewardship of this bill through the House and the Local Government and Environment Committee for the fine work that it has done shepherding this bill through its various stages to the third reading today. I acknowledge that we have the representatives of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board herein the gallery. They have been here for every reading and through the Committee stage. I know that because as a relatively new MP this is the first bill that I have had the pleasure of speaking on at every stage through the House and the Committee and they have been here watching the debates and contributing to the development of this bill and I acknowledge and congratulate them on this great day.While we have been traversing this bill as it has gone through the House everyone has had the opportunity to reminisce about the importance of the Arts Centre its various buildings and the make-up of the Arts Centre. They have all had an opportunity to talk about how important those experiences have been to them. Everyone has had that opportunity. My colleague Dr Megan Woods talked about her days as a university student and about many of the fun activities that she encountered particularly at the Dux de Lux and other venues. Of course Eugenie Sage talked about her time actually working in the buildings and it is has become a very personal piece of work for many people in this House because of the love that they have for the Arts Centre the buildings and the complex. I even have my own reminiscences of when my daughter who is now 23 was a very young girl. We were visiting a family in Christchurch at that time and we had a beautiful afternoon there. We had some lovely food and we were able actually to watch the craftsmen at work in the Arts Centre and at the time I thought it was an extraordinary thing to be able to watch artisan craftsmen diligently completing their tasks under the gaze of tourists like me. It is no surprise that we have employed the best craftsmen to come and restore this beautiful set of buildings. It will be a real pleasure to watch them throughout its restoration.The bill itself—what does it do? Well it offers protection. It offers protection to enshrine those important objects of the trust so that they cannot be diminished tampered with or changed in any way other than by an Act of Parliament. I think that is really important because it speaks to how important heritage is in this particular set of buildings—because heritage is important. Many of my colleagues have talked about how saddened they have been by the loss of heritage in our city. I know that this bill actually goes towards restoring some of our faith that a beautiful set of buildings can be restored. It is going to cost an awful lot of money to do so and it is going to take the top craftsmen from around the world to do so but the trust board got it right in terms of ensuring that they have the insurance cover right and ensuring that they have the vision right. I for one am very supportive of this piece of legislation to ensure that we give the trust board the support that it needs to be able to find those people and that skill set so that it can continue to do fine work into the future.I do not really want to stand between my speech and the final passing of this bill other than to say that there have been a couple of examples in recent times where we know that heritage buildings will be saved and there is one final call to go out for one of the most significant buildings in our city. It is not too late to do what the fine people from the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board have done to ensure that they retain and restore those fabulous buildings. It is not too late to make a call for our cathedral. We know that the Catholic cathedral is going to be restored and I for one am really supportive of doing everything we can to ensure that we retain as many of those beautiful old buildings that speak to our history as well as hold the thread into the future. So on that note I commend this bill to the House. Thank you very much.NUK KORAKO (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā ā huri noa i te Whare e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa; ki a kōrua e ngā manuhiri tūāraki e André me Jen nō reira piki mai kake mai hōmai te wairua.[Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker and greetings to you all throughout the House; and to you visitors from afar André and Jen therefore climb and clamber aboard give us the spirit.]It is indeed my pleasure to take this final call and to talk about the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I stand here as a proud Cantabrian as a proud member of Ngāi Tahu Whānui and then also as a son of mana whenua Tūahuriri as well.Indeed we have heard about throughout all of the process of this bill the journey that reflects the fact that in Christchurch—Ōtautahi our city—there was the 2010 earthquake the first one and then of course the February 2011 one. What that did was start some incredible journeys. This one here is to me one of the most amazing journeys since the emergency the recovery and it is now a reflection very much of the rebuild.As I said in a previous speech concerning this bill to Ngāi Tahu Māori the Christchurch Arts Centre was more of an edifice to colonialism. When we were young kids and we used to come to Christchurch we actually went to the museum to see all of our own taonga as opposed to visiting the Arts Centre—I see and acknowledge on the other side of the House when we talk about Ngāi Tahu Whānui Mr Rino Tirikatene—and our tāua and pōua used to come in their finery to Christchurch to visit the museum. They used to love walking past this beautiful building because looking at Ngāi Tahu Whānui they were also very very well acquainted with Queen Victoria because if we look at Te Tiriti o Waitangi that was really the first beginnings of that under her. So to us that building of the Arts Centre and its beautiful architecture was very much an acknowledgment of the royal family of Windsor and the English colonialism for which Christchurch is so well-known. This building though is to me not only an edifice of colonialism but also once it is finished—and this has even started now—a beacon for hope. It is a beacon for the retention of what little heritage of colonial times that we have left in Christchurch.There have been some wonderful and very appropriate acknowledgments and like everyone else I too want to acknowledge our local MP who sponsored and championed this bill the Hon Nicky Wagner and the Hon Gerry Brownlee as the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. Also I mihi to the two stalwarts really who worked behind the scenes but who have come here for every reading to support this bill. To Jen Crawford and André Lovatt the time will shortly come when the aspirations that we all have will actually be put into effect hopefully with the final reading of this bill and its final journey to legislation.The interesting thing about taking a walk down memory lane—my esteemed colleague the member for Waimakariri Matt Doocey did an interesting tour there. But coming back to the bill if we are talking about cultural heritage there is one part of this bill that I believe really reflects not only colonial culture but also Ngāi Tahu Māori culture. I want to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee under our chair Scott Simpson and also again the work of André Lovattand the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust. What they have actually exercised here in part of this legislation is something that we call kotahitaka and that is true partnership.This is because when we look at the make-up of the trust itself it does represent all of the major stakeholders that will be responsible for the processes that this trust will run under the legislation: the University of Canterbury the Christchurch City Council Heritage New Zealand the Christchurch Civic Trust and the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. The great thing there about the second to last one is that it has also included other local businesses and community organisations with interests in the Arts Centre. So what that does is it encompasses a collective of stakeholders that we probably do not think about often but at least it is about kotahitaka or inclusiveness.The last part that I want to come to is the fact that Papatipu Rūnanga of Canterbury are also involved and are part of this trust. This is something that I think reflects the way forward and the way that we work in true partnership as the iwi working with all of these stakeholders particularly with the Crown and with the Christchurch City Council. There was a question because in the original bill it was actually about the tangata whenua of Canterbury. But from the work that was done the questions that were asked and then the trust and also the various officials came back what it came back to was the fact that it was not about tangata whenua specifically; it was actually about Papatipu Rūnanga—those who had mana whenua and manawa-whenua. They had their heart in the land there so they were closer than just tangata whenua.Just to acknowledge this when we look at that it is also an understanding that Ngāi Tahu does not have just one face in Te Rūnunga o Ngāi Tahu; it has many faces. The fact is that there are mana whenua there are Papatipu Rūnanga there are whānau there are hapū. This to me has been an inclusive part of this bill and I want to acknowledge the work that André and Jen have done on our behalf—kia ora to you.In conclusion the Arts Centre is a very important part of Christchurch’s heritage. It is special to the people of Christchurch together and collectively. This legislation provides an opportunity for greater certainty around the original intentions of the trust deed and provides for the modernisation of the trust board’s governance structure. I think that is really important because it moves it forward into the 21st century and beyond. I want to commend again all of those people and to reiterate that for those who have actually been responsible for furthering this bill through the House. I look forward to seeing the Arts Centre of Christchurch restored to its place as a cultural centre for Christchurch and this bill will help the trust as it goes through that process. Kikoraki te tai kahuraki te taoka.[Blue as the sea is the prized possession.]I would like to commend this bill to the House. Kia ora.Bill read a third time.Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) BillThird ReadingHon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I move That the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill be now read a third time. I am delighted to be here today to present this Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill at its third reading. There has been quite a lot of controversy around this bill but basically it is very simple it is very straightforward it is very short and it is very focused. What this bill does is set out to validate rates irregularities that came to light to the Christchurch City Council just last year.Let us give you a little bit of context. Each June the Christchurch City Council—and in actual fact councils across the country—resolve to set their rates for the next financial year and since 2004 the wording for that rates resolution has been the same or similar. But in 2013 the Department of Internal Affairs informed the Christchurch City Council that the resolution did not meet the requirements of the Local Government (Rating Act) of 2002. So let me get that straight—for 9 years it had been using the same resolution and for 9 years unbeknown to everybody that rates resolution had been faulty.The problem all began back in 2004 when the council deliberately set out to simplify and to use everyday language in setting its rates resolution. But inadvertently it left out important bits of information—important requirements—which meant that that resolution was invalid. Under section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act it requires that a rating resolution must include the date on which the rate must be paid and if that rate is to be paid in instalments it must include the amount and the date of each instalment. Section 57 which authorises additional penalties requires that the resolution also states when the rates must be paid and the due date and the resolution must also state how the penalties are calculated and the date on which those penalties must be paid. In this case the Christchurch City Council’s resolution did none of that but let me make it clear: all the required information was available. It was all available in the council’s rating policy and in the funding impact statement. It was discussed at the council table. It was aired in the local newspaper. It just was not in the resolution. So the attempt to simplify had basically backfired and although nobody had noticed and it had gone on for 9 years finally in 2013 it had to be repaired.I must give credit to the temporary chief executive officer of the Christchurch City Councilat that time Jane Parfitt because immediately the council was able to correct the 2013-14 rates resolution and then it went back to review all its other past resolutions. They managed to identify a number of other technical irregularities. They found errors in the setting of seven targeted rates and also in the setting of the uniform annual general charge. It was the same problem. Although the background information was readily available it was not in that resolution so all those resolutions were irregular. As I have said they were able to fix those resolutions going forward but there was no ability for them to fix the resolutions going back hence this bill.I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee members again who thoroughly canvassed the background to this bill and worked their way through their process. I would particularly like to thank the leadership of Scott Simpson as the chair. The debate has gone on because nobody in Parliament ever likes to pass retrospective legislation. We have done it several times in the last few years and it is unfortunate that this bill has had to come to the House. Fortunately this bill is very much about technical errors. Nobody has lost anything. There has been no fraud and no suspicious behaviour—just the problem with the simplification of the language where the council thought it was doing a good thing which has backfired. I commend this bill to the House.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I am pleased to take a short call on the final reading of this local bill. I would like to acknowledge the work of the member who has just taken her seat the Hon Nicky Wagner in bringing this local bill to the House. As she said in the remarks that she made on this bill this is retrospective legislation—a way for us to fix a problem with the way rates have been struck over a period of time in Christchurch City. I share the sentiment that no one likes doing this that this really is not what Parliament envisions for itself in terms of what it wants to have as its function in our great democracy—fix up what has been an error in the way that rates were struck—but it is something that needs to be done and I would like to acknowledge that.We have had at previous readings of this bill a fair amount of criticism that has come on the councillors and on the council in terms of making this error. In fact we have had Government members being incredibly critical of the institution throughout the readings of this bill. I would just like to make the point that several times we in the Opposition have felt a certain amount of frustration about coming back into this House to play patch-up on legislation where we have pointed out those very errors at the select committee or indeed in this debating chamber. So I think that we can see that errors referred to across the House occur in this place too.What is fundamentally important about this piece of legislation what is important for us on this side of the House as Labour is valuing that relationship between central and local government. It is critical that we have strong and productive relationships between Parliament our territorial local authorities and our district councils—that local government is just that. It is where we reach our communities and where a lot of very good work is done. So I would not like to see any comments made in this House that denigrate that relationship. Labour will be supporting this bill and I am happy to commend it to the House.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee I am going to support the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I do so reluctantly. The previous speaker Dr Megan Woods made mention of the criticism that had been levelled at Christchurch City Council in previous debates as this bill has progressed through this House. I want to just acknowledge that the criticism that was levelled at council members was in terms of their lack of ability as highly paid professionals to get it right. The road to hell is paved with good intentions and on this occasion the intention was actually to make the passing of rates motions by the council easy more simple and to use so-called simple English. The net result of the change however was that the motions that were passed for 9 consecutive years at the council were in fact invalid not correct and wrong. The problem with that the net impact is that although in this particular instance no malfeasance no fraud no wrongdoing no maliciousness and no actual—more by good luck than good management—financial liability to council or ratepayers occurred had a ratepayer decided to challenge the validity of the rates for any one of those 9 years then the council would have had not a single leg to stand on in terms of enforcing those rates payments.That is not a situation that is professionally acceptable in one of the nation’s largest councils so I do not resile at all from my criticism particularly in my second reading speech on this bill of the lack of professionalism by the council. When we visited Christchurch as a select committee we were stuck by the manner and tone of the single submission that we received on this bill from the Christchurch City Council itself. I guess that some members of the committee found that it was the tone and the manner of the submission that was of most concern. It was not the error in itself but it was that there seemed to be no sense of proportion no sense of contrition no sense of culpability and no sense of understanding that in fact what had occurred was something that should not have occurred—simply that Parliament would put it right by merely passing a piece of validating legislation. As the previous speaker indicated this Parliament does not like passing retrospective validating legislation. When it does have to from time to time usually it is introduced by some local member—and in this case it was my colleague the member for Christchurch Central the very good and hard-working Nicky Wagner who has had to bring this bill to the House as sponsor a bill promoted by the council. She has had to convince her colleagues in caucus and then manage and steer it through the House in a way that I do not think a local member would ever really want to do.So what of this bill itself? Well this bill seeks to validate specified rates between the financial years 2004-05 through to 2012-13. The legislation itself has no impact at all on ratepayers. There is no change to the amount of rates or penalties due from any ratepayer as a result of the wrong and error-filled wording of the council-passed motions in each of those 9 years. The errors were entirely restricted to the Christchurch City Council’s rates resolutions on each one of those years and the rates assessment notices and invoices contained the right information. This is the sort of slightly odd thing about this. The information that went to ratepayers and the actual amounts of rates that were levied were correct but it was just the legal niceties—it was the fine print the dotting of the i’s and the crossing of the t’s that did not occur. The errors were spotted by the audit process and then giving full credit to the council it did seek to remedy the situation as promptly and as quickly as it could. However it did not change the fact that retrospective legislation was still required to validate and legalise the motions that had been passed for each of those 9 years. So what Christchurch City Council did was it corrected the situation by issuing a revised resolution and resetting its rates as soon as it was aware of it but the historic errors for earlier years from 2003-04 to 2012-13 could be corrected only via a validating piece of legislation and that is this bill.What this bill does is it validates those payments for historic rates back over those 9 years. It validates the penalties that were added to unpaid rates for those years which of themselves were not legal in terms of the motions that were passed by the council. What it also does is it validates the basis for certain targeted rates during those various years and the penalties that were subsequently added to those rates as a result of non or slow payment. What this bill also does is it confirms that all rates money collected by Christchurch City Council during those 9 years is in fact lawful. What I guess we need to consider as a Parliament is what lessons have been learnt through this process and not only how we might ensure that a situation like this at Christchurch City Council never arises again at any time in the future but how other councils district councils regional councils and other territorial authorities might be protected from a situation of this sort occurring in the future. The good news is that lessons have been learnt.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Tēnā koe e te Whare. Kia ora mai tātou tēnā tātou katoa. The House has resumed. When we reached the dinner break we were discussing the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill and Scott Simpson has 4 minutes 20 seconds remaining to speak should he wish to avail himself of that privilege.SCOTT SIMPSON: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I do wish to avail myself of that opportunity to spend a further 4½ minutes speaking to the very good bill that has been presented and sponsored by my colleague and very hard-working MP for Christchurch Central the Hon Nicky Wagner. In saying that I support the bill I do so rather grumpily and that is because prior to the dinner break I was speaking about how this House resists and does not really like having the need to bring retrospective validation legislation before the Parliament. This was a matter that related to incorrect rates motions being passed by the Christchurch City Council during the years 2004-05 through to 2012-13. For those 9 consecutive years although no ratepayers were financially impacted in any negative way nor indeed was the council impacted in any negative financial way more by good luck than good management none the less had a ratepayer chosen to challenge the validity of the rates for any one of those 9 years then the council would have been found legally liable and negligent.One of the problems with retrospective legislation is that it is something that validates something that would otherwise not have been legal. That is exactly the case here. In August 2013 the Department of Internal Affairs alerted the Christchurch City Council. This is not some small territorial authority in a remote part of the country; this is one of our largest municipalities and the internal affairs audit team alerted the council to the fact that there was a problem. To the council’s credit it did attempt to remedy the situation for the future but it was not able to put right the errors of the preceding 9 years. That is why Nicky Wagner the Christchurch Central MP has had to sponsor this local bill on behalf of the council and bring it to the House so that we can put right the dotting of the i’s and the crossing of the t’s that did not occur for those 9 years. This is an example of a situation where I hope other territorial authorities will learn from the mistakes that have been made in Christchurch City and that in future more care and diligence will be shown in the wording and drafting of motions before the council particularly as they relate to rating issues.I reluctantly commend this bill to the House but I thank Nicky Wagner and congratulate her on her efforts in stewarding it through the House.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I am happy to take a short call on this and join with my parliamentary colleagues on this side of the House particularly from the Christchurch region who will be contributing to this particular debate. I will just begin by cautioning members of the House to just control the emotion that they may feel towards the Christchurch City Council in passing this piece of legislation.The first point I would make is that this relates to technical issues that took place from 2003 to 2013. It is not necessarily the fault of the present mayor or the present councillors. The second point I would make is that we are talking about technical issues. Essentially the council had been doing the right thing except it did not cross the t’s and dot the i’s as expected by legislation. The third point I would make in just cautioning members of Parliament and particularly that side of the House is that I am somewhat sympathetic to the local government sector in our country particularly because when members of this House become scathing of the work that local government does on behalf of its constituents it seems like we are seeing them as an extension of the public sector or a Government department and that is just not the case. I think what we have got to recognise and give due respect to is the fact that local government representatives are elected by the people by their communities to serve and provide the necessary services that the local communities might ask of their local council.Fourthly I agree that retrospective legislation rates validation is something that many in this House are rather reluctant to agree with but in this case precedents have been set. I would also say that when the bill was opened up for public submissions the only organisation that made submissions to this was Christchurch City Council itself. The committee in looking at this piece of legislation made not one recommendation whatsoever to change or amend the piece of legislation. I have to say that to all intents and purposes as far as I can see for my own eyes the council has done the right thing by bringing this piece of legislation to the House to cross the t’s and dot the i’s so that it is within the laws as are required. That also raises another question: often I have heard members of the House ridicule or condemn the local government sector and I am referring mainly to the Government members and I would just ask them to be cautious and be careful with that attitude. Remember that these are people elected by the local community to represent them. It is part of our democracy. These are local governments not a Government department. I am happy to add my voice along with my colleagues in supporting this bill in the House tonight. Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Might I say that it is a pleasure to speak on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill under the Speakership of such a distinguished and illustrious member of this House. I am taking this call in this debate on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill because as previous colleagues have rehearsed the argument several times I think it is necessary given some of the comments made by members opposite just to repeat them one more time. This is something that we do reluctantly: passing retrospective legislation in this House. I think it was in the second reading debate that I expressed my personal reluctance to consider retrospective legislation unless there is a very good reason to do so. If I may once again refer to the pre-eminent legal theoretician Professor Dicey the former Vinerian Professor of Law at Oxford who talked about retrospective legislation he—Simon O’Connor: Who sorry?PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Professor Dicey Mr O’Connor. He was a very highly respected Oxford legal theoretician of the 19th century—a Vinerian Professor of Law. He made the point that retrospective legislation can either be very very bad or it can be something that is necessary and tolerable. Of the examples of monstrous retrospective legislationthat he used to cite one of the key examples of evil retrospective legislation was the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1794 which was a very unworthy piece of legislation and was most unjust. However he did also believe that it was possible to have curative retrospective legislation to set right something that was done wrong. I genuinely believe that this bill falls into the curative category. It does amend a technical deficiency and as my learned colleague Scott Simpson the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee referred to previously in his own contribution on this debate there are no people who will be required to pay additional rates or levies because of this curative piece of retrospective rates validation. In fact the technical deficiency was simply in the wording of the ratings motions which were passed by successive city councils in Christchurch over a period of as many as 10 years.I think it is very important that we do set this wrong right and this bill does so. And to other critics of retrospective legislation I would also refer to recent research that has demonstrated that in the Commonwealth of Australia—a very comparable jurisdictionto our own I suppose—up to 20 percent of legislation carries some form of retrospectivity in it. So this bill is not entirely unusual. We have been here before but one of my main concerns when sitting on the Local Government and Environment Committee was to ensure that we do not end up here again having to validate rates retrospectively for another council in New Zealand. Although we were not able to receive an ironclad watertight guarantee from officials that such an issue could not crop up again in the future I think thatwe can have some confidence our being a competent and very efficient Government on this side of the House—as opposed to the members opposite—that this is one of the last rates validation bills that this House will hopefully have to address particularly in terms of dealing with such an issue in the manner that we are today.There have also been comments made about the competence of the officials who tendered advice to the council over the course of the 10-year period during which the rates were incorrectly set. I am actually prepared to stand by the comments of my colleagues on this side of the House and by the criticisms and concerns that they have. Firstly when the Christchurch City Council appeared before us at the select committee there was a complete lack of contrition. We did not have from the highly paid officials any sense of regret or any sort of apology to the ratepayers of Christchurch or to the taxpayers of New Zealand who are faced with a bill that is probably many hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars in order to pass this piece of legislation. There was no real apology for the incompetence that has led us to this position. That was in my view regrettable. I do appreciate the arguments advanced by some that the people whom we saw at the select committee the people who were advocating—the only submitters in fact whom we heard on this bill—were not those responsible for the initial error. They were the officials who are the current incumbents and they made the point that the councillors and officials involved with the initial incorrect settings and incorrect motions including the chief executive at the time were no longer employed by the council or no longer served on the council. That is a point that is not entirely lost on me.We do have a situation where taxpayers and ratepayers have been put to some considerable expense and inconvenience in order to remedy the situation so I think that we do need to send a very strong message to officials and councils up and down New Zealand that it is paramount that they understand what is required in the law. It is not actually a huge piece of legislation that they have to come to grips with in terms of understanding the framework within which we set local government ratings in New Zealand. It is very important that they understand it that they understand the technical detail and that they apply it correctly so that we do not end up once again in a situation where we are expending significant amounts of ratepayer and taxpayer money to remedy retrospectively a situation like we have here.There was a question that came up in the second reading debate and I put the question to the Minister and we actually had a very clear answer from the Minister. That question was about what is actually covered by this retrospective validation bill. Not only does it cover the incorrectly levied rates which were levied over a 10-year period from 2003-04 to 2012-13 inclusive but it also covers a number of subsidiary rates and charges that were levied incorrectly as well. These were the Church Bay sewer loan rate the Church Bay water loan rate the restricted water targeted rate the waste minimisation rate and the water fire service connection rate for those financial years; the same as for the uniform annual general charge which was incorrectly levied. I think that the Minister did give us a full explanation and description of that. There is something in the order of $600000 worth of unpaid back rates that should have been paid. The citizens and ratepayers in question did not behave properly in not paying the $600000 worth of back rates which does require this retrospective validation to be enacted in order for the council to be able legally to collect that $600000 worth of back rates. That is another reason why this validation bill is required. I come back to the point that the bill does not prejudice the interests of otherwise law-abiding Christchurch residents who have paid their ratesover those years thinking that they had been correctly levied when as we have now discovered they had not.Just to make things really clear I do want to reiterate some details of the original failure. It was a breach of section 24 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 which is the principal Act that determines how local government ratings are levied in New Zealand. The Act talks about how rates are levied and the fact that they are available to be paid in instalments and it sets the payment dates for those instalments. I think that it is a credit to the people of Christchurch and to New Zealanders in general that there are so few uncollected rates. There is only $600000 worth in a great city the size of Christchurch which is home to many hundreds of thousands of souls and is arguably the second city of New Zealand after Auckland—and obviously the capital Wellington. But I think it is a credit to the taxpayers and the ratepayers in Christchurch that such a small portion has not been paid and there will always be cases I suppose where some people do not feel that they are obliged to meet their full obligations and make their contribution to the running of their city and the infrastructure and services that the council provides.The failure we need to resolve was a breach of section 57 of the Act and was around how penalties are added and calculated to those unpaid rates that were incorrectly levied in the first place. Those two errors are being remedied in this piece of legislation. It is a necessary thing. It is something that we are doing reluctantly. We need to send a strong message to councils that they must get it right to prevent such a waste of parliamentary time in the future. I just make the final point that the retrospective element although best avoided is something that in this case is necessary and curative. For all those reasons I commend this bill to the House.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): I am pleased to take a short call on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill and it will be short given that it costs over $21000 an hour for the running of Parliament and that there is wide support across the House for this technical bill. Yes it is retrospective but I would agree with Mr Foster-Bell that it is curative and tolerable while retrospective. The Green Party is supporting this bill because the mistakes that the Christchurch City Council made in its rates-setting resolutions were not deliberate. They were simply in the wording of the resolutions. They did not affect the amount of rates that Christchurch folk had to pay nor the penalties that ratepayers were liable to pay for delayed payment or non-payment.I think we should be very careful in this House not to throw stones. It is a wooden House rather than glass House but tomorrow we will be debating legislation that corrects a mistake made in the exclusive economic zone legislation. So this Parliament often has to reconsider legislation that was not fully considered during select committee consideration and during the House debates so it is not unknown for errors to be made.The mistakes that the Christchurch City Council made in its resolutions were in relation to the payment dates for rates and the authority to impose penalties on unpaid rates. That raised issues with the validity of collecting the rates and the penalties for non-payment. So the bill validates the payment dates and it validates any penalties that have been added to the rates. It ensures that all the money the council has received in respect of the rates is lawful and always has been lawful. As Mr Foster-Bell noted it relates to some of the uniform annual charges and some of the targeted rates and loans for Church Bay and Governors Bay for wastewater and water supply schemes.One of the issues this bill did not go through is that there is a $683000 hole in the council’s revenue stream. If the bill was not passed the council would be liable to legal challenge and it would not be able to chase up the 38 ratepayers who have not paid their rates and who are liable for penalties without the risk of a legal challenge. That would impose quite significant extra costs on the council which has already got funding problems so we have no substantive issue with supporting the bill because the mistakes were not deliberate—they were procedural—and we are resolving an issue that should be resolved and that the council has brought to the attention of the public and of Parliament at the first opportunity after those mistakes were discovered.But although the council has been able to come to Parliament to get those issues resolved it will not be able to come to Parliament as easily if it proceeds with its very short-sighted decision to sell off major council assets like the port company the airport and Orion which have been major contributors through the dividends that those companies provide to keeping the council’s rates low. The $43 million in dividends that are coming to the council in the 2015-16 year means that rates are 13 percent lower than they would otherwise be. The Green Party considers that it is incredibly short-sighted to be pushed—as the city council is being pushed by the National Government’s failure to renegotiate the cost-sharing agreement to meet the $400 million shortfall in the costs of preparing the horizontal infrastructure—to consider selling these revenue-generating assets in order to fund a potential white elephant like the stadium which is likely to lose revenue. So we support the bill but we oppose the proposals in the city council’s long-term plan to sell vital revenue-generating assets. Thank you.RON MARK (NZ First): What more can be said about this bill? It is a very short bill—a couple of pages but it certainly has generated some—[Interruption] Sorry?Simon O’Connor: You can do 10 minutes.RON MARK: You think I can? We will give it a lash shall we? It is a very short bill and its intent is very clear. For those who might have missed it and going straight to the core which really is at the guts of this bill what this bill does is pretty much contained in Part 2. Clause 5 as has previously been said validates the payment dates for the rates. Clause 6 validates penalties added to those rates. Clause 7 declares all money received by the council in payment of the rates and any penalties paid in respect of those rates to be and to always have been lawfully paid to and received by the council. Those are the interesting words to me—“to be and to always have been lawfully paid”—because they were not were they? They were not lawfully paid and that is really what the nub of this bill is and why we have spent so much time in the House why people went down to Christchurch and put a lot of time and effort into drafting hearing and taking submissions and moving this bill through three stages in the House.The words “to be and to always have been” almost sounds a little bit Shakespearean does it not? “Lawfully paid”—“lawfully paid”. Would it not be nice if some of us could actually pop along to the supermarket and say: “Well you know I came in the other week and I picked up some groceries. I’d just like you to consider that they have been and always had been paid for.” It is a little bizarre maybe a little bit Shakespearean.Stuart Nash: It’s like amalgamation of Carterton’s.RON MARK: It is like amalgamation—something that boggles the mind as to how people could actually come up with these things or how people could make simple mistakes. I guess. I do take on board some of the cautionary comments by my colleague on my right Su’a William Sio. It is tempting for someone like me who has come from a small council Carterton District Council which is a council about which certain people out there on the hustings and some people in this House have advocated the view that it is too small to run itself it could not possibly manage its assets and it could not possibly comply with all the intricacies of the Local Government (Rating) Act. Therefore on those and numerous other spurious arguments they say that it needs to deserves to and should be swallowed up into and run by a larger council.Well we have never done this. We have never made mistakes like this. Masterton District Council has never made this mistake. If people really want to get their heads around what is happening out there in rural and provincial areas with small councils and how well they are managed and how they do not end up in situations where money you have sort of paid is deemed to be and always has been lawfully paid they should really pull out the latest Bell report and have a quick read. The Bell report is really quite staggering in its revelations that some of the top-performing councils in this country are actually some of the smaller ones. Small rural and provincial councils are being run well and do not require the time of this House to retrospectively pass legislation to correct their mistakes.I will acknowledge this: the current Mayor of Christchurch was not the Mayor of Christchurch when this happened. The current chief executive officer was not the chief executive officer or was not one of the chief executive officers who was in charge of the Christchurch City Council at the time that these mistakes were made. The credit for that lies with other people. But I have to make the point that people who are elected into council whether they be councillors community board members mayors or deputy mayors do notat the time of their election and appointment—and for some of them even a few years after that—actually come to grips totally and 100 percent with all the procedural requirements that go with the job particularly at the time of the annual planning and consultation phase particularly when you are taking submissions on an annual plan setting rates—sewerage rates targeted rates uniform rates. They are not 100 percent au fait with that procedure and it is up to the chief executive officer and his senior managers to guide and steer those councillors the mayor and the deputy mayor in the procedures and the protocols that they must follow to comply completely 100 percent with the Act.I will say that again: it is up to the chief executive officer the chief financial officer and the other entourage of senior managers who get paid hugely well particularly in Christchurch. I remember well the controversy over that particular chief executive officer who gave himself a pay rise because he thought he was doing so jolly well. Here we are in the House with all parties in the House putting all of their time into correcting something that the chief executive officer of the Christchurch City Council should not have allowed to happen. On top of that I remember the visits by the Audit Office and how my council would ramp itself up and get ready for that visiting team of auditors. We would have a preliminary interview with the chief auditor—the mayor the chief executive officer the deputy mayor and the chair of the Audit and Risk Committee. We are talking about little Carterton here; we are not talking about New York. We would do that and we would get a clear picture from the chief auditor of that team which might comprise a team coming in—and you know we are talking about a council of 8500 people—that might be three four or even five strong.That team would outline what it was that they were going to go through and what they would be looking for. Well clearly the audit team that went through Christchurch—for year after year after year—did not check the procedures by which Christchurch was implementing its rates charges. It did not audit those procedures. I know from talking to the Audit Office and we have had hearings and discussions at the select committee that people have got a different focus now. I know that in any one particular year the Audit Office will come in with a theme. It will come in and say: “These are the things we are going to be looking at.” But for this to have gone onyear after year after year and to be left undetected and for us in 2015 to be sitting here in the House this evening past my bedtime—I am joking—passing this legislation through the House is unbelievable really particularly with a council that size that employs that many people in senor manager appointments and pays them what $400000 or $300000? And it pays an audit office—what—what was that last bill? Well it certainly was not $90000 which is what Carterton pays. It was $200000 in one year for the audit to be completed and for the council to still miss this mistake. So here we sit.Like many of the other parties in the House and the other speakers before me New Zealand First has to put on record that it really struggles with retrospective legislation. We do not think that it is really ideal. I thank Paul Foster-Bell for his comment that 20 percent of the legislation that goes through this House—good homework there Paul—is retrospective. We do not like it. We particularly do not like it when highly paid senior managers of a council are not doing their job and are not advising their mayor their deputy mayor their chair of the Audit and Risk Committee and their council as appropriate and we end up in this situation.I would say—what can I say to finish off?Stuart Nash: It wouldn’t have happened when you were Mayor of Carterton.RON MARK: It would not have happened if I had been Mayor of Christchurch. I would say please when we are having this conversation and debate about bigger is better and bigger councils get things right and small councils struggle—when we are having this argument and this debate about economies of scale—I would like the House to remember this: the reason some small councils do not make mistakes like this is that the very small budgets that they have for them makes them very sensitive to expenditure and very sensitive to error particularly errors that cost money. The rule of thumb we used in Carterton was this: for every $80000 you spend over and above what was budgeted last year that will result in a 1 percent increase on your ratepayers. Can you honestly justify that 1 percent increase? When you are dealing with big councils like the one in Auckland’s super-city $80000 is postage money for 1 day. It does not mean anything. It does not make councillors blink it does not make their eyes water and therefore they can—I guess understandably—lose sight of the detail lose sight of the protocols and procedures they should be following and they can make mistakes. Let us hope it does not happen again.JOANNE HAYES (National): I rise to take a call on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I must say after listening to that kōrero from our colleague across the way over there Ron Mark that I agree with him. I agree with him. The mistake that was made was not made by the current mayor it was not made by the current chief executive officer; it was made by all of those who went before her. But the thing is once you take on those positions and those posts you do inherit unfortunately all the rubbish that had happened prior to you coming in there. I think that when we elect our mayors and our councillors those are some of the things that may come up. I am not a fan of passing retrospective legislation through this House either. However that is the position we are in with this Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill and we need to keep going with it and get it through the House.I think that with a lot of what you said Mr Mark you hit the nail on the head when it comes to past histories of that particular council and the accountability of its chief executive officers. At times it looks like the bigger councils get the more complicated it is to manage and messages stop getting moved around. I think that for Christchurch City that is basically what happened—messages were not getting to the people. Was it incompetency? What was it? We will not know. All we need to know is that we are going to move this one forward.I guess that is why this Government has been doing a lot of work around establishing prudent benchmarks that require councils to produce 30-year plans and strategies. Councils now have to provide information to their ratepayers about everything that they are doing so that the ratepayers can actually judge the council’s performance. That is really key. I am not a ratepayer of Christchurch City—yet. I am a ratepayer of another smaller district council and these are some of the things that I ask my councillors who represent our area: “OK we voted for you so what are you doing? What type of job are you doing? What kind of job are you doing for us as ratepayers and how are you measuring it?”.There is a lot to be said around performance measures of councillors and their workers and how councillors get around the table to do performance management of their chief executive officer. I had no idea about that type of work but it is one of those things that I learnt. I come from a small NGO and we had to do that. As Māori NGOs we had to do that with all of our staff and our boards had to do that with managers like me. I guess there are a lot of lessons to be learnt from the small groups—that is if they have good performance management systems then maybe the big ones could actually learn from the small ones.Ron Mark: Would we do this for a small NGO or a small council? No we wouldn’t would we?JOANNE HAYES: No but the point is we are dealing with that legislation now for Christchurch CityCarmel Sepuloni: The point is the National Government’s shutting down all those small NGOs anyway.JOANNE HAYES: Oh no no no no no! We are talking about this council and that is where we are going to stay.We are reducing red tape for councils. That is what our role is and I can tell you right now that one of our key projects happening within the local government area has been our Rules Reduction Taskforce. It is an amazing task force that is going around all the local government areas seeking input from ratepayers and from people who are interested who may not be ratepayers but are still affected by some of the things that are happening in their cities or their towns—especially around the regulations rules and laws that that particular council has. So the task force is asking for feedback.Recently I hosted one of those Rules Reduction Taskforce meetings in the Christchurch East electorate. It was very interesting to hear about some of the red tape issues that some of these developers and some of the people who were redeveloping their homes were actually going through—the really minute things. The task force was led by Jacqui Dean and sponsored by Paula Bennett and was looking to actually help ratepayers. We are actually there to help ratepayers into the future to make sure that their cities and their towns are actually working for them and that is what it is all about.So when we start to look at the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill we start to ask what it is. What are the sections? What are the sections that require the rates to be set—the resolutions of the council? The resolutions must specify the financial year to which the rates apply—I am repeating this I understand that. I understand that I am repeating this but I do so because it is really key. I am hoping that other councils which may or may not be perhaps heading down towards the same situation can actually look at some of the things that they are doing and the way they set their rates and are making sure they are using this as a tick box to make sure that they do not end up in the same situation. So we are looking at the financial year to which the rates apply the date on which the rates must be paid and/or if payable by instalments the payment dates for each instalment the penalties to be added to the rates not paid by the due date and how these penalties have to be calculated.Some of the irregularities made by the Christchurch City Council under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 include a failure to state in the rates resolution that the rates would be payable in instalments by certain dates. These rates resolutions also failed to state the penalties that would be added to the rates if they were not paid on the due date and the rates that were to be assessed in the previous year that remained unpaid. So the dates that the penalties were to be added to the unpaid rates and the amounts of the penalties that would be added—all of these things were actually missing from within the rates resolution.In addition to the irregularities we also had areas that included the failure—and my colleagues here have already stated it but I am going to state it again—to state the Church Bay sewer and water loan rates system. All of these were provided within the Christchurch City Council’s funding impact statement—everything that I talk about from here on is provided in the Christchurch City Council’s funding impact statement. It failed to state the Governors Bay sewer and water loan rates as a fixed amount and it failed to state that the liability for the restricted water target rates was calculated on the level of service through a restricted water supply system. It failed to state that the water minimisation rate was set as a fixed amount per rating unit as provided—Hon Member: It was very serious.JOANNE HAYES: Yes it was very serious. I carry on. It failed to state that the water minimisation rate was calculated on the number of separately used or inhabited parts of the rating unit and it also failed to state the water fire service connection rate. Finally it failed to state the uniform annual general charge which was to be calculated on the number of separately used inhabited parts of the rating unit.So again in order to address those procedural irregularities this bill validates the payment rates for the rates set and assessed by the Christchurch City Council between 2003 and 2013 and validates all the penalties added to any validated unpaid rates between 2003 and 2013. It validates the basis on which certain specified or targeted rates were calculated for the rates in the years that were set out as I have just stated. It also declares all moneys for the Christchurch City Council in relation to validated rates and penalties to be lawful because prior to that they were not. Finally it provides that any unpaid rates or penalties in relation to any of this would be made lawful and would be recovered by the Christchurch City Council.We have all learnt something tonight have we not? We have all learnt something tonight. I just want to take this time to take a bow because that is what you have all heard from this side of the House.Hon Member: They’re just touchy.JOANNE HAYES: They are just touchy. And we need to keep on reiterating that because we do not want retrospective bills from councils coming through this House again as my colleague Paul Foster-Bell outlined in his wonderful speech before.Let us carry on because I know you are getting very engaged in what I am saying. I can seethat. When you put your hands up like that it means you want more and I am going to give you more. The select committee received only one written submission on this bill from the Christchurch City Council. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!JOANNE HAYES: And they were also—Tim Macindoe: I’m sitting here and I can’t hear a word.JOANNE HAYES: Do you want me to start again?Tim Macindoe: Yes please.Hon Member: From the top.JOANNE HAYES: From the top. So the Christchurch City Council—here we go—also made an oral submission so it is good that it is supporting this bill. The council was promoting this bill and the grounds on which it was introduced. The council recognised there was a mistake. Let us not blame the current mayor. Let us get this bill through and perhaps the Christchurch City Council can then concentrate all of its time on the redevelopment of New Brighton. Kia ora.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I call Rino Tirikatene.Ron Mark: Move an extension of time.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): As much as I would like to move an extension of time I think that member deserves a drink. We all do—absolutely.Tim Macindoe: We’ll all need one by the end of this.RINO TIRIKATENE: Well we will wait and see. I am pleased to speak in support of the third reading. I looked back at my earlier contributions on this bill and I was quite critical of the Christchurch City Council and the officials in the 9 successive years where they basically broke the law and did not comply with the Local Government (Rating) Act. But I think I have said my piece. I know that the Christchurch City Council has got the message loud and clear. Can I acknowledge the council though for fronting up to Parliament acknowledging its mistakes and going through this process to correct the errors and the illegality of its actions.I want to make just a short contribution and rather than being critical of the Christchurch City Council I will just say that the errors that were made are there for everyone to see. The council has come to Parliament to correct them and through retrospective legislation we are doing so. But I would hope that this piece of legislation is a message I guess to all local government in New Zealand the 78 local authorities that we have up and down the length and breadth of our great country—the regional councils the territorial authorities and all the different types of councils that we have such as district councils city councils and unitary councils. Hopefully this is a lesson for all of them—please make sure you comply with the law. It is not hard. When you are setting your rates just follow the requirements in the legislation and make sure that you are doing everything by the book. When you are passing your resolutions make sure you are actually including everything that is required to be put in the resolution. It is not hard.I know that this is an area where Local Government New Zealand is wanting to improve the performance of local authorities around the country. This is one area where they can definitely improve on their performance. I ask them to please take the time. I ask them to do what Mr Ron Mark did when he was the Mayor of Carterton—they made sure they complied with the law they passed their resolutions and they included all of the correct information to ensure that it was compliant with the law. That is really my message to local authorities around the country. Please make sure you follow the requirements the compliance checklists. It is not hard. Make sure that you put everything in the resolutions because otherwise we may be forced to sit through more contributions like we have had tonight.We have heard about Shakespeare we have heard about neoclassical architecture we have heard about all sorts of stuff in this debate. Unless the good people of New Zealand want to sit through more corrective patch-up legislation please local government across New Zealand make sure you follow the law pass your resolutions make sure they are all complete cross the t’s and dot the i’s and then we will not be wasting our Parliament’s time on putting through unnecessary legislation to correct something that should not have happened in the first place. Regrettably there are times when Parliament has to step in.Let us hope there is not a concerned citizen or ratepayer going through their local government official information wanting to get copies of all the resolutions that were passed and trying to marry them up. We know that some people out there might do that. Certain ratepayers are quite pedantic. Let us hope that more of these errors do not come to light because if it has happened with one of our major councils the Christchurch City Council let us hope that the 78 other local authorities around the country have all been compliant in passing their resolutions. Thank you.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a great honour to rise for the first time to speak on this bill the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill in its third reading. I must admit that I feel like I have been on the highs of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill and the lows of this rates validation bill. It is legislation that is very important to me as the electorate MP for Waimakariri. A lot of people think that the electorate actually mirrors the “Waimak” district borders but in fact my electorate covers part of northern Christchurch Northcote Redwood Belfast and Northwood and about a quarter of the population of my electorate live in the Christchurch City Council zone. So it is a very important issue for my constituents and it is a very important issue for me.I must join with the rest of the members of the House in acknowledging the work of the Hon Nicky Wagner who has brought this local bill to the House tonight. She is a very hard-working Minister who has shepherded what could have been a very controversial bill through the legislative process. You very much see why that Minister has turned a red seat blue. Can I also acknowledge the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee equally for shepherding the bill through a process that could have been very controversial.I do acknowledge the sentiments from the other side of the House about respect for local government. My late grandfather was on the Christchurch City Council for over 30 years in the 1960s 1970s and 1980s and he spent several of them as Deputy Mayor of the Christchurch City Council. Probably that is where my political ambitions hark back to. I very much respect the people of his ilk—that it was about civic service and civic duty. So we must be mindful of that when we do critique local government performance.But in saying that we should not reward poor performance. If you do not challenge something then you are complicit in it. So I think it was very well summarised by the Minister when she introduced the third reading and she said that the bill although controversial was simple straightforward short and very focused. I mean at first I did not know whether she was talking about me or Ron Mark but she is quite right. It is a controversial bill. It is simple straightforward short and very focused but it could have caused a lot of issues for the Christchurch people. I must say that that is the last thing Christchurch people need at the moment. I do not need to rehash the last few years but we all know it has been a very difficult time for people in Christchurch and of course in the “Waimak” and Selwyn as well. So it is quite right that we take a very diligent and thoughtful approach with this legislation.What we do know if we look at it in some detail is that every June the council resolves to set its rates for the next financial year. We know with this rates resolution that it did not meet the requirements. And the Minister referred to this—the issue that arose from trying to put things in simple language. I actually have some sympathy for this. In my previous career in mental health I managed a drug treatment service in London for the London Borough of Barnet a local authority in northern London. It had a policy of having simple English to make it accessible for people to engage with information and literature. But of course when you are talking about technical information sometimes if it is simplified you do lose a lot in translation. So I can understand how this may have happened but at the end of the day like I say we cannot reward poor performance and if we do not challenge something we are complicit in it. So we do know that all the required information was available in policy and newspapers but just not in the set resolutions and there were other technical issues around targeted rates. We have heard a lot tonight about the issues around retrospective legislation.So overall I think that with the issues at hand for both the leadership of the Christchurch City Council and of course the Waimakariri District Council and the Selwyn District Council as they lead through the recovery we just need to be mindful that we do need positive relationships in central and local governments. I want to thank our chair Scott Simpson for holding the select committee hearing down in Christchurch for the day. Not only did we get the opportunity to go to the Christchurch Arts Centre which was a valuable trip but we also got to hear the submissions around this bill. There was only one submission as people have spoken previously about and the councillor who did turn up was Glenn Livingstone. I know there have been some comments about his performance in that submission but I would like to say that in my dealings with that councillor he is someone who is very humble and very hard-working in his region which is primarily in eastern Christchurch. We know they were hard hit by the earthquakes and councillor Livingstone and councillor East are doing a fantastic job out there. But it was good to see that overall there were no ratepayers who were affected by this and what we are doing is just validating the resolutions retrospectively for about the last 9 years—2003-04 to 2012-13.It is a tough job for the Christchurch City Council. I was on Chris Lynch’s radio show on Monday morning with my colleague Clayton Cosgrove talking about the political issues in Canterbury. Quite often we are asked to comment on local government performance and on mayors but I must say that it is not really our place to give a running commentary too much on their performance. But it was a great opportunity to take the select committee down to Christchurch and see what is happening down there. There is a lot of hope—there is a lot of hope—and I must say that at the end of the day we are delivering in Christchurch. The previous speaker from the Green Party Eugenie Sage mentioned the white elephant of the rugby stadium which I thought I had to pick up on because at the end of the day Canterbury is the best rugby region in the world and we need a stadium to reflect that like the Hagley Oval—[Interruption]Thank you very much. Can I just say just to summarise really that we are one region one Canterbury and I am very happy to be one-eyed. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): I have to make just one quick comment before I get into the substance of my speech today and that is to say that the contributions from the last two National Party members have been really really dreadful. I also have to say that those last two National Party members who contributed were also the two people who stood in the last two elections in Christchurch East and lost—to me. So I just wanted to remind you with that little lesson.This bill is about people who are elected who have to be accountable for things that they may not have been responsible for. This is what this bill is about. All of us who are elected to public office know that at some point we may have to be accountable for the actions of those who have preceded us. That is exactly what this bill is about.I know that some of the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee have been a little harsh in their comments about the officials from the council who presented to the select committee. They were expecting them to be really overwrought in their desire to get this bill passed and really be grovelling I think is the term I want to use. Well actually what they have done is a really sensible thing at a time when their council is under some pressure. Let us face it: it is probably one of the most difficult jobs going at the moment—being a councillor on the Christchurch City Council—and it has been for the last 4 or 5 years. So for the select committee to be scathing of the attitude of the officials who presented is I think a little bit rich.While I am on that note I do want to send my greetings to the Christchurch-elected representatives to the hard-working councillors and to the community board members who might be listening tonight to this bill finally being passed so that they can get on with their jobs. They are going through a particularly busy time. They are hearing submissions on the long-term plan. I want to acknowledge the work that the hundreds of submitters from the Christchurch East electorate have done into that long-term plan with many of them wanting to ensure that the New Brighton community becomes once again the jewel in the crown of Christchurch City. I want to acknowledge all the hard work that they do that they have been doing and all of the hard work that the Christchurch city councillors and community boards have done.Let us face it: it has been a difficult time but in the midst of all of this difficult time the acting chief executive Jane Parfitt found a problem. Back in 2002-03 in an attempt to have a plain-language solution to the ratings language the council made a bit of a mistake and it did not actually include as my colleague Su’a William Sio says all the dotting of the i’s and the crossing of the t’s. But it took a very busy acting chief executive officer at an extraordinarily busy time—a very busy chief executive officer at a very busy time—to find the error and to ask for our help to put it right. And it is our job to do what we need to do to ensure we can validate those rates so that the council can be sure that it can use those rate payments that were collected in the manner that it should. But not only that the council also needs to ensure that it can provide for the collection of rates that were not collected during that period. From those I think 38 or so ratepayers owe in the vicinity of $600000.So that is what this bill does. I am not going to speak too much further on it. I think what we should do is get this bill passed so that we can get on with the job in Christchurch. I thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for permitting my contribution. Thank you.NUK KORAKO (National): E mihi atu ki a koe e te Mana Whakawā. Huri noa e te Whare tēnā koutou katoa.Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe.NUK KORAKO: Kia ora. It is again my pleasure to stand to take the final call on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I am not going to relitigate a lot of the topics around the speeches that have been done over the process of this bill. But I do want to acknowledge on both sides of the House here this evening the real quality of the speeches and particularly listening to a former mayor listening to a very active Auckland MP Mr William Sio and also from this side of the House as well. I would like to acknowledge as the final speaker the sponsor and the driver for this bill the Hon Nikki Wagner the National Party MP for Christchurch Central and also the chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee Scott Simpson and all of our colleagues actually who sit on this committee.I do not believe in listening to the last speaker Poto Williams that the select committee has been ungracious. I do not believe a lot of the descriptions in some way about how we have handled this bill. I think it has been professional and it has also been a bill that we all understand. I mean listening tonight listening over the last two times the bill has come to the House for the first and second readings—it is that the words that we are hearing have commonality. Reluctance retrospective legislation regretful emotive blame and blasé are the terms used for councillors. But at the end of the day I certainly feel that we have the commonality to agree with the fact that this is what happened and we are here to address it. The city council which was the only submitter has put up its hand and has said yes—and past councillors. It is our responsibility and it is our duty to put this right. On that basis I think that we have a clear direction on how we are actually going to vote for this bill.I think it is important too to remember that after the situation was first identified—and this was according to three or four mayors whom I spoke to—almost every council across New Zealand actually then suddenly stopped and looked back at its processes around rating processes. That was a catalyst that this situation created so that everyone could ensure for themselves the fact that their processes were correct so that they could give their constituents their ratepayers the confidence that they deserve. That is very much an overview of the bill itself but I think that we need to also look at the council itself. I remember Glen when he came to submit on behalf of the council. When you understand—and particularly those who do not come from Christchurch who are not actually there day in and day out who actually have not lived through the last 4 or 5 years of the incredible upheaval the disruption and all of that that is going on in this city—that it is our council and they do a tremendous job.I want to just spend one part of this speech to say that yesterday was a very significant day. Yesterday: “Leri era Italia Giornata Nazionale”. What that means is that yesterday was Italian National Day. I am bringing this up il Capo because of the fact that—if you read an article in the Christchurch Press on the weekend—it was the former chief executive officer of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority who had actually visited the city of L’Aquila. In that city in 2009 they had over 300 people who actually lost their lives and 65000 people were homeless. If you compare what they have done in Italy with Christchurch well then you will see how hard this city council is working. But also one of the things is that the recovery is in partnership with the Crown central government the regional council and also the Christchurch City Council iwi and all the major stakeholders. When you compare us with what is going on in Italy all the usual suspects—corruption hold-ups all of this you know leadership problems—are things that we do not actually experience here.Finally just to highlight in this bill the incredible assistance that this Government has given to the city of Christchurch it is reflected in the fact that in the 2015 Budget another $100 million was given to the Christchurch rebuild which brings it to $16.5 billion of taxpayers’ and ratepayers’money. That says a lot. That is almost 40 percent of the total estimated cost of the Christchurch rebuild which is in excess of $40 billion. In tying all of that together our council the Crown the Government the regional council and all the major stakeholders are really a shining light another beacon to the world on how we actually work together. This is a reflection—I am looking at both sides of the House—that we support this bill in its third reading. On that note just to finish off is the fact that I would like to again acknowledge all of the contributions here this evening and to commend this bill il Capo to the House. Kia ora.Bill read a third time.Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment BillThird ReadingDebate resumed from 6 May.JAN LOGIE (Green): I am very pleased to resume my call on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill which was unable to pass on the last members’ day because for some reason the Government members felt compelled to waste the time of this House on what seemed like endless meaningless repetitious speeches on bills that no one disagreed with. That is not uncommon given the behaviour we have seen again this evening. I was disappointed that the children and their families who are following the progress of this bill so closely were again left hanging. That to my mind was disrespectful.I would now like to acknowledge Tracey Martin from New Zealand First for bringing this bill to the House and for shepherding it through the select committee so effectively to get it to this point.Tracey Martin has had to swallow I would say some dead rats in the process but she prioritised the needs of children and getting a result over the intent that she originally came to the House with. I think that deserves to be acknowledged.The Green Party supported this bill at its first reading and supports it now but we are greatly disappointed by the Government’s warped priorities and meanness which has reduced this bill down to making children wait until 2018 to get the intent of the original bill for only an amount of money that is less than the flag referenda in practice. What this bill is about is fairness. It is about addressing a small but important inequity in the funding that goes to support some of the most vulnerable children in Aotearoa New Zealand those who through death or family breakdown have lost the support of their parents and are now in the care of other family members. Although the quantum of the funding discrepancy around this issue of the clothing allowance may seem small to us sitting here in the House—and it really does seem small to me I have got to say in the scope of all the things that this House considers—it means a lot and it counts for a lot for those families who are struggling to get by and are wanting to provide the very best for the children in their care.Basically to recap again what the heart of this bill is about it is that children who are in foster care in New Zealand because of family breakdown or death are entitled to a clothing allowance of just over $1100 a year to be able to buy whatever clothes they need. Usually they will be new clothes and that is really really important for kids—what you wear at school; I am sure we remember that. It counted when I was a kid way back when and it seems to count even more now. That $1100—plus a little bit—allowance is not available to children who are being cared for by their family members. Those family members many of whom are grandparents who are getting by on fixed incomes have no ability to provide for just that extra for those children to enable them to have those new clothes—they are not able to do it. They are looking at these other children and feeling that they are letting down the kids in their care. They are giving up so much of their life to care for these children and they feel as if somehow they are letting them down because they are not able to provide for them in the same way as children in foster care. There is just something so perverse about that to me.In some cases these grandparents or people in our community are so wonderful that they are caring for their own children and family and they are caring for foster children. Their foster children are entitled to this money and so there they are in this one household buying new clothes for these children and not able to buy those same clothes for their own kin in the same house at the same time. That is a perverse perverse thing and should be rectified by this House and I thank the member Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the House to enable us to fix that injustice and inequity and to enable parity between children in foster care and those being cared for by kin carers.It is just a very very sad thing that the Government has said that it will not do it until 2018 despite getting entreaties from those children. I am sure members of the Government have been getting as we have letters with the picture of those children asking us not to make them wait until 2018.I do just before I close want to touch on some of the process around this and what I saw happen in this House. I had a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage of this bill to bring that time forward so that it would be able to happen this year for those families. I had support from the Labour Party and support I think from other parties within this House. There was the intent for New Zealand First members Tracey Martin and her party also to be able to support that Supplementary Order Paper because that was the initial intent of this bill. They wanted to be able to vote for that Supplementary Order Paper and while we had that in front of the House the Minister came down and sat beside the member and told her that the Government would withdraw support for the bill entirely unless they voted against that Supplementary Order Paper. That degree of pettiness and politics disgusts me to be honest. To prevent a member from being able to deliver—or even vote symbolically for the intent of the bill to show that actually this is what she wanted for children and she wanted to be able to deliver it to them now as they are requesting—and to be able to bully a party into voting against their own intent and desire to me is a misuse of power and one that speaks to the heart of this Government and it is not a pretty sight.But I will finish on the positive note that this bill at least will deliver parity in 2018 and it has the hearts and the well-being of children at its centre and it is at least a great thing that the House gets the opportunity to put children first at any time in this House because it does not happen very often. Sadly it is still not happening with this Government but at least it is in there in the intent of this bill and the Green Party is very happy to support it and recommend it to the House.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): It gives me great pleasure to stand in support of the third and final reading of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. Can I first make a comment on the previous speaker Jan Logie. I find it quite extraordinary that every time the Opposition gets up and bemoans the fact that the Government side is taking due consideration in terms of its responses to these bills in taking our full calls only to then spend the next 10 minutes stepping through in fairly woeful tones the various reasons why ultimately they think they may support the bill whereas if perhaps they were going to stand by their intent they would sit down after 10 seconds. That would have certainly pleased some of us on this side and perhaps the wider Chamber.But I will of course take my full call because this deserves to have an appropriate consideration. As I say it is great to be able to stand here for the third and final time and speak in support of this bill. It does feel actually like I have spoken more than three times on this bill. There are certain bills that when you speak to them they sort of go through—bang bang bang—and you feel like you have spoken a couple of times and it is done but this is a bill that I feel like I have spoken more than three times on. Perhaps that is true or perhaps it is just one of those bills that have got through to me and sort of impacted on me.It is a fair bill. Kin carers are entitled to assistance to help with the costs of raising orphaned or unsupported children. In 2009 as most of the House would know National ensured kin carers got the same weekly amount as foster carers and of course now with this bill we will match this with the closing of the clothing allowance inequity.Can I first acknowledge those who do provide care to our most vulnerable. A few months ago I spent a little bit of time up in a lovely place called Dargaville. When I was out there I met—Carmel Sepuloni: Talk about the bill Todd Muller.TODD MULLER: I will. I met some foster parents actually from Dargaville. The foster parents in Dargaville although not kin carers gave me for perhaps the first time a very close understanding of the commitment that it takes to open your family to those whom you know need help and are vulnerable—and so I think this is something that perhaps you would like to listen to on the other side. When you open your heart and your family to people who are in need of help and when you actually sit and speak with this family—I am talking about a husband and wife who live a number of miles out of Dargaville. They are involved in a dairy farm. They have got three kids of their own but they have got two whom they have brought into their family and are providing with support.Obviously I got the opportunity to be able to see firsthand the stress the impact the joy and the love that that environment does create particularly for those who are coming in and having that support but it also did give me an insight into some of the challenges that those families are under. Of course they shared with me about some of the allowances and support that they received as foster carers and it did—I will be honest—give me a sharper and more acute understanding of those who are involved in this caring and the support that is available for them. It also showed the importance of ensuring that this bill is supported and that the clothing allowance can be provided to kin carers because clearly it is currently an omission.There are a number of kin carers in the community whom I represent in Te Puna. It is a strongly Māori community. I have had a number of engagements with many many families from that area. Often as is the Māori tradition there are a number who are providing support for those of their wider whānau who for various reasons do not necessarily have the support of mum or dad or both. I have seen that in action and I have seen the power of it particularly when it is provided by an uncle or auntie or in some cases by grandparents. I am in awe of people who make this commitment for their whānau and family and of the impact that they provide on those children’s lives and I do want to acknowledge them here tonight.Of course we are talking big numbers of New Zealand children who are looked after by their wider New Zealand family—12000 New Zealand children. There are 8600 carers and half of those carers are grandparents. I want to particularly acknowledge tonight the grandparents who are looking after their grandchildren in this context. As I have mentioned before in this House as we have traversed this bill’s various readings when you are a grandparent you are at a particular stage in life when arguably you can perhaps finally focus on your own needs and yet there are many many families and grandparents in this country who actually give up their retirement and their needs to be able to provide support and love and care for their wider whānau.Look this is a huge personal sacrifice. You know I have never met a grandparent who would not put their hand up for babysitting but it takes a different type of person and a different type of commitment to be able to step in and take the role of a parent in a kin carer context particularly when you are older in years. Many would want to flop on to the sofa and say: “See you later.” to the grandkids after the visit but this is a particular cohort who stay engaged and provide that love and support full-time for their whānau. The Government acknowledges this effort and of course through this bill it is providing additional support. Through this bill we have heard about and discussed the Extraordinary Care Fund that is available which is assisting more than 300 children and young people who have benefited. That equates to about $2000 a child on average.What is this money spent on? Extra tuition for kids struggling in school orthodontic work that has not been funded by the Ministry of Health or maybe it is covering costs for the kids to be able to attend regional sports tournaments. These are examples of what this funding has actually been able to support in terms of the family environment. Maybe it is spent on music lessons for the children who are progressing ahead of their peers. These are all examples of the Extraordinary Care Fund in action. We are providing this extra support so that children in this environment can obviously have the opportunity—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I ask the member to address the bill for a while now thank you.TODD MULLER: So—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Can the member take his seat. I do not expect to have negative comments about my rulings or positive comments about my rulings. I think that the member knows that she should not comment on Speakers’ rulings and I do not want to hear it again.TODD MULLER: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. As discussed through the select committee process grandparents in particular who are kin carers have the opportunity to get access to Work and Income support in terms of having a case manager helping them to navigate their role as kin carers. I think that does need to be acknowledged. There is a particular course that has been put in place to enable kin carers particularly grandparents who are now having the opportunity to be able to step forward and provide this support and who perhaps have not been full-time parents for quite a while to receive support. This programme costs $600000 per year and is facilitated by the parenting course and I think that is very positive.In conclusion I do want to acknowledge Tracey Martin. This is a good bill. It has wide support across the House and I think it is important to acknowledge that when good policy arrives wherever it comes from it should be acknowledged and supported. Clearly this Government has seen the merits in this bill and is now supporting it which is acknowledgment of Tracy Martin’s tenacity and acknowledgment of her particular passion for this community within our wider country. So she does deserve that acknowledgment. She has been a fierce advocate for these children and for families that are in this position. Although we may not always agree on all aspects of the policy response and the priorities of that and the sequencing of it it is important to acknowledge courage when you see it good policy when you see it and good effort when you see it. So I acknowledge you Tracey Martin and put my support to this bill. Thank you.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston): It is really difficult to even contemplate not supporting a bill with a title like this bill the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I want to commend Tracey Martin for putting this bill forward. We will get to the point tonight where we will allow for another member’s ballot tomorrow and hopefully another bill will be pulled out of the ballot that will be a compassionate bill like this one where everyone in the House is forced to—whether they like it or not—support the bill.The previous speaker Todd Muller spoke about woeful contributions. I just want to say that it is disturbing that that member would spend 10 minutes talking about thisonly so that we could avoid having a member’s ballot tomorrow because of National members’ fear that we might pull another bill like this one out of the ballot. Let us be honest that is where it is at. I am not going to speak for long because it is important that we get to that process tomorrow and Tracey Martin and other speakers in the House have done this bill justice in terms of what they had to say about it.The only two things I want to touch on are two areas about which I am personally disappointed—and I know the rest of the Labour caucus and I think the rest of the House are also disappointed—in the Government members. They are in respect of firstly the fact that those members voted down Jacinda Ardern’s Supplementary Order Paper 72 which would have included weekly pocket money and annual birthday and Christmas allowances to align all of the allowances for unsupported children and orphans with those provided to foster children under the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989. How mean-spirited of the National members not to support that Supplementary Order Paper.The second thing I want to point out is that the Government members also voted down Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper 70 which would have changed the commencement date of this bill bringing it forward from 1 July 2018 to 3 months after the date on which it receives the Royal assent. Children in respect of whom an orphans benefit or unsupported child’s benefit is paid should not have to wait until 2018 to potentially benefit from this bill. Again can I just point out how mean-spirited it is of the National members not to support that Supplementary Order Paper.So although it is good that we agree in general on this bill and that we will all be supporting this bill in the House I do need to just point out those two things. How mean-spirited of the Government members not to support Jacinda Ardern’s Supplementary Order Paper and Jan Logie’s Supplementary Order Paper. I commend this bill to the House and I thank Tracey Martin for putting it forward.JONO NAYLOR (National): I find it somewhat ironic that we have just had a Budget that for the first time in 43 years increases the benefit payments for families that have children in them and yet the member opposite Carmel Sepuloni calls the members on this side mean-spirited—I see some irony there that I just could not let pass—mean-spirited people who would want to put up benefits for people who have got children! It is bizarre.I want to talk about this bill though because this is an important bill. In doing so I particularly want to start off by acknowledging the important role that kin carers play within New Zealand society. In almost every circumstance I think it would be fair to say when somebody finds themselves being a kin carer when they are looking after children who are not their own they do not do so out of choice. They do so often in situations where there has been a high level of stress where there has been perhaps a death in the family where there has been for some reason—through abuse or neglect or otherwise—parents not being available to care for their own children. So these kin carers many of them grandparents find themselves at a stage of life when they were planning on doing something completely different from caring for children having to once again care for young children. I can only imagine how challenging that would be.I am fortunate enough now that my youngest child is 17 but on the weekend I had the privilege of looking after some friends’ younger children. We had a nice afternoon. It was OK. We went down to the park. We played and kicked a ball around and all that kind of stuff but the thought I have to say even at my stage of life in my late 40s not necessarily in my 70s or 80s as some of these people find themselves—Richard Prosser: You’re holding up very well.JONO NAYLOR: Thank you very much. I—Richard Prosser: You’re looking well for a man of your age.JONO NAYLOR: Well there you go.I think that at a certain stage of life it is going to be a stressful situation that these people find themselves in having to return to looking after small children. So this bill in fact actually seeks to lessen that stress. It seeks to lessen that burden. I want to just as I said acknowledge those people for the work that they are doing. There are over 6000 children being raised in New Zealand by their grandparents and that is pretty significant. There are another 6000 - plus children who are being raised by other family members. It is a pretty difficult situation as I said.You see when the State has custody of a child everything is taken care of. There are board payments that are made. There are all sorts of other payments that are made for the upkeep of those children. But when there is a payment made under the orphans benefit or the unsupported child’s benefit the payment is less.In a previous part of my life I had a very short stint as a Child Youth and Family social worker. It was part of our job to actually assess the position that foster carers were in and whether or not it would be appropriate for the State to take a step back in order for them to take on additional guardianship. What was a little bit disturbing at the time was that I had a manager who before he would sign off on other payments for shoes and uniforms and stuff used to ask us: “Have you asked them this question about additional guardianship?” and he used to put a little bit of pressure on us to reduce the number of children in care because I think it meant that there was less coming off his budget. But that is by the by. One of the key questions that we needed to address before a child was moved from being under the full care and custody of the State and perhaps then went into an additional guardian situation was the type of bond that they had with the family whether or not there was any need for additional social work input.One of the challenging things that I used to find as a social worker in going to those caregivers and asking them whether or not they would be prepared for the State to take a step back and whether they would be prepared to take on additional guardianship of this child—because on the surface of it it seemed like a very good idea because the bonds were there and it seemed like it would be the most stable thing for a child going forward—was saying to them: “Oh and by the way you won’t be getting as much money anymore.” It was a challenging thing to actually have to say to someone: “Thanks. You’ve done a great job. We really appreciate the fact that you’ve been looking after this child. We really appreciate the great investment that you have made in this child and we see that you have made such a great bond with this child that you could now take care of them on your own but we’re going to pay you less money.” I have got to say that I used to find that pretty challenging.This bill actually seeks to bring a level of redress to that because at the end of the day the last thing we want is for young people to remain in the custody of the State any longer than they need to. It is important that as much as possible young people who have suffered the trauma of either having their parents sort of taken from them through death or who perhaps have had to leave their parents’ care through abuse or neglect can somehow establish as normal a life as possible to establish the kind of life that I guess most children in our country get to have. So it is really critical that we do everything that we can to ensure that these kin carer placements stay in place provide stability for these young people and do not begin to fall over through financial hardship or otherwise. So as I said this is exactly what we are trying to do. It is an incredibly challenging thing for someone to take this on particularly if it is smaller children or sometimes I guess teenagers depending on where you are at that stage of life. They each provide their own challenge of course.Just in going through this bill and preparing to come and speak tonight I thought it was appropriate to go back and have a look at the submissions that were made to the Social Services Committee. I obviously was not around when this bill went through the select committee so I wanted to just get a bit of a feel for some of the things that submitters had said. In particular there was a very substantial submission from the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust. I just want to commend it because it does fantastic work in supporting these grandparents who are raising their grandchildren. It does incredible work in terms of providing networks for people in order to provide support and I think it is well worth listening to.If you will bear with me I just want to read a couple of the things that the trust said. There were about 9 pages of submission and I am not going to read the whole lot you will be pleased to hear although it would be probably just about as riveting as Mr Faafoi’s reading out of the entire list of National MPs the other night but—Kris Faafoi: Don’t make me do it again.JONO NAYLOR: Oh it would be so much fun if we could just hear that over and over again! In fact the thing I liked about that so much actually was that if we had returned the favour to the Labour Party it would have taken only half as long.But anyway here is what the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust had to say. It said: “A number of anomalies exist in our child welfare and social security system creating inequities between kin/whanau carers and foster carers. It is important to acknowledge these anomalies in the context of discussing this Bill because they highlight the substantial disparity that exists in the level of financial support available to the two types of caregivers who undertake the same role as principal caregiver to a child who cannot be cared for by his or her parents.” I think the trust made a very good point there.Also one of its last points was this: “We challenge the committee”—and I guess challenge this House—“to consider this Bill in the light of the anomalies in our system and consider the question: is it fair in our society for a child being raised by its grandparent to be denied access to the services and financial support it needs and would receive if it were in foster care only because it is being raised by a grandparent?”.There were a couple of other submitters and I will not name them but they made some really good points too. Briefly someone said: “My husband and I have been raising our twin grandchildren since they were 7 weeks old and they are now 9 years old. We feel that a clothing allowance would be an amazing help as it is a struggle to keep up with everything.” I will not go into the other one but I think it is a really important thing that we are doing here.Finally I just want to remind the House that this is in the context of a wider framework. This is in the context of a Government that is supporting this—it is obviously a member’s bill but we are supporting it—in the context of the extra $10 million that has been set aside through the White Paper for Vulnerable Children the extra $10 million set aside to help with kin carers. It is in the context of us wanting to work harder to address the needs of our vulnerable children in New Zealand. So it is with great pleasure that we support this bill because we think it will help those very children—not for the reasons referred to by the previous speaker. Thank you.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short call on this bill because I like many others on this side of the House would like to see this bill passed tonight rather than waiting for another long drawn-out process to ensue before carers and kin carers can actually get a little bit of assistance. We support this bill.I want to pay tribute to Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the House. It is an example of an MP who has seen a need from constituents and where she has actually decided to address that need. This House is actually working towards doing something good for kin carers after all—it is not often it happens—and so Tracey Martin I do appreciate the fact that you have worked really hard to get it here.The reason we support this bill is that we too agree that the carers of children who are not their own orphans or family members who are not in foster care but are being cared for by their kin have been discriminated against. This bill will make the difference of over $1000 a year. We do have to wonder whether in the context of the benefit increases that the Government is trumpeting loud and wide these people are actually going to be any better off than what they would have been if they had been able to access that $25 a week increase. What I do have some concerns about and I am still not clear on is whether the $25 increase in the benefit allowances that the Government has introduced in the last Budget will actually go to those people who are caring for these children—kin carers who are on unsupported child benefits. I am not sure that that is the case. If these carers are not getting that benefit this addition of just over a thousand dollars a year—and it will not be introduced for a couple of years—they will be falling behind and they basically will be even with this in place.I have read through the submissions and I do have to congratulate the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust which certainly raised its voice about it. When I read through the submissions some of them were incredibly moving. They talked about the discrimination and the loss of income that they faced when they moved from being a foster carer of their grandchild potentially or other children to being a kin carer. As one person put it Mr Hunt “I support the bill because as a Grandfather raising a Grandson he has the same needs and level of support whether he is under CYFS control or WINZ control … In fact had I been fully aware of the huge inequity in financial support for my Grandson (from CYFS to WINZ) I would have ‘fought’ to stay under CYFS control. I strongly believe my Grandson is better off in ‘family care’ than foster … yet we are penalised because we are a caring loving family wanting to look after their own!”.If we accept that in the State support sector it is better for children to be raised by whānau family and grandparents than it is to be wards of the State and raised by strangers or in institutions God forbid if we accept that it is better for them to be looked after by their own kin then we should be acknowledging that and not exploiting those family members because we can. We have seen this time and time again in this House. We have seen it with the way this Government has treated family carers of adult children with disabilities and the enormous lengths this Government has gone to to prevent those family carers of adults with disabilities from getting any type of top-up in their support any type of equity.Although this is a very small improvement and it is an improvement that does not kick in for 2 years—and we acknowledge that that was a deal that Tracey Martin had to do to get this into place—we will be supporting this bill. We think it is a good thing that she has brought to the House and we commend it.JENNY SALESA (Labour—Manukau East): It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill. This bill is really close to my heart because I see so many of these families in my electorate office. Can you imagine four children who grow up in a loving family with both parents? The father is the only breadwinner in the house. This father passes away suddenly. These kids are all under the age of 5. Their mother unfortunately also passes away due to a car accident. However this bill is a great bill because what it will do is it will address the parity issue that these four children currently face. These four children who are looked after by whānau right now cannot have access to the clothing allowance that other foster children have access to. This is just not fair.Here in New Zealand there are so many grandparents who raise their grandchildren. A lot of these grandparents go to court to fight for the right to look after these grandchildren. Some of these grandchildren suffer abuse and trauma which is one of the reasons why these grandparents go to court to fight to look after them. What these grandparents are actually asking for all that these grandparents are asking for is parity with foster parents. These grandparents just want to be treated in the same fair way as foster parents.What this legislation will do—and I would like to commend and thank Tracey Martin for bringing this bill to the House—is ease the financial burden that these families face in raising these unsupported and orphaned children. What would have been a really good and caring thing for this Government to do is implement this bill this year in 2015 instead of in 3 years’ time in July 2018. Instead of say wasting Government taxes of $26 million on a flag referendum this would have been a better and more caring way of supporting our children our really vulnerable children. The Labour Party strongly supports this bill and thank you so much.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to speak on the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. Often I think members read out the name of the bill the longer the better to take up a bit of time but I am not doing that tonight. It is a pleasure and I would like to pay due homage to Tracey Martin for bringing this bill forward. I note in the speech that she led off the third reading by saying that it was not her bill it was Diane Vivian’s bill andshe paid a lot of credit to her.I take on board what she was saying and I know the point that she was trying to make but one of the responsibilities that comes with being a member of Parliament is passing legislation and this is the only way that it can be done. So I know what you are saying but actually it is your bill. It is your name that is going to be on it Tracey and it is quite an achievement to get it this far. As has been alluded to you had to do a deal but that is politics. Politics is the art of the possible so well done for doing that.I also think there is quite a bit of irony tonight as it was only last week in the Budget debate we were given a hard time for not speaking for long enough; now we are being given a hard time for speaking for too long. I think it is a bit of an odd thing but that is politics. I guess being in Opposition is about opposing so that is fair enough I guess.I was not on the Social Services Committee which considered this bill because obviously the bill was considered prior to the election but it seems like a pretty good result that has come through from this committee. I think as has been said by Jenny Salesa the previous speaker that it is a pretty tough sort of a thing to have to deal with. I know that those families in that situation have got enough to deal with without having to worry about money but this is what this bill seeks to address.Under section 363 of the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 the chief executive is responsible for the administration and has the discretion to determine rates of payment for foster children. At present that discretion has been used to determine a rate for clothing allowances for which orphans and unsupported children are not eligible so this bill seeks to address that. This bill seeks to insert new section 29B into the Social Security Act 1964 to establish a clothing allowance for children whose caregivers receive an orphans benefit or an unsupported child’s benefit and that will allow this mechanism to work. In the interim the Government as part of the Children’s Action Plan has committed an extra $10 million to provide further support for kin carers and a ministerial reference group was set up to organise the funding and how that might be applied.An unsupported child’s benefit is available only when a family breaks down as was mentioned in other cases but the orphans benefit applies when the children’s parents have died or cannot be found. Either of those situations is very traumatic for the family as a whole certainly for the children and when kin carers step in to deal with this they have enough to deal with without having to deal with the knowledge that they are not actually getting the same amount of money that they would if they were looking after a child who was not related to them. As I said this bill seeks to address that.I think one of the major things we need to realise is that under the current rules there is no income test or asset test for the people receiving these benefits. They can receive another benefit at the same time which obviously makes sense—they are going to have extra costs. The child automatically qualifies for a community services card which is a great financial benefit for them. We have to recognise as one of my colleagues said earlier that there are more than 12000 children in New Zealand who are being looked after by kin carers. That is a heck of a lot of children when you think about it.It must be pretty traumatic for those families but it is not that many generations ago that families were involved as a matter of course with the wider family in bringing up children. I know that in the Pacific Island community in particular in my electorate this is quite common today. It is not generally in the Pākehā community but if we go back only a few generations that was the case. I think we have lost something today when we no longer have that close connection with grandparents in that way because there is so much you can learn from previous generations. Lots of things were passed down through the families as in fact is the way with Māori and Pasifika. That is in fact how their whakapapa was passed down. I think that is an interesting thing and I hope it keeps up as it is going through a renaissance at the moment.Of course for grandparents who are bringing up children today the gap between the age of a grandparent and a grandchild is much greater than it was all those generations ago when families were involved. Couples are now choosing to have their families later in life than they were before—whereas they would quite often be in their early 20s they are now in their mid-30s often and late-30s. So that gap for the grandparents is much greater. In addition to that of course technology has come into play today and a whole lot of things have moved on. I am sure most people and members in the House are involved with social media in one form or another as I certainly am—and I see that my colleagues are busy indulging in it at the moment. I have teenage children and they are light years ahead of me in the way they utilise social media.Chris Bishop: That’s not—it’s rubbish.STUART SMITH: Yes but it is true.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Can the member at least attempt to relate that to the bill.STUART SMITH: I am Mr Assistant Speaker. There is a refresher course offered to grandparents and kin carers who are returning to the front line of parenting and it is absolutely a part of that. It is a very important part I believe.More than 300 children have benefited from the first round of the Extraordinary Care Fund grants that were put up and this is going back to the select committee decision which I will come to in a moment. The grants were available for up to $2000 per child. That covers extra tutoring for kids struggling at school orthodontic work that is not funded by the Ministry of Health the costs of attending national and regional sports tournaments and music lessons where a child is progressing ahead of their peers. I think when a child is in a situation where they are being brought up by their grandparent or kin carer and they have a talent or they need some extra help with their tutoring or with orthodontic work it is only right that they should have the funding to cover that. I think that is fantastic.There has been a lot of talk about the 2018 implementation date but I note that the select committee decided that the existing measures that are in place which I have just spoken about along with changes proposed to the bill which have been accepted would sufficiently address the issue of parity. The school and year start-up payment for carers is a new policy initiative and its funding is expected to fall back within baseline levels by 2018.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! For the last minute I am going to challenge the member to not just read out the select committee report. Thank you.STUART SMITH: I am not reading out the report.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Word for word.STUART SMITH: OK. The select committee made a decision to put the implementation date out to 2018 and I think that if we do not do that we are going to fix one inequity by creating another. I think it makes perfect sense to delay the start until 2018. They will not be any worse off although it will be under a different payment format. Therefore it is with great pleasure that I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): Firstly I would like to acknowledge the work that Tracey Martin has done on behalf of grandparents everywhere and other kin carers. Thank you very much for that work. I am not going to take too long because I do not want to stand between you and the passing of this bill.I do want to acknowledge another person who spoke during the first reading of this bill Dr Rajen Prasad a colleague of mine who is not in the House any longer. He is a social worker extraordinaire a man who knew about the care of children and someone who was very passionate about this bill. He would be very happy to know that it is passing this evening.This bill is about the equitability of access to allowances for kin carers of children to bring them in line with the allowances for foster children. We traversed the complexity of family issues over the course of this bill but before we had Whānau Ora we had Puao-te-Ata-tu which really was the genesis of the work that went to support the original idea of kin carers some 20-odd years ago—perhaps more than that. I was talking with a colleague today; we were trying to figure out when that happened but it was some 20 years ago. It has become really what we would know as Whānau Ora today. Puao-te-Ata-tu talked about developing processes for families to take the primary role of care of their children when the parents were unable to do so when it became impossible for parents to continue with that care. Today what we are going to do is pass this legislation which will allow for those kin carers to have the same rights to allowances that other foster carers have.The only small but important blight on this is the commencement date. It is a shame that these children will not have access to these allowances before 2018. It has been well traversed throughout the House. It is the only thing wrong; it is otherwise a really fantastic bill. On that note my commendations to Tracey Martin; I commend the bill to the House.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Just to advise you Mr Assistant Speaker that this is a split call with my colleague and may I request a bell at 4 minutes?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): You will have a bell at 4 minutes.PAUL FOSTER-BELL: Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker. That is very kind of you. I am not on the Social Services Committee at Parliament but I specifically asked whether I might take a call on this bill and our very gracious whip granted me that privilege because of a personal interest that I have in this particular subject. I want to begin before getting on to that by congratulating the member Tracey Martin. She is a member whom I have enormous respect for and she has brought a matter before the House that is of great significance to the 12000 or so families who have a situation of kin carers caring for family members. We have heard from colleagues that 6000 or so of those particular families are grandparents caring for their own grandchildren and my family fits into that particular situation. My parents relatively late in their lives when they thought they had got beyond caring for children once we had grown up and left home found themselves in a situation where my little brother ended up having an accidental pregnancy situation with his girlfriend and they stepped up and took responsibility for that when my brother was not able to.So I have got a beautiful niece who is now nearly an adult herself who has succeeded in life and had the best possible opportunities because she was fortunate enough to have had grandparents who could step in when her parents were not able to take the sort of responsibility that is needed for a child. So can I congratulate the member Tracey Martin on bringing this measure forward because it is something that we on this side of the House do agree with. We agree with the intent and I am very grateful to the member for the constructive way she has worked with Government Ministers to actually enable this bill to be implemented.In terms of the implementation date we have heard some rather spurious arguments from some that we are somehow trying to hold this up. Whether this bill is passed today tomorrow in a week or in a month it actually takes effect on 1 July 2018 and that is to ensure parity and alignment with other measures including school and year start-up payments that may no longer be available at that stage. So well done Tracey Martin for taking the initiative and bringing this before us. In relation to the $10 million capped fund that we introduced via the White Paper for Vulnerable Children measures we believe that these changes are able to be made within a fiscally responsible cap. That is on top of all the other support that this Government is providing to vulnerable children including the $790 million extra benefit payments to those children who are the very most vulnerable.But something of particular relevance to grandparents that I would point to is the significant increases in superannuation that have been available to them over this term of the Government. In fact since 2008 we have had more than a 30 percent increase in the rate of national superannuation and just this week there will be an $11 per week increase in national superannuation for married couples and a $7.59 increase for individuals. There has been over the course of this Government a 30 percent increase which is way in advance of the 15 percent increase in the cost of living over the same time.This bill is one measure that actually adds to some of those other measures that we on this side of the House have been working on. It brings parity for kin carers in particular grandparents—I am delighted about that—and it does address some of those issues that children face when they already have the stigma attached of being an orphan. I and many members of this House I am sure do not attach a stigma to being an orphan. It is something beyond the control of any child whether their parents have passed away or have been imprisoned or simply have not been able to take the responsibility to care for their children as the vast majority of parents in New Zealand do. There are additional stigmas that can be attached: for instance if they have been brought up by grandparents who do not have the financial means to give them the fashionable clothes or the treats in their lunchbox that the other kids have at school or to allow them to go on the music or sports trips and to play the part that we want all young New Zealanders to play—to grow up to be strong productive and contributing citizens to our great country. For these reasons I think this is an excellent bill. Tracey Martin is to be congratulated once again and I commend the bill to the House.BRETT HUDSON (National): It is a delight to stand and speak in this third reading of the bill. As a first-term MP I would just like to note that I am beginning to experience some of the interesting and almost labyrinthine-type parts of the legislative process but within that also seeing the opportunity that affords itself through that process for parties that might start off with differing positions to find some common ground and some means to meet through a consultative process and through compromise. I would just like to congratulate Tracey Martin as colleagues across the House have done on her deep commitment to people in need and particularly to the children whose needs this bill will address. I also congratulate her on her perseverance in working constructively to find some common ground that can be built upon to lead to a solution that will see a very very practical bill come into effect soon one that will bring real assistance to those kin caring environments that are dealing with children in need and one that has leveraged the ability that the select committee process particularly affords to make some headway and reach some common ground.In reviewing the Social Services Committee’s recommendations and hearing colleagues talk about that process what I saw was an ability to reach across a divide and reach convergence. We on the Government side looked at the $10 million that had been earmarked through the White Paper for Vulnerable Children and looked at how we could apply that to the very real and positive changes that Mrs Martin was looking to achieve with her member’s bill. Instead of taking a position of complete confrontation or opposition we were both able to come together and say: “Well how about we take the fund that we have earmarked and set it to the purpose that you have set out? In doing that as we work through that we will work together at an even more targeted and more effective regime but we will be able to put into effect the intent at least Mrs Martin of what it is that you had in mind.”So we reach this point. We have this bill—this bill that will see the discretionary ability of the chief executive to make a ruling on clothing allowances for orphans and unsupported children extend to that situation we are talking about of kin carers and one common example of that as we have heard from both sides of the House is grandparents. So it is with great pleasure that I rise in support of the third reading of this bill.One of the members on this side raised a point about the assistance that the Government had brought in through the Extraordinary Care Fund. I do note that it is true that that fund was helping in making the job of grandparents and extended family members who were raising children easier. It was working in the areas of tutoring orthodontics and in music lessons but it is very true as Mrs Martin pointed out with her member’s bill that it was in fact missing some areas. Children in situations other than being cared for by kin carers were in fact receiving some assistance through the State in the area of clothing allowances in a discretionary move that the chief executive had made. And although we had this Extraordinary Care Fund in place and it was doing a lot of good it still was not necessarily covering every situation of assistance that other children in need were receiving. So it is an extraordinarily positive move to ensure that there is a real parity across the different sorts of caring arrangements.I would note that in the election campaign this Government did make the point that we wanted to open discussions around the whole range of caring for children and the different models of care for instance in parental care for young children and in paid parental care for young children in environments where it may not be either of the biological parents who could be caring for that child—those parents could be back at work. This reaching of consensus and agreement in this area is in fact an example of taking that thinking and putting it into implementation. So I am absolutely delighted that I can stand as a first-term MP in an example of a situation where we have been able to reach across the House and reach a point of agreement and I commend this bill to the House.Bill read a third time.Underground Coal Mining Safety BillFirst ReadingHon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I move That the Underground Coal Mining Safety Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. Like so many members’ bills this one has been some time in gestation. It was a bill I introduced after the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy which had recommended that an “effective regulatory framework for underground coal mining should be established urgently.” The royal commission identified through its hearings the fact that Queensland and New South Wales have arguably the best practice in this area. Effectively what I did was take those Queensland mine regulations and what this bill will do is implement them immediately into New Zealand to protect the lives of miners working underground.I am sure that we will hear from the Government the excuse that much has happened in that time and I acknowledge that and that there is no need for this bill. If I can take us back through a pathway in 1994 I was given a lecture on underground mining by Bill Brazil who was a former mines inspector. He told me that the change in the legislation in 1992 by the National Government would be rued by this country and that we would be shamed by the consequences of deregulation of mining regulations that had been established through over a century of experience. How right he was.It took some time. In fact it was in the early 2000s before we started to see some major faults in the practice of underground mining. The theory had been that the Occupational Safety and Health Service would deal with the safety and the challenges and the risks of underground mining and that in fact a code of practice would be established and would be passed and would protect miners. That code of practice was never ever properly implemented and indeed the question is whether it has been implemented today—but I will come back to that issue. The inevitable catastrophe and loss of life because of an unregulated mining environment cost the lives of 29 men at Pike River and some others before. In fact I wrote a letter to the Minister of Labour just some months before Pike River raising issues that had been brought to my attention about lax practices in underground mining but I was given by the Minister—who had got it from her officials no doubt—a reassurance that all was well.This bill is my best attempt to try to protect the lives of underground miners. It was the best thing I could do because we had let our experience and that of international miners drift into the naivety of deregulation and market forces to protect the miners at work. This bill takes Queensland regulations which are not perfect—in fact of Pike River some have said that Australians designed the mine Australians ran the mine and Australians were in part a big major cause of its disaster—but Queensland regulations not implemented in New Zealand would have protected those men.The Government did move forward and pass legislation. In fact the original bill it brought in was split into three parts. One was to set up WorkSafe which has happened. The second was of course to ensure that Mines Rescue had the right authority to do its job properly. And the third was the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act “Pike River” having been dropped from the title. That was passed in 2013 and a key component in amended section 20A of the Health and Safety in Employment Act is subsection (1) which states: “A code of practice an amendment to a code of practice or a revocation of a code of practice has no force or effect until it has been approved by the Minister.” I rang today to see whether that code of practice has been implemented and no one could give me reassurance that it has.We have had the establishment of a High Hazards Unit. We have had progress. In fact we have had mines shut down until we could be sure that a safer regime was being carried out. Although people point the finger at Pike River the reality is that Solid Energy the Government’s own miner had such lax practices that for 6 months its mine was closed down post Pike River. Not one tonne of coal came out because it too was overseeing a dangerous mining situation. We cannot take anything for granted.What I ask of the Government is that it supports this legislation going to the select committee. It may say it has done all it can. What I say is that I want to check and this Parliament must check that the legislation is being implemented as intended that the codes of practice as identified have been implemented and are up to standard and that everything we can possibly do to make underground mining safe has been done. So I ask of the Government: can it support this bill and send it to the select committee where a group of MPs from all parties can come along and we can hear submissions from people who are responsible in the mining area to give us that reassurance?We need to know that the High Hazards Unit set up by the Government has the proper resourcing to do the job. The reality and one of the contributing factors to the Pike River mine disaster was that the Department of Labour was under-resourced. We need an assurance that Mines Rescue through the passage of this legislation has the right authority to act in the best way should we ever have to face such a terrible situation again.The legislation passed by the Government oversees safety in quarries. This year within a 1-month period we had two deaths in quarries in this country. That says to us that we still do not have things right. We need to know that the people in positions of authority and the people with responsibility have not only the qualifications but the experience to oversee proper and safe workplace practices.There are unresolved issues. Twenty-nine men still lie in the bowels of the Pike River mine. Their families have been asked to move—some say to move on. I would never ask them to move on. If you look through history if you look at all cultures one of the things we are most committed to most passionate about is trying to identify our loved ones whenever they are lost to us in any way. That is the driver for those 29 families and I would never ask them to move on. No one has been held to account. Last week in the High Court two family members were asking the court to review the decision by the Government agency that it would not proceed with the prosecution against the mine manager. Indeed the royal commission report and all the reports identify clear faults in decision making at that mine. It is not for me to judge but it is for me to say that those families have a right to ask the questions in a court of law. Mr Dave Feickert a staunch advocate for mine safety made a submission to the royal commission. The family of Mr Feickert who unfortunately has now passed away wants his submission to be made public. That has been blocked.Those are but three unresolved issues that I think need to be resolved. I ask the Government to support this bill going to the select committee to allow Parliament to review the progress or otherwise that it has made to question whether there is still a need for more improvement in the area of mine safety and work safety in this country and to ensure that everything that we can do as parliamentarians to prevent another mine disaster in this country has been done. We do not want one unnecessary death in mining or in quarrying or indeed in any workplace in New Zealand. We should not rest until we are assured that through legislation through the oversight of regulation and through our commitment to the parliamentary process we have done everything we can to ensure that men and women when they go to work can return home to their loved ones and to their families. This is what the families want most from that terrible disaster: to ensure that others do not have to suffer as they still suffer. I ask the Government to support this legislation going through to the select committee so that we can review the progress or otherwise that we have made in this House since the Pike River mine disaster.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I just want to acknowledge the member from West Coast - Tasman Damien O’Connor and the support that he has offered his community during this very difficult time over this last number of years.Acknowledging the tragic loss and the gaps in the health and safety regime has been something that this Government and I am sure all New Zealanders have done with utter sincerity in respect of those who lost their lives and also in respect of those families of course who lost their loved ones. Mr O’Connor said in his opening remarks that in the early 2000s “they”—I assume he means the Government or the industry no doubt—began to see the failings in the health and safety regime in underground mining. I guess our response to that statement is that at that particular point in time his party was in Government. We would look not for retrospective criticism but for proactive action when people see those issues. Also one other point is that legislation is not necessarily the process to do the checks. I understand what the member is saying. The annual review of perhaps WorkSafe New Zealand—maybe he can sub on next time that happens—is the time I think when accounts can be asked for regarding the implementation of legislation that is being put in place to make our workplaces safer.We understand of course that on that tragic day 19 November 2010 31 miners and contractors were present in the mine. Two miners managed to walk from the mine and went to hospital with moderate injuries. They were released from Grey Base Hospital in Greymouth the next day. But the remaining 16 miners and 13 contractors sadly lost their lives. Immediately following that event days later in November 2010 the Prime Minister ordered a royal commission of inquiry led by Justice Graham Panckhurst. While Justice Panckhurst was performing this royal commission of inquiry the Government also commissioned a review of health and safety practices in New Zealand. From that we have this report The Report of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety: He Korowai Whakaruruhau which I have no doubt you are familiar with. That group was chaired by Rob Jager chairman of the Shell company here in New Zealand. It is an industry that is very very familiar with hazardous situations. Shell is a company that prides itself on having international best practice in that particular field and he was the right man for the job.Though initially the royal commission report was due to come back in March 2012 obviously we know it was a very extensive commission of inquiry and it finally came back on 3 October 2012 when Justice Panckhurst reported to the Attorney-General the Hon Chris Finlayson. Not long after that that report was made public—people obviously scrutinised it and on 5 November it was made public. The royal commission as the honourable member has said came up with 16 recommendations the second of which was this—it is in the bill that the member has presented to the House—“An effective regulatory framework for underground coal mining should be established urgently.”The commission did refer to Queensland and New South Wales framework examples as demonstrating international best practice. One of the commissioners on the royal commission was Stewart Bell who was the Queensland state Commissioner for Mine Safety and Health. And so it was important to bring that expertise over to New Zealand at that time as we underwent this commission of inquiry to look at the factors that led up to this tragedy that happened at Pike River.On 12 December 2012 the Government released its plan to implement all 16 of those recommendations and as I said before on April 2013 4 months later this report The Report of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety: He Korowai Whakaruruhau came out. One of the things I think that this report states is that New Zealand’s culture in workplace health and safety was very lacking. If we look at international figures—for example for 100000 of population—in the United Kingdom one worker per 100000 a year would lose their lives in the workplace. Here in New Zealand for that same 100000 population we would lose four in the workplace. So obviously we know there is something that is happening in New Zealand that needs addressing and it is attitudes it is culture and it is practices and behaviour. I believe that as wein this House in due course look at the Health and Safety Reform Bill we will be able to address some of those issues which will make New Zealand a safer place for people to work in and certainly to come home from their day of work and enjoy their families and their homes in.After this report which came out in April 2013 and also after the royal commission and the Government’s response to that came out a month later in May 2013 we saw two significant reports. They came from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. One is this report I am holding—it is Safe mines: safe workers. It is the discussion document summary. Its subtitle is Implementing recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. Some of the sections are: “Have your say”—not your say Mr Assistant Speaker but the people’s say—“We’re seeking your feedback” “A new regulatory approach” “Training and qualifications” “Worker participation” and “Emergency management”. So we see from the Pike River royal commission from the independent task force that some very I guess forensic work has been done into workplace activities and behaviours.Then 4 months later came the response to the submissions—this document from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment that I am holding Safe mines: safe workers—Response to Submissions. It reported that the ministry “received 113 submissions by the 1 July 2013 deadline”: “55 from quarry operators … 21 from mine operators … seven from individual mine workers six from mining contractors two from unions four from employer or industry organisations five from mining associations two from quarrying associations and two from tunnelling associations and nine from other industries interested parties and the public.” So we see that the Government has canvassed broadly and widely and has had some significant response in terms of what we should do regarding health and safety particularly for mining.The member’s bill was presented to the House 1 month later: the Underground Coal Mining Safety Bill under the name of Damien O’Connor. As he said for some time no doubt the bill had been in the ballot waiting to be drawn. We do understand his intent and his response to what happened in his part of the country and so we do just acknowledge that.I am sorry Mr Assistant Speaker if you think I am looking at notes but I am just reading out a chronology here that I think is important for the record. Then in December 2013 the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment released a further document. Here it is—I am holding it here. It is Safe mines: safe workers—New laws on mining health and safety: A quick guide for mine operators. But what the ministry says in this is not to just rely on the guide but to go and read the legislation. I think what it is addressing is the fact that people do not delve deeply enough into the issues around health and safety. What it states here in the introduction—it says: “The Government has recently made changes to the laws concerning health and safety in the mining industry. This is in response” obviously “to the … Royal Commission” and the tragedy that obviously happened in Pike River and to the families there. It says: “The new legal requirements have been developed with help from an expert reference group of mining health and safety and regulatory experts from New Zealand and abroad. The Government has also worked closely with people in the industry”.As I conclude what I want to say is that the Government does care immensely about the safety of miners and workers and contractors and we have demonstrated that by passing sound legislation—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! I regret the time has come for me to leave the Chair. The House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow. The debate is interrupted and set down for further consideration next sitting day.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.