Volume 700 Week 79 - Wednesday 30 July 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 700 Week 79 - Wednesday 30 July 2014[Sitting date: 30 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19655. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 30 July 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MotionsHuman Rights West Papua—Media FreedomCATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):I seek leave to move a motion without notice and without debate on media freedom in West Papua.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: I move That this House call upon the new President of Indonesia to commit to genuine media freedom in West Papua including the right of local and international journalists to report on the political situation therewithout risk of imprisonment or harassment by the Indonesian State.Motion agreed to.Questions to MinistersWage Rates—Growth Inequality and Minimum Wage1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with his Minister of Finance that workers have an expectation that they “will be doing better than zero pay increases”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes. I imagine all workers would like a pay rise and on average wages have been rising faster than inflation. For example average weekly hour wages went up by 2.5 percent over the last year and average weekly wages went up by 3.2 percent. At the same time the CPI went up by only 1.5 percent.Hon David Cunliffe: Complimenting the Government on its sartorial elegance for once—does he instead support the widening gap between chief executive officer pay and that of the average workers which rose from 21.9 percent in 2010 to 26 times that just 2 years later?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a very very long period of time this country has had a pretty significant gap between chief executive officer pay and what others earn. I will say though that that gap is considerably smaller in New Zealand than it is in a lot of countries around the world.Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Prime Minister support the pay increase for the quarter of a million workers who would directly benefit from Labour’s minimum wage changes which will provide a significant boost to the economy through boosting workers’ spending power?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In a word no. The reason for that is I am not so irresponsible that I would say to 6000 New Zealanders that they are losing their jobs because the Labour Party is polling at 25 percent—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Prime Minister oppose higher minimum wages when evidence shows that that leads to workers staying in jobs longer higher productivity higher standards of living more spent at the corner dairy greater consumer demand and more not fewer jobs?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: A few things. First the Government has supported higher minimum wages each and every year we have been the Government but we have done so responsibly. All I can say to the member is that when he sends those 6000 people to the dole queue he should be ashamed that he is doing that because his own leadership is leading the Labour Party down the toilet.Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Prime Minister oppose policies that would see our lowest-paid workers receive an additional $4000 a year?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Labour Party will be known as the “Anti-jobs Party”. This is a party that does not support what we on this side of the House support which is a 90-day trial period. I am actually a bit surprised the Labour Party does not support it because if it had it could have booted out Cunliffe after 89 days.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will appreciate that the Prime Minister has no right to refer to any member of Parliament in the way he just did. This late in the day I suggest you do your job. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I suggest to that member that if he again raises frivolous points of order he will not be here for the balance of question time.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect it is not a frivolous point of order about what people are called.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Grant Robertson: I will finish my point of order please.Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have just ruled that I said it was a frivolous point of order. [Interruption] Order! The member can freely disagree with me but he has to accept my decision.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is it a fresh point of order? If it is a fresh point of order I will be delighted to hear it.Grant Robertson: Can I clarify that you are now changing a very longstanding ruling of this House that members have to be called either by their full name or by their title as a representative of their electorate? That is what you have just done. The Prime Minister used only the surname of the Leader of the Opposition and nothing else. This is a substantially changed ruling you have just made.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If I could intervene I say that the member is actually right. I was remiss in doing that. I should have called him Mr Cunliffe. In the heat of the exchange I did not do that. I apologise and correct my answer.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Prime Minister for that. The difficulty I have is that I actually did not hear that he was not referred to as Mr Cunliffe and that is because of the level of noise and barrage that is coming across the House. I appreciate that we are very close to a general election. That is no excuse for members not showing some courtesy to the House so that I can hear the questions and the answers.Hon David Cunliffe: Given the Prime Minister’s comments and his opposition to raising the minimum wage—and it will not be long before he is out of a job—why is it acceptable that there are 100000 children living in poverty in this country whose parents are in work; if not why does he oppose policies that will end poverty wages?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member seems be of the opinion that he can simply through the stroke of a pen make a difference to labour rates in New Zealand with no repercussions for those workers. If that is what the member really believes then he should not have stopped at $16.25 an hour; Mr Cunliffe should have stopped at $50 an hour.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that answer does the Prime Minister accept that a minimum wage rise has a perfectly proper place alongside a package of measures like Labour’s economic upgrade which will lead to increased levels of productivity exports and employment?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This Government every single year including through the global financial crisis has carefully increased the minimum wage at the same time growing jobs and the economy. If the member seriously thinks that putting a capital gains tax on every single business and doing all the things the unions wanted him to do—and that is why they backed him to be the leader—are going to grow the economy he is dreaming. Oh and by the way I am more than happy to call him Mr Cunliffe. He should worry about what his caucus colleagues call him.Child Poverty—Economic Policy and Cross-party Talks2.HONE HARAWIRA (Mana—Te Tai Tokerau)to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that the Government’s economic policies have failed given that more than a quarter of a million children are living below the poverty line in Aotearoa?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):No.Hone Harawira: Does he agree that finding long-term solutions to child poverty will require all parties in Parliament to work together; if so can he tell us why National is the only party that refuses to take part in cross-party talks on child poverty after the coming election?Hon BILL ENGLISH: That member had the opportunity as a partner to the current Government when he was in the Māori Party to talk about solutions but actually he prefers talking about problems and that is why he left.Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was can he—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question. There were actually two questions and one of those questions was definitely addressed. You have a further supplementary question if you wish to use it.Hone Harawira: Can he please explain why his Government has invested so heavily in building roads of national significance instead of houses for low-income families many of whom are clearly living below the poverty line when statistics show that decent warm homes will help reduce the serious health problems that many of these families face and heavily reduce the cost of health care and other societal problems that inevitably flow from the existence of a growing underclass?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have invested in all those things. We need decent roads so we can have export industries so we can have jobs so that people can get off welfare. If the member had been willing to shoulder the responsibility of finding solutions he would have been part of this Government’s extensive efforts to invest in insulating houses protecting vulnerable children and getting young people back on track so they can get jobs.Jacinda Ardern: Why has his Government turned down offers of finding solutions to child poverty via a cross-party group?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because we believe that that cross-party group is obsessed with measuring poverty and has nothing to offer as solutions to it.Economic Programme—Policies and Results3.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National)to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s plan to lock in the gains from a growing economy helping to deliver more jobs and higher wages for New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The programme is focused on locking in gains over the next 3 to 5 years from a growing economy that could under sensible management deliver sustained growth. So our plan includes responsibly managing the Government’s finances continuing to build a more productive and competitive economy that supports higher wages and more jobs investing in better public services so we can have a better community as well as sound Government books and supporting the rebuild of Christchurch including $15 billion of Government support.Paul Goldsmith: What is the outlook for the New Zealand economy over the next 4 years and how will this be supported by the Government’s economic programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The economy has built good momentum and there is considerable confidence among businesses and households about the outlook. We have the opportunity if the economy is well managed to get through the next cycle of growth with relatively low interest rates and possibly a lower exchange rate. That could lead to a significant rebalancing of our economy in favour of exports. Average wages are forecast for instance to increase to $62000 up $7000 in the next 4 years. The economy is expected to grow just under 12 percent in the next 4 years and we are on track to reduce Government debt back to 20 percent of GDP by 2020.Paul Goldsmith: What lessons has he taken from the previous economic cycle when house prices doubled and floating mortgage interest rates reached nearly 11 percent?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government learnt some sharp lessons from the economic management of the previous Labour Government. By 2008 mortgage interest rates had reached almost 11 percent house prices had doubled in 7 or 8 years and inflation—that is the cost of living—was rising at 5 percent. We are focusing on avoiding a Government spend-up even though it is election year and on influencing the housing market so that we can have a more balanced economy. Those are sharp lessons from the mismanagement under the previous Labour Government.Hon David Parker: How can he say his plan is working when after 6 years wage rates are stagnant 147000 people are still out of work youth unemployment is over 13 percent Auckland house prices under his watch have increased in real terms at a 50 percent higher rate than under the previous Government and we are having billions of dollars sucked out of the economy through a collapse in our export commodity prices?Hon BILL ENGLISH: My opinion of it is I suppose interesting although I have had the opportunity to share it with the House several hundred times in this last session. But it is the opinion of the New Zealanders who have stopped leaving to go to Australia that really matters. Three years ago there was a net flow of 40000 New Zealanders to Australia. Last month there was zero. So the battlers in the regions have decided it is working and they are staying because they can get work here with appropriate pay and they know they cannot get it in Australia.Paul Goldsmith: How are the lessons taken from the previous economic cycle being built into the Government’s programme for responsible economic and fiscal management?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those lessons that I referred to earlier are really quite important. It is important for instance that we maintain the discipline of economic spending but also that we maintain a strong focus on the economic policy that has given businesses and households the confidence they now enjoy to invest to save to work more hours to save more money and to go and ask for a wage increase because they can see the productivity. So we will be sticking to careful fiscal management a broad programme of microeconomic reform and in particular we will avoid the mistakes made by the previous Labour Government the damage from which we are still cleaning up 6 years later.Brendan Horan: Will the Government consider the New Zealand Independent Coalition’s policy of a financial transactions tax of 0.1 percent on banks and foreign exchange just as Germany and 10 other European countries are mooting as good fiscal management?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.Oil and Gas Exploration—Cost and Outcome of Promotion4.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is the breakdown of the $240000 of taxpayers’ money spent entertaining oil company executives in 2011 and specifically how much of that money was spent on food and alcohol?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources):The total spend for the 4-day New Zealand Oil and Gas Summit 2011 was $237000 including around $22000 on catering $37000 on accommodation $12000 on Rugby World Cup hosting $10000 on other activities $20000 on a welcome reception for over 100 guests—Hon David Cunliffe: Wardrobe expenses.Hon SIMON BRIDGES: —and $40000 on a 1-day seminar Mr Cunliffe. I can also tell the member that the biggest spend on investment in oil and gas promotion in the last decade was in 2008 when Labour propped up by the Greens spent $745000.Dr Russel Norman: So can the Minister confirm that he spent $22000 on food and booze for the wealthy oil company executives using taxpayers’ money?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No I was not the Minister but be very clear that spending on promotion is not unusual. Actually as a small country at the bottom of the world we do this in a range of areas from tourism to renewables to trade and I would remind the member that when his party was propping up Labour in 1 year they spent $745000.Dr Russel Norman: When was the last time he spent a quarter of a million dollars wining and dining clean-energy company executives—when was the last time he spent a quarter of a million dollars wining and dining clean-energy executives?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I personally never have. I have already said that promotion is not unusual. I will remind the member that maybe he should be grateful for the hard work I am doing given that he wants it to fund his so-called green bank slush fund.Dr Russel Norman: How many jobs have been created as a direct result of the oil executives’ $240000 trip to New Zealand?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think we can say with some certainty that Statoil entered the country after that event. It is spending $20 million but of course promotion has been going on for a very long time under successive Governments. In 2012 $1.3 billion was spent by international companies on exploration—last year $1.5 billion. I think as I said that the member should show a little gratitude given all the money we are working on getting that one day he will get to waste.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Minister’s answer to the last question that zero jobs were created as a result of the oil executives’ $240000 trip to New Zealand which happens to be exactly what he told the New Zealand Herald yesterday when he said that there was no job creation in oil and gas production as a result of the $240000 spent wining and dining the rich oil company executives?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member misleads the House. That is not a quote from me. What is very clear in the oil and gas industry is that it creates 7000 jobs directly. They are the highest-paying jobs in the New Zealand economy—on average $105000 per annum. Actually I think that places like Taranaki are really glad that we have this industry. The member opposes it but that is not the position—as David Shearer has said although his leader disagrees—of most New Zealanders.Dr Russel Norman: With the fourth-lowest oil royalty rate in the world and 90 percent of the profits going offshore according to the Government’s own reports is it not the case that deep-sea oil drilling is all about New Zealanders taking the risks while the foreign oil corporations take the profits?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Eight hundred million dollars a year in taxes and royalties is earned to pay for schools for hospitals and for infrastructure directly from this industry. On the issue of the royalties we get 42c in every dollar of profit. It is lower than the Norways of this world but were there significant finds we could well review that.Roading Wellington—Transmission Gully5.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National)to the Minister of Transport: Has he received any reports on the benefits of the recently confirmed Transmission Gully motorway?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport):Yesterday the New Zealand Transport Agency announced that an agreement has been reached for the construction and operation of Transmission Gully’s motorway north of Wellington. There are many benefits to the motorway. The time savings are in the region of 10 to 15 minutes and the safety benefits well outstrip the current safety record on State Highway 1. Transmission Gully will be a four-lane motorway with a central median barrier the entire length of the route and will be constructed to a KiwiRAP rating of 4 stars. Its construction also means that there is an alternative route into and out of Wellington in the event of a disaster.Paul Foster-Bell: Has the Minister seen any comments regarding the progress on the Transmission Gully motorway?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have. Wellington Regional Council chair Fran Wilde says it is a much-needed shot in the arm for Wellington. Automobile Association spokesman Mike Noon says the road will save lives. The Road Transport Forum says Transmission Gully is the right move. The Porirua deputy mayor says Transmission Gully is fantastic. The positive comments have been many. However comment from the Greens leads me to this conclusion: a National-led Government will build Transmission Gully; any other Government will not.Hon Peter Dunne: Can the Minister confirm that the signing of yesterday’s public-private partnership contract between the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Wellington Gateway Partnership is the culmination of the provisions of the United Future - National coalition confidence and supply agreement in 2005 and 2008 and that this contract-signing confirms that Transmission Gully will proceed and is here to stay?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I firstly would like to acknowledge that the leader of United Future the Hon Peter Dunne has been a tireless campaigner for this road. It is one that has been talked about for literally decades but now its time has come largely because of the efforts of local Wellington National MPs alongside Mr Dunne and all credit to him for his long advocacy for this road which will make a big difference to the region. This is a contractual arrangement and it will hold unless a future Government decides to breach contract which would be an appalling thing.Finance Minister—Performance6.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Finance: Has he achieved all his promises in his last six years as Minister of Finance?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Yes despite challenging circumstances and of course with the support and effort of so many New Zealand households and workplaces. For instance we inherited a Budget outlook of a $3.9 billion fiscal deficit in 2009 and forecasts of never-ending deficits thereafter and now we are on track to surplus. We said we would protect the most vulnerable New Zealanders through the recession and ensure that the tax system is fairer and we have done that. We said we would create an economic environment where business was confident to invest supporting more jobs and higher incomes and we have done that. But of course there is still much work to be done partly to complete fixing the damage of the previous Labour Government but more important to realise the true potential of so many New Zealanders who aspire to a brighter future.Hon David Parker: Why has the wage gap with Australia which he promised to close by 2025 widened since he took office in 2008 using the methodology that the Prime Minister promotes by close to $70 per week and is now over $190 per week?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is wrong but here is a measure of it. Are New Zealanders getting on planes in their thousands to go to a labour market where they think they can get paid more? Last month the net outflow of New Zealanders to Australia was zero. That is the Kiwi battlers are staying home because things are better here.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library based on the methodology used by John Key that shows that the wage gap has widened by $68.85—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: Does he regret promising to raise $5 billion to $7 billion from the sale of State assets to spend on schools and hospitals when he raised less than that amount and then spent the money on things like fixing the roof of the Beehive bailing out Solid Energy and a new computer system for Cabinet?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. No regrets about that whatsoever. The Government has $4.7 billion in the Future Investment Fund and we are proudly spending that on other public assets such as the largest most complex construction project in New Zealand: the rebuilding of several hospitals in Christchurch. We are very proud of the fact that we have been able to sell shares to New Zealanders. They gave us their money and now we are spending it on other public goods.Hon David Parker: Does he still stand by his promise to lift exports to 40 percent of GDP by 2025 when since he took office exports have fallen from 33 percent to 29 percent of GDP—Hon Steven Joyce: It’s wrong. He’s wrong.Hon David Parker: —and Treasury forecasts them to keep falling? Mr Joyce read your numbers. That is right.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well given the choice I agree with my colleague Mr Joyce that the member is wrong. But I can tell the member this. There is no way exports would grow if we adopted a policy of shutting down the dairy industry and the oil and gas industry. That would not only be bad for exports but devastate our regions the economies of which are overwhelmingly resource-based. That is the Opposition’s policy.Hon David Parker: Given that exports were 33 percent of GDP when he took office what percentage of GDP are they now?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer that question in detail because exports are at record levels. In the last quarter in the last 3 months New Zealand recorded one of its best-ever trade surplus results. Rather than criticising the export sector we support it. It has been remarkably resilient over recent years—Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the Minister begins his answer by saying “I cannot answer this question.” why does he then continue to answer the question?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will judge the length of the answers. As I have mentioned to this House on many occasions I take into account the length of the question and the tone of the question but it is for me to judge that not for Mr Prosser.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a table prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing that exports have decreased from 33 percent to 29 percent of GDP—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The documents have been described. Leave is sought to table the research document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.Document  by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon David Parker: How can he say he has fulfilled his promise to rebalance the economy away from housing speculation when Auckland house prices have increased at an annual growth rate that is 50 percent higher in real terms than it was under the previous Government when average house prices in Auckland are now touching $700000 and homeownership rates are at their lowest level in over 50 years?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know the Government has worked pretty hard over the last 3 years to do almost everything short of taking housing decisions off Auckland Council in order to free up supply in the Auckland housing market. Unfortunately the Opposition has not supported us on all the measures that we have taken but help is on its way. The housing market is cooling supply is growing and New Zealanders can look forward to more affordable housing if they re-elect the National Government.Māui’s Dolphin—Preservation7.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Metiria Turei: Does he agree with the summary of the Associate Minister of Conservation Nicky Wagner of his Government’s policy to save the Māui’s dolphin that said: “We’ll all cross our fingers.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sure the member has taken the Minister out of context but what I am guessing the Minister would have been talking about is the quite significant steps the Government actually has taken to protect the Māui’s dolphin which include now allocating effectively 100 square kilometres of set net bans for every one of the estimated 55 Māui’s dolphins a total of 6200 square kilometres; making sure an observer is on all fishing vessels; and essentially working very hard to ensure that we do the best that we can for a species that is endangered.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by his Government’s policy to allow fishing methods lethal to dolphins mineral mining exploration and dangerous seismic surveying for oil and gas in the marine mammal sanctuary where the Māui’s dolphins live?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the member might have a little credibility on the topic if she stuck to fishing because there is no evidence to support actually—Hon Annette King: That’s arrogant isn’t it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well no it is actually factually correct. There is no evidence to support the claim that mining or exploration is endangering Māui’s dolphins and if there was Annette your Government would not have carried on doing it over that time.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Sorry Annette King—your Government would not have continued to support it. So when it comes to set nets that is an area that could potentially endanger Māui’s dolphins and that is exactly why the Government is taking the steps that it took in the policy statement it supported in 2012.Metiria Turei: If in the marine mammal sanctuary for Māui’s dolphins you can still mine for minerals drill for oil and gas fish with methods that kill dolphins what part of his pollution economy are the Māui’s dolphins safe from?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In the last 40 years they have been undertaking oil and gas exploration in Taranaki and there is not a single example of a Māui’s dolphin that has been killed as a result of that. That really is fundamentally the problem with the Greens and that is that they are going to try to hoodwink a bunch of New Zealanders that an industry that supports thousands and thousands of jobs and produces the better part of a billion dollars in royalties and taxes—which go towards paying for all the things that the Greens constantly say that they want people to have more of like health education and welfare support—should all be put in jeopardy for a misguided belief that oil and gas is affecting the plight of Māui’s dolphins.Dr Russel Norman: It’s just a tiny dolphin—who cares? You don’t care about a tiny dolphin.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well you see this is the problem is it not? When you do not know what you are talking about you make up policies that will not work.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is now long enough.Metiria Turei: Is the reason that National is failing to follow the International Whaling Commission’s recommendations to prevent all of these lethal and potentially lethal human activities including the seismic surveying within the marine mammal sanctuary in order to protect the last 55 Māui’s dolphins in the world—is it failing to follow the International Whaling Commission’s recommendation because it is too busy wining and dining the oil and gas industry?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: When it comes to “whining” the member just needs to look to her right.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order and I require it to be heard.Metiria Turei: That is no answer to the question. The Prime Minister needs to address it.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I cannot agree with the member.Tertiary Education—Promotion of Engineering Qualifications8.LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō)to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What is the Government doing to increase the number of people going into engineering?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):Engineers make a critical contribution to our society and our economic growth. They allow our industries to compete on the world stage. We need to be training significantly more engineers to meet industry demand today and in the future. As part of Budget 2012 we increased funding for engineering at tertiary level by $42 million over 4 years and a further $9.34 million over 4 years in Budget 2013. Last week I launched a new Engineering - Education to Employment initiative to promote engineering technologists and technician qualifications to students with bridging courses work placements and scholarships. The Engineering - Education to Employment initiative is about industry schools the Tertiary Education Commission and our polytechs working together to increase the number of students training as engineers.Louise Upston: Why is the Government focused on growing the number of people studying engineering at polytech level?Rt Hon Winston Peters: What a silly question.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Go and have a cup of tea Winston. Since we boosted our investment in engineering provision in Budget 2012 and—[Interruption] It is like having an angry old uncle in the building is it not?Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Since we boosted our investment in engineering provision in Budget 2012 and Budget 2013 we have seen a very good pick-up in enrolments at the professional level in universities. Unfortunately many people still think the only option for becoming an engineer is as a university graduate. Although having more graduate professional engineers is important companies tell us there is a need for engineering technicians and technologists who have studied to diploma or degree level at institutes of technology. This announcement will create a big push for more enrolments in level 6 and level 7 engineering courses at the country’s institutes of technology and polytechnics.Welfare Reforms—Sanctions and Impact on Children9.SUE MORONEY (Labour)to the Minister for Social Development: How many children were in households affected by the 15079 sanctions against people receiving benefits with dependent children since her welfare reforms were introduced on 15 July 2013?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development):The number the member refers to is the number of sanctions applied not the number of beneficiaries. This is because beneficiaries can have sanctions applied to them more than once. We know there is at least one child living in each of these households but the total number of children per household is not centrally collated. It is held in individual case files and could not be compiled in time to answer this question. However what we do know is that people often quickly re-comply so the number of sanctions in place at any one time is much lower. For example at the end of June 2014 there were 575 households with children being sanctioned. This does not necessarily mean—Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order might be obsolete now but the Minister said that she did not know the answer to my question and I fail to see why she continued.Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the Minister answered that she could not answer it exactly because it is a massive job to collate the information but I would have expected the member to appreciate that the Minister was attempting to give quite relevant information which certainly was of interest to me if not to the member herself. I would be grateful if we could hear the answer. Has the Minister now completed the answer?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No that is fine.Sue Moroney: Why does the Minister for Social Development not want to know how many children are affected by her policy to halve their parents’ benefit reducing the household income by $150 per week?Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I was trying to tell her it is at a point in time so what we do know is that actually when a sanction is applied it does not necessarily mean that they lose money out of their benefit. Most actually re-comply—Hon Member: Yes it does.Hon PAULA BENNETT: No it does not actually. What it means is that most actually re-comply in a relatively short period of time and it does not actually affect their benefit payment.Sue Moroney: Does she realise that cutting the household income by $149 a week means that children go hungry doctors visits are cancelled prescriptions are not picked up power is cut off because the bill cannot be paid and families get behind in their rent payments; and is this the brighter future she promised?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually the brighter future we promised is having 30000 fewer kids on welfare now than there were 2 years ago. What we promised is the lowest number of sole parents on benefit that we have seen for nearly 20 years. Before any sanction is applied a person is told that they have failed their obligation and they are given 5 days to re-comply. If they re-comply in that period they will not be sanctioned.Sue Moroney: What if they don’t?Hon PAULA BENNETT: And if they do not their sanction then applies but if they can re-comply between that and their benefit payment being made a week later then it does not affect their actual benefit.Sue Moroney: And you have no interest in knowing what the impact is.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually it is very fair and reasonable to expect people to turn up for their appointments and to actually be looking for work if that is the expectation.Sue Moroney: Well what is her explanation then for the fact that in the latest household income report we now have the highest proportion of children in severe poverty this century?Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is about helping those people into work and seeing their incomes increase. As I have stated we have fewer sole parents on benefits now than we have had for over 20 years. That substantially makes a difference to them their children and their community and we will back them into work because quite frankly the hand-wringing sympathy of the Labour Party does not work for them.Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very clear. It was asking her for an explanation for the fact that in the latest household income report we have now got the highest proportion of children in severe poverty. The Minister’s answer was denying that fact.Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister answered by saying that in her explanation it was helping people into work.Sue Moroney: Well if she is going to deny that then has she asked for any advice or reports about the plight of the 5822 people who have had their entire benefit stopped under her welfare reforms in the year ended June 2014 and whether that has contributed to the increased homelessness to the increased begging and to the increased poverty that we see on the streets of New Zealand?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well no because we have not actually changed the eligibility to benefits. So actually those people are eligible for benefits if they meet the criteria where they do not have a job or do not have an income. The reality is that they—Sue Moroney: But you’re cutting them off.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well we do not know what the reasons are for them leaving their benefit and they are many and they are varied.Health Personnel—Nursing Entry to Practice Programme10.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country)to the Minister of Health: What investment has the Government made in training places for nurses?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):Can I firstly just note that the standard of dress on this side of the House today is vastly improved from normal. Today the Government is announcing that we will fund $2.8 million for an additional 200 training places for nurse graduates on the Nursing Entry to Practice Programme. The Nursing Entry to Practice Programme offers professional and educational support for graduate nurses in their first year of practice. This additional $2.8 million will provide an extra 160 training places at New Zealand public hospitals and another 40 training places at aged-care facilities across the nation.Shane Ardern: How many training places are now available for nursing graduates and will it be a prerequisite for their entry that they must wear bright shirts and ties?Hon TONY RYALL: I had not thought of that. This $2.8 million investment brings the total number of places on the Nursing Entry to Practice Programme to 1300. Ensuring we have a well-qualified nursing workforce to meet the future needs of our health service is important. We now have 3200 more nurses employed by district health boards than when this Government was elected in 2008.Hon Annette King: How will his belated announcement days before the election period at least 2 years after Health Workforce New Zealand warned of a nursing shortage and just before he throws in the towel help Kim who wrote to me last week saying only one person—only one person—in her class of 40 has got a job offer now?Hon TONY RYALL: It would depend on which year that student graduated—Hon Annette King: They’ve just graduated now.Hon TONY RYALL: Oh graduating now. If we look at the July 2014 graduates already 42 percent of them have found jobs which is pretty good compared with roughly between 80 and 90 percent of the previous cohort. We are making a lot of progress and I am pretty pleased that we have found the money for these extra 200 training places.Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost to ConsumersRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First):Can I begin by observing that the standard of dress on that side of the House is evidence that you can have lots of money but no class. [Interruption] Oh I struck a nerve here eh?Mr SPEAKER: And now we will have the question.11.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied that the current Minister for Climate Change Issues is working for all New Zealanders?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes and can I note that on that side of the House you can have lots of MPs but you never hear from them. [Interruption]Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh I know you are worried. They all know hope is on its way. How can this Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when an economic analysis by Infometrics just out shows households are being charged substantially more than the emissions trading scheme compliance costs being paid by energy and liquid fuel companies supplying them?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I have not seen that report but what I do know is that if you look at the emissions trading scheme New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world outside of the European Union that actually has an emissions trading scheme. I think that the emissions trading scheme when you think about the fact that it applies effectively what is a floating rate for carbon—and that rate is very low—shows that while it is having some impact on the economy the effect on households is relatively low.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when energy and liquid fuel companies have price gouged New Zealanders for almost NZ$1.4 billion by overcharging households an average 75 percent more than these companies paid in emissions trading scheme compliance costs as shown by an economic analysis by Infometrics?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is actually wrong in his numbers or at least the analysis is wrong. It is also dangerous making assumptions of what is actually happening because it depends when those companies actually acquired the units. But as I said overall the system is a modest one but I think it is working for New Zealanders.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table three papers by Infometrics one dated 3 June on electricity costs the second on 1 May in respect of Genesis Energy’s charging and the third on 24 June on carbon prices.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those three particular papers. Is there any objection to their being tabled? There is none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when energy and liquid fuel companies are purchasing foreign carbon credits for NZ$3 while overcharging New Zealand taxpayers an average of $11 per credit and if this is not a financial rort as pointed out by Infometrics what is?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is wrong. We are not actually doing that. What I can say in terms of those foreign assigned amount units which the member is talking about is that actually the Government has moved to eliminate those being purchased by New Zealand companies.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be doing what was much vaunted by the National Party working for all New Zealanders when iwi alone have lost a further $600 million as a result of the collapse of the New Zealand carbon market an opportunity to bring thousands of jobs to the regions at no cost to taxpayers?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is demonstrating I think that he does not actually understand how the system works. On the one hand he is saying that those people who purchase carbon units at high levels and therefore pass that on to the consumer are somehow rorting the system but those who did not sell their units and now the unit price has dropped are somehow also rorting the system both of which cannot be right.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh I can see how Wall Street works! How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues be working for all New Zealanders when Genesis Energy price gouging its customers by their electricity bills between 2010 and 2012 attained additional profits of $36.5 million and inflated artificially its share value; if so why has he not done anything at all to stop it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the claim made by the member. But what I would say is that on this side of the House we have had a climate change policy that I think has been pitched at about the right level. I think it has been modest but fair for New Zealanders. If the member feels incredibly strongly about these climate change issues and about the amount that consumers might pay I strongly suggest that he joins with his rejection of the Mana Party and drop kicks the Greens as well because they will have the price of carbon at five times what it currently is.Diplomatic Incident Malaysian Official—Briefings and Waiver of Diplomatic Immunity12.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert)to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Did his office receive an email at approximately 5.00 pm (New Zealand time) on 22 May 2014 advising that the Malaysian Government had refused to waive diplomatic immunity in Muhammad Rizalman’s case; if so when was that email opened?Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister my office has been advised that this answer may be longer than normal.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): As the Minister has already said publicly one staff member from his office was copied into an internal Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade email on 22 May. The email reported that the diplomat had returned to Malaysia in light of a decision by Malaysian authorities to decline a request for a waiver of immunity. The staff member did not open the email when it was received as she was travelling at the time with limited communications capacity and was not the usual contact point for such reports. The email was identified in June when correspondence was reviewed in the office. The inquiry initiated by the Minister reflects the fact that the management of this case and associated events have had a serious impact on a young woman and have quite rightly undermined public confidence in the management of diplomatic immunity. The Minister expects the correspondence between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and his office to form part of that inquiry. He does not plan to comment further until that process is completed.David Shearer: Given that the Minister was travelling and was arriving in New York at the time was communication that difficult in New York to prevent the opening of that email and having it read?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think that question has already been addressed in the opening answer. Basically they had limited communications capacity.David Shearer: If the Minister is saying that the email was received and not opened when was it finally opened in June?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not have that exact information. What I have said is that the email was identified in the office in June.David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was on notice. It defies belief that this was not gone into before the Minister came to the House.Mr SPEAKER: The member is raising a reasonable point. It was a question on notice. We have identified that it was in June. I would have been hopeful that the date in June could also have been identified for the benefit of the House. The Minister is responsible for the answer; it is for the member to judge that answer.David Shearer: Given that revelation today why do the terms of reference into the investigation into what happened at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade not extend to what was going on in the activities in the Minister’s office and the actions of the Minister himself in light of that investigation?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is up to Mr John Whitehead to consider how he undertakes this inquiry. The Minister expects the correspondence between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and his office to form part of that review and he expects to be interviewed as well as relevant members of staff.David Shearer: Given his answer to question No. 6 on 2 July that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade failed to inform its Minister will he now admit that the failure was actually his and his own office’s?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The point is that there is an inquiry into all these matters and the Minister of Foreign Affairs does not intend to comment further until that is concluded.Urgent Debates DeclinedTeachers and Support Staff Payroll—Management of Novopay SystemMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the decision by the Government to take complete control of Novopay from the owner Talent2. The Minister’s decision is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. A debate on the findings of the ministerial inquiry into the Novopay school system was held on 4 June last year. The Government has now negotiated a new operating model for the school payroll system to be implemented in October.The test for whether a particular case requires the immediate attention of the House is a high one. The House’s business should not be set aside just because a ministerial announcement has been made even though it may be important. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. The payroll system has remained in a steady state over the last 15 months except for the start of the year pay-rise cycles at the beginning of the year. Further improvements are required and work will continue on a substantial improvement programme and simplification of the school payroll system. The agreed transition process will occur over time.The decision today although significant does not signal any radical change in education policy. In these circumstances I am not convinced that the matter has again reached a stage where I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.General DebateHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition):I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. This is our last general debate for this session. We rise for the general election and it is game on. This is an election that the Labour-led Opposition can win will win and must win for the people of New Zealand—for the people like the 260000 children growing up in poverty; like the people who are without jobs for whom we are promising jobs; and like the people whom we are promising an increase to the minimum wage immediately. The contrast is clear. Today we announced an immediate increase to the minimum wage and another one next year—$2 more. That will put $4000 a year into the pockets of low-income workers. In New Zealand there are 100000 children in working families that are below the poverty line and we have the plan to fix that.Meantime contrast that with the National Government’s plan. What is its solution? Wining dining and mining—milk and disaster. It is presiding over a dairy industry where prices are falling off a cliff. It is praying that this election comes quickly before dairy prices go down and interest rates go up and before New Zealanders see through the fluff and the sham to what is really going on. And what is going on? There are 260000 children in poverty two out of five of whom are in working families. There are 40000 kids hospitalised for poverty-related diseases. Homeownership is at the lowest level in 50 years. Rent and power are up 20 percent each so hard-working families middle-income New Zealanders cannot get ahead.Meantime more people are unemployed in every region of New Zealand except Canterbury. Half of New Zealanders did not get a pay rise despite 3 percent growth and 75 percent of Kiwis say that the gap between rich and poor has got bigger as real wages have fallen in 13 out of 16 regions.Hon David Parker: And they’re right.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: And they are right. Meantime the top few percent are doing just fine. The top 10 percent now own more than the other 90 percent and National gave them huge tax cuts while putting GST up on everybody else. That is the Government’s priority. Now chief executive officers earn 26 times the average wage. The wage gap with Australia which John Key was going to close has climbed $70 a week to $190 a week.It is often said that politics is a tipping game and we know that this game is going to tip because on that side team Key is a pretty sorry mess. There is John Banks the man John Key kept on throughout his trial for electoral fraud. Judith Collins used her ministerial position to entrench and enrich herself and her family. What did she get from the Prime Minister? A $5000 holiday. Peter Dunne the Minister who leaked the Kitteridge report and has never denied it—never denied it—was restored to Ōhariu and to the ministry. Are these higher standards for New Zealanders? I do not think so. Murray McCully—enough said. Gerry Brownlee is the “Minister for Aviation Security” an oxymoron. That is like calling Jonathan Coleman the “Minister for Transparency about the FBI” Simon Bridges the “Minister for National Parks” Maurice Williamson the “Minister Helping Police with their Inquiries” or Nick Smith the “Minister for Three Strikes Fishing for a New Game”. There is Phil “Richard Worth” Heatley Claudette “Put It on the Plastic” Hauiti and Aaron “Don’t You Know Who the Hell I Am?” Gilmore.Well we know who the heck they are. They are members of the tired old National Party. It is the “prop up the rich” National Party and damn the rest. It is the Government that is on its way out. This is the Government that is on its way in. I say bring on campaign 2014. We are up for it. We are going to win this race. Thank you.Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā koe otirā ēnā tātou katoa. The 50th Parliament wraps up this week. It has been a busy term with more than 330 pieces of legislation passed—51 in the past year alone—and thousands of questions answered by our Prime Minister and Ministers. Whatever has been in the headlines unlike others we truly have been focused on the issues that matter for New Zealanders. I would like to pay a tribute to New Zealanders for their resilience in going through the last very difficult period—perhaps the most difficult in a generation—their preparedness to face those challenges their attitude to hard work their continuing commitment to their families and the entrepreneurship that has been evident in the growing and continuing to grow economy that our Government has overseen.We feel a mood of positivity and “upbeatness”—if that is a word—in New Zealanders. That is most absolutely reflected by the strong and aspirational and constructive and positive leadership of our Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key. Before he even came into Parliament he indicated that he wanted better for this country and for New Zealanders. In the almost 6 years that he has led our nation he has demonstrated that every day in every way. All of the policies of this Government have been about how we support New Zealanders to do better and how we back them to be the successful aspirational Kiwis that we know them to be. Unlike the Opposition which wants to focus on being pessimistic on reporting failure and on personal attacks this side of the House has focused under the leadership of our Prime Minister on what is the very best in all New Zealanders.We have delivered a stable and aspirational Government. Our track record reflects that. What have we done? In the economy that we have managed so soundly under our Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance the Hon Bill English we are now in a situation where growth is forecast to reach 4 percent next year. The average wage has increased by $3000 and by 2018 it is forecast to get to $62300. An extra 84000 jobs have been created in this past year alone. That is forecast to grow to 172000. As we have heard in the House today of course one of the key indicators of that confidence in our economic management is that New Zealanders are staying here in New Zealand or coming home from other parts of the world such is their confidence in our economic management. There is more to be done and we are focused on that.We also have a safer environment. In law and order crime is down on almost—well actually on every indicator: violent crime youth crime reoffending. We are focusing more now and into the future on how we prevent young people getting into those situations where they default to criminal behaviour. For that can I acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins and of course Anne Tolley.We have 40000 fewer people on welfare over the past 4 years. That is due to the stellar work of our Minister for Social Development who has focused her considerable energies on how we give people more chances to be successful. We see that in those coming off benefits and going into work. We understand that being on a benefit is no life for anyone. It is a lifeline; it is not a lifestyle. Work is good and we are providing that work. We are giving people incentives to come off benefits.We are investing more and more in education. On every measure in education we are seeing improvements. More kids are participating in early childhood education. More kids are doing better in national standards at primary school. More young people are leaving school with the National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. More are getting degrees. This is absolutely due to the hard work of teachers and principals and their board chairs and trustees across the country. They are the ones who deserve the credit. We are backing them to be successful. That is why going forward we are putting $359 million into recognising supporting and growing the skills of teachers and of principals.In health we have seen significant success. This is because we want to ensure that we have well New Zealanders and well families. For cancer it is now 4 weeks from decision to treat to actual treatment. Immunisation for our youngest New Zealanders—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.GARETH HUGHES (Green):Kia ora Mr Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. This week fluttering around outside Simon Bridges’ office I found a receipt. It seems to list a various number of expenses. Let us go through them. I see here we have 4 nights at the luxurious Intercontinental hotel in Wellington. We have got a corporate box for Rugby World Cup matches including an All Blacks game. We have a sailing trip from the Port Nicholson Yacht Club. And meals—all the meals and booze you can think of worth $22000. We have got lunch catered by Ruth Pretty at the Palliser Estate vineyard lunch at Martin Bosley’s and dinner at Logan Brown. All up what we see is $237000 worth of taxpayers’ money to wine and dine just 11 oil executives over 4 days.So here we see National spend $237000 over 4 days. Here we see National blowing an annual ministerial salary in only 4 days on 11 oil executives demonstrating how out of touch National is—how out of touch National is with the world that Kiwis experienced. Spending $22000 just for booze and food equates to about $500 a day per person. That is twice what many Kiwi families spend in an entire week at the supermarket—$500 a day. At a time when Kiwis are struggling working some of the longest hours for some of the lowest wages and with some of the highest costs of living in the developed world we are seeing this sort of action by the Government. At a time when one in four of our kids is growing up in poverty and when 60 percent of our rivers are considered unsafe to swim in something is seriously wrong with National’s New Zealand.You see Kiwis see their Ministers splashing money around on some of the richest industries in the world being more interested in the last drops of oil than they are in the last 55 Māui’s dolphin. They are subsidising tens of millions of dollars to seabed miners who cannot even get a consent through National’s Environmental Protection Authority with special deals for smelters tax breaks for oil drillers pokies for convention centre deals and our assets sold off for a song to a minority. You see this September Kiwis have a choice: National’s pollution economy and crony capitalism or a smarter cleaner fairer New Zealand which is what the Green Party is espousing.So this election my message to Kiwis is: aroha mai aroha atu—love New Zealand. I love New Zealand I love my country and this election I am asking Kiwis to party vote Green to look after to take advantage of and to build and grow the country we love. This election the Green Party is going to deliver a cleaner environment a fairer society and a smarter economy. We are stable. We have got a unified caucus successful co-leaders and we are ready for Government. We are proven. We have led the Opposition this term on issues like asset sales power prices and protecting our Māui’s dolphins and we have worked with National where we could to make practical improvements like the home insulation scheme and the national cycleway.We are modern. We have brought fresh thinking and up-to-date solutions to Parliament and we have tackled those issues other parties are ignoring like climate change entrenched inequality and the underperforming economy. This September Kiwis have a very clear choice on our country’s direction. National says that our rivers and streams should be safe for swimming—well it does not even say that. It says that our rivers and streams should be safe only for boating and wading. The Green Party says that they should be safe to swim in. National says that our economy should continue to be dependent on raw logs milk powder and hopefully oil—desperately desperately hoping for oil. The Greens however have got a plan to build a smarter greener economy that really works for all New Zealanders. Our vision is an economy that sees Kiwis for example in work installing insulation under people’s roofs and solar panels on the top. Our plans include a second internet cable for New Zealand and support to grow the internet economy.There is a limit to National’s pollution economy. You can see it every day in our toxic rivers and streams. There is no limit to the greentech the clean energy and the IT we could be exporting around the world. We are going to deliver that smart Green innovative economy through personal and business tax cuts to everyone by putting a charge on carbon polluters. We are going to invest a billion dollars in extra research and development to help our greentech sector and we are going to establish a green investment bank to kickstart investment in smart Green projects that create good jobs. National will not look it will not count and it will not act when it comes to growing child poverty and inequality but the Greens are going to deliver a fairer society where every child has enough to thrive. We have got a plan for a cleaner fairer smarter Aotearoa New Zealand. It is a very clear choice Kiwis have got this September and we are urging them to get on the roll make sure they vote and party vote Green.Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health):Yes we are here nearly at the end of the 50th Parliament—my goodness. It is a round number but by golly it has been a challenging 3 years for New Zealand a challenging 3 years for the people of my Rangitata electorate a challenging 3 years for the Government. But do you know what? We can unequivocally say that this Government on this side of the House has done the hard yards in order to protect New Zealand’s citizens from the sharpest edges of the recession.As we come to the end of this Parliament I want to acknowledge our Minister of Health the Hon Tony Ryall. He will join other colleagues today in giving his valedictory speech—Paul Hutchison Phil Heatley Eric Roy and Shane Ardern. But I want to pay a special tribute to the Hon Tony Ryall who has been the Minister of Health now for the last 6 years during challenging times. So despite the fact that we have had huge challenges to the Government revenue and finances—the global financial crisis and the sort of impact that the Christchurch earthquakes have had on New Zealand—there has been an average of an extra $500 million going into the health budget each year during his term as Minister.In addition to that we have seen the health dollars go further during that time. That has been an enormous achievement on the part of not just the Minister but the Ministry of Health and the practitioners working in the health sector across this country. I will give some examples in a few moments but it has really been a case of the Minister challenging the health sector to look at how it can do things better with the same amount of money or a little bit more. There is $15.6 billion being spent on health now. In the big scheme of things we had a slow-down of the amount of extra money going in there but it was no longer a case of chucking money at it and hoping that we would get outcomes. Instead it was about actually measuring what we were doing and having targets that health practitioners universally bought into and they delivered fantastically well. I want to use some examples of those health targets. In addition we have got 1500 more doctors and 3200 more nurses.How have we seen these outcomes measured in terms of things that really matter to the families of New Zealand? I can tell you that as we look around the country now we see measles affecting families of older New Zealanders in terms of late primary school and secondary school students. We know that it was shameful that back in 2007 only 67 percent of New Zealand’s children were fully immunised at age 2. We know that it is now 93 percent at 8 months. We know that that has been wholly because of practitioners getting in there and making sure that children are fully immunised. We also know that there is much less waiting for cancer treatment now. We know that New Zealanders are not going to Australia for their radiotherapy treatment and their chemotherapy treatment. We know that that is because we have looked to do things differently and to make sure that we are delivering to New Zealanders the health care they deserve.We also know that 94 percent of our emergency department patients are now seen within the 6-hour target. Why do we need a 6-hour target? Well hang it looked pretty ghastly when we had people on trolleys in corridors in the emergency departments for not hours at a time but days at a time. What a shame. What an absolutely shameful practice that was and that has stopped.Scott Simpson: Who was the health Minister then? Who was it?Hon JO GOODHEW: Well there was a variety of Ministers of Health to be fair. There was actually the Hon Annette King and the Hon David Cunliffe. Both had parts to play in that.So what else have we got happening? Well we actually now have a significant amount of money looking to address a very very difficult issue and that is rheumatic fever prevention—$65.3 million is in there. The previous Labour Government promised much and delivered nothing on this. It promised to address it but did not. It is a terribly difficult issue to address. Now we have thousands upon thousands of children dropping into sore throat clinics to be checked. They have much less likelihood now of developing rheumatic fever because they are getting the treatment they need by doing that.We have also prioritised detecting diabetes and cardiovascular disease early. In order to do that you cannot expect that patients will just rock up to the doctor and say “Oh I thought I might have a check for that.” That is rare. What we are doing is systematically requiring that those conditions are checked for in primary health care. When it comes time for this election what we will see is New Zealanders looking at our record our plans for the future and voting National.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):That was an interesting speech by Jo Goodhew and obviously that member is proud of her record. I take the opportunity to wish Tony Ryall well. We have sparred occasionally in the House but I will say this: for Mr Ryall sadly along with Bill English one of his political epitaphs—which the member never of course referenced as a proud moment in this House—will be the running-down of Solid Energy into the ground to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars to the tune of 1000 jobs and all the while that member her colleagues the Minister of Finance and the outgoing Minister for State Owned Enterprises sat by fully advised by their officials and did nothing. That is their version of a hands-off free-market economy. I believe in the free-market economy but I believe that Ministers are paid a big whack of a salary to do their job and to ensure that boards do theirs and management do theirs.There are some significant problems in our economy and in the life of this country: 260000 children live in poverty and our manufacturers are struggling because this Government will not come to terms with much-needed monetary reform. We have proposed solutions to both those problems. We have proposed reforms quite substantial reforms in respect of monetary policy. Paid parental leave a desperate cry for parents to be supported; our early childhood education having its funding restored; and lowering our class sizes—these are all solutions that this side of the House along with others in other parties have promoted.But there is a biblical saying—dredging up my old Catholic Sunday school roots; I think it is Proverbs 26:11—and it goes like this: “As a dog returneth to its vomit so a fool returneth to his folly.” Look at the litany and the priorities of this Government. “Brown Bag Banks” is soon to be sentenced and may be doing porridge in striped sunshine in about 48 hours—a Minister in this Government. Judith Collins—Oravida—caught feathering her own nest. She was feathering her own nest and to this day she will not front up with critical information. Then of course another Minister—Tim Macindoe: This is “Vote Positive” isn’t it? This will go down really well on the hustings.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: If you are going to interject sonny sit in your seat and obey the rules or take a call. Then there is Peter Dunne. Peter Dunne is the Maxwell Smart of the New Zealand Parliament 006½ leaking national security reports but he is still a Minister in the Government.Then we have Gerry Brownlee. I have got to say this about Gerry Brownlee and I will quote from Bill English when he was referencing the law back in 2006. Bill English said this: “You see respect for the rule of law is a positive quality; it is not just obedience under the fear of discovery and punishment.” Well you can tell when a Government is moving into that zone of being out of touch. The sort of human blunderbuss Gerry Brownlee apparently is on top of every aspect of his portfolio—every aspect of his portfolio—but struggles to know which door to get through or which door to try to get through or which rules to obey at a particular airport even though he is or was the Minister responsible for aviation security. Mr Brownlee does not of course have the decency to write to the volunteer whom I met a couple of days ago and personally apologise. He does not have the grace to write to the chief executive of the airport company and say: “OK I did this. My cop. My staff did it. This guy is a volunteer. Do not sanction him. He is a decent human being.”—and he is—oh no.The Prime Minister of course is great at talking about lifting standards and we will not talk about the member who is not here in respect of her expenses. We will not go back and regurgitate the bile that is Mr Dunne the bile that is John Banks and other Ministers who have gone. Oh no anything goes in terms of the high standards and the arrogance of this Government.Well I say to the people of New Zealand that we have proposed a series of solutions. We have proposed a series of solutions like reforming superannuation and dealing with the housing crisis by actually building houses—100000 houses over 10 years. When I went to school you solved problems in a practical way not with accords that do not exist. After 2 years there are zero houses through the Auckland Housing Accord.We have proposed a series of solutions and positive solutions. I say compare us on this side of the House with those opposite who exhibit every sign of political decay and arrogance—and Gerry Brownlee is a big target to pin that one on. They show every sign of political arrogance—that they are somehow above the ordinary folk out there they are somehow better and they know better than the ordinary folk out there. Well I say that that is the first sign of constitutional and political decay. I suggest that Mr Brownlee and others look at the level of decency look at the so-called high standards and make some substantial changes. There is indeed a difference and a choice in the next election.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs):It is a pleasure to speak in this the general debate the last general debate before Parliament rises in this the 50th term of Parliament. I want to start by using a word that you will not hear from the previous speaker Mr Cosgrove and that you will not hear from the Labour Party and that is “positive”. Positive is the contribution that the Hon Tony Ryall has made over the last 24 years. Positive is the contribution that John Key in this John Key - led Government has made over the last 6 years. I mean positive because when you look at the Labour billboards you see more “positive” than you see of their leader. What a joke—another joke of how they cannot support David Cunliffe. I went to Waimakariri. I saw the billboards for the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. They are not red they do not mention Labour and they do not mention David Cunliffe.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table one of my billboards which shows exactly the opposite to what that member—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I am not putting the leave.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: If you cannot stand the heat get out of the kitchen. We are being positive because this Government stands for education and standards in schools. This Government has led to an increase in the achievement rates for Pacific kids in our schools. Seventy-two percent of Pacific kids across this country have now reached National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 achievement rates. That is something that I am particularly proud of.You cannot expect Labour Party members to govern when they cannot govern themselves. That much is clear this afternoon and it has been clear for a very long time in this debating chamber. Can you imagine what you would get with a Labour Government? You would get back to the future with Annette King would you not? The Hon Annette King—you would get back to the future. I go up and down this country and when I am talking to my constituents in Maungakiekie—when I am out doorknocking putting hoardings up and delivering pamphlets—what are the things that they demand from Governments? They demand better public services. They want services in education health housing and law and order and that is what this National Government is delivering day upon day in this country governing New Zealand.We have got 40000 more people receiving elective surgery since 2008. We are keeping our kids and our families healthy. Ninety-one percent of 8-month-old children—[Interruption] Miss King knows this because she was the Minister of Health. It has gone up and 91 percent are now being immunised and 98 percent of those kids under 6 Annette King have access to free doctors visits day on day.We are also attacking diabetes which is a particular problem in my neighbourhood and heart disease and rheumatic fever. That is something that under Annette King Labour neglected for a very long time—a very long time.Sue Moroney: Oh what rubbish!Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Sue Moroney knows this. In the area of law and order we are making a difference because crime rates are at their lowest for 25 years. [Interruption] That is 25 years—25 years—Mr Simpson. We have lower youth crime and lower violent crime. We are putting victims at the heart of our justice system so I want to thank the Hon Judith Collins for leading that.We are as I have said getting success right across the board in education. It is positive for our communities it is positive for local people and it is positive right across the board. It is about getting skills education and qualifications. What does that do? It promotes your ability to get a job. When New Zealanders get jobs—Hon Members: Where are the jobs?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —they are free to choose and free to get jobs independent of the State. Members opposite might ask where the jobs are but in the last year there has been just under 80000 jobs created and for Pacific people that is 8000 jobs created over the last 12 months.In my own portfolio of local government we passed the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill (No 3) last night which has meant a more effective way of delivering local government services. It means that development contributions are going to be fairer and more transparent. It also allows for councils to promote consultative processes that are appropriate for the circumstances. We have a clear choice on 20 September. New Zealanders right across this country have a clear choice. Vote for a party that is in disarray caught up in “gotcha politics” and that apologises every time it delivers a policy or vote for a party that is focused on the issues that matter to all New Zealanders—on improved public services growing the economy and growing jobs and on education skills and training. National is a party for New Zealanders who believe in their own future.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand is the land of milk and honey—if you have the money that is. The rises in power prices petrol rents rates and food are doing immense damage to Kiwi families. The Government says not to worry because we have a rock star economy except that for most Kiwi families it is a rock-bottom economy and the Government is aground with its economic policy which has relied on a dairy boom the Christchurch rebuild boom and over $60 billion in borrowing.Net Government debt as a percentage of GDP has risen from 5.5 percent in 2008 to a staggering 26.3 percent in 2013. In the meantime Statistics New Zealand data shows that in the year to June food prices are the highest since July 2011. In June vegetable prices increased 8.9 percent; meat poultry and fish prices increased 3.6 percent; butter was up 7.7 percent; yoghurt was up 3.6 percent; and in the year to June fresh milk was up 11 percent cheese was up 12 percent yoghurt was up 7.2 percent and butter was up 12 percent. Also beef was up 6.9 percent lamb was up 20 percent and chicken was up 2.4 percent. But incomes for most people are not up.For many people who are struggling the ability to buy meat and vegetables has been an issue for some time because these basics have reached the point of unaffordability. That means that people have to buy cheaper food that fills the tummy but lacks nutrition.We in New Zealand First will remove GST from food. Remember when John Key promised no increase in GST and then after the election increased it to 15 percent? That was a slap in the face for families trying to put good nutritious food on the table. And that slap came after a kick in the guts for most families when in 2009 the Key Government reduced tax for the highest income earners at a staggering $5 billion but there was nothing for struggling families.A recent OECD report stated that the income gap in New Zealand was the worst for all OECD countries and New Zealand has the fifth-highest food prices within the 34 OECD nations. New Zealand First will take GST off all food except for a very small number of items such as sugary drinks takeaways and restaurant food. So at least 95 percent of all food would be GST-exempt. The objective is to give relief to struggling middle and low-income Kiwi families.New Zealand First has surveyed mothers who buy the family food. Most spend around $300 a week but some must make do with $200 per week. They say they need the GST off food and if they get the benefit of the extra $30 to $45 a week they will use it to buy more and better food. Now that would be a rock star result. Kiwis on those middle and low incomes will feel the greatest benefit because they spend a much greater proportion of their income on food.This policy will cost $3 billion per year and will be partly funded by clamping down on tax evasion and the black economy estimated at $7 billion annually. The Key Government is projecting a $3.5 billion current account surplus within 2 years. So this policy is easily affordable. The policy is also easy to implement. Food is exempt from tax to some degree in many countries including Australia the United Kingdom and most of Europe because they do not see a family’s food as a proper object for taxation and neither should we. In addition New Zealand First will remove GST from rates on residential property. Rates are a major burden especially for people on lower and fixed incomes. It is a tax on a tax and that has to end.Under a New Zealand First Government food and rates will not be taxed because we are the one party that will genuinely address the cost of living and the cost of living is the big issue in this campaign.MELISSA LEE (National):Thank God there will not be a New Zealand First - led Government. It is a great pleasure to speak in the general debate this afternoon—the final general debate in this 50th Parliament. After the member Denis O’Rourke’s contribution I was going to rebut some of the things that he said but it is probably not worth it. It is like everything that that party ever said—things like they are not anti-Chinese but everything that comes out of that member’s mouth is all about anti-Chinese rhetoric.I am very proud to be standing here as part of the National-led Government led by our Prime Minister John Key. Our Prime Minister has provided strong political leadership stable Government policies and a united hard-working team. Today you can see that most of us are wearing a very colourful tie going out in support of one of our colleagues who is giving his valedictory speech today the Hon Tony Ryall who has been a very colourful character in this House for a very long time. We are united. We are a hard-working team and together with forward-thinking New Zealanders we are making things happen.There are many things that I could talk about but I wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge the Minister for Ethnic Affairs the Hon Judith Collins. As her parliamentary private secretary I have worked very closely with Minister Collins and her work has been exemplary. I am particularly proud of the work of the Office of Ethnic Affairs in Ethnic People in Commerce in New Zealand. More than 400 people attended the Ethnic People in Commerce conference this year and it was an opportunity for ethnic people in commerce to connect with mainstream businesses and corporates. This year Ethnic People in Commerce in New Zealand is partnered with Export New Zealand to connect and take advantage of and maximise growth opportunities. I can say that there were at least 300 real connections that were made as a result of the conference and they will result in greater opportunities for our ethnic communities in recognition that our ethnic communities can and do contribute significantly to the benefit and growth of New Zealand.Tomorrow Parliament wraps up after an incredibly busy term with more than 330 pieces of legislation passed and literally thousands of questions answered by the Prime Minister and Ministers. Through everything that has made the headlines over this parliamentary term this National Government under John Key’s leadership has been well and truly focused on what actually matters. Jobs and wages are growing and we have one of the highest growth rates among the world’s developed economies. That is something that we should all be proud of.We are supporting the most vulnerable in New Zealand with Better Public Services. We have fewer Kiwis thinking that their future will be better in Australia; they are remaining in New Zealand. We have Kiwis returning to Aotearoa. People are feeling more positive. Export figures are high inflation is low and we are on track to surplus. That is something that we should all be very very proud of. We are on track to Budget surplus this year and to post increasing surpluses in years to come so that we will have choices about repaying debt and investing a bit more in our priority public services.Earlier someone asked where the jobs are. In the past year there were an extra 84000 jobs created right across New Zealand. Treasury is forecasting that another 172000 jobs will be created over the next 4 years. That is something we should all be proud of. It is interesting that the increase in spending from Labour in the last six Budgets in its term of Government added up to $20 billion. Compare that with this side of the House: our six Budgets total $2.9 billion—$20 billion versus $2.9 billion driven in part by two net zero Budgets. Everyone can decide who is better in charge of the treasury. The public can see who is a better manager of the treasury.We have improved the Government’s finances while still improving public services and making a difference. It is less about throwing money around on a problem and more about changing the way we work so that the services we deliver are more effective. We are finding out that the more we get Government agencies to focus on results the better outcomes we have for our communities and our country.This Government is willing and able to spend more now to reduce the long-term social and economic costs of dysfunction. What a good thing it is for families and what a good thing it is for the Government. The National Government should be voted in on 20 September.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):Well there are none so blind as those who will not see and of course the blindest in the House right now would be Mike Sabin after putting on his tie this morning. The rest of the National caucus constitute a major health and safety risk that requires hearing protection because their ties and shirts are far too loud.This is a great day for working New Zealanders because now they have hope. Working New Zealanders have seen Labour’s policy announcement on work and wages and now they know that help is at hand. Help is at hand because they are the ones—the 50 percent of wage and salary earners in New Zealand—who have struggled to make ends meet year after year of this Government. Year after year they have struggled to make ends meet and now they finally see there is a chance that their wages will go up. Sure those on the minimum wage will get an immediate lift and they will get another lift next year—$15 before Christmas $16.25 next April—and then the rest of working New Zealand will know that in Labour they will have a Government that is committed to sharing fairly the economic gains of this country.The Government talks about rising wages but it turns a wilfully blind eye and ignores the 46 percent of working New Zealanders who did not get a pay rise last year. It had nothing to say about it because it does not care and it does not understand it. It does not understand the modern workplace and the modern labour market. That is this Government. Put aside the 46 percent who cannot get a pay rise—what about the others? What about the rest of the workforce who have added to the productivity gains of this country? There has been a 50 percent improvement in productivity in the last 20 years and yet wages have not kept pace. If the average wage had kept pace with productivity improvements the average wage today would be between $7 and $8 an hour better than it is now. But that Government does not care. It does not care that 40 percent of children living in households that are below the poverty line have working parents. They live in households that have working parents. That is how bad it is. Working parents are going out there doing two three four and sometimes five jobs and still cannot make ends meet. That is how bad wages are in this country for far too many people and it is time it changed so we will lift the minimum wage.We will do away with the retrograde laws that this Government passed that prevent people from negotiating pay rises through collective bargaining or other means and we will get rid of the laws that treat people shabbily and appallingly—the 90-day law is just one of them. We will get rid of those laws. Then we will have a conversation. We will have a conversation with all those in the labour market—working people wage and salary earners the so-called dependent contractors the people who are employed by labour hire agencies. We will talk to their employers and we will ask them why they cannot get a pay rise why they are being treated unfairly why they are being sent down the road and kicked out of a job with no notice and no compensation—why is that happening? We will get that information we will hear from the people who matter and the people who care and we will make changes that reflect a modern 21st century labour market not the 19th century version that National believes in and not the antediluvian policies that National will visit on this country because people want better.People expect fairness and they no longer look to National for fairness. They look to National for graft and unfairness and for looking after its big mates but working people do not look to National for fairness any more. They look to Labour. The 50 New World workers in Hāwera who have lost their jobs today will not look to Chester Borrows for help; they will be looking at Hamish McDouall and Andrew Little for help because that is where it is going to come from. The 250 skilled engineering workers who lost their jobs in New Plymouth this year are not looking to Jonathan Young or National to help; they are looking to Labour for help because that is where they will get it. They know that the people in Labour understand working people and they understand the labour market. We understand what is going on and we will make it better. People will know that under Labour they will have a better chance of getting a fair share. Not when Tau Henare is in the House—no no no—that is long gone. They will look to a Labour Government because that is the way you get a fair share in this country.If you want to be paid fairly for what you do you vote Labour. That is what New Zealanders are lining up to do. They will be lining up to do it come 20 September. They will not be looking at that mob. They want jobs and they want a reduction in unemployment not the 6 percent that they have got right now.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):Thank you for the opportunity to speak and participate in the last general debate of this Parliament. I am proud to be part of this National-led Government which has turned round this economy.First of all I would like to make a correction. The announcement made by the Leader of the Opposition that people will have an extra $4000 in their pocket—I do not agree with him. If you calculate—Hon Annette King: Why not?KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I will tell you. Listen to it.Hon Annette King: You want them to be poor?KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Listen to it first. A $2 increase in pay for working 40 hours for 52 weeks calculates as being $4160 in total. If you deduct the tax from that you will get almost $3400. The public will get $3400 in their pocket not $4000. So every announcement that the Labour Party has made has to be read carefully because it has got loopholes in it.Apart from this I would like to—Hon Annette King: So when you talk about the average wage does it include tax or not?KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: But it is not in the pocket—it is not in the pocket. The Leader of the Opposition said you will have an extra $4000 in your pocket. This is not in your pocket.Hon Member: Lies.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes lies.The Government has worked hard more jobs have been created wages have grown and we have got the highest growth rate among the world’s developed economies. Our Better Public Services are supporting the most vulnerable. Export figures are higher and inflation is low. We are on track to surplus and fewer New Zealanders think that the brighter future is in Australia.Whether we arrive in waka or we arrive in modern-day jet planes to start afresh in a new place with little support in terms of family friends and networks it is not easy. However despite these and other hurdles many of us make a humble start. We learn and adapt to the New Zealand culture its food and its habits and that goes a long way. It is fair to say that New Zealand has enriched the lives of migrants and migrants have in return enriched New Zealand with their food colour and culture and have contributed to the development of the country not just economically but socially as well.Migrants’ children too adapt to the New Zealand education system and have been very successful in their academic achievements. Despite English not being their first language migrant children adapt in their attempts to progress and do as well as their Kiwi peers. Of course the role of parents in the success of their children is very crucial. Most migrants understand that to succeed in their adopted land their family must work hard and their children must attain a good level of education. That is why most of the migrants pay close attention to the education of their children and support their achievements. With support from their families many of the second-generation migrants are now seen in professional roles as chartered accountants doctors lawyers and architects.Continuing the theme of the achievement and the contributions of migrants to New Zealand and its economy recent statistics made available from Statistics New Zealand state that in 2004 the contribution made by the migrant people of Indian origin to the New Zealand economy was about $2.8 billion. By 2013 this had risen to $10 billion which equates to 4.8 percent of GDP. I think it is fair to say that we are contributing our fair share to the New Zealand culture socially culturally and economically.In recent times most of the New Zealand migrants have come from Asia. The migrant community in New Zealand no doubt plays a very active role in connecting their country of birth to their country of residence in developing trade and economic ties. The importance of the result of this unique relationship between one’s motherland—that is the land of birth—and the adopted motherland or the current place of residence is that the relationships are very vital in growing trade between Asia and New Zealand.HOLLY WALKER (Green):This is probably the last time that I will address this House. As members will be aware I have stepped down from the Green Party list and I am not seeking a second term in Parliament. Having been here for only 3 years I have decided not to give a formal valedictory speech as I do not have enough to talk about to take up 15 minutes of the House’s valuable time. But nor did I want my last words in Hansard to be on the Epsom by-election debate following the unfortunate departure of Mr Banks so I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a few parting comments in this general debate.I did not plan to leave this House so soon after arriving. I had hoped that this would be the start of a long career in politics. In my maiden speech I expressed the hope that when I left we would have made real progress on reducing inequality and eliminating child poverty. So I am sorry to be leaving without meaningful change in either of those important indicators and before having the chance to be part of a progressive Green Government to address those and the equally vital issues of climate change environmental protection and economic transformation. However we are all of us always only one unexpected event away from a big lifestyle change—the birth of a child a change in employment a family challenge—and so it has proved for me.When presented with the choice between continuing my parliamentary career and supporting my family when they needed me I am not sorry to say it was an easy choice to put my family first. It has been noted by some that my departure is a sign that Parliament is still a difficult place for young parents. Some may conclude that it is not possible for a mother to be in Parliament with a young baby. My feelings on this point are mixed. In my Green Party colleagues here I could not have asked for a more supportive team in my attempt to combine the important roles of parenting and Parliament. The Speaker also has been more than fair in his willingness to grant me compassionate leave in the evenings to enable me to continue to breastfeed my daughter. My family friends staff Green Party members and supporters and even some MPs from other parties have rallied around me and provided meals babysitting housework and moral support to allow me to continue and I am so grateful to all of you.Many people have also asked me whether Parliament needs to change in order to better accommodate the needs of young parents. Some changes have already helped—the introduction of the new category of compassionate leave for example. But short of radically overhauling the whole institution to allow for example job sharing or a temporary replacement from the list for an MP on parental leave and perhaps one day we will get there it is hard to pin down specific changes that would have made it easier for me to carry on—a change in the sitting hours perhaps. But really it comes down to this. Being an MP is a 24-hours-a-day 7-days-a-week job and so is being a mum. It is bloody hard to hold down one 24/7 job—excuse my language Mr Speaker. Holding two at the same time has in my case proved impossible. That will not be the case for everyone and I sincerely hope that others will succeed at this in future because this place does need more parents and more young mothers in particular.As I step aside at least for now from this bear pit of parliamentary politics I do take comfort in the knowledge that those coming up behind me on the Green Party list will make outstanding MPs and I look forward to watching them in action during the 51st Parliament. My own commitment to good green change is as strong as ever. I love New Zealand and I want to see a cleaner environment a smarter economy and a fairer society. I still want to see a meaningful reduction in child poverty and inequality and I want to see progress on climate change environmental protection and innovation. So I will have to find new ways to help achieve this from outside Parliament. Wherever that leads me—whether back here in some capacity one day or in a completely different direction—I will always be proud to have served as an MP for these 3 years humbled by the trust that was placed in me to enable me to do so and grateful to all of those who have made it possible. Nō reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):We are fortunate to live in a country that is working and working in every sense of that word with a transparent uncorrupt growing and developing economy. Last year New Zealand’s economy grew by 3.8 percent in the year to March making us one of the five fastest-growing economies in the developed world. Growth is forecast to reach a stunning 4 percent this year. Average wages have increased by $3000 in the past 2 years and they are on track to grow by another $7000 to $62300 in 2018. An extra 84000 new jobs were created last year in the year to March with forecasts of another 172000 jobs to be created over the next 4 years. This Government is working for New Zealand and New Zealanders are working hard themselves to build a better life for their families.As this is likely to be the last opportunity that I will have to speak in the House prior to the general election there are a few special messages that I would like to pass on. I would like to congratulate all retiring members who are about to give their valedictories this afternoon and in particular the Hon Tony Ryall who has been the finest Minister of Health in my lifetime. I would like to wish Mr Vic Reid an absolute stalwart of our society who has introduced and led the Cooking for One course for older widowers among his many other charitable deeds and community interests a very happy 90th birthday. And I would like to farewell the outgoing British High Commissioner Her Excellency Vicki Treadell who finishes her term tomorrow as Her Britannic Majesty’s representative in Wellington. Since taking up her commission Vicki has been an approachable energetic and modern champion for the relationship between the United Kingdom and New Zealand. It is our oldest relationship with another State.I would like to acknowledge Darryl Stevens Aaron Hape and all the team from Commonwealth Youth New Zealand who organised this week’s student Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) here at Parliament. It was fantastic to see so many bright young people—the future leaders of our country—come from all over New Zealand to take part in that conference and learn more about the world around them. We live in an age where bloody and intractable conflict in Iraq Syria Gaza the Ukraine Nigeria Pakistan and elsewhere is claiming innocent lives wrecking economies consuming vast resource and destroying ancient cultures and civilisations. Internal unrest and persecution such as that of the Baha’i faith in Iran which this House was yesterday petitioned to condemn is also tragically common. It is of the utmost importance that the next generation continues to work for peace and to challenge injustice and persecution so as the Glasgow Commonwealth Games play out on our TV screens I applaud the work of the Commonwealth and student CHOGM in maintaining the values of democracy and development that we all hold dear.This country is moving in the right direction. We have a Prime Minister in John Key who is relentlessly optimistic tirelessly positive and unstintingly hard-working for our nation and its people. Here in Wellington team Key is working hard and is delivering on our promises. With the massive Transmission Gully motorway project to the north which is due to start work soon and to be completed by 2020 safer and securer transport around the greater region is on the way. The War Memorial Park over the Buckle Street underpass is on track to be completed in time for Anzac Day 2015 and it will be a wonderful civic amenity. Although I was disappointed to see the Basin Reserve improvements held back I will join with my colleagues on this side of the House to ensure a pragmatic way ahead can be found.Out in the Hutt too our candidates are campaigning every single waking hour to ensure that the public are aware of the progress being made under the National-led Government. Chris Bishop the National candidate in Hutt South is assiduously making huge inroads and may become a constituency MP after the election. A rather cruel wit once said that left-wing politicians and babies’ nappies have one thing in common: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reason. Hutt residents deserve a fresh new representative to push their interests in this place.We are lucky on this side of the House to have a renewed team led by a Prime Minister who aspires to having fairness prosperity and a better life for all New Zealanders. That is why a clear majority of New Zealanders support team Key and will give their party vote to National this year. Thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Valedictory StatementsThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Members the process that we will follow for the valedictory statements is that there will be the four National speakers first. Following these of which the fourth is Shane Ardern there will be a waiata and the opportunity for congratulatory messages. Following that we will move to Ross Robertson’s valedictory and there will be a waiata along with the congratulatory messages and then the Hon Tony Ryall’s valedictory and the congratulatory messages. For all those giving valedictory statements there will be a 2-minute bell before the expiry of their speeches. In accordance with the determination of the Business Committee I call on Dr Paul Hutchison to make his valedictory statement.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua):Tēnā koe. May I start by paying tribute to our House of Representatives and all who have passed through it and to those who have died for New Zealand as commemorated on the walls of this great Chamber. Our democratic freedoms have been hard-won.On arrival in 1999 I found myself looking towards the Speaker’s Chair from behind Sue Bradford of the Greens on one side and a magnificent display of dreadlocks belonging to Nandor Tanczos on the other. I could only marvel at and celebrate the diversity of our Parliament under MMP. Somewhat wistfully I feel the Greens look slightly less organic today than they did 14 years ago. But I have played my part. By chance I happened to occupy the apartment where the Hon Phillida Bunkle got into controversy over her purchase of very expensive hemp curtains. I decided that I would donate them to the Greens and organised a formal hand-over ceremony to both Nandor and Sue Kedgley. A photograph was duly taken by the Dominion Post with us standing behind a street sign that by pure coincidence happened to be called Grass Street.Even though I have had huge encouragement from my bench mate on “skid row” the Hon Tau Henare to be ejected by the Speaker from this House as well as having gone to the same Onslow College as gold medallist ejectee Trevor Mallard I have miserably failed to achieve that status.I want to take this last opportunity to comment on three areas that have been of particular importance to me each of which I mentioned in my maiden speech: first that New Zealand should do everything in its power to restore our status as a country that is a great place for all children to achieve their full potential; second that New Zealand should significantly grow our science and research base to better inform policy and broaden our economic opportunities; and third that New Zealand should stay firm in committing to our respected independent foreign policy and continue to celebrate and encourage others to join our hard-won inspirational nuclear weapons - free status.Today I am so delighted that my wife Antonia and beautiful daughters Clemmie and Daisy are with other friends and relatives in the gallery. I am sorry that Natacha and Elizabeth are unable to be here. I pay heartfelt tribute to Antonia and her mother Pam who have put so much love care and devotion into our family.I wish to salute the magnificent and diverse people of the electorate that I have had the honour and privilege to represent. The seat of Port Waikato and then Hunua includes vast areas of superb farmland that stretches from the east coast to the west. Pukekohe has been the epicentre. It is a multicultural progressive satellite town—or city—of Auckland and home of the Ranfurly Shield. Franklin is made distinctive by its people knowing and caring for each other by an incredible network of community organisations and colourful local leaders.Having spent my previous life near major hospitals in cities it was a novel and wonderful experience to live on the land. I hardly knew what a heifer was but I now care for a small herd. On selection day my wife gave me a card and a bunch of roses and there was a quote from George Bernard Shaw which read: “He knows nothing; and he thinks he knows everything. That points clearly to a political career.”Countless numbers of A and P shows calf club days farmers’ meetings and interactions with the legendary Pukekohe Vegetable Growers Association have given me a huge respect for our farmers and growers and their love of the land. Their contribution to New Zealand’s economy and our consequent ability to afford good health education and social services should always be remembered.I have had the great good fortune to be supported by a superb electorate team. I thank every one of them—in particular the longstanding chairman Ian McDougall the campaign chairman Rod McGregor and the secretary Glenda Watson for their extraordinary service to our party. May I thank Alwyn Black who supported me in Wellington with great professionalism for 13 years followed by Sarah-Rose Burke and Jennifer Fellows. May I also thank Jeda Wyatt Raynor Capper and Lynda Christie at the electorate office and in particular Barbara Knowles who is sitting in the gallery. Barbara represents the quintessential electorate agent—highly professional highly knowledgable and extraordinarily kind to those most in need. She has served our community with distinction. The team has made it possible for me to assist thousands of constituents which is a very satisfying part of the life of an MP.Several local issues have been of immense importance to me. I would have dearly liked to have witnessed before I left this House a fair and honourable settlement of the Ngāti Te Ata Treaty claim. I sincerely hope that day will come soon. The amalgamation of the eight Auckland councils was the most divisive issue during my tenure. The thinking behind the draft legislation was definitely urban-centred. There was no provision to ensure the rural voice was recognised at the new council table despite 70 percent of Greater Auckland being rural. I was glad to have unanimous caucus agreement to move amendments that resulted in the Auckland spatial plan having to take regard of rural issues and the Auckland Council establishing a rural advisory panel.I had requested permission to cross the floor as a symbolic gesture to the 97.5 percent of people from Pukekohe who polled against amalgamation. I am now of the view that if the Auckland Council has the same sort of determination to achieve efficiencies and cut unnecessary bureaucracy as the National Government is doing with Better Public Services in the long run it will be a positive move but there is a long way to go. The only time I did cross the floor was to support the Smoke-free Environments Act which has been a huge positive step for New Zealanders. It is hard to imagine now the discomfort of smoke-filled public transport pubs and restaurants. Although only last night at the launch of Speeches That Shaped New Zealand: 1814-1956 Tom Scott fondly recalled the rich earthy atmosphere of Bellamy’s in the past—sodden with beer bad breath body odour smoke and spittoons where the spitters rarely reached their targets. Those were indeed the days.Nine long years in Opposition was extremely challenging. On the positive side formulating good policy was fundamental to winning the public over. As science spokesperson in 2005 and 2008 I was alarmed that New Zealand was well below international benchmarks for research and development both from public and especially private industry investment. The only snag was that by the 2008 election and the sense of the global financial crisis Bill English had said that there was no extra money for science. I cunningly introduced John Key to Peter Gluckman at his home on several occasions and lobbied hard for science to have greater recognition.The 2008 science policy had some modest but profoundly important changes. There would be greater funding for basic discovery research. A chief scientist would be appointed. Sir Peter Gluckman has been outstanding. Not only has his massive talent and experience informed the shape of our science system since but he has introduced the idea of having a scientist in each Government department in order to achieve evidence-based policy. Elections and pork barrel politics have for years plagued New Zealand with tempting mega-morsels that have little evidence base that they will work. This election cycle has been no exception with the “porkometer” registering billions of dollars’ worth of doubtful promises.In my maiden speech I had called for scientists to be better honoured. After all New Zealand’s three Nobel Prize winners are all scientists. I managed to persuade Don Brash in 2005 and John Key in 2008 to have a Prime Minister’s prize of $1 million per year to be awarded to our top scientists and also media involved in science. It gives great satisfaction to hear the annual awards and also to hear Prime Minister Key state that “Science will be at the centre of my Government.”New Zealand would lead the way in the area of climate change most relevant to our country not by taxing industries that are vital to us when no other countries are but by creating a research centre that would look to reduce on-farm greenhouse gas emissions. I remember spending hours with Dr Andy West the chief executive officer of AgResearch and detailing how this would be done. Tim Groser seeded the idea of it becoming a global centre and it is hugely satisfying to know that now over 40 countries belong.In the 6 years of this National Government public investment in science has increased over 60 percent international benchmarks have been targeted and a whole range of efforts to encourage private sector investment has continued but a quantum leap is needed in the long term. While in Opposition I initiated a select committee inquiry into the quality of care and service provision for people with disabilities. An overarching principle that emerged which became a major recommendation to the Government was that disabled people must be given the maximum freedom of opportunity possible to choose their own destiny—as the sector told us “Nothing about us without us”. I am delighted that Tony Ryall and Tariana Turia have since instigated programmes around New Zealand.Since the change to a National Government in 2008 New Zealand has witnessed some of the most impressive leadership in our history. The combination of John Key Bill English and Steven Joyce is unmatched in terms of practical economic experience and personal accomplishment mixed with informed theory. On all fronts achievements have been made by highly talented Ministers. Paula Bennett has led some of the most important long-term social reforms for children. In health Tony Ryall in my view has done the hardest thing of all—that is not only to curb the increase in spending on public health but to achieve more services and achieve health targets. This is indeed a fantastic feat.As chair of the Health Committee it has been a privilege to work with all parliamentary colleagues and the sector over the last 6 years. I hope that a small contribution has been made by four further inquiries that I instigated. The submitters and the help of many expert advisers have been inspiring and I thank them all for giving their time so generously.I have no time today to discuss the great experiences over the 6 years while on the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. Extraordinary opportunities and insights have come from chairing the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development and co-chairing with Maryan Street Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. The Wednesday night ritual of drinking whisky—strictly after 10 p.m.—and discussing the issues with our millennium intake Phil Heatley Lindsay Tisch and Anne Tolley has been a great pleasure.I want to go over the four inquiries. The Inquiry into early detection and treatment of prostate cancer led to an overarching recommendation that men and their families should be encouraged to seek up-to-date evidence-based information from their doctors so that they can make an informed choice for themselves. The Prostate Cancer Taskforce was appointed and the recommendations are being rolled out around New Zealand as we speak.In terms of the Inquiry into how to improve completion rates of childhood immunisation I was a bit alarmed when the Dominion Post captioned an article I had written on this subject “A prick in the right direction”. I did not take it personally. It is hardly conceivable that here in New Zealand as recently as 2007 our completion rates for 2-year-olds were Third World at less than 70 percent. Today rates are over 90 percent and for 12 out of 20 district health boards Māori rates are higher than non-Māori.The Inquiry into improving New Zealand’s environment to support innovation through clinical trials—of medicines and medical devices—resulted in most recommendations being accepted. We now have one of the best ethics approval processes in the world an innovation health hub better industry relationships with Pharmac and an improving clinical trials sector.And finally we have the Inquiry into improving child health outcomes and preventing child abuse with a focus from preconception until three years of age (Volumes 1 and 2). Although most New Zealand children enjoy good health and have the opportunity to achieve their full potential as we all know there are significant and alarming differences around New Zealand. The National Government has embarked on a suite of profoundly important changes to improve these differences. The solutions are not easy. I thank all colleagues across the political spectrum where our committee achieved a cross-party consensus over a range of contentious issues from reproductive health and education to optimal maternity care and from the socio-economic determinants of health and poverty to an all-of-Government approach to improve nutrition and prevent the impending burden of long-term chronic diseases such as diabetes.Every member of the committee made great contributions. I really appreciated the collaboration of Kevin Hague and Annette King who although we are miles apart on many political issues see improving all children’s start in life as a national priority for New Zealand and I thank that always thoughtful journalist Colin James for his positive commentary.We recommended a proactive investment approach from the work of Nobel Laureate economist James Heckman. The rate of return for the dollar spent on a child is far higher the earlier the investment is made from preconception on. Since the inquiry the Government has committed to introducing a range of programmes from Healthy Families New Zealand to a voluntary star labelling nutrition initiative and to a strategy to help prevent foetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Local government is now talking about handing over the responsibility of fluoridation to the Ministry of Health. Hopefully our report helped nudge this along.However I would make the plea to successive Governments to take our entire package of recommendations very seriously and not just pick up the easy issues. The investment approach is a win for children a win for adults a win for the economy and a win for New Zealand. I reckon that with the political will within 10 years we could restore our country to being one of the best places in the world for all children to grow up in. We need a comprehensive plan with key performance indicators to sit alongside the Government’s excellent Children’s Action Plan and early childhood education initiatives.I thank you Mr Speaker for allowing me a final say. I thank all the wonderful people who work in this parliamentary precinct for their outstanding services. There is no doubt in my mind that we live in the greatest little country in the world and I wish all my colleagues the very best in their endeavours to make New Zealand an even better place than it is now especially for children.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei):I am absolutely delighted that you Mr Speaker are presiding here today. You were the chairman of the select committee that I sat on when I first came into Parliament and you were there for many years. It was a Primary Production Committee and no one knew more about agriculture forestry fisheries and biosecurity than you. Of course those skills you brought into the House. You are the best Speaker I have had of the four that I have had. Your fairness your knowledge of the rules—Mr Speaker I cannot read your writing!When I took over as National’s candidate in Whangarei National’s majority was 383 and the local team was determined to leave the party stronger than when it found it. Over the five elections that is what it has done. It has built the membership it has built the finances it has built the party vote and of course it has helped me with my successive majorities. I thank it so much for that work. I remember that first campaign and those people were pretty tough on me. In fact I left my job in January and the election was not until November and I doorknocked pretty hard actually. I do not know how it happened but Jenny fell pregnant that year. One of my team pulled me aside and gave me the hard word and said: “Clearly Phil you’re not working hard enough.”Actually there were lots of good reasons for that time spent not least of all the fact that the photo of my newborn son Bryn on the front page of the Northern Advocate a few months out from the 1999 general election must have been worth about 3000 votes. The truly cynical would say that that was why we had McKenzie in election year 2005. But she would argue that she was worth about 4000 votes. Nina my older daughter was not an election year baby but then she does like to fly under the radar with no one quite knowing what she is up to. She is certainly our quiet achiever. In the 15 years of being an MP’s kids this is all they have ever known. They have had a wonderful experience quite frankly.I would like to give credit to my wife Jenny who never allowed a single person in our family a single close friend a colleague or anyone to say to our children: “Gee it must be tough having a father as a member of Parliament.” “Gee it must be hard not seeing your dad all the time.” or “Gee you guys must have it real tough.” Why would you speak that sort of garbage and bring it into a kid’s life? Actually my children have been to places most kids have never been. My children have met people whom most kids would have loved to meet and they have had conversations round the dinner table that are so rich and interesting that I think most kids would benefit from that. I am very proud actually of how they have carried themselves how they have dealt with the issues that their surname has attracted and how well they are doing at school at youth group and at sports. I salute them.Time forbids me naming everyone in the Whangarei team but thank you up there in Whangarei. I particularly thank my longest-standing chairman and treasurer Murray Broadbelt and Ean Brown. They have been stars. They mastered something foreign to political parties and foreign to politics in general: they called meetings only when we had something to decide. That was a real joy.To those at the National headquarters Peter Goodfellow and Greg Hamilton. Their teams and their staff are the most professional National has ever had. Quite frankly in Parliament Wayne Eagleson has put together a really cohesive bunch. They love to work for him and because of that they go over and above for us and I appreciate it.Jenny and I have thoroughly enjoyed working with all these people. But shortly after the last election we started talking about fresh challenges and opportunities for us both. I came in enjoying what I do and I have absolutely loved it. I want to pass on the baton still enjoying it. Mike Sabin my neighbour arrived in 2011 with single-mindedness for Northland energy and lots and lots of ideas. Shane Reti Whangarei’s new candidate has a different style from me and Mike but he shares the same passion for the north as us and I think he will do very very well.Being in Cabinet for 4 years was certainly the highlight. I recall my last meeting where I told Cabinet colleagues how the camaraderie had been absolutely magic. Many of us who have been in Cabinet have been through the furnace of all sorts of innocent but mostly self-inflicted stuff-ups. Mine involved two bottles of wine. In Cabinet it actually gets to the point where it is just your turn to be in trouble. But truthfully when the Labour Party or the media are on the hunt it is much better when it is another colleague’s turn. It is a bit like the two guys who were tramping and came across a tiger when they were in the jungle. One quietly slipped into his Nikes. The other one said: “You’ll never outrun him.” He said: “I don’t have to. I only have to outrun you.” That is what it is like. Although I did not like seeing my colleagues in trouble it was a damned sight better than me being in it.All my ministerial office staff were top-notch. As Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture I know they were really pleased with the reforms we drove for marine farming. It is an extremely exciting and pro-environment industry. After all nothing reacts as badly to poor water quality as an oyster. On top of that delivering on the aquaculture settlement for iwi with Chris Finlayson was just great.My favourite question time was actually as Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. Colleagues might recall the death of Happy Feet the emperor penguin. Gareth Hughes tried to pin the murder of Happy Feet on me and the fishing industry. What Mr Hughes did not know was that the Ministry and I had been GPS-tracking Happy Feet since the day he was released into the Southern Ocean. We compared his GPS position with that of the fishing fleet in order to keep it well away. Happily on the day when he accused me of the murder I was able to declare to the House that the fishing industry was innocent and that in fact Happy Feet had quite simply become a Happy Meal.As Minister of Housing I updated the rental rules of the Residential Tenancies Act I began the insulation of every State house in the country and I got rid of the decades-long notion of having a State house for life. That last one was a big policy fish and we got it through with hardly a murmur. In energy and resources our office team introduced reforms to the Crown Minerals Act to promote exploration. We also introduced the new block offer process for awarding oil and gas exploration permits annually. It is continuing with more public acceptance year on year which is pretty much what you get in the long run when you are open and predictable. Interestingly again we had fun in that portfolio and again Gareth Hughes was a victim of my office staff’s sense of humour. He sent a parliamentary question to me asking where in New Zealand oil and gas exploration was occurring. My staff member Kara Isaac and I decided we would send him the answer: “Underground.”I am pretty chuffed to have done 4 years as a Cabinet Minister and I thank the Prime Minister for that. Very few get that opportunity. Obviously I was disappointed when John met with me early last year to tell me about the reshuffle but the meeting was basically one you would expect between pretty reasonable blokes. The Prime Minister is a decent guy. Equally as leader he needs to be free to do what he thinks is logical. So it was a bit like the missionary in Africa who met a lion. He saw the lion he dropped to his knees and he prayed: “Dear Lord let this be a Christian lion.” No sooner had he stood up when the lion dropped to its knees and prayed: “Dear Lord bless this dinner.” That was what it was like.The Prime Minister had to do what he needed to do. He needed to refresh the team. He gave opportunities to Nikki Kaye and Simon Bridges just as he had done for me. In fact the trickle-down effect of Ministers moving to Cabinet new committee chairs replacing those Ministers and then new deputy chairs replacing the committee chairs is good for the party good for the country and good for the Government. I will tell you what—the worst thing was 3 weeks on having to put up with Moana Mackey abusing me in the House for housing policy. Quite simply weeks later I was still getting the abuse; while Nick Smith drew the salary. It was just wrong.I would like to acknowledge the people of Parliament. Mr Speaker you will acknowledge the staff here of course tomorrow. I have enjoyed working with colleagues from right across the House. I will not name them on the other side as I do not want to ruin their careers. Interestingly when I first came in John Banks’ advice was: “Phil in politics friends come and go but enemies accumulate.” Well that might be true for him but it has not been my experience.I have loved working with the Māori Party. I remember a great argument I had with Tariana Turia one time in a committee. We left the committee and as you do we had a bit of a chuckle down the halls because what goes on on the field stays on the field. Being demonstrative by nature I put my arm round her little shoulders as we were walking. I grinned into her face wanting peace and basically said to her: “Look Tari I’m quite interested. Your first name Tariana is very similar to your surname Turia and I was wondering what they meant.” With her sparkling shining brown eyes she looked up at me and said: “Actually Phil one of them means stallion.” I thought: “Oh that’s interesting.” but I slowly took my arm away. I scuttled down the hall and up the steps to the first floor and then into my office. What she did not know is that “Philip” in Greek means lover of horses.Anne Tolley Paul Hutchison and Lindsay Tisch are part of the “class of ‘99” who have shared Tuesday nights together. Simon Power and Katherine Rich—part of that class—are here today and I thank them for coming. So is another former colleague Roger Sowry. They have all been very good sounding boards for me. Apart from anything else Sowry taught me how to say: “That’s right!” across the House in support of the Prime Minister.Hon Member: That’s right!Hon PHIL HEATLEY: That’s right! And quite frankly no one can do it as well as me. “That’s right!”.In this House you have humour everywhere. No one is funnier than Chris Finlayson Maurice Williamson and Gerry Brownlee. I recall Lockwood Smith when we were out at dinner once talking about his waistline. Lockwood was very body conscious. You are not like that at all Mr Speaker. I remember Lockwood saying: “Colleagues it’s interesting. My chest and my waist are the same as they were when I was 25.” Quick as a flash Gerry piped up and said: “Same with me”. It is true that Gerry is pretty headstrong but in all the times I have stuffed up he has done something or said something that has made us both chuckle. Although the pressures and constant invective over Christchurch would have made anyone else more thin-skinned withdrawn or even bitter I think he has actually become an even better bloke and I want to acknowledge him.The MPs’ spouses have been great friends to Jenny. Gerry’s wife Michelle and Mary English have been particularly kind to us both I recall on a number of occasions.No one in my time has held so many offices in Parliament with so much grit and decency as Bill English has. It is unknown outside caucus that he also takes on quite a pastoral role. Bill and Mary have six kids all of whom will shake your hand look you in the eye and hold a decent conversation. I would like to say that Bill’s wider life not simply his politics is to his credit and I acknowledge him.I thank Whangarei residents for co-opting me into so many fascinating projects from the bus bay at Whangarei Boys High School to the building of the new teen parent school the completion of the Kamo Bypass and the ongoing upgrade of State Highway 1 through Western Hills and finally acquiring Ngunguru Sandspit after years of devoted energy by a small team of local residents.In recent times the Government and the council have built the Ruakākā sewerage system together and the new Hātea River bridge. My being at the right place at the right time saw Cabinet fund an extra $2.5 million for the Northland Stadium so that Whangarei could help host the Rugby World Cup. Being patron of North Haven Hospice and Northland Hockey has also been fantastic.You cannot do this local work or Wellington portfolios as you know Mr Speaker without great support staff. I acknowledge Lynne and Annika particularly and also in Wellington Margaret Simmy Carol Vasoula and Stefan. They have been just magic.Both Jenny’s and my wider family are all Whangarei people. I am related to hundreds of them. That is why I get elected. Both families are extremely close and they have been very active in our lives and in my career. Candidate selection putting up signs manning polling booths organising fund-raisers and babysitting on long weekends—they have done it all. My brother-in-law Graeme Kerr has lived it with me not least of all as campaign manager each and every election. I could never fire him as it would ruin Christmas dinner.I make a special mention of my mum and dad. Every time I was in trouble they would come all the way down to Wellington just to be not to say anything. Such is the love between good parents and an errant son.Jenny’s parents Sandy and Hester have been absolutely outstanding as in-laws to me and as parents to Jenny. I am sure that they believe 98 percent of politicians give the rest a bad name. I can assure you Mr Speaker that you are one of the 2 percent and they are convinced that I am the other.We also have great friends. Jeff and Steve have been very supportive of me. They are Kipling’s “thousandth men” to me. Dascha and Sarah have been so good to Jenny and Graeme and Marion Young our pastors have been supportive of both of us.As a last word I would like to say that in previous years I have heard many a valedictorian complain about this House’s robustness and rewrite the history of their own behaviour. We are not elected to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya” quite frankly. I say that if you are outraged be vocal; if you are appalled show disgust; if you are devastated express grief; but most of all be passionate. I have found that this House is like an animal. It is like an animal. It has got personality. Some days it is aggressive some days it is funny other days it is just dead flat. So be it but no constituent I have ever met sends their MP down here to be a wet fish or a mouse or a sheep or a soft touch. Nobody likes rudeness but they do want you to fight and they do want you to be passionate.In my maiden speech I said that the best thing a dad can do for his kids is love their mum. I do. Jenny and I have absolutely enjoyed this role but now we want to go and do something different. We are told that the grass is greener where you go and water it. That is what we are going to do.ERIC ROY (National - Invercargill):Can I begin with an immortal quote from Ecclesiastes 3 that says there is a time for everything and a season for every activity under the heavens: a time to be born a time to die and a time to uproot. And so it is that our family is in its season of uprooting and finding some new challenges. I have often said that politics is a little bit like a crayfish pot. It takes a bit of energy to find the opening and to get in but it is even harder to get out and it is somewhat more difficult to get out undamaged. Whether I am undamaged or not is for others to say but certainly for myself I can report I have learnt a lot I have grown a lot and I have made some really great friends.The year 2014 is a significant and pivotal year in our family but in life’s calendar there have been other pivotal years. I guess this started in another very pivotal year 1972. Four things happened that were kind of loosely connected: I got married the Norm Kirk Government swept into power I bought a tractor—a David Brown 990 white model—and I joined the National Party. The connection was that the tractor salesman was incensed that Labour had the right after four terms of a National Government to assume the Treasury benches. He was able to persuade me with my new responsibilities of a David Brown 990 white model and a new wife that I should join the National Party. Little did I know that that would set me on a course where I actually ended up here. I can now report that the David Brown is to give it a technical term munted and the membership of the National Party has been an interesting ride but the real winner of that year was certainly the marriage.You stand here in your valedictory and you have got an absolute montage of thoughts about what you could do. I thought I might give out a few awards. I will say that these are rhetorical and not material. My first award goes to Elizabeth who has been my most valued and energetic supporter. Elizabeth has a saying that behind every great man there is a great behind. I am not one to disagree with Elizabeth. At this time I would also certainly like to thank my parliamentary team of Suzy Michelle Paddy and Pauline. I need to also acknowledge my business managers Felicity Steven and Terry who run our Te Ānau operation and who have uncomplainingly kept things on an even keel. I could spend some 10 minutes naming identifying and extolling a number of people who have assisted me. Suffice it to say in the confines of time I just want to acknowledge people in a variety of communities committees and roles who have been generous in their support help and advice and who have been very beneficial to my time here.It used to be that 21 years was the age of majority and you got the key to the door. I joined the party in 1972. Twenty-one years later in 1993 I had the key to the door and I came to Parliament. Since then I have represented two electorates and had two terms on the list. I have been in Parliament out of Parliament and back in Parliament. I have been in Government out of Government and back in Government. It is 21 years since 1993. I have got the key to the door; I am leaving. One should not try to interpret any reason for that; it is just a time to uproot and take some new challenges. It may have a lot to do with the fact that I want to leave this place before I am subsumed into the fourth stage of manhood. If you are not familiar with that in stage one you believe in Santa Claus in stage two you do not believe in Santa Claus in stage three you are Santa Claus and in stage four you look like Santa Claus. But it is great that with my maiden speech there were three generations of Roys in the gallery; today there are three generations of Roys again but they are different generations. It is good to be able to do this amongst family and friends.Each one of us comes to Parliament representing a kind of matrix of various things we have been involved with. Certainly for me there was a variety of community groups and activities across a wide range of organisations a background in agriculture and farming a strong sense of Christian values that were steeped in Presbyterianism and a love of the outdoors. Many people know I have got a bit of a passion for hunting. It was not very long until Bill English gave me the brand that this was the Christian who kills.If I was to give an award for the most hectic time in Parliament it would certainly be in my first term of 1993 to 1996. Inside a year because of a transgression of John “Hone” Carter I was a junior whip. As we neared the first MMP election with the advent of opportunities that might persist in places other than the various parties that existed we had an erosion of our backbench and the formation of a number of parties: United Future the Right of Centre Party and also the Conservative Party. I ended up as a junior whip with a backbench of 13 people to run the select committees. It was at that time that as a systems person I created a number of mechanisms to actually know where people were and what they were doing. That certainly stood as a mechanism that whips used for some time; I am not sure whether it is still used.I also had to have an overlay of Cabinet committees and the agendas of when various Ministers were involved in those committees so that I could pull people out and man select committees. Over that period of about 18 months when I had those numbers to work with we never lost a vote in a select committee. It is interesting that during that time we lost five votes in the House. I think that in a way we think that the world will fall down when that happens. I would predict that under MMP that will happen again. We ought not to get too serious about that sort of thing happening.Why I say that it was so hectic is that while I was busy as whip I was also a select committee chair. I ran the Primary Production Committee largely with just myself on our side. The biggest thing we did in that time was a total rewrite of the Fisheries Act. This was a paradigm shift away from the old to a new sustainable process with property rights quota management and a whole lot of issues that had never been done anywhere else in the world. Although I was not the architect of that bill our committee was certainly tasked with making it work and making a number of substantial changes that we put into the bill. It was about 19 months’ work.So it was that before we actually got there I did something quite interesting. We were kind of bound up and could not find a way through the maze of submissions advice and contradictions that were about. So as a committee we put out a position paper. I called in all the parties which were highly polarised and impressed upon them what Chatham House Rules were. I then presented the position paper and threatened them with all kinds of things that probably did not exist in Standing Orders if they broke ranks on Chatham House Rules. You have got to remember that in that environment there were the sorts of eco-groups represented by Greenpeace commercial fishing on the other side Māori customary groups and recreational groups. We put out what we thought were ways forward on deeming setting of total allowable commercial catch and a whole lot of things we just could not find our way through. Everybody held to the Chatham House Rules and on the basis of equal screaming we made some decisions that were put in the bill.The bill came back to the House at exactly the same time in the political cycle as we are in now as we were closing out for 1996. Then putting on my whip’s hat I was able to persuade the House that a 550-page bill could be taken as one question in 15 minutes in the House in Committee and then dealt with forthwith in another 20 minutes in the third reading.It is kind of interesting that 18 years on those substantive things that were put in have not been changed but of further interest is that last month a report on an audit of fishing systems in 53 different countries around the world was put out and New Zealand came out as being the best managed and most sustainable. I cannot give myself an award but I would certainly give myself a tick for what we did on fishing. That was quite an extraordinary period of time.The following year the award for greatest adversary appeared. It occurred quite simply. One night I could not eat my tea and later that evening I was walking up Glenmore Street and I collapsed. Some time later and I am not sure when a car picked me up and took me to my flat. That was Thursday night. It was Monday before I could get to the doctor. He pushed and prodded and then got me scanned forthwith. They found that I had lumps inside me as big as footballs as my entire lymph system had been taken over by an aggressive lymphoma. The oncologist informed me that I had a 20 percent chance of getting through it which is a kind of code for “Are your insurance premiums up to date?”. They opened me up then closed me up and said there was nothing they could do. So I went home and I was sitting there—this was Wednesday.The award for the most surreal telephone conversation I have ever had in my life went something like this. There I was sitting at home internalising some reasonably significant issues. The phone went ring ring. “Hello this is Eric.” “This is Murray McCully.” I thought: “Goodness me. The all-knowing black knight has heard about my predicament and he cares.” I asked: “What’s on your mind Murray?”. “Um I have to give a speech in Invercargill on Friday. It’s July and I’ve got a very bad cold. I don’t think I should be going to Invercargill in July with a bad cold. Can you do it for me?” “Murray um do you think I really should be doing this? I’m sorry to hear about your cold but I’m dying of cancer.” There was a long pause then he said: “Ha ha! I’ll send you the notes.”Much is often said about the dog-eat-dog bearpit of this place. It is certainly my experience that there are genuine people in here across the House for whom I have a great deal of admiration. I will give you an example of that. When I was in this battle the first two MPs through my door at my farm were Damien O’Connor and Jim Sutton. And afterwards there were numerous acts of kindness and areas of support that really were a big part of the fight that I was in—some of them more helpful than others. Some of them made me smile like the wonderful words of support from H V Ross Robertson: “You’ll be right mate. Big strong bloke like you you’ll be right. But you are lucky. If it’s in your lymph you’re buggered you know.” So Ross gets the award for the best or worst backhanded compliment.In order to truncate the whole story about the cancer let me just say that it is a small part in a book I have almost written called Notes to the Grandchildren which will be available at all good booksellers presently. There are two ongoing repercussions from this event of a brush with death and they are not unique to me but they have impacted on me. One is that when you go through medical trauma your senses kind of get mucked around emotionally. I do not understand it but I knew it had happened to me when I found myself crying when Nemo got lost. The second one is that you have an increased sense of your own mortality and you are doing all this self-assessment and appraisal about what you are doing how you are doing it where you are doing it and whether it is the right thing and that can be a bit of an insomniac monkey on your back.After an absence from Parliament I came back and was invited to take up a role as a presiding officer. It is quite a simple job in principle—protecting the rights of the minority and ensuring the will of the majority—but of course it all takes place in an environment of wounding damaging and getting credibility for yourself. There are layers of passion and all sorts of things come in there. That is what makes it interesting. I think that in a way reflectively there has been a bit of a change since MMP. The battle now is more party to party because of course that is the important vote and we have changed some things we do. When I came in here general debates were principally opportunities for individuals to raise matters of concern in their own electorate or elsewhere. It is now largely for most parties a themed debate and I think we are not as well served by that. Is it an issue for change? I believe it is and I have for some time.I have an increasing feeling that we should make all third reading votes personal votes. Note well that I am saying personal vote not free vote. I think that increasingly there is some isolation and dislocation by members in this House from the actual reality of voting. We see that when a vote comes along sometimes the groupings left and right advise the minor parties of what they are doing. We are seeing increasing times when there is redress sought to either amend the vote or to record in the record of the House what the intention actually was. Even more recently we have been seeing the veracity of proxies challenged by points of order or by interjection. I do not think that that looks too credible in the eyes of the public. It is not what they expect from their representatives in the highest court of the land.I do realise there would be a time factor involved in actually doing that. I think the Business Committee could think about how that might be done. One suggestion would be to have any third reading votes immediately after question time the following day. Even one more extended hour in a session of a Parliament would cover for any of that time that had been taken up in that personal vote situation.One of the greatest disciplines about being a presiding officer is curtailing response. Sometimes as you people get involved in debate I think: “I am just dying to respond in a debate.” and I have not been able to do that. The other thing is curtailing the desire to actually respond with an interjection at times. That has been so hard. In an emergency I would turn to my right-hand man Roland Todd and say: “Roly this is how it works.” and tell him. Roland always had a three-word response that never changed: “Is that so?”. Thank you Roland.The cruellest barb award goes to an occurrence that occurred outside Parliament. I was going to give a speech at a field day in Palmerston North and the best app on my BlackBerry could not find the memorial hall. I saw a guy in a dirty ute with a tweed jacket and I thought: “He’s got to be going there.” So I asked him where the memorial hall was and he told me. Then I looked at my watch because I was the opening shot and he said: “Look there’s no need to worry. They’ve got a boring old fart from Wellington opening it up.” That is the cruellest barb—old fart yes but boring?Let me just conclude with a couple of issues that I think it would be remiss of me not to mention because they are issues I have as probably my greatest concerns. The first is the sort of ongoing inability of a number of New Zealand citizens to make sensible decisions in relation to their own conduct. I made some comments about this in my maiden address. I can give you some examples. On 16 January this year in Golden Bay hundreds of people had spent 3 nights trying to stop some pilot whales from beaching themselves. So inherently there is good in all of us. On 16 January this year the same day Mrs Praveet Singh in Papatoetoe was attacked by two assailants and in a crowd of hundreds of people she called for help. No one went. Worse than that when she escaped and started to flee some of the onlookers herded her back to the assailants.There is something inherently wrong with a society that actually cannot make proper and sensible decisions. It is my view that we have stepped away from the reference points that enable us to actually do that. We used to be solidly grounded in Judaeo-Christian values and that kind of worked for us. We have never had the debate about what we put in their place if we actually want to move away from that. I do acknowledge that it is not the role of this Parliament in any way to be a faith promoter and that there should be that separation between religion and politics. This is where I think it does transcend that: when we deal with issues of conscience how do we actually make those decisions? When we are on the big issues like euthanasia trading in alcohol abortion or any of those issues do we do it out of convenience fairness or populism or do we have a basis for choosing right and wrong and what sort of a message are we actually sending to the wider community?The last point which is a big concern for me would be the award for the biggest lesson I have learnt. Let me reference it a wee bit for a start. Some of you will know that in 1967 I did some volunteer service. I went to Vanuatu and there I interestingly learnt about cargo cults. What are cargo cults? “Kago” in Bislama is “possessions”. A phone would be “kago”—anything that you have. What happened was that as these people who had lived there and had lived idyllically for a long time were contaminated by a lot of people who came in with a whole lot of cargo they got to thinking: “How do we get this?”. During the Second World War was probably the advent of most of these. On the island of Tanna there is a cargo cult called the John Frum movement. One night in Tanna as people were talking about how they could get the cargo a man in a splendiferous uniform arrived and pulled a big scam. He said: “Give me your money and I shall return with money for you but these are the things you need to do to worship. I am John from America.”—hence the John Frum movement. He took their money and left. Four generations on some people on Tanna are still waiting.We laugh and think that that is kind of quaint but in reality the biggest lesson for me is that cargo cults are very much a part of every part of society. Weekly I have people saying to me: “Why doesn’t the Government do this? Why don’t you do this?”. People have an expectation that there is some other way that they can actually get cargo. I absolutely applaud what Paula Bennett is doing—showing people who have got into a dependency mould that there are other pathways. Here is the real rub though. As we get into the last 5 or 6 weeks before an election and parties are really really keen to retain power or earn power we could use the equity of this country to promise cargo that might be a reward in the ballot box. I think we need to really ponder the motive for how we actually do all of those things coming up through the election. I will not be here so I just make that little call now.In spite of much encouragement I have decided not to sing a waiata at this point. However I have written a valedictory poem which is quite short. It is called “October” and with apologies to A B Paterson:There was movement up in Welly for the word had passed aroundThat a new Parliament was under wayThey gathered from electorates new faces to aboundAnd all the cracks had gathered to the fray.All the tried and noted members from electorates near and farHad gathered to the Parly for the fightFor the members love hard talking where the nation’s fortunes lieAnd the MPs sniff the battle with delight.But in a quiet mountain valley there’s a stream with crystal flow.A man with fly rod ready a trout to be his foeRecalled his journey forays and the days of WellingtonHe reflected for a moment on times in House and soOf democracy and friendships the privilege to serveOf bells and whips and caucus select committees tooWith Standing Orders Speakers’ rulings points of order “Order! Order!”.He clears his thought a trout rises solitude returns.I bid you adieu.SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Prime Minister Rt Hon John Key colleagues ladies and gentlemen—tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa. Prime Minister after 16 years in Parliament there is quite a bit I could say but I will not. Do not panic! I was elected to Parliament in 1998 as the result of a by-election following the former Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key—another Freudian slip Prime Minister. It was Jim Bolger who had just been replaced by the very caucus that I was now a part of. What I found was that having been his electorate chair and expressing similar views to him was not career enhancing.For the last time in this Parliament I wish to declare an interest in the dairy industry. I am the son a sharemilker. I worked my way through the industry and bought our first farm at the age of 23. To those who have experienced my determination and unflinching support for the farming community I say that my late parents Olive and Noel Ardern and their late employer the late Tom Hargraves are responsible for who I am. I am a farmer came in as a farmer leave as a farmer and—although it does not sit comfortably with many in this place—am proud to be a farmer and I am prouder still to have represented a rural farming electorate. I know that being a working farmer has served me well as an MP so it will come as no surprise that I am going to talk about agriculture.On my arrival one of the most important pieces of legislation was the deregulation of the dairy industry and the debate on what structure should replace the Dairy Board. This was a contentious issue not just for Parliament but among farmers and the wider financial community. The result was the formation of Fonterra and despite its many critics to this day name me one other industry that has performed as well for as long and currently is the only opportunity for New Zealand exporters to be truly of an international scale. As the weeks of prolonged caucus debate went on with economic commentators claiming that the sky would fall if Fonterra was allowed to be formed I was concerned that the formation would not happen and we would be left with a fragmented industry. You only have to look at other industries that have not taken this step to see how damaging to the sector and the New Zealand economy this would have been.As I was driving to the airport at 5.40 a.m. on a cold Tuesday Taranaki morning preparing for another caucus debate on the issue I came across this young mother driving an old Ferguson tractor with a child in a backpack and another child sitting on her knee with a transport tray loaded with bobby calves making her way to the farm gate. I realised that it was her that I was fighting for and it steeled my resolve against those bureaucrats those economic commentators economists and politicians who thought otherwise because her efforts could reach their maximum opportunity only with the formation of a focused marketing structure that was internationally competitive so that we could capture the highest world market prices.I told her story to my caucus colleagues because she epitomised the 11000 other dairy farmers. Despite adverse conditions and personal demands what I saw was one gutsy young New Zealander out there making it happen. For her sake I have no regrets at maintaining a non-negotiable position on the type of industry structure that will give the highest returns possible to the farm gate and to “New Zealand Inc.” I know it has not always been career enhancing but if I had my time again I would not change my stance. My biggest regret is not being able to see the same structural change in the meat and wool industry.The question is: was I wrong? If Fonterra had not been formed could members of this House guarantee that our economy would be growing as well as it is today? The answer is no they could not. So stop criticising the primary industries and instead of looking for alternatives that do not exist celebrate that we are world leaders in agriculture. Why is it that we unite and support our international sporting teams but when it comes to primary industries we think that any small provincial structure will succeed? Support the industries that support you.Some in this House today will remember when Myrtle the “Fergie” came to Parliament. Eric you should have bought a “Fergie” mate. I was happy to become known as the “Tractor Man” when I took the old “Fergie” up the steps of Parliament in protest at the proposed introduction of a methane tax commonly known as the “fart tax”. Some considered that this was the wrong thing to do but nobody and nothing was put at risk and that was subsequently proven in court. All I am going to say is that the tax did not happen it has not happened and it should not happen. If anyone thinks I was dangerous then be warned: I will be a lot worse when I am not constrained by parliamentary considerations and the old “Fergie” is still around.The only time that I thought I may have gone too far was when I was chairing a select committee and I was greeted once by a leading trade unionist as “comrade”. The other good thing that came out of that of course was that it really brassed off Hone. He still has not got over it.I want to say to this Parliament that Fonterra earns the money that gives us the ability to have a first-class social system. It allows us the luxury of enormous investment in environmental sustainability and conservation. Internationally our farmers are known as one of the lowest carbon producers with the highest food safety standards and the most sustainable farming practices. If members are honestly concerned with the environment then work with the farmers and approach this with an open mind. If you really care about the future of New Zealand I beg you to spend time on farms speaking with farmers and observing what they do. Look at the money that Fonterra spends on research and investment in environmental issues despite Fonterra remaining by international standards a small farmer cooperative. For example in the last 5 years 23000 kilometres of riparian margin planting and fencing of waterways has been completed. That is further than New Zealand to London. It is a long fence.Members have an opportunity to play an important role in keeping New Zealand’s economy growing with the triple bottom line of social environmental and economic benefits. To tax restrict and punish farmers while turning your heads away from the pollution of the cities is hypocritical and does nothing for the future of New Zealand. Abraham Lincoln once said: “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.”Over the 16 years I have established my role as representing farmers. I have served as chair of the Primary Production Committee and chair of the agriculture caucus committee. I have represented Parliament overseas as the New Zealand delegate on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and I have served on many other select committees as chair and member. Some of you may not know this and it will come as a shock but I was proud when the Hon Bill English appointed me as spokesman on conservation. There are some environmentalists who have not yet recovered. Fish and Game should be grateful to have Nick Smith as its Minister. As biosecurity spokesman I am delighted that many of the policies I put before caucus have now become legislation.I came into this Parliament during the first MMP Government and I have a concern about the unintended consequences of our electoral system. My electorate has changed over the 16 years as MMP has forced rural areas to become larger and harder to service. Rural New Zealand has been the biggest victim of the MMP system and all parties should look to redress the imbalance. It is not fair and it is not right that the areas that produce the money have very little representation in Parliament. When I was in high school five MPs used to represent the area that is now the Taranaki - King Country. We are in danger of becoming a Parliament of professional politicians and if that happens then we forget that we are the people’s representatives. In order to be a worthy representative to truly be a good MP I believe you need to remain connected or if you like have a vested interest. It is my view that Parliament and the media have become childish around vested interests in business.As a farmer I am worried about the lack of representation of farmers in politics. This is a message for farmers. If you are not happy with the direction that a Government is taking then you should stand and be a representative. If you do not and if you stand back then you are as guilty as those who are doing what you do not like. Farmers in the past have had the reputation of serving their communities and you will fail if you use the excuse that farming has become more complex and you are too busy. If you do not get involved at all levels then the price that is paid will be yours.To my own electorate I am proud that I have increased my vote each election despite many boundary changes because at the end of the day it is the opinion of those you represent that is most important. I thank the people of the Taranaki - King Country area for their loyal support. All MPs know that we cannot do the job without the hard work and support of dedicated people willing to go the extra mile.My thanks go to everyone who helps make this building work: the Clerk’s Office the select committee staff and report writers whom I have worked with the Parliamentary Counsel Office Parliamentary Library Hansard security messengers Bellamy’s and the cleaners. To In Style Travel Taxis Jane and Paul thanks—thanks to all of you for your support.There are too many individuals to thank by name but in particular I would like to single out a few: Leveson Gower our new electorate chair and his wife Vicky and son Angus who are here today; past chair Harry Bayliss and his wife Helen who are here today; and special mention must go to the late Matthew Hammond and his wife Angela. Matthew was my electorate chair for 10 years and I might point out a sheep and beef farmer. He said to me one night after an extremely frustrating meat and wool meeting: “Shane if those meat and wool farmers want to go broke then I guess you are just gonna have to give them the right to do so.” Matthew was my chair until a few weeks before he succumbed to cancer. Thanks to my electorate secretary Helen Hoskin and treasurer Janette Brocklehurst who previously worked for Roger Maxwell and then for me and has continued in a voluntary role throughout my whole political career. As treasurer Janette’s strength has always been to answer any suggestions from branch members that involved spending money with a no. The Hon Bill English could take lessons from her.To my executive assistant Kathy Ker who was recommended to me by senior whip John Carter as someone who may be able to keep me out of trouble—I suspect that in all her years this is the only area where she has failed. Jokes aside she is the one who watched my back and whom I trusted to ensure the work was done. The value of having someone who is loyal and brutally honest to the point where she has told me—right up to and including the writing of this speech—when she thinks I am a plonker has made it possible for me to continue to be an effective MP as well as to continue farming. I have seen senior bureaucrats Ministers and other officials who have not seen things from my point of view walk away checking themselves bodily after an encounter with my executive assistant. By the way she has been referred to on many occasions as the “Tractor Woman”. Thank you Kathy.To my electorate staff: the first two the late Maureen Wilkie and Ella Borrows; to those in between; and to my current agents Sharon Claire and Tracey who are here today I know that it is not easy looking after a large electorate. Thank you for your work.To my wife Cathy and to my family—sons Jonathan and Cameron—all MPs know that when you make the decision to become a politician then it has a significant impact on your family and personal sacrifices will be made. Our occupation is not for everyone and I am proud of my family who have embraced farming for all the good the bad and the challenges that it delivers. My family’s love and commitment to the land is best reflected in the words of Princess Te Pūea Herangi who said: “The land is our mother and father. It is the loving parent who nourishes us sustains us and when we die it folds us in its arms.” We are a typical farming family who know that we must leave the land in better condition than we found it. Thank you Cathy Jonathan and Cameron for your support over the years. I am returning home you will see a lot more of me and I love you.To those MPs who have ventured into Taranaki - King Country friend and foe I notice that not many of them return. But my good friend and colleague Gerry Brownlee is the exception and Gerry we still have those gumboots ready for your next visit.To the Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key thank you for being an exceptional leader. Ladies and gentlemen we have a leader who plays golf with the President of the United States who dines with the President of China who stays with the Queen of England and who knows all of the European leaders. As an export nation at the bottom of the South Pacific that is a rare and wonderful thing. Our leader is exceptional.To my parliamentary colleagues thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today and may you all enjoy the electoral success that you deserve.Might I add that it is often said that you make no friends in politics and that you do not meet many nice people. It is just not true. Some of the security staff messengers and other people in this place are wonderful people.I wish to share with you the following verse which I quoted in my maiden statement: “Seek that which is most precious. If you bow down let it be to a lofty mountain. Let nothing but the insurmountable turn you from your goal.” It has been a privilege and a pleasure to serve as a member of this House. Thank you members. Thank you Mr Speaker. I am returning back home to the slopes of Mount Taranaki to the farm to the land where I belong. Kia ora.WaiataH V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East):Kia ora matua Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou e te Whare e ngā iwi e ngā reo e ngā hau e whā tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa and warm Pacific greetings. I appreciate the opportunity to address this House today as I say farewell to this fine establishment. For the past 27 years I have had the privilege to participate in the ebbs and flows of the ever-changing environment that is New Zealand’s Parliament. I am delighted to welcome my wife Grace here today on her birthday. Without Grace’s support I could not have dedicated my life to my work over all these years. I owe her and my children Cherie Daine Lee and Lisa a huge debt of thanks.When I stood for Parliament it was for three reasons: to promote productivity to serve my community and to encourage ethical leadership. While here I discovered a fourth: a passion for education which is crucial for my community for when South Auckland wins so too does New Zealand.In the 1980s I worked in industrial relations and later became an industrial engineer. I went from freezing works management to the Auckland and Tomoana Freezing Workers Union. I want to welcome Mike Nahu here today who is from that union. At the time the meat industry was in crisis. It was costing more to process meat than we received for the product. We were converting unsold sheep meat into fertiliser. A group of us realised that the only way to save the meat industry was to dramatically improve productivity. We achieved remarkable results and we showed that the meat industry had a future. Everyone—worker manager farmer shareholder and the country—won. The experience in the freezing works convinced me that the way to lift our nation’s standard of living is to improve productivity.Our good work was destroyed overnight when Sir Robert Muldoon issued a decree granting everyone in the freezing industry without a productivity agreement a $20 pay increase. Those who had refused to change were rewarded. One political decision set the industry back a decade. I decided the best way to promote change was to become an MP.For 27 years I have taken every opportunity to tell this House that the answer to the economic issues we face is to lift productivity. My member’s bill the Productivity Council Bill (No 3) passed its first reading but never made the carry-over motion in 1990. New Zealand is a rich country yet we are becoming relatively poorer. The issue I came here to support is not yet won. I am delighted that we now have a Productivity Commission and I urge all members to study the commission’s reports and implement its recommendations. The secret to increasing productivity that I learnt in the freezing works still holds. It is continuous improvement and sharing the gains. To increase everyone’s standard of living is going to take a continuing effort by this House and a continuing effort should be something that we can all agree on.There is no higher honour than to be elected by your friends and neighbours to represent them in Parliament. I feel a special bond with the people of Manukau East who have twice given me the biggest majority in this House. But what the Boundaries Commission can give it can also take away. The boundary changes have meant my seat has wandered around South Auckland and east Auckland.As one of the longest-serving members of Parliament I am occasionally asked what the secret of survival is in politics. The commentators would have you believe that success in politics is charisma. Well I was standing in another queue the day they handed out charisma. Rather I have built my career on the principle famously expounded by US Democrat Speaker Tip O’Neill that “All politics is local”.Every Saturday for 27 years I have got up at 6.30 and gone to the Ōtara market the meeting place of my electorate where my team of volunteers sells quick-fire raffles and I meet the people. Then I travel to the sportsgrounds in my electorate and support the local teams. If parents players coaches and referees can be there every Saturday so can their MP. Around 4 p.m. I go and visit one of the bowling clubs in my electorate and have a cup of tea and a chat. Members should try it. You will be amazed at what you learn and your constituents become your friends. On Saturday nights for 27 years I have been privileged to have an electorate engagement and sometimes two or three—perhaps as a guest of honour at a dinner a prize-giving a wedding or a birthday—and 50000 constituents soon become 50000 friends. Sunday is God’s day and I give it to my family and my church.On Mondays and Fridays I see constituents. Rather than always having constituents come to my office I visit people in their homes because it tells me so much more. I have a programme of electorate visits so every year I visit every church temple and mosque and every business. I also see each of the more than 40 educational institutions in my electorate at least once a year. Let me give you a tip. Visit at 2.30 p.m. When the bell rings the principal no matter how enthusiastically he has been lobbying you will escort you off the grounds where of course you will meet all the parents waiting for their children. I doorknock every week.I know that Mike Moore tells this story about me. He has a friend who says: “That Ross Robertson is mad. I have a security fence security lights and watchdogs. Only one person has knocked on my door—Ross Robertson. I have told him I am voting for him but every 3 years he gets past my security fence past my Dobermanns and knocks on my door.”From my door-knocking I have found it is not just this House that is often out of touch but also the commentators. I have found my constituents are less concerned about the controversies that captivate this House and are more concerned about the common good.Some of you as is the nature of politics will have polls that say you are facing defeat this election. I have been there twice in 1990 and in 1996. The year 1990 was not a good year for Labour and I was 8 percent behind with 3 weeks to go. My opponent the late Allan Brewster was the popular local mayor. He was also the chair of the Auckland Regional Authority airport committee which was advocating a second runway for Auckland Airport. A week before the election my team put a postcard in every letterbox in Papatoetoe. The postcard showed a map of the electorate with the proposed flight path going straight over. The postcard just asked: “Do you want to share breakfast with a 747?”. Apparently the thought did not appeal. Twenty-four years later they are still talking about a second runway and I am still here. All politics is local.I won because I have a wonderful team. I still have in my team people like Ruth Gordon Gail and Kay Absolum Alistaire Hall Phil Greenbank and Grace Robertson who helped me in my first campaign 27 years ago. They say that you cannot leave the Manukau Labour Party. If you die we expect your children to take your place. I thank the Gush family Mulitalo family Johansson family Lavakula family Wiki family Tillotson family Yvonne Matson Efu Koka Michael Clatworthy and of course my children.The House will understand when I give tribute to the Speakership. This Parliament has indeed been fortunate in the quality and dedication of members of Parliament who have served this House as our Speakers. It was a great honour for me as a State house working-class boy from Ngāti Toa - Tītahi Bay and Mangere East to become Assistant Speaker. I am the only MP to have served as Assistant Speaker in four Parliaments and under two Governments—an achievement that gives me great pleasure. Under MMP the Speakership has become a cross-party organisation. I meet regularly with the Speaker and what party we come from is irrelevant. I can say that because I have been an Assistant Speaker under four Speakers—two who were Labour and two who were National. I would like to see the day come when the Speaker is nominated by the backbench as happens in the United Kingdom. In the British House of Commons the Speaker sometimes just calls on an MP to take the Chair. If every MP had to take the Chair even for a day not only would behaviour be better but also debate would be better.MPs complain that debates in this Chamber are not reported as well as they once were. While in the Chair I have been privileged to hear some great speeches but I have also listened to a lot of rubbish. I can tell when an MP has researched the contribution and has something to say and so can the public. We owe it to the electorate to lift our game. If MPs do not take every contribution to parliamentary debates seriously why are they here?Too many MPs think they are here just to be a Minister and of course that is important. But there are avenues for MPs who are passionate about issues. I have been able to raise issues such as prostate cancer in 1993 because I am an MP. I worked with the late Eion Scarrow the gardening guru in setting up the Prostate Awareness and Support Society to highlight this silent killer of men and became its first patron. So guys get a check-up. And then there was the stand against sexual harassment in the Royal New Zealand Navy which was to make history and guarantee more safety for female sailors.But it is we the backbench who must uphold parliamentary democracy. We are one of the least corrupt parliaments but we could do better. In the last 10 years two former MPs have gone to jail for things they did while they were MPs. One MP suddenly resigned when questions were asked about the use of the travel privilege and the Auditor-General has made adverse reports about the use many MPs make of their allowances. Of course we need a code of ethics. The British Canadian and all the Australian parliaments have a code of ethics. This Parliament has legislated that all New Zealand local body politicians have a code of conduct. How arrogant of us to claim that we alone do not need a code of ethics. Will a code stop all scandals? No of course not. A law against theft has not stopped burglary but no one is suggesting we drop theft from the Crimes Act. Both of the MPs who went to jail told the court they had done nothing wrong. If Parliament had had a code they could not have made that outrageous claim. I urge backbench members of Parliament to continue my campaign for an aspirational code of ethics for leadership at this level is by example.Worldwide there is agreement that the best protection against the misuse of privileges is transparency. We need more transparency in this institution. We need to apply the Official Information Act to Parliament. If we backbenchers wish to hold the Government and others to account then we must be willing to be accountable. I have seen many things in the last 27 years that would not have happened if we had had the Official Information Act applying to Parliament. Rather than making it a secret we should be willing to defend expenditure like MPs’ travel.When I was first elected from the freezing works of South Auckland I did not even have a passport. I never put my hand up for any overseas travel. One day Richard Prebble then a good Labour Cabinet Minister rang me up and said: “I have a transport calibration flight going to the Pacific Islands. They have a space for an MP. You’re going.” I did not want to tell the Preb that I did not have a passport so I said: “I have a marginal seat. I’m too busy.” “Nonsense!” said the Preb. “How can you represent Pacific Islanders when you’ve never visited the Islands? You’re going.” so I went. It did make me a better MP.In 1993 the honourable member Kennedy Graham who was then the secretary-general of the Parliamentarians for Global Action was coming to New Zealand and I was invited to meet him. Next thing I found myself in the Hague with a group of backbench MPs who believed that world peace was too important to be left to Governments. They walked their talk by visiting the world’s trouble spots to promote the democratic peaceful resolution of disputes.In 2007 I was honoured to be asked to lead an international delegation of MPs to one of the most dangerous places on earth: the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Looking back I realise that maybe I was asked because there were not a lot of volunteers. We went to help tackle an issue that no army can help solve: HIV/AIDS. The MPs from the region said that they feared more of their constituents were going to die of AIDS than from the effects of the war and in such a conservative country they could not even raise the issue. They hoped an international delegation of MPs could talk about AIDS. Our convoy was stopped by the Taliban but we got through and met with tribal elders. The hardest challenge was explaining how the disease is spread but once over that hurdle we got the elders’ consent for an HIV/AIDS awareness programme. I discovered that I was well-qualified for the mission. I had held similar discussions with the very conservative pastors in Auckland’s south to get their support for an HIV/AIDS awareness campaign.Three years ago Parliamentarians for Global Action comprised of MPs from 139 Parliaments elected a backbench MP from Manukau East to be their world president. As president of Parliamentarians for Global Action I have advanced the ratification of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and have led a campaign to get Governments to ratify the Arms Trade Treaty to regulate international arms sales. Since World War II over 40 million people have died in wars but it is difficult to fight a war without weapons. More than 2100 MPs from 114 countries including 89 from New Zealand have signed a declaration in favour of the treaty. I believe that the treaty will become international law and will save many lives. To date 118 countries have signed it and 41 have ratified it—we will this year.My involvement with Parliamentarians for Global Action has been challenging and rewarding and I have appreciated the opportunity to work with and support parliamentarians from around the world as they have faced rebellions and massacres in countries such as the Central African Republic and have endured human rights abuses in the name of freedom in Malawi Bahrain Chad and Colombia. These things have reminded me every day of how lucky we are to live in our own country.I acknowledge that I owe my career to my constituents in Manukau. I have loved every minute of it. For me work is love made visible. I have given it my best. In my retirement I am going to do some work for my church I have been elected to my local board and I will continue to work for the place that I love South Auckland.Let me thank again my wife Grace and family—Cherie who is watching at home in Papatoetoe with my granddaughter and grandson Paree and Reno; my son Daine who is watching in Singapore with my daughter-in-law Lyanna; my son Lee who is watching in Ellerslie with my daughter-in-law Sarah and granddaughter Piper; my daughter Lisa and her partner Mike Cross who are here in the gallery today—I am so lucky to have you. My sisters Yvette and Vivienne are also here today.I thank my out-of-Parliament electorate assistants over the years the late Murray Haliday the late Mark Nee Bill Marshall Rae Waterhouse and Michael Clatworthy for a job well done. My parliamentary executive assistants—and in particular my first executive assistant Kath Barrett and my longest-serving executive assistant Marilyn Smith who for 17 years has worked tirelessly on my behalf—awesome. I thank Speaker’s assistant Roland Todd and those on the Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board who have been most supportive especially Efeso Collins Lotu Fuli and Mary Gush. And I know that all MPs will join me in thanking the marvellous people who work in Parliament and look after us so well. I will always appreciate the opportunity and privilege I have been given to serve as a South Auckland MP in this Parliament. It is now time to hand the reins over and wish the Labour candidate Jenny Salesa who is sitting in the gallery every success. I am sure she will do well.Honourable members tātou tātou—together together. Courtesy is contagious and we will all prosper if we keep within the spirit of the Standing Orders. The House is a symbol of integrity the integrity of all honourable members should be upheld and every voice should be heard in accord with our Standing Orders. Mr Speaker nō reira tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa ka huri.WaiataHon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):Can I start by acknowledging three very special people: my wife Kara son Llewellyn and daughter Maisie who are with us here today. Thank you very much for the fantastic support and contribution that you have made to my career. My wife will tell you that in 1997 when we got married I told her that I was going to do only another 6 years in Parliament. I think I actually said six terms but she is running that line. I would also like to acknowledge my parents Malcolm and Lenore who have come down from Whakatāne today my mother-in-law Pam and the rest of the family who are here too.Can I say it has been an absolute privilege to work with a group of exceptional and highly talented people in the National Party over the last 24 years. Every one of those people has been an outstanding New Zealander and it has just been the greatest honour to have any association with them over that time. And I have to tell you I think they are all looking absolutely fantastic this evening.I was first elected in 1990 as one of 32 new MPs who came to Parliament in that stage. That is actually bigger than some caucuses in Parliament. I must say I am really surprised at just how much I have forgotten in the intervening years because actually I knew everything when I first came here in 1990. I had spent 14 months campaigning and I would like to acknowledge the support of my parents during all that period of time. I spent 14 months campaigning and it was a fantastic opportunity to learn so much about the different communities in what was then the East Cape electorate.We spent a lot of time door-knocking to become known in those days and you know you really have to take every opportunity. I was out door-knocking in I think it was Richard Street in Ōpōtiki just opposite the high school I think and it was not the most salubrious part of my electorate. I was out there knocking on this door and then all of a sudden along from the side of the house came this pit bull terrier. It looked at me I looked at it and it came for me. I got my clipboard and I tried to protect myself. It bit my leg. It hung on my hand. I had this dog hanging off my arm like this and I managed to get rid of it. I have got to say it was really quite a worrying experience.So I got back in my car and I drove back home to Whakatāne. I rang up Ian McLean—who is with us here today—who was my caretaker MP and I said: “Oh well you know I’ve had a very bad day. I’ve been bitten by a dog.” He said: “Great.” I said: “No no I’ve been bitten by a dog.” He said: “Fantastic. Did you get a photo?”. So I drove all the way back to Ōpōtiki had my hand re-bandaged and we got a nice picture in the paper. In fact that story got on to the front page of the New Zealand Herald which is no mean feat when you are a new candidate. I think the paper was somewhat attracted to my quote that the dog had bitten me but if it had been the Labour candidate it would have eaten her.I have been supported locally in the National Party by a great team of people over the years. You know who you are and I am very grateful for all the support that you have given me. When I came to Parliament back then David Lange and Robert Muldoon were still here. I had dinner with Sir Robert one night. I have got to tell you that after I struggled to make any conversation we sat there and ate our dinner for 15 minutes in silence. Then he got up and he said: “Right that was really good. Let’s do it again sometime.”Look it has been fantastic. I have had tremendous satisfaction from the work that we have done in the electorate and I was just reflecting today on some of the amazing things that people ask you to do. I remember that just a few days before Christmas one year a lady rang me up and said: “My husband is stranded on a live sheep shipment in the Middle East and I can’t get him home for Christmas.” You would ring your MP and so I rang Don McKinnon and her husband got home for Christmas. That was fantastic. There are also the number of people whom you have assisted at their saddest time to get bodies back to New Zealand when their children have died overseas and there is the fantastic support that happens there. I am reflecting on how every year our family gets a Christmas card in an email from some guy whom I helped 22 years ago. Every year he sends a Christmas card. I have been reflecting for years on what I actually did to help him but whatever it was that response has just been marvellous.I would like to reflect on my electorate agents. I would like to acknowledge them. There is Pam Eglinton who was actually the best employment decision I ever made because she is now my mother-in-law. Robyn Pam Jenny Trish Nigel and Jackie have been fantastic in the work that we have done. We have had a lot of challenges in our area and a lot of natural disasters—you know floods oil spills kiwifruit collapses Labour Governments—and we have got through them all.I want to also acknowledge the constituents who have been fantastic. They have been kind and they have been incredibly generous to my family and me over all the years. Often you hear about people having problems with constituents shouting and screaming at them. I have got to say that the people of the Bay of Plenty and the East Cape have shown just the greatest kindness and generosity to me and my family over the time and I would like to pay great tribute to the people of the Bay of Plenty. It has been a very fast-growing electorate in the Western Bay of Plenty. For example when I started as the MP for Papamoa which came into my electorate in 1996 there were 6000 people. Today there are 21000. So it just goes to show that if you get a good MP lots of people shift to the area.I want to acknowledge Dame Jenny Shipley who as Prime Minister promoted me to Cabinet in 1997. It was my great privilege to play a part in delivering New Zealand’s first woman Prime Minister and it was a great privilege. We were a group as we were planning that called the Te Puke Bypass Committee as some will remember and it is a great pleasure to me that we are now spending $400 million on the proper Te Puke bypass which will be opening shortly.Mrs Shipley gave me the fantastic opportunity to be a Minister. I have got to tell you that when you have a young baby at the time your mind is sort of on everything. I remember pulling in at Whakatāne Airport one day taking the baby out of the car checking the luggage in and getting stopped by a constituent and then we flew off to Auckland. As we were flying there was an announcement: “Ah Mr Ryall we’re just letting you know that your car keys are at Whakatāne Airport. You left them in your car with the engine running and the driver’s door open.” So it always pays to have a sign-written car.Being in Opposition was incredibly frustrating—a very frustrating 9 years—but the one thing I learnt there is that it is a great opportunity to listen learn travel the country and find out about things that you did not really know about and so many people were very generous with their time in helping me in that role. In 2005 Dr Brash—who is here today—gave me the responsibility of being the health spokesperson and I will touch on that shortly.I have certainly appreciated the responsibility the Prime Minister has given me as the Minister for State Owned Enterprises working with Bill English on the mixed-ownership model programme. Bill commented to me the other day that he and I in my role as Minister for State Owned Enterprises both under Mrs Shipley and in this Government have privatised or partially privatised $7.7 billion worth of assets. He thought that was more than Richard Prebble had done but we are not going to tell anybody about that.The Prime Minister also gave me the job of Minister of Health. I have got to say that this has been the best job in the Government. You work with quality people every day who are dedicated to the welfare of New Zealanders. I wake up most mornings and I turn to my wife and say: “Ugh imagine being Minister of Education.” Now that is a really tough job.Look I think many people underestimate the size of the health sector in New Zealand. It is 10 percent of GDP. For every $1 spent in New Zealand 10c is spent in the health sector. There is not only our $15 billion public health service with 75000 staff but a very strong and dynamic private sector—$1 billion in natural health products $1 billion in health IT and devices—which has some great New Zealand companies. I think it is this intersection of health and technology that is going to provide an opportunity to create untold wealth in the future and it is really important that New Zealand is part of that.I am very proud of our Government’s health plan which we are rolling out and will continue to roll out. I think the seminal decision was that we would stick with the structures that we inherited and really focus on results and improving performance. I think that over the last 6 years our doctors and nurses in the team have delivered exceptional results for New Zealanders across quality productivity and the financial domains within constrained funding—those six national health targets. You know doctors and nurses are very competitive people. No one likes being at the bottom of those national health targets and that has really driven a much better performance including 40000 extra elective surgeries quicker emergency departments and much faster cancer treatment.Immunisation—I noted Dr Hutchison talked about the fact that in 10 of our 20 district health boards the rate of immunisation for Māori 2-year-olds is now higher than the Pākehā immunisation rate. No one would ever have thought that that was possible in New Zealand. We have shorter cardiac waits.Tobacco smoking—fantastic work that we have done there. I went to the World Health Assembly in Geneva—I have got to say Prime Minister that I have taken only two overseas trips as Minister of Health—and I was there talking about this work that we were doing in New Zealand on Pathway to Smokefree 2025. We have a programme that we have systematised across the whole country called ABC. “A” is when health professionals ask whether you are a smoker; if you are it is “B” for a brief conversation because that is quite effective in getting people to quit; and “C” is for when they offer you cessation medicine—ABC.So I went to the World Health Assembly and I was giving a talk about this. I do not know how many people in this House have ever given a speech where they have lost their audience—it had never happened to me before that time—but everyone from Africa started talking amongst themselves and I thought: “Oh my goodness I have caused an international incident.” So I completed my contribution. I sat down next to a lady from Jamaica and I said: “Why was everyone from Africa quite dislocated by my speech?”. She said: “Well in Africa they have ABC for HIV/AIDS—‘A’ for ‘Abstinence’ ‘B’ for ‘Be faithful’ and ‘C’ for ‘if you can’t use a Condom’—and they couldn’t work out how that stops smoking.” So we have got a lot of acronyms in this area.Look it has been a fantastic portfolio and with the Prime Minister’s support we have achieved quite a lot. I think the decision that we made to fund 12 months’ Herceptin for New Zealand women is something that has made a huge difference to the lives of so many people. I remember an experience I had at a cafe in Tauranga a couple of weeks after the 2005 election. I was standing in the line and this chap whom I had never met before came up and gave me this big bear-hug. I thought: “Well this is very dislocating in public.” It turned out to be a guy who said that a month before the election he had had to put his house on the market to get the money to buy Herceptin for his wife and the day after the election he was able to take his house off the market. Fantastic that contribution. So we have done a lot.I must say I had a fantastic opportunity meeting a lot of people in the health service. It always pays to be very careful. Jo Goodhew as the Associate Minister of Health is doing this hand hygiene thing. I was visiting an endoscopy suite a couple of years ago and I thought: “Well here is a great photo opportunity with the hand gel.” which I did and proceeded to rub my hands at which every person in the endoscopy suite theatre gasped in horror. I thought: “What is all the worry here?” and well of course it was lubricating gel. So we ought to get that prostate awareness programme started.I wanted to spend a little bit of time talking about what the next 10 years in the health area is going to be like. You know with regard to ageing the number of people over the age of 80 is going to treble in the next 10 years. So who is over 65 is just not the issue any more because 65 is the new 45—I am trying to convince myself as I get there.I think there are five big mega trends and the interaction between all of them is going to just change health care completely. The first of the five is care being closer to home. All this care is coming out of hospitals and into communities and into people’s homes. Pharmacists GPs home-care workers nutrition advisers—all these people are playing a greater role and there is going to be this much greater responsibility that we are all going to have to take for our health care in something that they call self care. It is a bit like Air New Zealand—it is getting us to do all the work and we like it. This is where we are going to have to take responsibility.You know Sir Ray Avery is developing a piece of technology the size of your wristwatch with a beam that comes on your wrist and measures your temperature your blood pressure and your pulse. That information is then transmitted to a device that can be monitored by your general practice. So as you can imagine this technology is going to change everything. That is my second point. This “anywhere any time” use of innovative technology is going to change our health care. This device it is just going to help change everything over the next 5 to 10 years. You are going to be able to plug your own personal ultrasound device into your cellphone and imagine being able to beam that message to your local GP. These advances are incredible.Thirdly intelligence and insight from big data—this work that we are doing collecting information across Government departments across patients and across people with all the privacy protections—is going to allow us to build a picture on how health care interventions change people’s lives and on the best place to do it.The fourth trend is personalised medicine. All this knowledge about your genome and your biomarkers is going to allow clinicians to develop very personalised therapies applying solely to you and they are going to be able to provide you with information about your risk factors in the future. This will have huge ethical issues about whether we actually want to know these risks but this personalised medicine is going to be amazing.And I think the fifth big trend that is going to affect health care is that we are going to have this expanding role of non-physicians and payment that actually rewards the quality of care and the outcome that people provide.I would like to also just take a moment to thank the fantastic people who have supported me over the years. I would like to acknowledge my ministerial staff—in particular my “head of filing” Peter McCardle. I thank them for the wonderful contribution they have all made—officials at the Ministry of Health the State Services Commission Treasury’s State-owned enterprises unit the travel office the security guards the Bellamy’s staff the messengers and the gallery officers the VIP drivers the cleaners and the district health board staff and their chairs in particular.I cannot finish off without acknowledging my three comrades: Bill English Nick Smith and Roger Sowry. You know Parliament can be a very lonely place. It can be full of self-doubt and frustrated ambition. I think it is pretty unusual for any member of Parliament to have had three very close friends throughout their whole career. The relationship with those guys has been enduring and sustaining. They are extremely capable people who have continued to be friends over the last 25 years and contrary to public opinion we have never worked as a group. Frankly we can never agree on anything. On any issue it is always two versus two and the two are always variant. So it has been wonderful to have had that association with them. It has been the most fantastic association anyone in Parliament could have and I have just really appreciated the support that those guys have given.Everybody else is going to be going off and I am going to be supporting the Prime Minister by campaigning as well. I wish you all a lot of activity and I wish all the best for our side for the work that you are going to do over the next period of time. You will all be going out. Many of you may be doing rest home visits. I stopped doing those a few years ago. I remember going to one. You spend a lot of time giving out your card and you know shaking everyone’s hand. I had the name tag on and I did all that and as I left the day room I heard one of the ladies say: “Was that the nice new young doctor?”. And then I discovered that they all had voted 2 weeks earlier.So thank you very much Mr Speaker for the opportunity to be here to thank my fantastic family for the contribution and support that they have made. It has just been marvellous. And thank you for the great privilege it has been to be here to represent the National Party and the Bay of Plenty and to have worked for New Zealand over the last 24 years.Sitting suspended from 6.09 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Veterans’ Support BillThird ReadingDebate resumed from 29 July.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): So I am now calling David Shearer who has 4 minutes remaining if he wishes to speak.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert):Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker—yes I do indeed. I just want to pick up where I left off which was where we basically agreed with this Veterans’ Support Bill which is a rewriting of the War Pensions Act 1954 which is well and truly out of date. As I was saying last night before the House rose this is something that has been long overdue—to upgrade this Act. Since 1954 it had not really been touched. The review was kicked off by Rick Barker and Phil Goff under the last Labour Government. They asked the Law Commission to look into this bill and to provide some recommendations which the Law Commission did. It consulted very widely. It talked to veterans and it talked to the RSAs around the country. It spent 2 years doing that and did a very good job. It was completely non-partisan and completely neutral and as a result of that it came up with a 280-page report with some extensive recommendations.For the most part those recommendations have been agreed to. We have been pretty happy with that. There were a number as I was saying last night that were not agreed to. We pushed pretty hard from this side of the House—and I want to acknowledge Phil Goff’s efforts here—first of all to correct an anomaly that somehow there was some means of being able to assess a disability at 52 percent. It was a long complicated piece of mathematical torture really in order to be able to come up with that 52 percent. That has now gone. The Government was reluctant to do that but it has agreed to it itself. In addition to that it has agreed that the community services card will be automatically given to our veterans because once again it was something that the Government was not willing to entertain. The Government agreed to it with pressure from this side. It also ensured that if a veteran was hospitalised even after 13 weeks their pension was not terminated. Once again the 52 percent disability assessment the community services card and ensuring that 13 weeks in hospital did not mean that they were going to lose any of their benefits were additions that on this side of the House we pushed for and after some pretty vigorous disagreement the Government agreed to them.What we are left with though which I think is miserable is that the lump-sum payment on the death of a veteran cannot be paid to that veteran’s family. That is a sum of $5800. It is not a lot of money. Over the period of time that we were looking at with the decline in the number of veterans because of the way that unfortunately people are getting older and passing away that will amount to less than $8 million a year. I can think of a lot of money that is being spent by this Government on things that are of much less value than giving the benefit to those veterans’ families—giving them something when that veteran dies. Because let us face it it is not just about the veterans who went away; it is also about their families left behind who suffered when they went. This would acknowledge that contribution that they made to New Zealand.JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party is pleased to support the Veterans’ Support Bill. It is a piece of legislation steeped in symbolic meaning and practical importance for the 40000 veterans with qualifying service and their families people who have been waiting 7 years since this law was first referred to the Law Commission for resolution. I am exceedingly thankful that it is passing in this term of Parliament. The world and our understandings of harm and the possibilities of rehabilitation have changed dramatically as has the nature of warfare since the original War Pensions Act 1954 was passed. An update is clearly overdue and it is time to allow families certainty to be able to move forward.This bill will make changes to the administration and decision-making processes hopefully making them easier for veterans. It will provide a greater focus on rehabilitation and enable the provision of services to better meet the needs of elderly veterans as well as those of contemporary and future deployments. Changes have been made to this legislation through the Social Services Committee thanks to the work of the Greens and Labour and they were received by the Government. Post the select committee I would offer my thanks to the Māori Party which has negotiated I think quite fiercely to get further small changes to this bill that are important changes. Sadly the changes have not quite gone all the way. I must say I still fail to understand the apparent meanness of the Government in holding out on such a small financial contribution to ensure all veterans and their families are entitled to all entitlements. I really did feel that the mood in the select committee was one of commonality of concern and yet sadly still we have not been able to deliver on all of the 170 recommendations from the Law Commission or everything the submitters requested of us.It is important for me again on this the day after the centenary of the start of the First World War to take a moment to reflect on what those men young and old experienced at that time and remind us of our duty to do our absolute best to avoid sending any more men women or people to war. For me no one has said it better than Wilfred Owen describing the horrors in a way that I think helps some of us who are lucky enough to have known only peace to come close to or to at least in some way imagine the lifetime costs borne by those fighting the wars created by people in places like this. With the risk of a terrible schoolgirl recitation I do want to read the poem from Wilfred Owen because for me there has been no message or poem that has helped me understand it better than this one. So I beg patience of people.Bent double like old beggars under sacksKnock-kneed coughing like hags we cursed through sludgeTill on the haunting flares we turned our backsAnd towards our distant rest began to trudge.Men marched asleep. Many had lost their bootsBut limped on blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hootsOf gas-shells dropping softly behind.Gas! GAS! Quick boys!—An ecstasy of fumblingFitting the clumsy helmets just in time;But someone still was yelling out and stumblingAnd floundering like a man in fire or lime.—Dim through the misty panes and thick green lightAs under a green sea I saw him drowning.In all my dreams before my helpless sightHe plunges at me guttering choking drowning.If in some smothering dreams you too could paceBehind the wagon that we flung him inAnd watch the white eyes writhing in his faceHis hanging face like a devil’s sick of sin;If you could hear at every jolt the bloodCome gargling from the froth-corrupted lungsObscene as cancer bitter as the cudOf vile incurable sores on innocent tongues—My friend you would not tell with such high zestTo children ardent for some desperate gloryThe old Lie: Dulce et decorum estPro patria mori.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Translate it.JAN LOGIE: For those of you who do not know this poem or your Latin this last phrase translates as “It is sweet and right to die for your country”.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Who wrote it the first time?JAN LOGIE: It was written by Wilfred Owen; that is the version I know. We need to again acknowledge those conscientious objectors in the First World War who were kidnapped by the State and sent away for that “old Lie”. Tragically we still all too often hear this or versions of this used to sell populations on the need for war. We see it in Gaza and we see it in the Ukraine. We do not see it so much in Syria but it is continuing. Many of us watch these images and read these stories with a degree of horror—those of us who do not have family there—and with incomprehension and pain for the ordinary people there.I think obviously that is right but we also need to remember that many of the soldiers too are not there by choice. They are there because of the will and the power of the leaders who do not have their bodies on the line. It is a tragedy a failure of humanity and a corruption of politics for anyone to have to die or indeed kill for their country. This failure must be avoided at all costs. We must stand up for human rights work for peace and honour those in our armed forces for their will to work for a safe world without war. Soldiers are real people—members of our communities and our families as well as being in our armed forces.Through the select committee process we heard from submitters who have been in these conflict zones and who told us of their lives being irrevocably changed by the war. At times we heard from children. Those war zones had been brought home and into their family lounges and the harm had been passed on to the next generation because rehabilitation and support services were not provided by the State to ensure healing. We also heard of years of battles to get help and of struggles for recognition—battles and struggles with the same State that sent these people into places that caused them so much harm.You do not have to believe in war to want the best support for people who have been through such horror which is why the Green Party has been disappointed that this Government has held off on the two relatively small remaining points of payment on death and portability. We would like to have seen everything that the veterans asked for delivered on. We mourn the need for this bill but wholeheartedly support it as the least our country can do to acknowledge the cost of being asked to kill another and to put your life and body on the line.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):The reality is that in the world we live in the nature of human nature is that there will always be conflict of some degree or another. In that sense although I hear what the Green Party has just said the reality is that the men and women of this country and most other countries in this world will have a body of people in military service who will stand up for exactly the rights that the previous member Jan Logie was talking about. Sometimes unfortunately that will involve bloodshed conflict and heartache and will absolutely destroy the lives of not only those involved in the conflict but those who are left behind. That is the nature of the world in which we live. It is sadly a reflection of human nature. We do not have to look very far in the world at the moment to see that exact conflict going on.I just want to acknowledge the men and women of the New Zealand Defence Force and acknowledge the contribution they have made in the modern warfare environment which more often than not involves peacekeeping; acknowledge the contribution and the sacrifices that have been made in Afghanistan over a significant period of time; and also reflect back on the legacy they picked up from those who have served in conflicts like Viet Nam and Korea and going back to the Great War. This country can stand very proud of its sacrifice and its tradition to uphold and fight for the democracy and the freedoms that most of the world enjoys today. Although in the Green bubble maybe it would be nice to imagine away the need to have that the reality is it will always be needed and in needing that we will always need people who are prepared to put the service of their country ahead of the servicing of their own needs and their own interests. So I just pay my respects and homage to those people both past and present because ultimately the reality is we need those people and always will.The Veterans’ Support Bill—I have enjoyed the conversation that has been had across the Social Services Committee and in the House. There has been some robust debate on some particular points specifically around the lump-sum benefits. Obviously although I think that everyone can accept that there is no price that can be put on the service of an individual for their country in this regard—there is no comparison with any other level of service—the reality is that what the Veterans’ Support Bill does in its totality is reflect the need to acknowledge the contribution made by some of our older veterans and to also acknowledge that there are some 20000 or so modern-day veterans of war.The Veterans’ Support Bill having been a long time in its gestation essentially from back in 2007—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the member. Could I ask those members—I know you are probably talking tactics—to just move to one side please.MIKE SABIN: I have absolutely completely lost my train of thought although having said that I did not do so when they were standing there having their tactical meeting.Let us not forget about the 20000 modern-day servicemen. What this bill does is to reflect—[Interruption] What was that sorry?Moana Mackey: Where’s the lamé?MIKE SABIN: Yes I have just changed tie indeed. What this bill does is reflect their modern service and the modern defence service alongside acknowledging the contributions of those past servicemen. I will not dwell too much on what the nuts and bolts are of this bill. I think they have been very well traversed and I acknowledge the points that have been made in particular by the Hon Phil Goff. He has certainly debated vigorously and I commend him and I acknowledge exactly where he is going.Can I just thank the officials—in particular Major Rebecca Thornley who got promoted during the course of the passage of this bill. I would like to think that that was because of her great service to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and I am still waiting on her acknowledgment by way of some huge military shout which I am sure will be coming. Can I just acknowledge the Hon Michael Woodhouse and also other former Ministers of Veterans’ Affairs such as the Hon Nathan Guy—who is just traversing his way past me as we speak; how convenient—and also Judith Collins. I also want to acknowledge Ross Miller who is one of my executive but certainly has been involved in this work as a former major a former officer in the army. He has made a great contribution. I commend this bill in its third reading.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First):I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First as the veterans’ affairs spokesperson for New Zealand First on this very important bill the Veterans’ Support Bill. It is very symbolic that tonight this bill is going through its final third reading in the week leading up to the centenary the 100-year commemoration of the commencement of World War I. Of course all the veterans from that great battle are now long gone. However we still have a number from World War II and of course a great many more from subsequent campaigns in Malaya in Korea and in Viet Nam and in other subsequent engagements.Firstly can I commend the Law Commission for the excellent work that it did 4 years or more ago to bring this bill to the House originally with its report. Its recommendations—some 174 recommendations I think there were—[Interruption] What was that?Louisa Wall: 170.ANDREW WILLIAMS: 170 I am told—170. Those really did bring home to this House and to those involved in veterans’ affairs and the RSA and all veterans around New Zealand what is indeed involved in terms of looking after the interests and the welfare of our veterans. It is most commendable that the Law Commission did such a thorough job to come up with its findings and to make its extensive recommendations. It is somewhat disappointing that it has taken the length of time that it has to get to this final third reading. As we have said before many of the older veterans are not getting any younger. Every year that goes by we lose more and more of them and that is a very sad situation that we face. Therefore time is of the essence to do all we can for those veterans as best we can and to give them just recognition for their services to this country.I have spoken in this House before but I will speak again of how I still have reservations about the full intent of this bill in terms of ensuring that veterans receive the benefit of the doubt in relation to their medical records and their medical conditions. There have been so many cases—several thousands of cases—of claims being turned down by Veterans Affairs New Zealand because of inadequate medical records or medical records that are missing and other such errors. Back in 2008 the then Lieutenant General Jerry Mateparae spoke at Tribute 08 for the Viet Nam veterans here in Wellington. He apologised on behalf of the Defence Force to the veterans that so many medical records had been lost had been mislaid and had not been handled correctly by the Defence Force. He apologised and in his speech at the time said that no veteran would miss out be penalised or lose in any way as a result of the mishandling by the Defence Force of the medical records.However this bill does now include some clauses that talk about presumption of injuries and illness and death in terms of qualifying operational service and it does refer to other aspects of that. There is still a lot of legal jargon here that still allows too many loopholes for those whom I would describe as bureaucrats to come up with excuses not to properly pay out to veterans who are in need. In that respect I put forward Supplementary Order Paper 452 which was supported by Labour the Greens and several other parties but which National did not support. My Supplementary Order Paper said: “In the case of doubt arising from missing or insufficient New Zealand Defence Force medical records as to whether a veteran suffered injury illness or death on operational service the injury illness or death is presumed to have occurred while the veteran was performing qualifying operational service.” Had that gone through it would have taken out a lot of the legal complexities of some aspects of this bill and ensured that veterans truly did get the benefit of the doubt.We heard instances at the Social Services Committee for instance of a retired colonel who was declined a disability pension because he had no medical records of the accident happening on operational service and yet so many of his comrades had seen him jump from the back of an army truck with full kit on carrying a weapon and pack. He landed on his feet but he landed badly on his ankles and did considerable damage to his ankles. In those days they did not just hobble off and go to the first hospital and be hospitalised. They were tough tough men these people. These were the guys in Viet Nam. They were tough. This gentleman carried on with very damaged ankles. In later years he now has arthritis and serious pain in his ankles. He has considerable problems with his ankles and yet he has been declined a disability pension for that particular incident because there is no proof that he did it in Viet Nam. All his friends all his mates say that they saw it happen. They saw him receive the injuries. It was there but it does not appear on any of his medical records even though he was treated in Viet Nam.John “Doc” Mountain who was a medevac medic in Viet Nam testified to the committee and also came and submitted. He said he witnessed so much of this going on. He saw many of these men being injured. He also witnessed the fact that subsequently when they came to Wellington many of their medical records a lot of the original records were not transferred correctly. They were on hard copy they were on pieces of cardboard and they were transferred into a more modern system of paper files and more modern transactions. They were not transposed. Information was left off. As a result many of these gentlemen—and women as well—now struggle to prove some of their medical conditions because of the way those records were handled.Can I just assure you that if New Zealand First is in a position after 20 September to address this situation again we will rectify that. What we want to have in this bill is that veterans will get the benefit of the doubt and we will ensure that they will be given that distinction. We will ensure that that is the case. We are talking about a small amount of money in relation to the Government’s Budget. It is a tiny amount of money in terms of the Government’s annual funding but this is a huge amount for individuals—for individuals who are now elderly and need this assistance. Therefore we are doing a great disservice to them by not allowing such payments and such support in their elder years of life.We also agree with the other parties as well. We have said that we do not agree with the declining of the lump-sum payment. We think that should have been put in place. Again families are often the ones who suffer. They are often the ones who have taken care of a veteran in their declining years. They deserve the support as well because many of them have suffered as a result of the military service and the military life of that veteran including their coming back home and having subsequent illnesses. The family suffer and they should therefore also be recognised in that manner.We are coming into a very important period in the next couple of years when we will be commemorating many of the battles that are on the wall plaques here—Passchendaele Gallipoli and many of the famous battles. But at the same time we have living heroes today in New Zealand—living heroes from Viet Nam living heroes still surviving from World War II living heroes who have gone and put their lives at risk in service of this country. I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to them for their services. This Parliament should most definitely give them every assistance they should receive.New Zealand First continues to always uphold that principle. We were the party that put in place the funding for the RSA social support services—$1 million of funding over a 4-year period or $250000 a year. This Government cut that back to $150000 a year. Again after 20 September we will return that to full funding for the RSA. Again the veterans deserve it; they need it. That social support from the RSA is most important to assist the veterans to get to hospital to get to medical appointments and to have the social support for them. So this has not finished.This bill is a great step. We do commend this bill to the House. We know it goes a long way but we can still improve on it yet.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):It is a very great pleasure to speak this evening in support of the Veterans’ Support Bill. It seems in some ways appropriate that we are debating the third reading of this legislation during this period as we move into the commemoration of the centenary of the beginning of the First World War which we will acknowledge on Monday next week 4 August. It is 100 years after New Zealand entered that conflict.It is also very good news I think that we are able to debate the third reading of the legislation now in the final throes of this 50th Parliament. It is a shame that we are doing it in the last gasps of this Parliament but it is pleasing that it will finally after all these years be completed and in a few days’ time will go to the Governor-General for Royal assent and become law.Veterans all around the country have been waiting for a very very long time for this day and indeed the day when this legislation is fully implemented. It is a conversation that started many many years ago and led to the decision in 2006 by the then Minister of Veterans’ Affairs Rick Barker to empower the Law Commission to embark on a period of consultation to discuss the issues that veterans faced—to discuss the ways in which the 1954 legislation had become outmoded outdated and no longer fit for purpose.That was a conversation that was always going to take some time. We all knew that and we all appreciated that. The Law Commission under the leadership of Sir Geoffrey Palmer carried out that consultation well in a very robust fashion in a very thorough fashion so that all the veterans all the veterans’ organisations—not least of which being the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association—were able to participate in that conversation. They helped the Law Commission to put together an extensive and thorough report that contained within it superb recommendations that were the genesis for this legislation to ensure that in the 21st century we are appropriately providing for all our veterans be it our veterans who served in World War II in Korea in Viet Nam in Malaya in Afghanistan in Timor in the Solomons or in other places around the world.Their needs are not all uniform and there is a very distinct point in time at which the needs of veterans changed—that is 1974 with the introduction of ACC. What this legislation contains at its heart is two separate schemes: one that applies to veterans who served before ACC came into force and another for veterans who served after ACC came into force. That is appropriate to ensure that veterans from those conflicts prior to 1974 have adequate provision and are appropriately acknowledged by the State for the contribution they have made on our behalf and the sacrifice they have made on our behalf.I was pleased with the Green Party’s contribution tonight because like the Green Party we abhor war we abhor conflict and we believe that as a nation we should be seeking every possible opportunity to avoid violent conflict with other nations and with other groups around the world. Increasingly in this century we do not find ourselves in conflict with other nation States but with non-State organisations. But we should always seek opportunities to avoid that.Nevertheless sometimes we as politicians we as Governments ask our people to go and put themselves in harm’s way. To me a veteran is a veteran is a veteran. It does not matter what history might say about the conflicts that have taken place around the world. It does not matter what history might say about New Zealand’s participation in those conflicts or the decision that Governments made rightly or wrongly for us to be part of them. Those veterans served because their Government asked them to and because they believed it was the right thing to do to secure our nation and to maintain peace and prosperity around the world.We should acknowledge the incredible sacrifice that was made by veterans who may have been injured or disabled or simply actually all veterans who are necessarily impacted on by what they see and what they experience when they go to represent us overseas. So it was absolutely the right thing to do to get on and progress this legislation.We do have some points of difference with the Government. Our first grumble I suppose is that it has taken a very very long time to get to this point. The Law Commission did return its report early in the first term of this Government and here we are at the very very last gasps of the second term of this Government finally passing this legislation. I think it is a shame that it has taken so long but let us not dwell on that too much. Let us celebrate the fact that we have made it this far and that we are very close to implementing this legislation at last.There is an obvious point of difference which has been a point of debate throughout the Committee stage and throughout the third reading of this legislation and that is around the lump-sum payments and the accessibility of the veterans pension. We are very pleased that the Government has moved from its original position on the criteria for the veterans pension. It made really no sense at all that there was a requirement that a veteran demonstrate that they were 52 percent disabled in order to qualify for the veterans pension. That it is now universal will be very pleasing. But that is more symbolic than anything else.Where the Government has not been prepared to move sadly has been on the issue of lump-sum payments. This is not an extraordinary amount of money. In terms of the decisions that Governments make something between $7 million and $11 million per annum is not an extraordinary amount of money and it is an amount of money that will decrease over time. That is unusual for Governments. Usually when you put some new spending into the baseline you have to anticipate that there will be an increase in the actual spend over time. That is not the case here. Yet sadly the Government has decided not to recognise the contribution and sacrifice of veterans and their families by agreeing to the lump-sum payment upon the death of a veteran.I appreciate what the Government is saying—that that money will not go to the veteran—but the truth is of course that the families of veterans made an extraordinary sacrifice as well and in the case where a veteran is significantly injured and disabled as a result of their service then often the family has an ongoing responsibility to support that person through their life. I think it is absolutely justified that we as a nation recognise that sacrifice and that support as well.In the legislation there is also provision for a code of veterans’ and claimants’ rights in their dealings with Veterans Affairs New Zealand. That certainly is something that came out of the consultation with veterans and their representative organisations. There need to be some fundamental rights that veterans have when dealing with veterans affairs to ensure that they get a fair deal and to ensure that they get fair service every time.Overwhelmingly Veterans Affairs delivers a very very good service for our veterans and as a nation I think we compare extremely well with some of the other Western nations around the world that send their people into harm’s way and then do not deliver when their veterans come home. This code of rights underpins that and ensures that all veterans get a fair deal. We do support this bill.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa):Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Veterans’ Support Bill. Firstly I would like to acknowledge that on 4 August we will mark the centenary of New Zealand’s entering into the First World War. We had 103000 New Zealanders serve overseas 59500 casualties and 18200 New Zealanders who gave their lives for our country.The history of this bill is really interesting and I will go through it because I think it is important. We are here because in 2003 the Health Committee had an inquiry into agent orange and it was very much inspired by our Viet Nam vets and the state of well-being of our Viet Nam vets. One of the recommendations from that select committee inquiry was for a review of the veterans pension.What happened was that a memorandum of understanding was entered into by the Government the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association. In 2007 the Law Commission was empowered to conduct that review. It had 170 recommendations of which 132 were accepted. One was not and I actually want to focus my whole speech on the one that was not. That was recommendation 95 and I would like to read it. It was that “All veterans with qualifying operational service should be eligible for the Veteran’s Pension regardless of whether they have received impairment compensation.”Currently to receive the veterans pension you have to be 70 percent disabled. That translates through to the new legislation as 52 percent disabled. So if you are 52 percent disabled—or 70 percent disabled as in the current legislation—you receive as a veterans pensioner first a community services card; second payments continue if you have a stay of 13 weeks - plus in hospital; and third a funeral grant. Can I say that that call for all veterans to be eligible for a veterans pension actually came from the 1960s. The RSA has been calling for all veterans to receive a veterans pension since the 1960s.It was interesting to read the Law Commission report because it actually said that the veterans pension was premised on four principles. One was about service to our country the second was about actual economic loss the third was about economic need and the fourth was about disability. So of course disability was part of the equation and I see the latest iteration of disability is that it is also an active responsibility of the Government to provide rehabilitation under this piece of legislation which I think is an extension.But if we go back right to the beginning of New Zealand’s history of providing pensions to our war veterans it actually started in 1866. That legislation was called the Military Pensions Act. The Military Pensions Act was really interesting because what it did was have a panel of doctors who made an assessment about whether you were deserving or not. The really interesting commentary on that piece of legislation was that it actually had lower rates for Māori veterans than for Pākehā veterans so it says something about the history of the time and how we regarded the different types of veterans. The ethos as it was in 1590—I mentioned this in my second reading speech—was very much a charitable response by the Government. I picked up on that Queen Elizabeth I quote about “the fruit of their good deserving” so we wanted to make sure that the deserving were catered for.There was another iteration of the Military Pensions Act and that happened in the War Pensions Act 1915. In that iteration we actually created boards that decided whether people were eligible and what type of support they were eligible for. It was at that time that we corrected the differences between Māori and Pākehā pensioners and said no they all deserved to receive the same level of support. Then in 1943 there was another update of the War Pensions Act and we improved the rates and we improved the process. So there was an ongoing conversation between the RSA and the Government about the needs of our war pensioners.From 1951 we integrated our response as a Government into the social security system but it was interesting at that time because the veterans association the media and a commission of inquiry actually created the War Pensions Act 1954. The interesting thing about the history of the evolution of our recognition of the support that our war pensioners deserved is that it also gave rise to regulation 45 of the War Pensions Regulations 1956. In fact that is where funeral expenses came from. That is where as a qualifying veterans pensioner you were eligible to get the funeral grant.The commentary from the Law Commission is relevant because it said that our veterans deserve to be treated with a generosity of spirit in return for their sacrifice to New Zealand. The three things that they have got—the community services card a continuation of the payment of their veterans pension if they go into hospital and a funeral grant—were actually in recognition of the effects on the quality of life for veterans. It was not about the level of disability; it was actually about recognition of the sacrifice—being away from your family being away from home not getting further educated the ongoing loss. It was a small token of appreciation above anything else.So what I find offensive I guess as a member of the Social Services Committee is that during this process we have changed the criteria. We have said that now all veterans will get the veterans pension so I think that this House has demonstrated that democracy does work. But with one hand we have given and with the other hand we have taken away because now you receive that funeral grant only if you are 52 percent disabled. The rationale for that is money pure and simple. It is all about the money and I find that—Hon Michael Woodhouse: It’s all right. We won’t raise the pension age to 67.LOUISA WALL: Do you know what? You can get a veterans pension before 65 so age is irrelevant. What the issue is with what we are going to pass tonight as a Parliament is that we are going to say you all deserve a veterans pension but that there are aspects of qualifying for a veterans pension that mean that we will give you a funeral grant when you die but you have to be 52 percent disabled.Like my colleagues I support this bill 100 percent and I want to thank the New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association for its hard work and dedication in getting us to this point in time. I would like to acknowledge Veterans Affairs New Zealand and all our officials who have brought us to this point in time. I want to say that as a member of the select committee who sat through the submissions and who was formally part of this process it has been a privilege to hear from the veterans themselves how important this piece of legislation is.I know that on Monday all of us wherever we are will be acknowledging that it is 100 years since World War I started. It is slightly ironic that all of this is happening at this time. I do think that it is very mean-spirited of us to impose a new qualification so that some of those who receive the veterans pension will not be eligible for the funeral grant that has been in place and has been a part of that particular pension since 1956 as I highlighted.I commend this bill to the House. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs. I know that he is a bit upset with me but the reality is that for our side of the House—all of us from the Greens Labour and New Zealand First who sat on this select committee—this was one of the big issues that we tried so hard to get consensus on. To have failed to do that is I think commentary about the time and it is commentary about the prioritisation of this Government. Kia ora.Bill read a third time.Land Transport Amendment BillThird ReadingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport):I move That the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The bill is designed to lower the current adult drink-drive limits demonstrating that the Government does have a commitment to improving road safety in New Zealand making Safer Journeys the Government’s 10-year road strategy programme all that much stronger. Safer Journeys was a vision to improve the safety on our roads and to see those roads become freer of death and serious injury. Although we celebrate the lowering of a road toll this year some 250-plus people have died on our roads in the 12 months. If that were to happen as a single event it would be a total tragedy that would paralyse the nation. It is important that we continue to look for ways to reduce death and serious injury on our roads.As part of the strategy the identification of drink-driving was an area of high concern. The second Safer Journeys action plan set out the Government’s intention to make a decision on drink-driving limits before the end of 2013. After considering the results of the research which Cabinet required to be done back in 2010 and taking a series of other types of advice the Government moved to introduce the Land Transport Amendment Bill to reduce the drink-driving limits for adults. The Land Transport Amendment Bill will reduce the breath-alcohol limit from 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath to 250 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath. The blood-alcohol limit will reduce from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams.Research has shown that the cognitive abilities of drivers do become impaired at levels below the current limit for adult drivers. This bill seeks to reduce that risk. Work undertaken by officials suggests that lowering the limit will also reduce drinking and driving over the current limit. This seems to be an experience where the limit has been lowered in other countries. New Zealand in fact is well placed to capitalise on reduced limits because there is a strong enforcement regime in place. As crash risk increases exponentially with increasing alcohol levels even a modest reduction in the level of offending by drivers over the current limit can result in significant road safety benefits. Such a shift in behaviour has been observed in the lower number of young drivers detected drinking and driving following the Government’s initiative to introduce a zero alcohol limit for young drivers. Lowering the adult drink-driving limits will send a clear signal that consuming alcohol at high levels when driving is unacceptable. This should save lives. It will reduce injuries. Officials have estimated conservatively that an average of 3.4 lives will be saved and 64 injuries prevented each year.Although the intention is not a money saver it is worth noting that this will mean a net benefit of over $200 million over 10 years. It will also mean that many many families that might suffer the tragedy of a loss like this and the effects that it has on them will be spared that particular agony. The bill will also put in place an infringement offence regime for drivers who fall between the new and the old limits. The infringement regime will provide a strong deterrent for drivers caught between those limits. The imposition of a $200 infringement fee and 50 demerit points is not a soft option. Any driver who accumulates more than 100 demerit points from driving offences within a 2-year period receives a 3-month driver licence suspension. Finally the bill contains amendments of a technical nature that support the policy aims.Over recent years public attitudes towards drink-driving have changed markedly. I think the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has done a very good job in taking this bill and putting it into a form that is reasonable and workable and I am grateful for the wide support across the House. There was a member’s bill in the name of Iain Lees-Galloway that some said moved the Government to action. The reality is that we were well down the track and although I commend the member for expressing through his member’s bill the same sentiments and concern that the Government has exercised in bringing this bill to the House I think it is worth noting that there are few in this House who would not see this as a positive move in our community.There will be those out there who say that it is too restricting on people etc. Well all I will say is that there is no restriction in this bill on enjoying yourself out of your home in a public place where alcohol is being served; it is simply a restriction on what you may do behind the wheel of a car after such consumption. So people need to think their way through their travel plans etc. I think that is actually happening right across New Zealand. More responsible attitudes are being taken. So it is appropriate that between the two limits—the old limit at 80 and the new one at 50—it becomes an infringement. It sits there to serve as a reminder to people that once you go past that 80 limit you are in a very impaired state and should not be behind a wheel. I do thank the House for the widespread support that I would expect the bill to get toward the conclusion of this debate. It is a good piece of legislation and it will be good for New Zealand. Thank you.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):It is good to follow on in this debate and I want to respond to some of the things that the Minister of Transport has said about this Land Transport Amendment Bill. Labour is supporting this bill as we have supported bills that have included these measures going right back to 2009. I am going to talk more about the specific provisions in the bill and why we support them but I think it is worth taking a minute or two just to reflect on the provenance of this bill. The Hon Gerry Brownlee talked about how the Government had been considering all of the international research about lowering the blood-alcohol limits and weighing up the research before it proceeded with this bill. Well in my humble opinion the research that actually informs this bill was Iain Lees-Galloway’s member’s bill being pulled from the ballot. That was the thing that spurred the Minister into action; it was the prospect of Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill that would have lowered the blood-alcohol limits in exactly the same way that this bill does. The prospect of that bill gaining majority support in this House would have been a political embarrassment for the Government.We have seen for 5 years since Darren Hughes’ bill in 2009 which would have had pretty much the same effect as this prevarication by this Government—not checking the research in Australia the US or anywhere else around the world. Actually the reason that this Government did not progress this issue for those 5 long years is that it did not want to be seen as a nanny State. Steven Joyce was so concerned about the optics of actually lowering the blood-alcohol limits and the thresholds that are contained in this bill that he was not prepared to entertain the prospect of lowering the limits. That says a lot about this Government. Steven Joyce himself I think said publicly that you could drink three-quarters of a bottle of wine and still under the current law be able to legally get behind the wheel. To say that publicly and then for 5 long years not actually proceed with this long overdue reform I think says a lot. It is not at all about the international research; it was simply about Iain Lees-Galloway’s member’s bill being pulled out of the ballot. That is why the Government brought this bill to the House and has finally squeaked it through in the dying hours of this parliamentary term. That is a pretty half-hearted effort you would have to say.The purpose of this bill just to recap is to address the problem of drink-driving with a number of amendments including lowering the adult legal blood-alcohol limit from 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath to 250 micrograms. So that is from 400 micrograms down to 250 micrograms for a breath test and from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams—so from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams for a blood test. That will without a doubt make a very significant difference. As the Minister pointed out the data shows that there is an exponential increase in fatalities and casualties on the road from drink-driving from a modest but steady increase in alcohol consumption of those people who get behind the wheel. So it makes a lot of sense we believe to lower the limits in this way and it will make a really significant difference to the carnage on the roads.There are some very interesting statistics about the cost of drink-driving. It is one of the major causes of road accidents in New Zealand—an annual average according to the Ministry of Transport of 61 fatalities 244 serious injuries and 761 minor injuries every year. That is an extraordinary roll-call of social harm disruption and loss that people and families face all over this country caused by drink-driving. Economists have calculated that the financial cost of these injuries and fatalities is $446 million. That is the cost of drink-driving every year. That is a massive cost to the country. What the officials advised was that lowering the legal blood-alcohol limit in the way that this bill does will save on average 3.4 lives every year—3.4 lives saved every year. Imagine that: since 2009 if Darren Hughes’ bill had been pulled from the ballot and supported in this House 3.4 lives could have been saved every year for the last 5 years. That is the cost of the delay and prevarication that we have seen. As for the other savings this bill should according to the projections save on average 64 injury-causing crashes from happening and $200 million in social costs of fatalities and casualties over a 10-year period. That is a massive cost-benefit gain that we should see from the passage of this legislation.One of the interesting things about this bill—and I know that it was debated at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at length—is that the Government chose with this bill rather than just lowering the blood-alcohol and breath limits to set up a civil infringement regime for offences that fall between the old limits and the new limits. Call me thick but I have yet to hear in the previous debates including in the Committee stage when we repeatedly asked the Minister in the chair to get up and take a call—and I really did not find in the Minister’s explanation of the justification of the civil infringement regime in his contribution a very clear or compelling explanation about why. He said—and I think his words were—there is a $250 fine and the number of demerits that you would get is not the “soft option”. Well to be frank it is the soft option. By definition it is the soft option. What this bill does is it sets up a hierarchy between the criminal offences that exist from zero to the old limits and a civil infringement regime between the old limits and the new limits. It clearly is the soft option and I am not sure why and I would be interested to hear from the members opposite another attempt at an explanation as to why they have gone down this track. It clearly sets up a two-tier infringement system and it is not clear to me why the Government would want to do that.There is no doubt that really in our adult lifetimes there has been a massive social change on the question of drink-driving. As the Minister himself said public attitudes now are far far less tolerant of people who want to drink and drive. I think there is an acceptance of the point he made that the general view now is that by all means get drunk in your own home go to a bar go to a club or a restaurant whatever but it is no longer your God-given right to get behind the wheel and subject everybody else to the appalling risks that drunk-drivers pose on our roads.I want to pay tribute to all of the work that has been done by people—by public health workers by public servants working in the ministries and departments by people who have done all of the host responsibility work and by school teachers. There has been a tide of change on public attitudes on this issue and it has had a very very positive effect. I think that organisations like the Drug Foundation for example which has endorsed this bill quite rightly and strongly say that this will have a really positive effect in terms of reducing the harm caused by drink-driving.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):It is a shame that that member had to drone on for 10 minutes. It is a pretty effective reflection of the Labour Party and what it actually did in this area. It did nothing—absolutely nothing—when it was in Government. The Labour members stood there and did nothing and then they sanctimoniously come into this House tonight and say “Oh it could have been done a lot earlier. Why hasn’t this been done?” Nine years under Labour and drink-driving did not change in the time that the Labour Party was in Government. It did nothing. That is the Labour Party of old. Then the Labour members vote for this Land Transport Amendment Bill and then the next sanctimonious bit was to say that they do not know why there are two tiers in it. That is what they wanted that is what they are going to vote for and that is what the bill has. So how can you be for the bill and at the same time hop on your high horse at this point and be seen to be something other than what you are?The reality is that Labour did nothing. National came in we looked at the evidence we went through it and we have made a decision and it is the right thing for New Zealanders. It is something that is balanced in the sense that we have an infringement regime so that New Zealanders can work through this process and then they go through the process of a full criminal offence if somebody is above the higher limit.This is a good bill it is what New Zealanders have been looking for and it is a balanced approach. This is a Government that does something. It does not stand up and say things and then when it has its chance does nothing.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):It is always a pleasure to follow David Bennett in the debating chamber. Labour wholeheartedly supports this legislation the Land Transport Amendment Bill and the concept behind it which is to bring to an end legal drunk-driving. It is something to celebrate tonight that on 1 December this year it will no longer be legal to get behind the wheel of a car whilst intoxicated by alcohol.But it has been a long time coming. David Bennett raises some interesting points I think. The truth is that the evidence was first placed before the Minister of Transport by the Ministry of Transport in 2009. That is when the first tranche of evidence was made available to a Minister of Transport. It was in 2009 under the current Government. In fact at the time the Hon Steven Joyce who was the Minister of Transport actually indicated that he was supportive of the change. He was the one who was going around and telling people just how much alcohol it was possible to consume and still be under the current legal limit. I have to say that I for one was not at first convinced when I heard about this. It was actually after a conversation with two National Party backbenchers who were privy to the information that Steven Joyce had and who I believe had also participated in one of these kinds of anecdotal experiments—I suppose is a way you could describe it—and who said to me: “No you really need to look at this issue of the drink-driving limit. It is possible to consume an enormous amount of alcohol and still be under the limit.”That was from two National Party backbenchers. I will not name them. That would be embarrassing for them but it was after that conversation that I went away and looked at the evidence and found that they were absolutely right. At the time I anticipated that the National Government was going to move on this because the Minister of Transport had indicated that he thought it was something it needed to do. But somebody got to Steven Joyce and there are a few names that do come to mind. It was those who were the chief exponents of the term “nanny State” which was used so effectively by National Party members when they were in Opposition and they just could not bring themselves to do anything that might appear to put themselves into that nanny State category that they had created for political gain.So what did they do? They kicked for touch. For the sake of political expediency and for the sake of not being accused of engaging in nanny State policy themselves they set aside something that was guaranteed to save lives. They said that the international evidence did not apply in New Zealand and they needed to spend some time researching whether or not reducing the drink-driving limit would actually save lives in New Zealand. What that was really about let us be honest was kicking out this issue so that it would be addressed after the last election. That is what it was all about.The Government had another opportunity. We have spoken a lot about how Labour drafted a member’s bill and yes when it was drawn it was in my name but I was not the only one who held that bill in the ballot. When it was drawn it was in my name—and yes the Government did suddenly act rather swiftly after that bill was drawn. But the Government had an opportunity to act before then and that was during the debate on the Alcohol Reform Bill. I put by way of a Supplementary Order Paper an amendment to the Alcohol Reform Bill to reduce the drink-driving limit. It was absolutely in order. For a lot of people who have been advocating for a reduction in the drink-driving limit they saw it as part of the suite of measures that were required to reduce alcohol-related harm. Taking action on this absolutely fitted with what we were doing and should have been doing through the Alcohol Reform Bill.Sadly my amendment did not quite get the numbers. It missed out by one. The National Party the ACT Party and I am sad to say United Future Peter Dunne voted against it. But Peter Dunne was only really doing that because he felt that he had to stick with the Government to which he gives confidence and supply. He said at the time rather spuriously I have to say that the way to do this was not by amending the Alcohol Reform Bill; it was by amending the land transport legislation. I am glad to say that he realised he had to be good to his word and when my bill the Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill was drawn from the ballot Peter Dunne indicated that as it was indeed an amendment to the land transport legislation he would support it. We had the numbers so it was going to pass.That was the point at which the Government finally kicked into action. The Government realised it was on the wrong side of public opinion it was on the wrong side of the evidence and it was very soon going to be on the wrong side of a vote in the House. That is what got the Government to finally move on this. Let us be absolutely clear and honest about that. That is what finally got the Government moving. Good! Are we not pleased that we are finally going to get there? On 1 December this year our drink-driving limit in New Zealand will move into line with most other Western nations. We will finally catch up with what most other Western nations are doing.Denis O’Rourke: No. Not right. Not correct.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Denis O’Rourke shakes his head. The only two that he can think of are the United Kingdom and the United States. We should not just follow them every single time. We are smarter than that. Australia I am sad to say did this decades ago. We are way behind our closest cousins the country that we ordinarily compare ourselves to most often. We are decades behind them.Denis O’Rourke: Got it wrong.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: No it is absolutely right and I will be very pleased to hear how Denis O’Rourke will try to rebut that statement.We are pleased that this bill is going ahead but we do have a point of difference. We are not entirely convinced by this idea of having an infringement offence for those who are over the alcohol limit of 0.05 percent but under 0.08 percent. What Labour was originally proposing was simply to lower the limit and for it to be a criminal offence to be a drink-driver—to be drunk behind the wheel. That is what being over 0.05 percent is. It is being a drunk-driver. It should be we on this side of the House think a criminal offence to be a drunk-driver.The Government has offered up a couple of different arguments for this. The Government says that the drunk-drivers who are least drunk cause the least amount of harm. Well I am sorry but they are still a drunk-driver—they are still a drunk-driver. It has always been a criminal offence in New Zealand in the past to be a drunk-driver and it should continue to be a criminal offence in New Zealand to be a drunk-driver.The other thing the Government said is that it would clog up the courts with all the people who will drink in excess of 0.05 percent but under 0.08 percent. We would have to put them all through the court. That statement is based on an assumption that New Zealanders are fundamentally stupid and will not notice that the law has changed. Well we on this side of the House believe that New Zealanders are pretty smart. They are informed. They are educated. They watch the news. They read the newspapers. They will know that the limit has fallen and they will change their behaviour appropriately. We will not see the courts being clogged up with people who have been caught out as the Government would say by the change in the law.We have not seen any strong evidence. We know that there are different regimes around the world but we have not seen any evidence. The Minister did not refer to it. David Bennett did not refer to it. We have not seen any evidence that says that this regime is better than making it a criminal offence. We are open-minded. We are interested to see how it works but if it is not working in the way we anticipated we do need to come back and review it and ensure that we have done this right.This bill is a step in the right direction. It has taken far too long. It is not the step that we would have taken but we will support it because it is a significant improvement on the current situation where it is legal in New Zealand to drink and drive.JAN LOGIE (Green):I rise to take a short call for the Greens on the third reading of the Land Transport Amendment Bill which we also will be supporting. This bill—we need to be up front about it really—was introduced by the Government as a direct response to Iain Lees-Galloway’s popular bill which was drawn from the ballot and which we also supported because it fitted with the Green Party policy for a reduction in the blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams or lower per 100 millilitres of blood. This Government bill is softer because although it reduces that level it only sets infringement fines and demerit points for drink-driving at these lower levels whereas Iain Lees-Galloway’s bill would have seen lower limits and some criminal consequences; disqualification for 6 months and a $4500 fine or 3 months in prison. We are still supporting the Land Transport Amendment Bill because it is going towards that goal and we will watch with interest to see the public’s response.I have lived in a country where there was a zero blood-alcohol limit and I have got to say on a personal level that I am a fan of that. You cannot get simpler than that. You cannot go wrong with that. You cannot go over the limit because you know that actually you cannot drink at all if you are going to drive.Denis O’Rourke: Was that in Nazi Germany?JAN LOGIE: It was in Japan. It was very effective and very simple for people and it caused no harm whatsoever. But this bill is progress and therefore we support it.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First):New Zealand First supports tougher measures to curb the worst cases of drink-driving but this bill the Land Transport Amendment Bill is badly targeted and is aimed at the drink-drivers who do the least harm. It leaves the real culprits alone. Some speakers have listed research and listed casualties without tying them back to these particular proposals. They would lower the breath-alcohol limit from 400 micrograms to 250 micrograms and would reduce the blood-alcohol limit from 80 milligrams to 50 milligrams. Disobedience of these new limits is to be addressed only in the form of infringement notices like it was a parking offence on the grounds that they are in the least-serious range of offending. That is really the issue here. The people in this range between the existing thresholds and the new ones proposed are not the people who cause the deaths and the injuries. By far most of the worst accidents are caused by the heavier drinkers who are already caught by the existing law and who will be unaffected by this bill. So targeting the people who drink to only the extent covered by this new infringement offence is not likely to have the desired effect of reducing the death and injury rate on our roads to any significant extent.It is really just another politically correct measure to make it look as though the Government actually cares about this issue—a belated attempt to upstage the Labour proposal. The lower infringement limits as proposed in this bill may in fact have an unintended perverse effect. There will be some people who will convince themselves that drinking to between a blood-alcohol range of 50 milligrams to 80 milligrams or to between 250 to 400 micrograms per litre of breath when driving is an acceptable risk because it is only an infringement offence for which a small fine and a few demerit points are incurred if the driver is caught. So this bill may end up actually having the opposite effect to that which is intended.Although there is some evidence in research that shows driver impairment between the proposed limits and the existing limits there is very little convincing evidence that most people are actually likely to harm themselves or others if they do so. In fact the Australian experience is that that has very little effect. It is therefore clear to me that New Zealand’s existing alcohol limits in relation to driving are unlikely to be too high and that lowering them would be unlikely to be effective. This is also the position taken by the United Kingdom Government and its drink-driving regime works very well indeed. So it is hard to accept that there is any sense in the measures proposed in this bill at all. We in New Zealand First believe that a better long-term effect could be achieved firstly by increasing the penalties for offending against the existing alcohol limits of 80 milligrams per 100 litres of blood and 400 milligrams per litre of breath. That is what the Government should be doing. That would make the worst drink-drivers really sit up and take notice. The point is that it is the deterrence that really matters and there is very little deterrence in this bill.Secondly we want people to clearly understand that the possibility of being caught is actually a probability by having more police on the road and more random breath tests. But this Government which is soft on policing will not spend the money needed to do that but instead has taken the soft option we see in this bill. The proposed new infringement penalties do not reflect the seriousness of drink-driving and that will certainly be noticed by people disposed to drinking and driving. The proposed breath-alcohol limit will not even be a criminal offence incurring the full force of the law but will instead provide for only a small fine of $200 and 50 demerit points and the new blood-alcohol limit will incur only a fine of $500 and 50 demerit points. Demerit points themselves may only eventually lead to loss of licence so their effect as a deterrent is not immediate which is what is needed for drink-drivers and the fines are derisory and are clearly not an adequate deterrent at all.The public does actually want stronger action and leadership on drink-driving than this Government is apparently prepared to take. New Zealand First wants higher penalties to raise the stakes for the existing limits which reflects public opinion but in the end what we really need is a culture change towards having more sensible drinking habits especially among young people. That change in achieving the road safety objective will not come from penalties that are perceived to be soft as these will be. They must reinforce and underpin the process for social change and better drinking habits along of course with continued education and promotional efforts. This legislation in New Zealand First’s view fails on all counts and for those reasons we will vote against it.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour):Let me start by reiterating Labour’s support for the Land Transport Amendment Bill. We believe that this bill is worthy of support because we have long sought to have the legal alcohol driving limit reduced and this bill finally does that. What it does is it begins to address the problem of alcohol-impaired driving with a number of amendments including lowering the adult legal alcohol limits from 400 micrograms of alcohol per litre of breath to 250 micrograms or from 80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood to 50 milligrams.This 50 to 80 range has been talked about for some considerable time. Others have alluded to various journalists and other what you might call stunts that have shown that allowing that drinking range and that level of alcohol is actually allowing people legally to drive drunk—that people are sufficiently impaired to the point where they cannot drive a car safely and are a risk on the road. They are a risk to themselves and to other people and that I think is generally accepted. I think most New Zealanders support this change. Most New Zealanders have wanted a lower limit for some considerable time.I find it interesting that the last speaker Denis O’Rourke has opposed this measure on the basis that this is somehow less of a risk—you know the number of deaths and accidents are lower so therefore this is not worth addressing. I find that an extraordinary position to take. Acting on this issue of reducing the legal alcohol limit for driving and dealing with the particular concern that has been sitting there and has been raised over and over again for some time now does not mean that we should not take higher blood-alcohol levels very seriously and in fact look at the sorts of matters that the last speaker has spoken about. Are the sanctions for those higher levels high enough?We certainly need to continue to focus on this issue. There are still people who continue to drive with excessive amounts of alcohol. In fact what we can all see and know is that there is a terrible problem with recidivist drink-driving—people who are seriously impaired or who have even been imprisoned and who get out and then drive again in that state. What that says is that one of the problems we have—and this came up in previous legislation where we have talked about the blood-alcohol limit—is that we do not use the opportunity that this bill provides for dealing with the issue of alcohol abuse.This bill has not dealt with the issue. Previous legislation around younger drivers did not deal with the opportunity that was presented. When people are pulled over and caught for drink-driving it provides a real opportunity to intervene and to provide assistance to people who have an alcohol problem. In fact many submitters on previous legislation said that this is the opportunity. Often when people have a drinking problem it will go unnoticed for a very considerable length of time and in fact often the opportunity to intervene and the first time that it might come to a family’s attention that somebody has an alcohol problem is when they are picked up for drink-driving. We have not addressed that and I think that that is a serious problem because recidivist drink-driving is something we all know continues.However as I said we support this bill. It has been a long time coming. It certainly was raised extensively when we were talking about the Law Commission work Alcohol In Our Lives—that comprehensive report that it did and that we looked at. Many submitters and many people talking to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at that time raised the issue of reducing the legal drink-driving limit.Then again of course the issue was raised in the legislation that brought in changes to drink-driving for younger drivers. A former colleague had put this measure forward in a member’s bill which was picked up by Iain Lees-Galloway. There was considerable support. What were the reasons for not doing anything at the time? Well others have said that the Minister clearly did not end up with the political will despite initially showing an interest in progressing it.For whatever reason we had all sorts of things said to the select committee like despite the fact that there was significant evidence from other jurisdictions about the changes and the improvements that were made by reducing blood-alcohol levels—the saving of lives and the reduction of injuries—we were told that we needed specific New Zealand research on the matter. Frankly that just seems nonsensical to me. What is it that is so different around drink-driving in New Zealand that would mean we had to have specific New Zealand research? The only thing at the time that people came up with was that we had a lot more rural roads and that was the reason why we had to do all this additional research.Finally we are here. We have been out of step with almost every other Western nation. We do have some concerns although we are supporting this bill and other colleagues have raised them. It is the issue that the New Zealand First speaker has outlined around whether the infringement regime is sufficient whether it will work and whether it is pitched appropriately. Well it is better for us to start at least do something and make progress on what has clearly been a real issue and a real concern.In the period of time between 2006 and 2008 30 people—30 people—were killed in accidents where drivers were known to have a blood-alcohol content of between 50 and 80 milligrams. That is just the number of people who died. There would have been many serious accidents that were also within that range. The costs are not only obviously the deaths but also the cost to the health system of serious injuries and the emotional and other implications for families. That certainly is worth our taking action. It has taken far too long to do so.So we do support this bill. I guess we will want to see how the infringement regime does end up working. I know that my colleague Darien Fenton is likely to raise concerns from the bill’s time in the select committee about how some of the issues around payment for blood tests are going to work out and whether that will create some sort of strange set of circumstances but I will let her talk about that.I guess there is another parallel that really has struck me in looking at this bill though and I do want to finish by talking about another matter—a matter where we know there is a need for action and where the failure to act is costing people’s lives causing serious harm and injury to people in this country and is a cost to them and their family. That is the issue of violence against women and children. We know that there is a need to act. There is strong public support for taking action. Like this situation we are well behind other Western jurisdictions in actually doing something. I say to the House that this is an urgent matter. This is an urgent matter—to deal with the problems associated with domestic and sexual violence as well. We can sit there and know that there is a problem. We can sit there and know that there are things we can do and fail to act. In doing so people’s lives are being lost and people are being seriously injured. There is a huge cost to them their family and the community.Just to finish we are glad this bill is finally before the House. It is a pleasure to support it tonight here at its third reading. I look forward to further action particularly around eliminating violence against women and children.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I am surprised to find myself on my feet having given my valedictory speech but it is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of this bill the Land Transport Amendment Bill. It has been a long time coming. I think my colleagues have traversed the time frame over many years of this legislation. I do not want to spend too much time on this because I think there is a very important bill coming up next but I will be very very pleased to see this legislation go through. As other colleagues have said there are some concerns about some of the enforcement stuff and the regime around blood testing. However we are pleased to see this bill come through and I am pleased to take one of my very last calls in this Parliament to support this bill. Thank you.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the Land Transport Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 11; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes7New Zealand First 7.Bill read a third time.Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment BillIn CommitteeHon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):I seek leave for all provisions to be taken as one question for the purposes of debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 be taken as one question. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):The Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is very very important. The bill strengthens the regulation of foreign-owned commercial fishing vessels operating in New Zealand waters. The bill is part of a range of measures that follow a ministerial inquiry in 2012 into questionable safety labour and fishing practices on some foreign-owned vessels. The ministerial inquiry led by the Hon Paul Swain found that although these issues are not widespread in the New Zealand commercial fishing industry they are serious and need to be addressed in a coordinated manner backed by legislative change.The key features of the bill are the requirement that all foreign-owned vessels operating in New Zealand waters carry the New Zealand flag from 1 May 2016 and operate under full New Zealand legal jurisdiction. It will enable the Ministry for Primary Industries to consider employment and vessel safety matters as well as fishery matters while assessing applications for registration of foreign-owned fishing vessels. It allows the fisheries observers from the Ministry for Primary Industries to collect information on employment and vessel safety matters as well as the scientific information they collect now and it confers new powers to suspend the registration of non-compliant vessels. The mandatory reflagging of all foreign charter vessels will ensure that New Zealand is able to enforce its vessel safety employment and fisheries laws on foreign charter vessels fishing in our exclusive economic zone.Through this piece of legislation the Government is sending a clear message that New Zealand is serious about the fair treatment of fishing crews the safety of vessels and its international reputation for ethical and sustainable fishing practices. The changes being made through the bill will protect our international reputation. Our trade access will also maximise the economic return to New Zealand from our very important fisheries resources. This is a robust and long-term solution that sends a clear message that New Zealand is very serious about addressing allegations of mistreatment and underpayment of crew on these vessels.I have carefully considered the exemptions proposed by the Primary Production Committee but before I talk about those can I just acknowledge the outstanding work of the chair of the Primary Production Committee Shane Ardern who gave his valedictory statement today. I also acknowledge all the members of the Primary Production Committee who have been involved with this bill. Importantly I just want to acknowledge a couple of other members who have recently given their valedictories and who have been a part of this select committee and they are Eric Roy and also Colin King and before that Shane Jones was also involved in this Primary Production Committee.In particular I have weighed up these exemptions and their impacts on the robustness of the fisheries management regime and the long-term certainty for the Government industry and our international trading partners. I believe that exemptions to reflagging risk undermining the Government’s ability to enforce its labour and vessel safety standards on foreign charter vessels under international law. Under the exemptions New Zealand would have only limited jurisdiction over these matters in our exclusive economic zone. Therefore exemptions have the potential to undermine New Zealand’s international reputation by being seen as weakening the reflagging regime.The only exemption that I consider should be retained is the exemption to enable foreign charter vessels to be used for vessels conducting fisheries-related research approved by the chief executive of the Ministry for Primary Industries. There are minimal risks to this exemption and it will enable the industry to innovate and move to commercially harvest new species in the event that New Zealand vessels are unable or unsuitable. In this regard I draw the Committee’s attention to Supplementary Order Paper 429 in my name to make these necessary changes.In summary the Government’s objectives for foreign charter vessels are to ensure that New Zealand’s labour standards—that is enforcing a safe fair working environment—are applied on all fishing vessels operating in New Zealand’s fisheries waters to protect New Zealand’s international reputation and trade access and to maximise the economic return to New Zealand from our very important fisheries resource.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman):Labour welcomes this piece of legislation the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill into the Committee. Indeed without the proactive cooperation of the Labour Opposition it would not be here. We made the offer to the Minister for Primary Industries in the knowledge that it was not on the Order Paper and indeed we were going to close Parliament tomorrow without this legislation passing.There are members of the Primary Production Committee on the Government side there and on this side who have put a lot of time and effort into this two of whom actually gave their valedictory speeches today Eric Roy and Shane Ardern. They have followed the fisheries legislation from 1997 right through and will welcome this piece of legislation giving effect to what has been the intent of the legislation for some time.In 1997 when the legislation was passed there was through the efforts of my colleague Graham Kelly an initiative in this House to ensure that anyone working on fishing boats catching New Zealand fish in our economic zone should be paid New Zealand rates of pay and work in conditions that we would expect for New Zealanders. We were given assurances and the legislation stated that in 1997 but actually by early 2000 it had become apparent that we were not guaranteeing those proper conditions for a lot of foreign fisherman who were coming in on foreign boats catching fish.So there was an inquiry and in fact Labour in Government sought further assurances from the Department of Labour at the time and from the guild as it was then to give better security and protection for fishermen who travelled a long way and came in these boats that were not ideal. The boats were not new. Some might have called them rust buckets but I guess they could still float. They had come into New Zealand waters to catch fish under contract to New Zealand companies. It then threw up some very sad situations like the Oyang 70 and a number of other situations at Lyttelton Port where boats had been tied up. It had become apparent that in fact our law was not being properly implemented.I acknowledge the Government conducted a ministerial inquiry. Our ex-colleague the Hon Paul Swain did a very good job and came back to the Government with recommendations. That piece of legislation came to the Primary Production Committee. On balance it was decided that reflagging under the New Zealand flag was the most appropriate way to protect the workers. They were working on those boats catching New Zealand fish in our economic zone for New Zealand companies who were profiting from this but they were effectively being treated like slaves.In fact in passing this legislation we should not pat ourselves on the back too much because as a TV article just over a week ago disclosed similar conditions are being applied to workers from the Philippines in the Christchurch rebuild. So I say to the Government in praising and assisting it here that we have got to look at that situation here in New Zealand with Christchurch and—dare I say it—on odd occasions with Recognised Seasonal Employer scheme workers throughout the country. But I will put that to one side.Labour as I say prompted the Government to take the initiative to introduce the bill and have it passed. We would have had it passed tomorrow if it was not for the Māori Party. I have to say it is absolutely shameful and disgraceful that a party that is here in this House to protect Māori people up and down this country—many of whom own quota own the right to access fisheries and in fact have many of their own people employed on fishing boats up and down this country—refused to give leave for us to pass this legislation in a way that would have seen it in place by 2016 as proposed in the bill and passed prior to the closure of this Parliament. I think we could have all held our heads up high because it required the leave of all parties to come in and pass this. We know it is not right. We know it is unjust. We know that we have had people treated like slaves in New Zealand in the 21st century—disgraceful.I acknowledge the Government for its good work and the collaboration and cooperation of the select committee and all the members of it to progress the bill. I have to make mention of a last-minute amendment to the legislation after the select committee had in fact gone through it extensively. There were exemptions put up by the Minister for Primary Industries. I am not going to ask him why because he has pulled them back now but they were exemptions for those who held a quota under Treaty settlements. I accept the reality that there are quota parcels owned by small iwi groups who have chosen to get that fish quota caught by foreign charter vessels because it is the only way they can realise the benefits of that quota or it has been. So they have utilised—and I would hope reluctantly—foreign charter vessels to catch their quota and get some benefit from it. That is OK in a transitional phase but this has been going on for too long.These incidents Oyang 70 and others have been a disgrace and have put New Zealand in the spotlight of the international market place to the point where we have been struggling to sell some of our high-quality fish into Europe because of the slave conditions in which it might have been caught. It is a real dilemma. The Government has moved so I acknowledge the Minister. But the Māori Party blocking this I find abhorrent and disgraceful. Everyone else in this Parliament has agreed that we should move it on under urgency and move it through because of its wonderful outcome for our international reputation and ultimately for quota owners as well. I think this Parliament if it thought that those small iwi quota owners were going to get rorted or squeezed would have moved to protect them. They should have trusted us and trusted the system to give them due benefit from the quota allocated to them under the Treaty settlements. They deserve a fair go but to get a fair go by way of slave labour is abhorrent to the sense of fairness and fair-minded values of just about each and every New Zealander. So we support the Government in passing this bill through.There is a very good summary of what has happened here in the regulatory impact statement. It outlines the dilemmas we have been facing as a country. Labour wants to move all of our exports from volume to value and move up the value chain. We do not want slaves catching our fish. We want the finest-quality fish caught by the best well-paid and protected workers and fisher people in this country. We have got 140000-plus people out of work. Kiwis will work for the right incentive. Pay them a decent wage on these boats and sell high-quality fish to Europe or any other market and there is money there for everyone—for the workers on the boats for the boat owners for the quota owners and for the people who are selling our fish into the market. That is what Labour stands for. That is what we want to build across all of the primary sector.Here is an opportunity to free us from the shackles of slave labour catching our fish and to move on. I trust that the block by the Māori Party now does not unnecessarily delay the passage of this bill. Labour commits when we are in Government on 21 September to this being the highest priority. We will move to complete the passage of this legislation. Shame on the Māori Party for blocking this. I acknowledge the good work as I say of my colleagues on the select committee. We did look at this from a wide perspective in trying to protect the interests of all those involved but ultimately the flagging of these vessels as New Zealand vessels ensures proper standards of health and hygiene and health and safety. I will not say any more than that other than to say that Labour supports this bill and the passage of it through the Committee stage. We would have liked to see it go through the third reading yesterday but alas the Māori Party blocked that. Kia ora.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I rise to speak to the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I am absolutely rapt that the Government has managed to get this on to the Order Paper so that we are actually debating this. As I am doing this I am also ever hopeful that the Māori Party will come across and see this bill go through in this Parliament the 50th Parliament. If it does this will be the end of a disgraceful era that has persisted through successive Governments. But there have been changes. There has certainly been a change of will particularly as social agencies and civil society I will call it—people who are academics authors investigative journalists and a range of people—have come out and exposed the abusive behaviour that is going on for the sake of small profit by various fishing companies in New Zealand. It would appear that the Māori Party is persisting in supporting what we see as rather poor behaviour.I know that a range of organisations—and I will list them: Anglican Life Human Rights Lawyers Association Slave Free Seas the Salvation Army Canterbury Indonesia Society Maritime Union of New Zealand Anglican Refugee and Migrant Network Service and Food Workers Union Canterbury Community Law Centre. There is Peter Dawson a maritime lawyer; a crew advocate and translator Elyana Thenu; Dr Ani Kartikasari a crew advocate and translator; Dr Christina Stringer and Dr Glenn Simmons who wrote the book Not in New Zealand’s waterssurely?; Guye Henderson; and Rachelle Boulton. These people wrote to everybody in the last few days. Well they actually wrote to the Minister for Primary Industries—thank you Minister—the Rt Hon John Key the Hon Steven Joyce and the Hon Gerry Brownlee to try to get this bill in because it was not on the Order Paper and this Parliament was about to rise. Those people wanted to see the change. They are good representatives of the community and they have said that it is an opportunity to get this through.I believe there may be a bit of politics in behind this at the moment and I am hoping that some of these issues can be resolved overnight so that tomorrow we can see the passage of this bill through the House. I anticipate seeing the Māori Party in the Committee supporting this so we can all finish the 50th Parliament knowing that this legacy is behind us.We recognise that the bill has exemplary aims in protecting the human rights of crew on these foreign charter vessels operating within New Zealand’s jurisdiction. And there are other aspects. This bill is to ensure a full observer programme on fishing vessels for the purposes of vessel safety employment and fisheries research management and enforcement. Further we as the Primary Production Committee under the good chairing of Shane Ardern—who I think has been a very good chair and I missed his valedictory unfortunately today—worked very hard on this bill. We really thought we were getting somewhere and it was only at the last minute that this other exemption came in for Treaty settlement quota which was most unfortunate.There was another exemption and I put my neck on the line in exposing that one because it was looking after only tuna species. It was absolutely fantastic when the Minister announced the removal of those two exemptions. It was a very very good move. Not only that he went further than I had expected and removed the exemption on exceptional circumstances.So we have just the one exemption that is left in the bill and that is appropriate only to the degree that the labour clauses and the observer angles in it are still managed on those ships in the rare event that they might be used for scientific purposes. So we are very very pleased to see the end of those exemptions.In recent times I have had continued communication about the abuses that went on in those ships. They are the sorts of things we do not even like talking about: the rape of crew the beating of crew the putting of crew into chillers for punishment crew going without food and all sorts of oppressive behaviours that we would not accept on land here in New Zealand. We obviously do not accept them out there either and we want that changed. So we are looking forward to a change of heart if the Māori Party has indeed blocked leave. I am giving it a little bit of credit for maybe half an hour to come through and show us that change. It would be fantastic. I do not really want to follow down the path of my colleague Damien O’Connor of accusing it of too much just yet because I think there may be some politics at play. So I would welcome the Māori Party in the Committee at any moment to make some changes.There are people out in the community right at this moment who are waiting and hoping. Some I gather are praying. I am not of that persuasion but I am certainly right there with them to see that change come through through the goodwill and the humanity in all of us including in that other party. I will have another call shortly. Thank you.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I am going to take a short call on this Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. I just want to put on record my support for the bill and the fact that it is being debated in its Committee stage the day before the House is due to rise and also my hope that this bill will have its third reading tomorrow. As the previous member Steffan Browning said there have been a lot of calls from people in the community people involved in this industry and people involved in this disgraceful episode in New Zealand’s history to have this bill passed through Parliament.What I want to do in my call is try to take us back to what this is really about. It is about the situation the history that we have in recent years of crew who came to work in New Zealand’s waters on foreign-crewed vessels. I came in touch with some of the crew from the Shin Ji. They came mainly from the Tegal region in central Java which is one of the most impoverished areas of Indonesia with high unemployment and low pay and so on so you can imagine that when they were recruited to come and work in New Zealand they thought this was going to make a real difference for them and for their lives and their families’ lives. But they had to provide condition precedent guarantees and securities to the manning agency including a cash bond of up to US$300 which is a lot of money in that region. They were also required to hand over birth certificates family identity documents and education certificates just to get the job. On signing their contract with the manning agent they signed an agreement that said that they would be completely submissive and obedient as established by the third party—in other words the manning agent in charge of the foreign-crewed vessel.As I mentioned I came in touch with the Shin Ji crew in 2011 but the first time there was a situation with the Shin Ji crew was in 2009 when there was a crew that walked off the job when the vessel arrived in New Zealand. Eleven Indonesian crew fled the vessel handing themselves into the police. They spent the night as vagrants in the custody of Auckland police. The next day the Maritime Union officials transferred the crew to the Auckland International Seafarers Centre. The men resolutely refused to return to their vessel alleging ill treatment by its Korean officers—things like weekly saltwater showers no hot water and no pay for 4 months. So that was in 2009. Two years later in 2011 other Shin Ji crew members refused to work. They arrived in Auckland walked off the ship and refused to work despite being threatened that they would be sent home and not get paid.They cited abusive working and living conditions the non-payment of wages excessive working shifts as well as sexual abuse. Earlier that year the boatswain drowned while clearing a blockage in the eel tank aboard the vessel. Half the crew were traumatised by this death and returned home breaking their contracts. The remaining seven crew were required to do the work of 14. They were forced to work long shifts—16-hour days—and shifts up to 30 hours in length were common. One crew member reported that during the last 21 months they never had a day off only time off at night after work finished. They often worked from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. or 4 a.m. the next day or from 4 a.m. to 10 p.m. Some of them could not stay awake for so long so they worked until they fell asleep.Food was inadequate in quality and quantity. Usually halfway through a voyage the food was rationed. Meals included stale bread and rotting fish bait from which crew were forced to select the best pieces of bait to eat and were not allowed to cook in the pantry. The pantry was locked. They were often abused for taking too long to eat a meal and sometimes had to forgo meals. There was a lack of proper protective clothing especially boots and gloves for use in the minus 18 degrees Celsius freezer hold. Crew commonly received frostbite and freezer burns to feet legs and hands resulting in walking impediments. They asked the captain for better boots and gloves but their requests were ignored. Mistakes led to one officer hitting crew around the head in a harsh punishment and on and on it went.The stories came through the inquiry that the Government set up on the situation of crews working on foreign-crewed vessels. I think one of the things that still disturbs me is that many of those crew were sent home and actually I thought quite harshly treated by the Government around immigration and so on. Many were not allowed to stay and pursue their wage claims. There are hundreds of millions of dollars still owed to many of those crews. They were forced to go home. We did not treat them that well. They have gone back to a situation where they are impoverished once more. Their so-called First World experiences of working in New Zealand in a First World job have been appalling. They came to New Zealand with high hopes and left abused destitute and gutted. Some of them talked about the rapes and the physical assault the abuse—appalling treatment. This happened in our waters. That is why this bill must pass through its Committee stage tonight and have its third reading tomorrow. This happened in our country in our waters. When people describe it as slavery they are accurate.I give credit to the Government for the inquiry. I give credit to the Government for the fact that we have legislation. I am disturbed that it has taken this long to get us to this stage. I say to the Minister for Primary Industries that I really hope that you will do everything you can to persuade the Māori Party to pass this through its third reading tomorrow so that we can get this disgraceful and appalling incident off our books. Once having done that we can go back and help those crew who still have not been paid who are living in awful situations back in their country and who cannot get jobs. This is a disgraceful incident and it is really incumbent on this Parliament to see it through to get it passed and to get it fixed before Parliament rises. Thank you.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I am pleased to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make a very short call in this Committee stage of the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. The reason I am making a short call is that I do not wish to contribute in any way to the further delaying of the passage of this bill. If I understand correctly we are held up from passing all the remaining stages of this bill only by the objection of the Māori Party. I would impress very strongly on the Minister for Primary Industries that if he has any influence at all over that party and its decision to not allow the passage of this bill that he use that influence.New Zealand First absolutely supports the bill as it is constructed. We are extremely impressed by the fact that the Minister has gone against essentially the advice of his own Primary Production Committee in rejecting the exemptions that were proposed in terms of tuna boats and iwi quota. We do support the aims and intentions of the bill. We do support the bill as it stands right now. If the Minister is able to bring some pressure to bear or some persuasion to bear on the Māori Party to get it to withdraw its objections to the rest of this bill in all its stages going through we will absolutely support and vote for the passing of all stages of this bill into law in the dying stages of the 50th Parliament. Thank you.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):Like the previous speakers I will take just a short call on this bill the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. It is a very important piece of legislation. On a day when the Labour Party has released its employment rights and employment law policy it is at least refreshing to see this Government which has done so many negative things in the employment law field to at least be embracing some progressive change important change and important protections for workers in the fishing industry on the high seas with this bill. I give credit not only to the Minister in the chair the Hon Nathan Guy but to his predecessor who was around when the bill first came about and who responded positively to the ministerial inquiry report when it was reported back in 2012.New Zealand’s reputation overseas on employment issues and employment rights is very strong. Notwithstanding some of the more retrograde measures in the last 6 years nevertheless we are seen as a country that leads the way and leads many others when it comes to good positive values underpinning our employment rights.What has been happening in our fishing industry particularly with overseas fishing vessels foreign fishing vessels has been an absolute blight on this country’s reputation. It is encouraging to see that these steps are being taken but as my colleague Darien Fenton has pointed out unfortunately for those many hundreds of fishing vessel workers who have gone without pay who have been mistreated abused exploited dumped onshore here and have struggled to get back to their countries it is of course even now too late.That is why I join with others including Richard Prosser from New Zealand First to urge the Minister and all members opposite who have influence with the Māori Party—if it has misunderstood the importance of this piece of legislation or has been misguided about it I urge it to give leave so that the third reading of this bill can take place and we can all leave this 50th Parliament tomorrow with our heads held high that at least on the last day in these last dying moments dying hours of this Parliament we have done something progressive and responsible and helpful and useful to those who would look to this Parliament for basic protections and to afford them some dignity and respect for the difficult experiences that they have been through. I urge that and look forward to us passing this bill as soon as we possibly can.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Thank you for allowing me to make a contribution. I would like to just echo the remarks from my colleagues on this side of the Chamber. We do support the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill. This is a very welcome piece of legislation long in the formative stages.We know that the Māori Party was very actively involved in support of the ministerial inquiry that actually led to the introduction of this legislation. I recall that my predecessor Rahui Katene received a petition on the steps of Parliament signed by 12000 members of and organised by the Service and Food Workers Union back in 2011. She received that petition and presented it to Parliament petitioning Parliament that there be a ministerial inquiry into the atrocious practices on our foreign charter vessels. That led to the ministerial inquiry. The Māori Party gave submissions to that ministerial inquiry. I would just like to read one part from Mrs Katene’s submission: “I consider it is fundamental that FCVs uphold the highest standards of human rights for their crew and I also believe that iwi and Māori expect that crew members are treated consistently with their values of manaakitanga kaitiakitanga and whanaungatanga.”We definitely hope that that was not just rhetoric and that the Māori Party does actually front up and join with all of us other parties in the House to grant the leave so that this bill can progress through its third reading as we enter into the last sitting day of this 50th Parliament tomorrow. We are hopeful that the Māori Party can see some sense and pay tribute to Mrs Katene’s work in calling for this ministerial inquiry which led to the introduction of this legislation. Otherwise it is shameful that not all parties in this House are supportive of this legislation.Let us not forget that we want to eliminate the practices of treating workers like slaves on our foreign charter vessels. There are atrocious stories and cases which came through in the ministerial inquiry. We can mention names like the Oyang 70 terrible fatalities poor treatment non-payment and lack of safety provided to the foreign workers who were working in some horrendous conditions. I am hopeful that the Māori Party can come and join with the rest of the parties in this House and allow us to let this bill progress to its third reading tomorrow so we can complete it and pass it into law.We know that Māori are significant stakeholders in the fishing industry. I for one was intimately involved in the Māori fisheries industry. Māori are the resource owners primarily at an iwi level and of course for certain iwi their main revenue stream is through the sale of their deep-water annual catch entitlement. A lot of that annual catch entitlement has been sold to foreign charter vessel operators in the past and they have been able to pay a premium for their annual catch entitlement to the iwi because they have appalling treatment for their workers in their operations. So that is the trade-off. If iwi want good returns for the sale of their annual catch entitlement at what cost? What we have seen is that that has been at the cost of foreign workers who have been exploited for years when fishing much of it for the Māori annual catch entitlement and we cannot just let that continue.Our international reputation is at stake and the Māori Party made it very clear at the ministerial inquiry how important our international reputation is. Well if our international reputation is so important to the Māori Party; if the fair treatment of foreign workers is so important to the Māori Party; and if the opportunities for jobs for Māori to get into the business and activity of fishing as promised through the Treaty settlements is so important to the Māori Party then I would encourage them—implore them—to please come to the House and join with all of the parties here tonight to ensure that leave is granted so we can ensure the passage of this important bill through into the final day of this 50th Parliament. That is my last plea. Let us hope we can achieve that so we can ensure that this bill is passed. Thank you.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 429 in his name to clause 12 be agreed to:Delete clause 12.Amendment to the amendment agreed to.The question was put that the amendments as amended set out on Supplementary Order Paper 429 in the name of the Hon Nathan Guy be agreed to.Amendments as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 433 in the name of Steffan Browning be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes15Green Party 14; Mana 1.Noes103New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended be agreed to.Ayes116New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes2Māori Party 2.Parts 1 and 2 and clauses 1 to 3 as amended agreed to.Bill reported with amendment.Report adopted.Sittings of the HouseTIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National):The House has made excellent progress tonight and on that basis I seek leave for the House to rise early.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none.Sitting suspended from9.52 p.m.to9 a.m.(Thursday)