Volume 700 Week 78 - Wednesday 23 July 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 700 Week 78 - Wednesday 23 July 2014[Sitting date: 23 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19377. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 23 July 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.Business of the HouseHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House):Following discussions at the Business Committee I seek leave for the House to adjourn on Thursday 24 July and suspend on Wednesday 30 July at the conclusion of the last valedictory statement for each day.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that particular purpose. Is there any objection? There is none. Leave is granted.Questions to MinistersRegional Economies—Employment Development and Economic and Social Inequality1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements on regional development; if so is the real median weekly income for all people in the Gisborne/Hawke’s Bay region according to the New Zealand Income Survey higher or lower now than when he took office?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes and to the second part of the question I am advised that there is no official series that matches what the member is asking for but I can tell him from the New Zealand Income Survey that median weekly income from all sources in the Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay region went from $500 in 2009 to $506 in 2013. For people in paid employment median weekly earnings in that region went from $720 in 2009 to $756 in 2013.Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Prime Minister confirm the New Zealand Income Survey statistics that the Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay pre-tax real median weekly incomes have fallen $61 a week—$61 a week—that over 2000 more people are unemployed and that 843 people have left Gisborne since he took office?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No we do not accept that.Hon David Cunliffe: After the Prime Minister has checked the Statistics New Zealand website and found that those figures are correct will he be prepared to consider restoring the Gisborne to Napier rail line to encourage regional growth?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not think that is likely. I think it is worth remembering with the Gisborne to Napier rail line that it accounted for 2 to 3 percent of freight in the East Coast. Even if revenue picked up the service was expected to run at an annual loss of between $5 million and $8 million a year—but we all know that the Labour Party runs at a loss in so many areas.Hon David Cunliffe: What does the Prime Minister say to the Waikato region and in particular the 114 workers who have lost their jobs at Canpac in Te Rapa today or is he now a little bit sorry that he has got a so-called rock star economy where the bottom has fallen out of the dairy market by one-third in just 6 months?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Once again the member is wrong. The second thing I would say is that 14000 people have not lost their jobs; 14000 more people have jobs in the Waikato region. Fewer people are unemployed and the unemployment rate has dropped by 1.6 percent. Fonterra employs around 2000 people in the Waikato region. Although not every job can be guaranteed I know they will be working hard to find jobs for other people as best they can. Thirdly what I would say to the people of the Waikato is that if you want to keep your job vote National; if you want to lose it vote Labour.Hon David Cunliffe: If the Prime Minister will not give a straight answer today to those 114 workers whose jobs are on the line in Te Rapa will he confirm today as he refused to do yesterday whether he is happy with the current situation where half the families in Kawerau live on less than $40000 a year and a third of the town depends on a benefit but in other areas over half the families earn over $100000 and less than 10 percent are on a benefit? Is that fair Prime Minister?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I suspect that the position in Kawerau has been one that has been in that kind of condition for quite a long period of time. Secondly one of the ways to assist the people of Kawerau is to do what the Government is doing actually—that is both in terms of the infrastructure we are developing around the country making sure we do not overtax our businesses with a capital gains tax as that member would and making sure we actually have a welfare system that readies people for work and expects them actually to move into work along with the other welfare reforms. If the member really thinks that a $200 million slush fund spent over 4 years is going to do anything then he needs to go and review all of his other policies. When he is finished with all that he needs to look—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer is quite sufficient.Hon David Cunliffe: Why is he so negative about the regional development fund—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: Why is he so negative about the regional development fund when people actually involved in local government such as Lawrence Yule president of Local Government New Zealand say that Labour’s regional development fund is a step in the right direction?Mr SPEAKER: I call the right honourable Prime Minister insofar as there is prime ministerial responsibility.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not negative. If the member wants to see negative he should see the comments that his caucus colleagues make behind his back about the member.Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Prime Minister say to the people of the Bay of Plenty that he is prepared to support Labour’s forestry package which has led Red Stag Timber to commit to a 70 percent expansion of production taking it to 1.2 million cubic metres a year or is he happy to export raw logs and close down timber mills across the North Island and import our own timber back from China to rebuild Christchurch?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: A number of things: firstly Red Stag Timber is a company that has actually been expanding quite successfully over the course of the last 6 or 7 years without some random policy. The second point I would make is if the member cares so much about forestry—does he? Does the member care about forestry and about logs?Mr SPEAKER: Just answer the question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: OK here is an idea: let us go and pick up the thousands of them lying on the West Coast and mill them. Oh that is right—they do not want to do that with wind-blown timber but they want some dodgy policy for Red Stag Timber. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Question No. 2 Dr Russel Norman. [Interruption] Order! The member Dr Russel Norman has every right to ask a question.Economy—Science and Research Funding Export Sector and Investment Focus2.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by his Government’s economic strategy to focus on expanding simple commodity exports such as milk powder raw logs and minerals—a pollution-based economy—rather than investing in research science and development to create a smarter greener economy?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is really away with the fairies if that is what he believes because in every single Budget since 2009 this Government has increased its expenditure on science. This year alone we are spending $1.5 billion in that area. In fact the science and high-tech area is growing rapidly under a National-led Government. So if the member thinks we are solely a commodity-based economy he needs to get his head out of the clouds and look at what is actually happening around New Zealand. What I do know is when he goes around New Zealand and implements the sorts of policies he would like to do he will be sending most New Zealand workers to the dole queue. I will be pointing that out to them over the course of the next 60 days.Dr Russel Norman: Why is his Government planning to cut Government spending in science and research by over 10 percent in real terms over the next 3 years?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is making it up.Dr Russel Norman: Has the Prime Minister actually read the Draft National Statement of Science Investment—which the Government just issued for the Prime Minister’s benefit—which says that Government investment will be dropping from $1.4 billion in 2014-15 to $1.35 billion in 2017-18 in nominal terms which in real terms is a cut of 10 percent in 3 years?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is misinterpreting the data. The correct data represents what I have been saying which is that the Government has been increasing expenditure in science and technology every year. Even in the worst of the financial conditions we have been doing that. That is why you are seeing some of the stellar results that are being delivered around the country.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a document from the Parliamentary Library showing Government investment in science to drop by 10 percent in real terms over 3 years and 21 percent—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has now been satisfactorily described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that—Hon Steven Joyce: Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Does the member want to speak to the point of order?Hon Steven Joyce: I am just interested to know what that data is from. He said data from the library but—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has described it. It is now over to the House. It was information prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Dr Russel Norman: Does New Zealand’s prosperity lie in selling more milk powder and polluting more rivers or does prosperity lie in investing in people and smart green innovation—something that the Government is cutting according to its own documents?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In relation to the last point the member is wrong and he knows he is wrong. In relation to the earlier points in fact New Zealand’s prosperity lies in doing a combination of lots of things. There will be an increasing demand I suspect around the world particularly from Asian nations for continued commodities from New Zealand but there is equally as we can see a rapid move up the value curve. We are seeing that with UHT milks and the like. We are seeing it with nutraceuticals. In the information and communications technology sector generally we are seeing quite a significant expansion. We have had the manufacturing sector expanding month after month after month. The member lives in a world where he wants to believe a few things. Unfortunately the reality does not actually fit with the narrative that he in his own little mind wants to believe is true. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will be reluctant to ask a member to leave the House but if the member continues to interject with that barrage then I will be doing so.Dr Russel Norman: With regard to manufactured exports is he proud of his Government’s record of simplifying our export economy given the 19 percent fall in real terms of the value of manufactured exports since the National Government took office? Real statistics real facts—just try dealing with them Mr Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: OK well we will deal with the facts. Fifty billion dollars’ worth of goods was exported over the last 12 months out of New Zealand. I will tell you the way to kill those exports markets. That is one to stop signing free-trade agreements—oh yes that is the Green Party policy. Two—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is not necessary for the member to be commenting on another party’s policy.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In relation to the answer it is actually germane if the member is going to ask a question about a specific point about our strategy for growing the economy. It is quite fair and right actually to contrast—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough from the Prime Minister. On many of the questions we have had so far members themselves have asked for comment on policies of the Labour Party and the Green Party and in that case I will be perfectly accepting of an answer that makes comment on those particular policies. But on this particular occasion the question did not raise any other political party’s policy. On that basis I am not accepting the answer.Dr Russel Norman: Is the best way to add value to our exports to simply produce more and to pollute more or is investing in manufacturing information and communications technology and innovation a smarter greener alternative; if so why is the Government cutting spending on research and development and science according to the Government’s own predictions as confirmed by the Parliamentary Library document that his members stopped me tabling?Mr SPEAKER: The right honourable Prime Minister—either of those questions.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member’s question was quite instructive actually because his argument was that to produce more you have to pollute more. On this side of the House we actually totally and utterly disagree with that but it does show what the member is thinking and that is of course if you want to pollute less—which is something we accept the Green Party wants to do—you have to produce less and boy will the Greens be producing less if they ever assume the Treasury benches.Dr Russel Norman: How does the Prime Minister expect New Zealand to move towards a smarter economy when New Zealand’s investment in research and development has barely lifted as a proportion of GDP during National’s Government and languishes at only 54 percent of the OECD average and according to Government predictions is going to drop even further?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is wrong. I am not surprised that the member is using dodgy numbers because most of his policies are backed up by dodgy numbers—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Answer the question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: But this is the way to grow the New Zealand economy and that is to follow the prescription that the National Government has been following in the last 6 years we have been here. Have a tax system that actually encourages investment—something that this Government has been doing. Sign free-trade agreements so that we have better access to international markets—something that this Government has been doing. Invest in science and innovation—something that this Government has been doing. Invest in skills—something that this Government has been doing. Invest in infrastructure—something that this Government has been doing. Make sure our businesses face less regulation and less red tape—something that this Government has been doing. Make sure that our businesses face a fair carbon tax not something that is disproportionate to what is happening around the world—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer now is quite long enough.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If any of what he has just said in his answers this afternoon is correct how does he explain two things—[Interruption]—and “Big Ears” you can help out as well—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well how does he explain two things if any of that is true: one the growing nervousness of the National Party backbench and two the internal polls of the National Party showing him that it is well behind where it was this far out from the 2011 election? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a particular interest in listening to the answer.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member genuinely believes that the National backbench is demonstrating nervousness then what I think the member should do is look left because out there they are terrified buddy.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members will resume their seats. I am on my feet. Now I gather there is a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. It will be heard in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Look I cannot let a misnomer like that start running and the Prime Minister must not call someone “buddy” in the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member now will resume his seat because that is not a point of order.Economy—Credit Rating and Forecasts3.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa)to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received supporting the Government’s economic programme?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Earlier this month the credit rating agency Fitch Ratings confirmed that it had revised New Zealand’s AA credit rating outlook from stable to positive. This indicates the credit rating’s likely direction over the next year or two. Fitch Ratings said that the Government’s fiscal consolidation and track to surplus in 2014-15 are increasing the resilience of New Zealand’s sovereign credit profile and it noted that the Government has a credible plan to lift fiscal surpluses in the years ahead and to reduce net core Crown debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2020. Fitch Ratings also said that New Zealand’s economic policy framework business environment and standards of governance ranked among the world’s strongest from a credit perspective and warranted high-grade sovereign ratings.John Hayes: In confirming the positive outlook for New Zealand’s credit rating what did Fitch Ratings say about New Zealand’s current and future economic growth prospects?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It noted that New Zealand’s macroeconomic record and prospects are supporting its credit rating. It said that real GDP grew by 2.7 percent in 2013 and is expected to increase to 3.8 percent in 2014. This will be supported by among other factors reconstruction in Canterbury; dairy prices which have moderated but are still at elevated levels; and a house-building catch-up. Fitch Ratings noted that although New Zealand’s average GDP growth over the past 5 years at 1.6 percent is lower than the median among AA rated countries it was less volatile and was higher than the 1.2 percent median growth rate among AAA rated countries.John Hayes: What other factors did Fitch Ratings note in respect of its positive ratings outlook for New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the factors Fitch Ratings noted was New Zealand’s historical vulnerability around high net external debt and persistent current account deficits. I am pleased to report that both of these indicators have improved significantly in recent years. For example the unadjusted current account balance in the March quarter was a surplus of $1.4 billion—the largest dollar surplus ever recorded—and the annual 2.8 percent deficit is well under half the deficits of around 7 percent of GDP in the 3 years to 2008. So our net international liability position has improved. It was 65 percent of GDP in March this year well down from a recent peak of 85 percent of GDP in early 2009.John Hayes: And for my last question what other reports has he received about the state of the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen one report claiming that Government debt is larger as a percentage of GDP than New Zealand had during World War II. This is completely false. Gross Government debt is currently around 35 percent of GDP. At the end of World War II it was around 150 percent of GDP. David Cunliffe has again completely misled New Zealanders.Regional Economies—Employment Development and Economic and Social Inequality4.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that there are growing gaps among the regions of New Zealand making the economy and society increasingly unbalanced; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):No I do not agree with that. A variety of data suggests the regions have led New Zealand’s recovery. Statistics New Zealand regional GDP data shows that Bay of Plenty Gisborne Hawkes’s Bay Nelson-Tasman Canterbury Otago and Southland of course all grew faster than the national average in the 5 years to 2013. The most recent ANZ Regional Trends survey shows rural regions growing faster than urban areas and just last week I received reports from Queenstown in my own electorate of a significant boost from a long holiday by the Leader of the Opposition. But if the member wants to talk down the regions then I hope he declares a crisis because on recent established history every time Labour declares a crisis things come right pretty quickly.Hon David Parker: Does he agree that when the top few percent own most of the wealth the squeezed do not have enough to spend and invest and the economy will not perform to its fullest potential until the imbalance is fixed?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In fact in respect of the distribution of benefits of growth I can tell the member that the number of people on working-age benefits in Greymouth dropped 5 percent in the last year. In Blenheim it dropped 9 percent. In Napier it dropped 8 percent in the last year and in Wanganui the number of people on working-age benefits also dropped 5 percent. Those people are now enjoying the benefits of more jobs and a stronger economy.Hon David Parker: Then why is it that after 6 years aside from Canterbury the unemployment rate is higher in every region of New Zealand than it was when he took office?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well on “Planet Labour” there was no global financial crisis—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.Hon BILL ENGLISH: —and the member should take that into account when he uses those measures. Of course in the real world which is not where the Labour Party is there was a major recession and unemployment did rise rapidly. Fortunately it is now dropping consistently.Tim Macindoe: Which regions have seen the strongest increases in economic activity?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The most recent regional trend survey shows that the strongest growth in economic activity in the March quarter was in order Northland the highest at 3.4 percent followed by Bay of Plenty then Waikato then Nelson-Marlborough then Otago then the West Coast and then Canterbury. ANZ reports that Northland was also the fastest-growing region in the year to March at 7.4 percent. Business confidence is at a 9-year high in the survey and the top two areas for business confidence are Otago despite the complaints of its civic leadership and the Waikato. As I said the evidence tends to suggest that the regions have led the recovery not lagged it.Hon David Parker: Is his selective use of statistics because the latest Statistics New Zealand figures on per capita GDP show that per capita GDP in the last year has gone backwards not just in Gisborne Hawke’s Bay Taranaki Manawatū Wanganui Marlborough and on the West Coast but also in his own province of Southland?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I do not agree with that. But what I do agree with is the proposition that a significant carbon tax a capital gains tax and water rules that mean that every river has to be absolutely pure will have dramatic economic effects on the regions and they will all be negative. That is why the regions are turning up to meetings all over the country to tell us how determined they are to stop the Greens and Labour taking over Government.Hon David Parker: How can he say that regional growth is not in balance when according to the 2013 census the gap between median household incomes in Northland and Wellington has grown to around $30000 a year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not seen those figures but that is a bit rich coming from the party that complains because the Government put constraint on Public Service salaries.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the per capita GDP figures from Statistics New Zealand for the regions for the year ended 2013.Mr SPEAKER: If they are published by Statistics New Zealand they are available to be referenced.Local Government—Rules Reduction Taskforce5.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore)to the Minister of Local Government: What recent announcements has she made about reducing red tape for property owners?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Local Government):Our new Rules Reduction Taskforce will weed out pedantic and loopy rules that frustrate homeowners. I constantly hear complaints from homeowners about rules brought in over years by both central and local government that are confusing onerous and costly even if they are well intentioned. This task force will give New Zealanders an opportunity to submit their ideas about which rules need axing. The group will then look at what should stay and what should go so that people can get on with the job of building and renovating without having to wade through unnecessary bureaucracy.Maggie Barry: What suggestions has she already seen about pedantic red tape?Hon Member: Is that the red scarf?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No she did not say red scarf. She said red tape. The country has got more important things to worry about. In just a few hours yesterday more than 400 comments had been made on the Stuff website by people frustrated by loopy rules. I have heard everything from people being told where they can put their shower curtain to someone being told their pool fence was not compliant because a jasmine plant was growing up the side of it. I have even heard of a person being told that they had to put windows in to let the light in even though they had just installed a ranchslider but of course it was considered a door. There is no doubt that every time someone has to comply with one of these rules it holds back what should be common sense for a property owner to be able to do.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the normal way if the Minister has been reading from official advice I would like her to table that please and in particular confirm—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Was the Minister quoting from an official document?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No I was quoting from a website.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I hope it is a point of order.Hon David Cunliffe: Further to the last point of order and I thank you for allowing us to proceed to get to the bottom of the Minister’s assertion—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member come to his point of order.Hon David Cunliffe: Could the Minister please table the source regulation that she was referring to perhaps about the shower curtain?Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order.Maggie Barry: What is the skill set that you are looking for for the people in the task force?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have been thinking about people who might be of value on this task force—people who know that they should not stand up and apologise for being a man for example—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon PAULA BENNETT: They are people who no longer think about red scarfs actually being what is holding them back from getting their message across. Those kinds of loopy—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer will not help the order of the House.Su’a William Sio: Will her task force help to get rid of loopy bureaucratic rules like councils being required to individually identify every tree they want to protect in their council area by street address or legal description in their council plans at a cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to ratepayers which her Government introduced? [Interruption]Hon PAULA BENNETT: Oh brilliant! Thank you. Lovely.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again members will be interested to know the answer.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes I am sure they will. Actually it is their decision. It is not a rule that has been put in place. It is how the councils are actually administrating it. This is the kind of thing that we can cut through. We accept that Labour likes layers upon layers of rules that do not actually mean that a community can get on and do what a property owner should be able to do on their own land. The people like this—it is this that they will—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Sio referred to a specific rule that the local bodies have to comply with. That is the one I want to hear about. That is what he asked about—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member would resume his seat he might recall the question was whether the task force would help to get rid of such a rule. If we could have a bit more quiet on this side of the House we could hear the answer. Does the honourable Minister wish to complete—Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am done.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is that Mr Sio asked a specific question and there has not been any attempt to answer it.Mr SPEAKER: I do not agree with the member. I was listening through a barrage of noise but from the answer I heard the Minister was saying that that is exactly the type of thing she hopes the task force will be able to get rid of.Housing Affordable—Impact of Government Measures6.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū)to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by his statement “My ambition in housing is to make the dream of home ownership a reality for more New Zealanders”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):Absolutely and that is why this Government has put so much work into advancing the reforms recommended by the Productivity Commission on freeing up land supply constraining development contributions and reducing tariffs and duties on building materials as well as our sound economic policies which are keeping interest rates low for longer.Phil Twyford: Does he think that the dream of homeownership is becoming a reality for more New Zealanders on his watch when the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research shows that it now takes 50 years to pay off a home in Auckland which means that people in their 30s will be paying off a mortgage in their 70s and 80s or is that affordable housing under his Government?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Homeownership peaked in about 1986 and has been in decline for the best part of the 28 years since. The worst decline in homeownership occurred between 2000 and 2008 when house prices doubled and interest rates went from 5 percent to 11 percent. Such long-term trends take time to work through. We are making good progress.Phil Twyford: How can he boast as he does frequently that his Auckland Housing Accord is making a difference when his own Cabinet papers show that Auckland Council last year was forecasting that only 7000 new dwellings would be consented this year and that consents are now according to the Auckland Council chief economist running at less than that rate under the Minister’s accord which is about half of what Auckland needs just to stand still; and is he surprised to learn that not a single new house has been built in his special housing areas since he announced them 14 months ago?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What I can advise the member is that the rate of building consents both nationally and in Auckland is the fastest rate in 7 years and that we are on target to meet those accord targets of an additional 9000 houses this year 13000 next year and 17000 the year after. I can also confirm that more residential land has been zoned by us this year than has been zoned in the last 10 years.Jami-Lee Ross: How does the rate of new house builds and housing affordability today compare with that when National first became Government?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new house build rate collapsed in 2008 to just 1000 per month nationally and to only 200 houses per month in Auckland. The current rate is 2000 houses per month nationally and 600 per month in Auckland. That is we are building twice as many houses every month nationally than when we became the Government and three times as many houses per month than were being built in Auckland. On housing affordability data what the Roost index shows is that housing affordability nationally has improved by 26 percent since we became the Government and 17 percent in Auckland or if you want to use the Massey University Home Affordability Report things have improved 35 percent nationally and 25 percent in Auckland.Phil Twyford: Will he concede that as shown in his Cabinet paper for 5 years straight under his Government the number of building consents for new dwellings has been lower than for any year in the previous two decades and even if he meets his Auckland Housing Accord target he will never catch up with the shortfall?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The record on building consents is very clear. They completely collapsed in 2008. They collapsed to the point that in November 2008 fewer houses were built than in any year in 15 years and we are now building three times as many houses per month as when we became the Government and I am proud of that record.Phil Twyford: I seek leave of the House to table this Cabinet paper which shows that for 5 years straight—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s use—[Interruption] Order! The member is describing the paper. It has been well described in his supplementary question. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular Cabinet paper. Is there any objection?Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I am putting the leave first for this. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table Statistics New Zealand’s housing building consent figures—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member can resume his seat. New Zealand statistics are available to all members easily.Phil Twyford: Is he aware that new figures show that property investors with multiple houses make up 43 percent of house sales showing that property speculation is out of control particularly in Auckland and does he agree with Westpac that a capital gains tax would reduce the value of rental properties for speculators by 23 percent which would make his failing housing policy fairer and help more New Zealanders into their own homes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: All of the advice that I have seen about a capital gains tax is that it will make any difference to the housing market only if you include the two-thirds of homes that are owned by ordinary families. I do not know any political parties that are endorsing that view but I would never doubt the capacity of members opposite to want to tax more hard-working New Zealanders.Canterbury Recovery—Lincoln University Rebuild and Lincoln Hub7.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri)to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What investment is the Government making in the recovery of Lincoln University?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):Last week I announced that the Government has approved in principle to provide up to $107.5 million in additional capital funding towards the rebuilding of Lincoln University’s science facilities destroyed in the Canterbury earthquakes. Lincoln suffered very significant damage in the earthquakes losing 40 percent of its academic floor space including much of its facilities for science teaching and research. The Government funding of up to $107.5 million is almost one-third of the projected cost of the total campus rebuild and will involve demolishing the badly damaged Hilgendorf and Burns buildings and replacing them with modern new facilities.Hon Kate Wilkinson: Why is the Government investing in new science facilities for Lincoln University?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Canterbury earthquakes did cause as I said very significant damage to the university. It has been using temporary facilities since the earthquakes. And of course since the earthquakes it has had a drop in student numbers as has Canterbury University. This funding will help the university with its rebuild programme and get it back fully on its feet. Of course the agricultural sector which is Lincoln’s area of speciality earns New Zealand $36 billion in exports each year and the university is a leading player in the sector’s teaching and research helping to ensure increasing amounts of innovation in that sector. The new facilities will be a huge asset to Lincoln significantly assisting its recovery and student numbers and of course also providing opportunities for those export earnings to continue to increase as productivity increases.Hon Kate Wilkinson: How does the Government’s investment in Lincoln University assist the development of the Lincoln Hub?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Lincoln Hub is a partnership between the university Dairy New Zealand and a number of Crown research institutes. It will be an incubator for research innovation and wealth creation in the agricultural sector with one of the highest concentrations of agricultural and environmental scientists in the southern hemisphere working together to bring new ideas to market and develop new export opportunities. Part of the Government’s agreement with Lincoln for this new funding is the integration of its new facilities with the other major partners in the hub. The rebuild of the university together with the existing campus development plans of the research institutes located at Lincoln mean we have a unique once-in-a-generation opportunity to combine the physical operations of all these entities in one integrated campus serving 900 scientists students and industry.Education National Standards—Student Achievement Data8.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that national standards data provides an accurate reflection of real student achievement; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā. Yes I am satisfied that the reported data provides an accurate reflection of where teachers assess their students to be against the national standards at this time. This is because I back the professional judgments of teachers. National standards is in the third year of reporting which has been remarkably consistent given the very early stages of implementation. The reporting is also far more comprehensive and systematic than anything we have had in the past. It is helpful to schools which can now identify early and precisely who needs what kind of assistance. It is helpful to parents who tell me they appreciate the plain English reporting and knowing what they can do to support their children to achieve. It is helpful to teachers who tell me it has enriched their understanding of New Zealand’s brilliant curriculum. It is helpful to principals who tell me it helps them to know how their schools are doing as a whole. It is helpful to kids who tell me they are enjoying knowing their next learning steps. With this information schools can now turn numbers into names into needs so that five out of five can succeed.Chris Hipkins: What confidence can parents have that national standards data represents an accurate picture of student achievement when the Ministry of Education is advising schools in writing to arbitrarily adjust their results from below standard to above standard in order to make their schools data add up?Hon HEKIA PARATA: That is absolute rubbish. That is not what is happening. What is happening is that the Ministry of Education is checking totals with schools is checking whether the data would disclose privacy issues and is reporting exactly what schools are telling it with those results.Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table an email from the Ministry of Education to Valley School in Pukekohe advising it to manipulate its data. It is dated 9 May. I have removed the name of the official who sent it.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Chris Hipkins: Why should parents have confidence in the national standards data when the principal involved has stated “What they are suggesting I do is in fact manipulate my data to make it fit. In this case it would make my data look better as I would now have no Asian students in the ‘below’ category and three more Asian students in the ‘above’ category.” and that principal further went on to say “I feel sorry for all parents and communities who look at the 2013 national standards data and make assumptions about school performance based on manipulated data and I am appalled at the thought that schools will be judged and ranked based on such data.”?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The answer to the member’s question is in the very quote he read out. He is talking about four Asian students. In a school they would be identifiable if those numbers were used.Chris Hipkins: Does it paint an accurate picture of a school’s student achievement if the Ministry of Education is advising schools to adjust the results of students that the school has ranked as being below the standard to be above the standard?Hon HEKIA PARATA: It seems that the member is unable to process the answers I have been giving him. There is—Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes I agree. I agree that it is extremely funny. The conflict here is the balance of managing the privacy of students where the numbers are so low in a school that the students would be recognised. The member’s own evidence was that we were talking—Chris Hipkins: Make the numbers up.Hon HEKIA PARATA: Perhaps the member would like to listen. We were talking about four students—four students of a particular ethnicity being disclosed. That is not manipulation. That is in accordance with the 1993 Privacy Act.Chris Hipkins: How does it accurately represent student achievement at a school when a school is being advised by the Ministry of Education to change data so that students whom the school has assessed as being below the standard are now reflected in the school’s data as being above the standard?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I absolutely reject the assertion that the ministry is adjusting its reporting. The ministry is certainly working in terms of protecting privacy. The information that is provided by schools is what is reported. Therefore parents the public and everyone can look at that information and it will be available to them. Actually it provides a systematic report to parents about what is happening unlike Labour which is promising to replace—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That answer is now sufficient.Fisheries Policy—Commercial and Recreational Fishing9.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First)to the Minister for Primary Industries: Is he satisfied with all aspects of fisheries policy including progress relating to the ongoing use of Foreign Charter Vessels?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):Yes. The member will be aware that the foreign charter vessels bill is currently awaiting the Committee of the whole House stage. This is another key piece of work that will protect our international reputation and trade access and will maximise the economic return to New Zealand from our fisheries resources. 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. With only a few days left of House time this bill is highly unlikely to pass under this Parliament but I am very confident that the bill will proceed under the new Parliament given its broad support.Richard Prosser: Given that answer will he also adopt New Zealand First’s policy of excluding all trawlers from the inshore fishery inside the 12-mile limit in order to assist in the regeneration of fish stocks and to ensure that recreational fishers have access to satisfactory catches?Hon NATHAN GUY: I have not studied New Zealand First policy but what I will say is that it sounds better than Labour’s policy which is to bring in a recreational fishing licence for all recreational fishers.Richard Prosser: Can he give the House a commitment that he will adopt New Zealand First’s policy—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That misrepresentation of Labour Party policy by the Minister was out of order and—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has been here a long time. He knows the rules. If he feels that there has been a misrepresentation a false statement then he knows to use Standing Order 355.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I thought that was the reason we had a Standing Order that said it was out of order for a Minister to represent what other parties’ policies were—because they have no responsibility for them.Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point the member is making which is that it was not helpful for the Minister to comment on Labour Party policy. The difficulty was that when the question was raised it was raised by a New Zealand First member of Parliament asking for particular comment on New Zealand First policy. The Minister—unhelpfully to the House I accept—then commented on that and equally on another party’s policy.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Rather than going through a pile of points of order this afternoon over whether or not the Minister should have said it it would be very easy for the Labour Opposition to seek the opportunity to make a personal statement clearing up its intention to introduce recreational fishing licences.Mr SPEAKER: That is for a member—if a member is offended by it and wants to take that course of action we will consider it.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify before I deal with this matter whether it is a completely fresh point of order. I have dealt with the other matter. [Interruption] Order! If the member wants clarification I invite him to come and see me afterwards. If the member wants to raise a fresh point of order I will hear about it but I am not having matters relitigated on the floor of this House.Hon David Parker: I cannot understand how a question from New Zealand First that results in misrepresentation of Labour Party policy can be an answer that is within the Standing Orders. I seek clarification as to whether you were making—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. I have advised the member if he feels there has been a case of misrepresentation to refer to the Standing Orders and to use Standing Order 355.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table a record of the meeting at which the Labour candidate for Marlborough said that they would introduce a fishing licence.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify whether it is a media article.Hon Dr Nick Smith: No it is a statement from a member of the public who was at the meeting. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is easily resolved. It is for the House to make a decision.Hon David Parker: Does the document exist?Mr SPEAKER: The document clearly exists because the member is seeking to table it. [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. When I am on my feet—[Interruption] Order! You are very close to being asked to leave the Chamber Mr Parker. When I am on my feet all members will be quiet. There is clearly a document because the Hon Dr Smith has said he wishes to table it. It is a very serious offence in this House if he seeks to table a document that does not exist. I will therefore put the leave and the House will decide whether it wants to accept that document. Leave is sought to table this particular statement. Is there any objection?Hon David Cunliffe: Is it a media article?Mr SPEAKER: We have clarified for the sake of the—[Interruption] Order! For the benefit of the Hon David Cunliffe I have already clarified from the Hon Dr Nick Smith that it is not a media article; it is a statement that was written by an attendee at the meeting. [Interruption] Order! I say to the Hon David Parker. Leave is now sought to table that document. It is in the hands of the House. If any member objects it will not be tabled. I put the leave. Is there any objection? There is.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to draw to your attention Standing Orders 354 and 355 which go to personal explanations and misrepresentations of members. I think we were invited to take a point of order under one of those if we felt we had been misrepresented. My submission to you is that neither of those can be used where someone is trying to correct a matter to do with a party’s policy as opposed to a member’s personal situation or a comment that a member made.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: No I do not need assistance from the member. I am going to offer the member a further avenue for correcting this matter. In the not too distant future when we finish question time there will be a general debate. That will be an opportunity if the members want to do so.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It may be helpful for you to offer Opposition members the opportunity to use some of their general debate time to clear this matter up—and I am sure they will want to—but the premise that is put by Mr Mallard is wrong. A member over the other side can easily say “I do not support our Marlborough candidate with his recreational”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think that point of order is going to help the order of the House. I have resolved the matter.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a separate matter. I seek leave to table a document from the Parliamentary Library that shows that the increase in percentage terms of gross sovereign debt during World War II was less than the proportionate increase in gross sovereign debt under the current National Government.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. The document has been prepared for the member by the Parliamentary Library. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Richard Prosser: Can he give the House a commitment that he will adopt a policy of setting consistent minimum size catch limits for both recreational and commercial fishers; if not why not?Hon NATHAN GUY: The member will be aware that there are already provisions that have been made under Snapper 1 where we are really focused on ensuring that we have more reporting coming through. We have got cameras under trial we have got vessel monitoring systems coming in in October this year there are move-on rules and there are observers currently operating on foreign charter vessels.Richard Prosser: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very good answer but in fairness the question was actually whether he would make a commitment to consistent sizes and that was not addressed.Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the member—I suspect it probably was answered to be honest but I will give the member the benefit of the doubt and I will invite him to ask the question again.Richard Prosser: Can he give the House a commitment that he will adopt a policy of setting consistent minimum size catch limits for both recreational and commercial fishers; if not why not?Hon NATHAN GUY: We already have that in place. We have a world-leading quota management system. We have sustainability fishing rounds where we work through those fishing stocks. It is also important to note that our quota management system is one of the best in the world.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is he able to give the House any idea of how many people in New Zealand might be impeded in their desire to go and catch a fish if they had to have a recreational licence for salt-water fishing as proposed by the Labour Party?Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That question is well outside of the Standing Orders because it includes matters for which the Minister is not responsible and Mr Brownlee is also making it up as well.Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to allow the question as asked but I am going to invite the member to re-ask the question without the last bit. If he wants to know how many recreational fishers might be affected by such a policy that is acceptable but do not attribute it to any political party in this House.Hon Gerry Brownlee: If a recreational fishing licence was required for salt-water fishing is he able to estimate how many New Zealanders may be denied the opportunity to catch fish on the seashore or on their boat on the ocean?Hon NATHAN GUY: My understanding is hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders really enjoy recreational fishing. I cannot believe that anyone would be proposing bringing in a recreational licence scheme. That would go down like a cup of sick with all of our Kiwi mum and dad fishers who really enjoy taking their children out and catching fish.Richard Prosser: Why has the Government not taken effective action over the past 6 years to end the dumping of fish at sea by commercial fishers?Hon NATHAN GUY: Well if the member followed the progress that we are making with the Primary Growth Partnership he would be aware of the fact that there is a fantastic innovative net design that is currently being trialled. It allows for fish to be caught alive for fish to come on board the vessel alive and for potentially new export markets to open up where fish are transported alive into high-value premium markets. This is a very exciting innovative idea backed by the industry backed by the Government and even supported by the Labour Party leader David Cunliffe—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Richard Prosser: Will he commit to securing the best possible economic return to New Zealand from our fisheries resource by adopting a policy of requiring all fish caught by commercial fishers in New Zealand waters to be landed in New Zealand and processed in New Zealand; if not why not?Hon NATHAN GUY: The member will be aware I am sure that fish caught in New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone have to be landed in New Zealand. The majority of fresh fish bought by Kiwi mums and dads is indeed processed in New Zealand. I have just outlined initiatives where we are going to continue to add value to our fish with the Primary Growth Partnership. It is also worth mentioning to the member that we have three fishing stocks that have been certified by the Marine Stewardship Council which is fantastic and the industry is working on getting more of those certified. This is a gold-plated system where we get endorsements about high quality and high value from a sustainable fishing source.Crime Statistics—Reporting10.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour)to the Minister of Justice: Is she confident in the progress of the Better Public Services target for the justice sector to reduce overall crime by 15 percent by June 2017?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):Yes.Andrew Little: How can she be confident that crime is reducing when according to the New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse family violence investigations increased from 86800 in 2010 to 95100 last year and yet her crime figures show a drop?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually we have confidence in the New Zealand police unlike the Labour Party. In addition to that it is a good thing that more people are now reporting family violence. It is certainly something that when many people in this House were growing up no one spoke about and today people have confidence to come forward.Andrew Little: How can she be confident that crime is reducing when there are reports such as the one in the Taranaki Daily News on 10 July this year in which a Crown solicitor confirmed that a police prosecuting sergeant had instructed another officer that he should not have laid as many charges in a particular case because of the need to reduce crime by a certain percentage?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Obviously the Taranaki Daily News is something that we all should be reading. Having said that of course the recorded crime rate is not on the number of prosecutions; it is actually on the reported crime. I am sure that that member if he has a look at his notes would find that I am correct and he is wrong.Andrew Little: Does she accept that as Minister of Justice when she first discovered there had been a misreporting of crime statistics in Counties Manukau she should have passed the information on and done something with the information to see how it would affect her justice sector targets rather than ignoring it because she was no longer police Minister?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well absolutely not. This Government does not deal in rumour and gossip. If of course we did then I might start talking about that member talking to the Sunday Star-Times—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think the answer is going to assist the order.Andrew Little: Will she accept that the combination of arbitrary targets and bonus payments to senior police officers is leading to manipulation and utter deceptive conduct in relation to the recording of crime figures and that New Zealanders can have no confidence that crime is reducing as the Government claims?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No that is an outrageous suggestion to make—that the New Zealand police would ever as a body engage in that sort of behaviour. The New Zealand police are the finest police in the world and I am proud to be part of a Government that supports the police and gives them the tools to do what they need to do. They are fantastic. I am ashamed that that member would say it. He should be saying sorry just like his leader always does.Freshwater Management—Water Quality of Rivers11.EUGENIE SAGE (Green)to the Minister for the Environment: Does the Government’s National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management require the 61 percent of monitored recreational river sites that are graded “poor” or “very poor” to be safe for swimming?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment):The national policy statement requires all fresh water to be at a level that experts tell us will protect aquatic species and human health. Beyond that it does not set requirements on a river-by-river basis. They are national standards and above the bottom lines it is for each community to decide what goal will be set in each case.Eugenie Sage: Does she think it acceptable that these sites chosen because they are popular for swimming are actually too polluted to safely swim at and that her weak bottom lines will not make a difference?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well the member is quite wrong in her assertion. First of all what we are talking about here is 94 sites out of a total of 425000 kilometres of waterways and even fewer than that actually measuring as potentially at risk and even those are generally safe for swimming most of the time.Eugenie Sage: When the Minister said that we need to manage popular lake and river swimming spots for swimming did that include the Waikirikiri Selwyn River on her doorstep which has multiple sites that are unsafe for swimming and which her national bottom line—that rivers have to be fit only for wading and not for swimming—will not clean up?Hon AMY ADAMS: What we have said consistently is that we trust local communities to know which sites they want to protect for swimming and to take the necessary steps to do that. I back my community to make decisions about what it wants to protect for swimming and I am not going to impose costs on every community every business and every household in New Zealand because the Greens want every drainage ditch to be managed as if it was a swimming pool. It is ludicrous.Eugenie Sage: What advice has the Minister had on the cost to local authorities of multiple regional plan processes and court litigation that result from her decision to leave it to councils to determine whether rivers should be clean and safe for swimming rather than having a national bottom line?Hon AMY ADAMS: What I can tell that member is that of course at the moment—and the situation that that member’s party was quite happy with when it was in a position to do something about it—these decisions are entirely for councils the difference being that at the moment the Government provides no assistance no national consistency and no standardised science. That is what we have done and that will significantly reduce the time and the cost on each community in making those decisions. I am just surprised that member does not back local communities.Eugenie Sage: Can the Minister confirm that she is abandoning annual reporting on recreational river quality in the suitability for swimming indicator report because the National Government is trying to hide the bad news?Hon AMY ADAMS: That member well knows that we are moving to the most comprehensive system of environmental reporting that this country has ever had under which water quality will be reported twice in every 3 years—a system by the way that did not exist in 2007 when the Greens were propping up a Labour Government that picked and chose what information it wanted to give to the public.Aotea Conservation Park Auckland—Establishment12.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki)to the Minister of Conservation: When will the new Aotea Conservation Park in Auckland announced on Sunday be formally gazetted and opened?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation):I have made the decision to proceed with the Aotea Conservation Park proposed by local MP Nikki Kaye last October but the formal gazettal and opening has been delayed by the recent storm damage to tracks and facilities on the island. The decision to proceed with the new park enables the tracks and facilities to be rebuilt to the higher standard and to recognise the new Aotea Conservation Park. This is expected to cost $2.5 million and will be completed over summer. The Department of Conservation’s intention is to open the new park early next year.Simon O’Connor: How does this new park compare with others in Auckland and were any changes made during the process of consultation?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new park is 12109 hectares and it will be the largest Department of Conservation park in Auckland. It will be similar in size to the two regional parks in the Hunua and Waitakere ranges. The significance of this park is that it is the largest forest that is possum and stoat - free anywhere in New Zealand. It is particularly rich in trees like pōhutukawa kauri and tree daisy and birds like kākā and brown teal and it has the largest population of black petrel anywhere in New Zealand. There were 2800 submissions on the proposal. On the basis of representations from the Auckland Council I decided to exclude a small area that it required for a small cemetery.General DebateHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. In the general debate this afternoon I think we should on this occasion start with apologies. I think we should start with apologies. I would like to lead off with a few apologies. No. 1: I am sorry for being a man. Has that been done before? [Interruption] Oh OK I will try this one—I will try another one. I am sorry for having a holiday.Hon Bill English: That’s been done before too.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Oh OK. I am sorry for wearing a red scarf. [Interruption] No. Oh I know—I am sorry for having a moa resuscitation plan. That has got to be new—that has got to be new. [Interruption] No? Another one—for you Mr Speaker: I am sorry for having a secret trust. That would be—Hon Bill English: No that’s been done.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That has been done? I am sorry for not telling you about my secret trust Mr Speaker. Has that been done? And most of all Mr Speaker I am sorry you found out about my secret trust. I have another one: I am sorry for being tricky. That has been done before? Well we have seen a lot of apologies but from now on I am going to be straight up. I am going to stick to the Labour knitting. That is what I am going to do with the exception of the scarf.This train is leaving the station. It has left a few times before but this time it is definitely leaving the station. This is my team. This is my team except to be fair Shane Jones. He is not on the team any more no. Dover Samuels—he is not on the team any more. Andrew Little—he is not really on the team any more. Damien O’Connor and Rino Tirikatene—they are not really on the team because they crossed the floor. But aside from Shane Jones Dover Samuels Andrew Little Damien O’Connor and Rino Tirikatene this is my team.Hon Member: What about Annette?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well actually not Annette. She is not really on the team either or Phil because they work hard. They get out in the country working hard. Clayton is not really on the team. To be fair I do not think he has ever been on the team. Trevor is not so much on the team—not really on the team. But aside from Shane Dover Andrew Damien Rino Annette Phil Clayton and Trevor this is my team. This is my team. Well actually you have got to exclude Grant to be fair because Grant is not really on my team or David Parker—he is not on the team—or Chris Hipkins. He is not on it.I am not sure about Stuart Nash. I think he is on the team. He must be on the team because he said: “It wasn’t me.” He said in the Hawke’s Bay Today that he denies the claim that he criticised Cunliffe although on the other hand he also said this: “I must admit when I read it [the newspaper quoting the party source] apart from the swearing it sounds a little bit like me.” “It sounded like me.” Mr Nash said. And he said that he was not the source and that the comments could have come from “any of the 15000 members who were out putting up hoardings in the rain or delivering pamphlets in the cold or this sort of carry-on”.So this is my team except for Shane Jones Dover Samuels Andrew Little Damien O’Connor Rino Tirikatene Annette King Phil Goff Clayton Cosgrove Trevor Mallard Grant Robertson David Parker Chris Hipkins Kelvin Davis Stuart Nash and the 15000 members of the Labour Party who would have said what I did not say in the newspaper. That is my team. It is game on—it is game on. The Labour Party is marching to the election united as a single team. That is what is going on. And of course we now have the regional growth policy which we share with the Greens.The regional growth policy—here it is. It is out today: one put a capital gains tax on every productive business; two have a carbon tax at five times the current price; three introduce big levies for the use of fresh water; four restore a national awards system which would force regional employers to pay what they pay in Auckland; five stop any more trade deals; six clamp down on the dairy industry; seven clamp down on the oil and gas industry. And then the coup de grâce when that has all been done and the regions have all fallen over is to give them a $200 million slush fund to make them feel better. The Labour Party should apologise for that as well.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):For a time during that speech from Mr Joyce I thought that his underpants were on too tight. New Zealand First wishes to raise an important matter going directly to competent accountable Government. We are aware of serious complaints against a Mr Bryan Staples and his companies operating in Christchurch on a range of matters. Reliable information has come to us of a long list of fraudulent practices carried out by Bryan Staples and his various companies. Mr Bryan Staples has used his companies to defraud mislead and cheat people—[Interruption]—and it is not a laughing matter I say for Jami-Lee Whyte’s benefit. We want to set out the nature of the serious concerns that we are raising today which have been raised with authorities which have clearly failed to act to apprehend and stop this man’s so-called business activities.The main activity of complaint was his companies’ purporting to carry out technical inspections of properties for earthquake compensation purposes which neither he nor his companies and the people they employed were qualified to do.Hon Gerry Brownlee: That’s right.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is not a laughing matter Mr Brownlee. They were paid but did not actually provide genuine technical reports. The reports supplied were useless. His companies and Mr Staples also employed a number of subcontractors who carried out work on damaged properties. Mr Staples and his companies got paid but the subcontractors did not I say to Mr Jami-Lee Whyte—Hon Members: Ha ha!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —Ross rather. We understand that he and his companies had no intention of paying numerous subcontractors.Mr Staples carried out work and registered for GST as a business and he accepted payment for work which he then issued GST invoices for but he did not file returns nor pay the GST. It would also appear that Mr Staples directly instructed his company and his employees not to pay GST. It appears he employed the old tactic that whenever people demanded payment he began to pretend that there was a dispute. Then Mr Staples would use every delaying tactic possible never intending to actually defend any claim nor pay any part of it.He also brought in Filipino workers under contract. There are two issues. How did he get these people by Immigration New Zealand and the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment and how did he influence those two departments to allow these people in? It is clear from the evidence that he had no intention of treating these immigrant workers lawfully which raises the issue of why before they obtained immigration status these two departments did not do due diligence to avoid such breaches of our employment law. The second issue is that he simply did not pay these Filipino workers. He left them in dire straits. He and his companies failed to make Inland Revenue Department returns or make payments of PAYE tax for the Filipino workers. He instructed his company employees not to file PAYE returns and not to pay their PAYE taxes. The list goes on but in the time available those are the main matters that we have got to say today.My concern is that if New Zealand First is aware of them what on earth is going on with the Minister and the relevant Government departments? The Inland Revenue Department the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment the Serious Fraud Office—what have they been doing? There has been no firm action from these agencies.Hon Gerry Brownlee: You were backing Mr Staples 12 months ago.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I ask Mr Brownlee to stop bleating and explain what you have not done. Why do you not get off your broad half-back and do something for these people down there who are not being paid and being robbed blind as immigrants? The so-called pro-immigrant party could not give a tinker’s damn about them.Mr Staples is the man of course who has been painting himself on TV as the modern Robin Hood. Well he is halfway there. He is taking from ordinary people but he is not giving to the poor. He is Robin Hood in reverse. Mr Brownlee and Mr Dunne and Mr Joyce—what have you not done and why have you not done it?I want to close with this statement about an MP who is now escaping scrutiny by Parliament and by the media because she has gone to ground. You see she misused her credit card.Hon Judith Collins: Oh $150.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh no no. Mr Key made the call on Sunday night because there were blatant financial irregularities that neither she nor the National Party could reconcile. That is a fact. The second thing is that Mr Key said that her breaches were unintentional and that he was “not aware of further misspending”. Then he claimed that he did not have any advice on that. That is false. He does. I want to know why someone can just say “I’m not standing at the next election.” and there is no punishment no chastisement. She just says “I’m not going to stand.” and goes to September being paid full pay as an MP and then for 3 months after that.Andrew Williams: Five more months.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: For 5 more months—someone who has badly breached the parliamentary rules far beyond $200 the lousy amount that those Ministers over there are shouting about. You have got the Minister of Police and all sorts of Ministers all the way to the Prime Minister giving assurances. Let me tell you about Mr Key’s statement. He said: “I pledge greater transparency”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.TE URUROA FLAVELL (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Speaking of individuals not that I do want to I note that Colin Craig wants to be an MP and Colin Craig introduced his latest attempt at a headline by calling it a wild and crazy idea. He is not wrong there. But more than that the Conservative Party’s policies to get rid of the Māori seats shut down the Waitangi Tribunal and implement one law for all are ignorant are dangerous and are not welcome in the political system of our country. It is election time and once again political parties that are in trouble choose to pull the race card out of the hat to scratch the redneck part of our society. I can tell you that Māori are sick of it as is this nation.Politicians have a responsibility to educate and inform not act in such a way as to provoke racial division and tension. New Zealand needs leaders who understand that indigenous rights are human rights that cultural diversity and representation are good for democracy and that the constitutional basis of our nationhood lies in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. I for one am proud to say that this has been the consistent call of the Māori Party since we first entered this Parliament.We want all aspiring members of Parliament to understand that dedicated Māori electorate seats distinguish our democratic process here in Aotearoa. Actually we must not forget that the first race-based law was introduced in 1858 and was called the English Laws Act. It was one single statute that imposed the culture customs and conventions of Britain on all New Zealanders. The Māori electorate seats are a conversation between Māori and the Crown—not for the majority of New Zealand making a decision for a minority.As the Chief Judge of our court Taihākūrei Durie said: “Like the Treaty of Waitangi the Māori parliamentary seats stand as an enduring symbol of their constitutional status—and historic statements of principle like symbols are essential tools in re-building our national identity.” Ever since the English Laws Act we have been in catch-up mode trying to build a more representative Parliament that encompasses all New Zealanders not just those with a British passport. The Māori seats have been an important mechanism to try to protect and develop Māori interests.Colin Craig needs to know that his party has no right—no right—to step in and try to take the rights away from tangata whenua. Only tangata whenua have the right to determine what is in our best interests. As parties to the Treaty Māori should at least be guaranteed representation in the organs of kāwanatanga. In the past Labour tried measures like the Foreshore and Seabed Act and it opposed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—and look how that went down. We have been down that track before and we do not want a repeat run. The reality is that the New Zealand Government after advocacy from the Māori Party signed up to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2010 and it is here to stay.In fact the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that indigenous peoples have the right to participate fully if they so choose at all levels of decision making in matters that affect their rights lives and destinies through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures. So we are where we should be and we should not have to put up with the divisive rants of some.We have had over 170 years of attempts at assimilation from various politicians and parties and we continue to suffer from the consequences of those sorts of policies today. The old assimilation policy is hidden behind a few new terms and slogans such as “one law for all” or “we are all one people we are all Kiwis” and even “some of my best friends are Māori”. But the intention is the same and we know all about that. In this day and age there is no place for political leaders who know nothing about our history and know nothing about us. There is no excuse for being ignorant and we the people will never ever tolerant policies that aim to take away from us without our informed consent. That will not happen. Māori must make decisions about Māori representation.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):It is always a pleasure to follow Mr Te Ururoa Flavell. He is always a thoughtful speaker and I think he has put a lot of effort into what he has had to say today. I would like to say however that I am actually feeling a little bit sorry for David Cunliffe.Dr Cam Calder: No!Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes I am because I know he is sorry for everything. But what I am really sorry about is that poor old David Cunliffe—we saw it today; the lack of discipline in his party. Where was the shadow Leader of the House? Was he popping up and down? No it was David Parker trying to take on that role. Then we had Trevor Mallard trying to take on the role. Then we had Grant Robertson finally getting himself out of his seat to raise a point of order and to try to take over the role. What we saw today in question time were leadership bids going on for post this election.Poor old David Cunliffe. You would have to wonder. He has had so much advice given to him today. I think the press was pretty good today. Members of the press told him to stop saying sorry. Actually he cannot. He has started now. He is sorry for being a man. Well I can tell the House that 49 percent of New Zealanders are men. They should not be sorry for being men just as someone like me who is a mother is not sorry for being a mother even though there are some mothers who kill their children or beat them or whatever. I am not sorry for being a mother. What I am sorry for is that they are mothers. That is what David Cunliffe should be saying. Instead what he said to all men in New Zealand was that they too should feel ashamed.He was also sorry to be on holiday. Well he should just stay away really. He is sorry for not knowing what was happening in the polls. He would be the only one in New Zealand who was not aware. He is sorry that he has got Trevor Mallard on the moa farm. I think it is fair enough that Trevor Mallard wants a moa farm. It would be a bit funny if he had a duck farm would it not? He is sorry he has got a do-up in the elite suburb of Herne Bay. He is sorry that Grant Robertson spent 3 years of parliamentary time talking about the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB). It is not an issue I have to say that anyone in the Papakura electorate has raised with me. That is probably because we have got an army camp in the town and they actually like having some help from the GCSB.I would also say to that member—what is his name? Williams from New Zealand First—Mr Williams. I cannot remember his first name sorry. He has got a policy about drunkenness in a public place. I bet he is sorry too. I bet he is sorry. I just wonder whether his leader thinks that Parliament is a public place or else he will be sorry as well.Labour has got a man ban. Its members are sorry about that. But I thought apart from the man ban what was really good what I really loved was the cosmetics ban. Who did they have to run it? Trevor Mallard. What would Trevor know about cosmetics? What would Trevor know? I see Su’a William Sio laughing away because he would have thought that there are lots of other people in the Labour Party who are much better qualified than Trevor to run an anti-cosmetics campaign.Then we would have to say that David Cunliffe could also be sorry for undermining Phil Goff when he was leader. He could be sorry for undermining David Shearer. But I think most of all he should be sorry for being so jealous of Shane Jones that he drove him out of Parliament. That is what he really should be sorry about because Shane actually has charisma and a personality and he has got followers which poor old David Cunliffe does not have.But over on this side we are not sorry at all. We are really proud of the hard work that we are doing. In the justice sector we are so proud of the police and of corrections staff. I am proud of my colleagues I am proud of the courts and I am proud of my Ministry of Justice. I am proud of the team that we have—the Attorney-General the Minister for Courts the Minister of Police and the Minister of Corrections. I am proud of the fact that we have a team that is united and working for New Zealand not working for the Labour Party flunkeys over on the other side of the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour):For the National Government members of course it is politics as usual this afternoon along with their lame jokes and their nasty little gibes that they are coming out with. Meanwhile the regions lie bleeding—meanwhile the regions lie bleeding—and they laugh. Anne Tolley finds that funny. Well Mrs Tolley go and face those 114 workers in Hamilton who have had news today that their jobs are going. Laugh in their faces and see how that one goes. On this side of the House we are talking about the issues that matter to people—the issues that matter to people—because those people under that Government are losing their jobs. It is not only those people but their families who will be affected. There are 114 more jobs going from the Hamilton economy as if we can afford that. This comes on the back of 130 jobs going from New Zealand Post—yes a Government-owned entity. One hundred and thirty jobs had already gone from New Zealand Post in Hamilton—yes a Government-owned entity—from their distribution centre. About 200 jobs have gone from the Huntly mines over the course of the last few years—yes a Government-owned entity. The Government is pulling out of town in Hamilton and it is hurting. It is hurting our economy. But there are other jobs that are going as well—120 jobs went a few months ago from the Goodman Fielder factory in Frankton the Hutton’s plant and 180 jobs are set to go next year from AgResearch in Ruakura Hamilton—yes a Government-owned entity. The Government is pulling out big time in our city. Unemployment is going up and the economy is suffering as a result.The members over there have gone a little quiet. Well so they should because in the Waikato region unemployment is going up—it is going up. In March 2013 when you could have argued that the global financial crisis was still at its height there was 5.6 percent unemployment in the Waikato region. In March 2014 when we were supposed to be climbing out of the global financial crisis there was 7 percent unemployment in the Waikato region. It is going backwards and that is under the National Government. Unemployment is rising and GDP per capita is going backwards in that same region. Yet the Waikato region should be humming. It should be humming. It is coming off the back of the highest dairy prices that we have ever had in this country. In the Waikato region that should mean plenty of jobs and better economic activity. But under this sorry Government with its lack of a regional economic development plan guess what? Unemployment is going up in the Waikato. It is the dairy giant region of the world and this Government cannot get it right.What is the Government doing in the Waikato region in an area that should be humming with the high dairy prices that there have been? Well it is pulling out the agricultural scientists from the Waikato region. How dumb is that? This is from a Government that has no strategy for delivering to regions’ strengths. When those 180 jobs come out of Ruakura there will be more money out of our local economy and there will be more jobs down the track after that. As it is there are 114 jobs under threat today at Canpac in Te Rapa in the electorate of Tim Macindoe. He asked a question at question time today about regional economies and not once did he mention the 114 jobs going in his own electorate because he does not care. He does not care about those jobs going and I think that is a disgrace. But with those jobs going $6 million in spent wages will come out of the local Hamilton economy every year from losing those jobs. Do you know what is going to happen next under this Government? There will be more jobs from our local economy after those wages stop being spent there.A Labour-led Government has a plan for regions like the Waikato. We just yesterday announced a plan to put $200 million into the regions to ensure that we can actually create jobs improve economies and take care of the regions. Well they may joke while the regions lie bleeding but in the Labour Party we are making a plan for regional economic development so that we can actually improve those economies get jobs in there help families and make a difference.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce):I would first of all like to acknowledge my colleague my good mate the Hon Chris Tremain CJ who has obviously just run a quick triathlon or something in the last 40 minutes. It seems like just yesterday that the two of us turned the bay “blue”. CJ turned the good seat of Napier to National after 52-odd years of Labour representation—a feat that will go down in history. He has done such an awesome job with his passion for and love of our province and Napier. He is just a top man. Also his achieving the status of Cabinet Minister the first Napier MP to be a Cabinet Minister—CJ you’ve done really well mate.The joint sheer drive between myself and Chris for an even better Hawke’s Bay being relentlessly positive for our beautiful bay has been recognised by the good people and the voters in the Hawke’s Bay as the party vote for National across the Hawke’s Bay has increased in each and every single election since. In fact it has increased to the point where my opponent and the Opposition candidates up there this time are not even campaigning for the party vote. They are not even on the list this time. I have got plenty of stories I would love to tell. I have got only a few minutes but I also know that Chris’ valedictory is pretty soon and he will have the last word so I had better not wind him up too much.Of course there has been interesting attention on the regions in the last few days—fair enough—but I would just like to note that like the rest of New Zealand the region of the Hawke’s Bay is actually performing very very well. It has awesome opportunities in front of it and good leadership and there is commitment faith and confidence in our region. We will continue to absolutely fly.Interestingly with Labour’s announcement yesterday I would just like to note that the last time Labour paid any attention to the province of Hawke’s Bay or the region was actually when one David Cunliffe as health Minister sacked our district health board. Incidentally the health board has since been essentially re-elected and essentially unchanged twice. I do note that his last commentary on the Hawke’s Bay was his famous quote where he described our health board of the time—remember this is the man who wants to be New Zealand’s Prime Minister—and he overreached. Yes there was a situation in the Hawke’s Bay. He overegged it. He overreached and basically he stuffed it up. He described the good members of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board at that time as a nasty mess of self-perpetuating provincial elites. That is from the mouth of the person who wants to be the Prime Minister for New Zealand and the regions. We should note that that was the last time he paid any attention.Incidentally he is now busy saying sorry for being a man. He is saying sorry for wearing a scarf. He is saying sorry for being sorry. He is saying sorry for all sorts of things. But you know what? It would not take much but he is yet to apologise and say sorry for what he did to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board. Yes it was a few years ago but quite frankly that shows the nature of the man who wants to be the Prime Minister of New Zealand. If anyone wants to know what he is like under pressure have a look at how he reacted have a look at the paperwork and have a look at the affidavits of what he did to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.National is continuing to promote initiatives across the country and in the regions. Hawke’s Bay is one. Across the Hawke’s Bay due to our policies we have seen 27 more full-time equivalent doctors. We have seen 116 more full-time equivalent nurses across the Hawke’s Bay just in the last few years. There is about a 100 percent increase in foot patrols of police on the beat in eastern districts in 2013 and crime is low. There has been an investment of $2 million in the clean-up of rivers in the Hawke’s Bay and 13322 Hawke’s Bay homes have been insulated because of the good policies of this National Government.I acknowledge again my good mate CJ Tremain. Hawke’s Bay is in a much better state because of the work you have done and because of your passion for our province. Cheers.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green):Together it is possible to build a cleaner fairer smarter New Zealand—a New Zealand in which our rivers are clean enough to swim in again and our beaches are safe from oil spills a New Zealand in which every child has enough to thrive and a New Zealand that is built on a smarter greener economy that benefits every one of us.However this vision of a richer country is not the New Zealand that National has left after 6 years in Government. Under National two-thirds of our monitored river swimming sites are now so polluted that they are considered unsafe for swimming. Swimmable rivers are a birthright of our children but the opportunity to swim in our sea and our rivers is not the only birthright that National is denying our children. There are 35000 more children in severe poverty in New Zealand now than when the National Party was elected to Government. Fifty percent of all New Zealanders have seen no real increase in their net income at all once housing costs are taken into account.It is really no surprise that only a small number of New Zealanders are getting ahead under this Government. National’s pollution economy is jobs poor. It favours low-value simple commodities over high-value innovation. Evidence of National turning its back on an innovation economy is its plan to cut Government research and development spending by 10 percent in real terms over the next 3 years according to its own statistics. Three more years of National is not a safe option for New Zealand. Three more years will put our environment our children and our economy at risk.The Green Party has a comprehensive plan for a cleaner fairer smarter New Zealand. We will make our rivers clean enough to swim in once again. In Government the Greens will establish a protective rivers network to permanently safeguard our most precious rivers. We protect the best of our habitats and our landscapes in national parks; we can do the same for our rivers. We will also keep our wild rivers wild by not building any new dams on our wild rivers. We will put in place proper water rules that ensure that no New Zealand river is allowed to degrade further and that our rivers and lakes are clean enough for swimming once more.New Zealanders have a choice: the Green Party’s plan for rivers that are clean enough to swim in or National’s plan for polluted rivers that are so polluted that even if you touch them if you dip your toe in them you have a serious risk of a serious infection. I know which option I prefer.Persistent and damaging poverty and inequality another legacy of this Government grate with the sense of who we are as a nation. But child poverty can be eliminated. We need to have a plan and the Green Party has a credible and costed plan to ensure that all New Zealand children have enough to thrive. For a start in Government the Green Party will extend the 20 hours early childcare subsidy to every 2-year-old. For parents of the 40000 children aged between 2 and 3 years who currently miss out on the 20 hours of funding support this will mean they will be up to $95 a week better off.At the same time as reducing the cost of early childhood education to parents we will embark on an ambitious plan to improve the quality of early childhood education for all our children starting with restoring full funding to those centres that employ 100 percent trained teachers. Good quality early childhood education has a profound lifelong impact on a child one the Government simply does not understand. It can mean starting school ready to learn and being in a position to get the most out of education. Research shows that investing in early childhood education is one of the most effective investments a society can make. For every dollar spent on early childhood education between $3 and $16 is returned. The Greens will invest in our kids so they can thrive and we will get them out of National’s poverty trap.It is time also to get serious about building a smarter economy. If we want to provide for our social needs and aspirations we need to be at least as innovative as other nations. That means making high value-added manufactured goods and services and not simply selling commodities like raw logs and milk powder as is the National Party’s plan. To kick start a transformational shift in how our economy creates wealth the Green Party will invest $1 billion in new Government funding into research and development unlike cutting it as the Government proposes. We will also fund an additional 1000 places at tertiary institutions for students of engineering mathematics computer science—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei):That speech by Russel Norman was without a doubt one of the most boring obituaries I have ever heard in my life. It was in my view a gross misuse of facts to run down rural New Zealand. It will not help our cause. Regional New Zealand has faced its share of challenges in the past 40 years as our population and economy have adjusted and acclimatised to change. The progress we have made in the past 6 years under this Government is now having positive effects as the buoyant world food market and demand lifts farmer confidence optimism and ability to invest further in their industry. New tourism initiatives such as the Forgotten World Adventures cycle trails and walking tracks are appearing. The growth in these businesses is leading to new opportunities for growth and investment in our regions.The announcement in Levin last week by Ministers Joyce and Guy of an ambitious plan to double my region’s agribusiness production by 2025 after some early feasibility studies by mayors Margaret Kouvelis and Jono Naylor who of course is the very good candidate for National in Palmerston North is another example of a proactive Government determined to enable our regions. The interesting point to note is that this agribusiness strategy is not all about increasing agricultural production as the previous speaker would have us believe. It includes science tourism and the manufacturing sectors which complement our traditional farming activities.Fresh water is critical to the future of our country and the Rangitīkei as tourism and farming rely heavily on our pristine environment for our futures. The Government has invested heavily in this area adding a further $12 million to it in the Budget just passed. This is on top of $350 million already committed to lake and river clean-ups and the $101 million already spent in this Government’s term. The Rangitīkei has three of New Zealand’s major rivers—the beautiful Whanganui River which is a beautiful river and a great tourism opportunity for that region and certainly for the electorate of the member sitting next to me; the Manawatū the subject already of a considerable amount of clean-up funding and of course New Zealand’s first river accord; and of course the Rangitīkei one of the best fishing rivers in New Zealand.National has also developed the Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research centre in Palmerston North in partnership with AgResearch and nine other partners. This as it progresses will add significantly to our contribution to climate change measures and increase our productivity. The other key measure adding to the productivity in our region announced in the past few weeks is the increase in the regional roading spend. In my region the replacement of the Whirokino trestle bridge south of Foxton which is over 1.5 kilometres long when completed will take some 30 kilometres off the trip for the average heavy truck from the central North Island to Wellington—30 kilometres. Add this to the Ōtaki to Wellington roading improvements including the capital expressway and Transmission Gully and the benefit to the central North Island will be significant. The Tongariro and Whanganui National Parks are a huge resource for the people of Rangitīkei. Winter sports walking boating and cycling are growing at a great rate. On top of this we have a net migration inflow of people into the region in the last month an increase in population and a drop in unemployment. Despite the wailings of Labour and the Greens this Government has made significant investment in the future of regional New Zealand and we are seeing the benefits in our region.One of the key challenges that our rural councils face is managing demand for access to our vast network of paper roads and careful thought will need to be given to the future management of these. The Walking Access Commission has started this work but there is much to do and funding will be required in the future to complete this work.I want to briefly acknowledge the huge role that Tariana Turia has played in the Māori communities throughout my region and congratulate her as she leaves this place on making such a great contribution to the welfare of so many. I want to briefly note the work done by Ngāti Apa in the south of the Rangitīkei particularly in the social field and now with the acquisition of Flock House and the subsequent partnership they have formed to farm this historic property. It will be the forerunner of things to come and perhaps the trendsetter to help unlock the vast potential of Māori land in New Zealand.In Taumarunui the Kōkiri Trust is achieving fantastic results in areas such as health education work projects and aged care under the leadership of Christine Brears—another initiative from and thanks again to the great work of Minister Turia. Finally I want to acknowledge the time that my north-western neighbour Shane Ardern has spent working for the people of the north of the Rangitīkei. In the hill country of the North Island boundaries are obscure and challenges are the same wherever you live. Thank you.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti):Tēnā koe e Te Kaiwhakahaere o te Whare nei ā tēnā tātou katoa ngā mema o te Whare nei i runga i te kaupapa whakahirahira o tēnei wiki te wiki o tō tātou reo o ō tātou rangatira. Nō reira tēnā tātou katoa.[Greetings to you Mr Speaker of the House and to you all members of this House in regards to the matter of significance during this week the week of our language and of our chiefs. So acknowledgments to you all.]The country deserves better. The regions deserve better. As a proud member of Ikaroa-Rāwhiti I think Ikaroa-Rāwhiti deserves better. This is a time and a place to put our plans out so that the people of this country can see what type of leadership we require in this country. Ikaroa-Rāwhiti to remind our members is about 657 kilometres in distance it takes about 9½ hours to drive there and for the last 2 weeks I cannot escape the reality that is confronting the constituents whom I come to this House to represent. I have visited towns like Gisborne Wairoa Napier Hastings Dannevirke Masterton and Upper and Lower Hutt. In those 2 weeks I got to move around. I got to speak with mayors of local councils I got to speak to providers of social services and I got to speak to deliverers of business support throughout my electorate. I can quite categorically tell you that there is struggle throughout Ikaroa-Rāwhiti.On the weekend I was doorknocking in Elgin a place that I am sure the current member for East Coast Anne Tolley has visited often. The feedback from behind the many doors that I knocked on was that people want sustainable well-paid jobs in places like Gisborne. So who are we to believe? Is it this Government which is operating on a two-speed economy one for the rich and one for the people like those in Elgin whom I doorknocked on? They are being ignored and they are being denied the basic rights to look after themselves and their families. That is what we have with this Government. This is what it has delivered to the people of Elgin of the Maraenuis of the Pōmares—the people whom I come to this House to represent. So Government members may get up and say that the economy is doing well but get into those suburbs—Ms Tolley I invite you to go to Elgin and doorknock and hear what they say and in Kaiti.I invite Mr Craig Foss and our departing member Chris Tremain to go and doorknock in Flaxmere and Maraenui. You will hear for yourself—those people are struggling. They are struggling but they want jobs. So I come to this House I listen to what this Government is offering to grow real jobs in the regions and I hear nothing. I hear absolutely nothing. There is no hope for the people of the constituency that I represent. I come here and I hold you to account because what I see is nothing. They are not even getting the bare basics of a well-paying job.This is what Labour will do. We will develop regional growth plans in partnership with local government businesses and iwi to identify opportunities and barriers for growth and work in groups to overcome them. We will make an initial investment of $200 million over 4 years in a regional development fund for projects that will create jobs and growth. We will support manufacturing in the regions through the research and development tax credit accelerated depreciation and our monetary policy upgrade. Yes we will. We will ensure that Government bodies buy from Kiwi manufacturers wherever possible. Let us put our Kiwi businesses ahead of overseas interests. We will redirect capital from housing speculation into productive investment. We are going to appoint a regional development Minister at Cabinet level. That is how serious Labour is about our regions. That is right—a regional development Minister at Cabinet level. We will integrate the regional development fund with a national ports strategy and regional transport investment and we will invest in upgrading regional information and communications technology.We have also got plans for our young people in the regions who are crying out for more education more training and more employment. I have seen in my electorate the closing of Government departments.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki):What is Labour’s policy solution for everything? Talk it down say how bad it really is and then throw some money at it. That will do it—that will absolutely do it. Oh and have a Minister. Labour members say “Let’s form another committee. Let’s have another Minister.” Who is that going to benefit? Oh yes that is right—it is going to benefit themselves.Do you think—or does one think; thank you Mr Assistant Speaker—that after flying in over South Canterbury’s beautiful water storage facility the Ōpuha Dam; the highly productive dairy factories one under full operation one just about to be commissioned; and the most beautiful farms in South Canterbury with grain stores glistening down below and new sheds everywhere including milking sheds and landing at the Timaru airport and this happened last week David Cunliffe apologised to South Canterbury for how badly the region is doing? And as he crossed the brand-new $20 million Kurow bridges with their own cycle lanes creating 150 jobs regionally on the way through the reinvigorated towns of Kurow of Otematata and of Ōmārama following the $3 million Alps 2 Ocean Cycle Trail do you think that Mr Cunliffe apologised to the locals for the new business opportunities and the incredible new tourist traffic that is now running through the region? And do you think after he recovered from his 2 days—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Many times the member has brought me into the debate. You cannot mention “you” being the Speaker.JACQUI DEAN: Thank you so much—thank you so much for your help Mr Assistant Speaker. And do the Assistant Speaker and the members of the House think that once Mr Cunliffe did recover from his 2 days in beddy-byes with his man flu he enjoyed all the magnificence that Queenstown offers from the restaurants to the magnificent high life to the skiing? Some of my spies reported to me that some time last week there was seen on the slopes of Cardrona ski field a man in a red scarf desperately trying to be noticed. But do you think that—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!JACQUI DEAN: Oh right. Thank you so much. Thank you so much. It is just that I am so enthusiastic about the topic I cannot help but try to include the Assistant Speaker in the conversation but I will not do that any more. But does one think that Mr Cunliffe then apologised to the people of Queenstown for how well their local economy is doing with the expansion of the Queenstown airport and with the commitment of Air New Zealand to bringing tourists both domestic and international into the region? And do you think he apologised to the wineries?Do you think—to the House—that David Cunliffe when enjoying a Pinot noir or a little Pinot gris perhaps for his cold apologised to the wineries and said how awful it was for them? And what about the cherry producers the pip fruit producers and the apple producers who are producing so much that this Government had to respond by increasing the Recognised Seasonal Employer numbers and in fact creating a new seasonal worker programme down south to assist New Zealanders into the region and into work?You see what we are having to do with Central Otago is have programmes to bring workers into the regions. Unemployment is so low in Central Otago and the whole region is so productive that we need programmes to bring people into the region. There are jobs all right. There are jobs in Central Otago all right and we are creating them. David Cunliffe should apologise. David Cunliffe should apologise because the South Canterbury and Otago regions are doing just fine.Things do not feel so hollowed out when the Winter Games NZ or the Queenstown winter festival are in full swing or when the BMX world championships or the Wānaka triathlon festival are all go—all supported by what? All supported by this Government. Things do not feel hollowed out to the 11 Otago companies supported by the Venture Investment Fund or to the initiatives in the meat and wool industries through the Primary Growth Partnerships or to the towns of Queenstown—or what about Ōāmaru or Dunedin city which have been supported with their ultra-fast broadband upgrade? And what about the hundreds and hundreds of small businesses that now benefit from the Rural Broadband Initiative and the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise capability development programme?PAUL GOLDSMITH (National):We have got valedictories coming this afternoon from excellent National members of Parliament. I am staying Mr Prime Minister. We have got Cam Calder and we have got Hayes King Tremain and Wilkinson all of whom have made great contributions. It is true that John Hayes has been the most difficult to handle on the Finance and Expenditure Committee—much harder than any of the Opposition members—but nevertheless he has made a great contribution. I notice that the players from the Parliamentary Rugby Team are here to support Cam Calder and I put my hand out to you. Diversity of background is the strength of the National Party and these people who are giving their valedictories today are capable people who have other options to go to once they have made their contribution in Parliament and they do not have to hang around well past their use-by date. In their second to last week of Parliament they will be reflecting on their contributions.Of course there will be many other people in this Chamber here today who are in their second to last week of Parliament but they do not know it yet. The people are sovereign and it could befall any of us but I fear that some of our colleagues on the other side of the House will not get a chance to deliver their valedictories. Mr Muldoon used to say that so-and-so was “a hard old dog to get off the porch” and that is true of Winston Peters there is no doubt. Who knows whether he and his interesting collection will be back after the election including that fellow with the two letterboxes? I worry about the members on the other side in the Labour Party. I worry about my cousin Moana Mackey. I worry about Clayton Cosgrove my good friend. All of them are in a great deal of trouble when it comes to the election even David Parker whom I have worked with in a collegial manner in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Anybody on the Labour Party list has something to worry about.I have been very busy in the Epsom electorate working hard to build up the party vote. Like every other candidate in this party I am working to lift the party vote because that is the one that makes a difference. I would just like to say to Labour to rein in that guy who lives in Parnell who keeps pinching my signs. I know who he is. When I am on the doorsteps in Epsom I hear deep concern about the potential for things to go wrong if a Government comprising Annette Sykes John Minto Laila Harré David Cunliffe Metiria Turei Russel Norman and Winston Peters veers off in all sorts of directions after this election. They are very concerned about the prospect of Asenati Lole-Taylor overseeing the Reserve Bank. They are terrified of John Minto being the Treaty negotiations Minister. Metiria Turei said in this House that work is a trap that it does not pay enough and therefore people should not bother—just imagine if she was in charge of welfare. It is all too terrible to contemplate.Why when this country is heading in the right direction guided by a strong stable united and sensible Government and when there is so much work to be done would anybody put it all at risk by leaping into the unknown with this motley crew? How can the country put its trust in David Cunliffe and the team when they cannot even organise a decent picture of him for the soft profile piece in the Dominion Post this morning? Did they not see that the photo they sent to the Dominion Post had him squatting beside a rabbit in shorts that were clearly far too small and inadequate for the task? I encourage you to have a look at that. That is what worries people. That is what worries people.The Labour prescription is bad enough. It is overturning the Reserve Bank consensus it is slapping a new tax on every productive business in this country and it is effectively nationalising the electricity sector. That is bad enough but if it scraped back into power it would not get to dictate what happens in this country. It would have to give something to the Greens. Imagine what the Greens would demand aside from their massive carbon tax and aside from making farmers uncompetitive. What would Labour give to Hone Harawira? It would have to free Mr Dotcom. It would have to give free stuff to everybody and that is why this country would be in a terrible state.I am very proud of the record of this Government over the past 6 years. Fundamentally it has been about working to create an environment in which New Zealanders can thrive and will only do well and will only be in the position to afford all the sorts of things that we value—quality health-care superannuation in old age world-class education and support for the vulnerable—if we have an internationally competitive economy. Of course what is internationally competitive is a moving target and it requires constant improvement not just by exporters but throughout the economy.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Valedictory StatementsThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Business Committee has determined that the congratulatory messages following each member’s valedictory will be held at the end. There are a number of valedictories today. I ask that we move from member to member with their valedictories and we make our congratulatory messages right at the end. There will be a bell at 2 minutes to go.Dr CAM CALDER (National):Six years ago when I came into Parliament some queried why. Why has he come in? Does Parliament need yet another doctor? When I announced my intention to step down again some queried: “Why him? Surely some mistake? Parliament is losing too many of its doctors.” There was no talk as far as I know of McCully having any incriminating photographs.I have had many different roles in my life. Building roads and a scrub-cutter in “the Naki” Territorial Force soldier dental surgeon businessman and entrepreneur medical doctor in accident and emergency and a clinical research director for a private company—to name just a few. I have enjoyed them all. I have enjoyed them all but at this point I would like to place on record that serving and working as a member of Parliament in New Zealand has been the best job that I have ever had. A huge amount of work work of extraordinary variety and I have relished every day!Though long viewing the prospect of life in the political milieu with the utmost distaste I sought the chance to stand as a National candidate in 2008 because I was extremely concerned about the future that my children would inherit if New Zealand continued down the track it was then on. Back in 2002 upon returning from living overseas with my family I was shocked and disturbed at what I found in New Zealand. I was shocked and disturbed at the consequences for my children and indeed all New Zealanders if the myriad of challenges facing New Zealand was not addressed more comprehensively and more intelligently.As I saw it I had three choices. I could return to live overseas but I am a proud New Zealander so that option did not appeal. I could stay and do nothing other than groan and grumble but that did not appeal because I believe that if one does not like something one should do one’s best to change it. The third option was to stay in New Zealand to work to make it better and to push my ideas for change on to the agenda. The choice was obvious—I joined the National Party. It was a huge pleasure to be selected to stand for National in the 2008 election in the vibrant and diverse community of Manurewa.As a party we have never claimed to be perfect. We do not have a magic wand and we cannot change things overnight. But having come into Parliament I was proud to set up my office in Manurewa and work within the community and on behalf of that community over the ensuing years. I was able to face that community in 2011 knowing that everything we had said we would do as a Government we had done—and more! We are getting it right in Manurewa we are getting it right in my colleague Kanwal Bakshi’s electorate Manukau East and in Māngere we are getting it right for New Zealand.In my maiden speech—and it seems only a few weeks ago—I observed that a society is judged by how it protects the most vulnerable. It has been a huge pleasure to be part of a Government that has protected the most vulnerable through the worst recession the world has known in 75 years. More of our infants are getting immunised more of our young people are able to participate in early childhood education and are being screened for the precursors of rheumatic fever over 300000 homes have been made warmer drier and healthier crime is at a 20-year low and tens of thousands more elective surgical procedures have been improving New Zealanders’ quality of life every year. At the same time our economy has been among the strongest-growing economies in the OECD and the growing economy has led to tens of thousands more jobs in the last year alone. More and more New Zealanders are being educated and are acquiring the tools to fill those jobs and to unlock the ability and potential that lies within them all.In this House I have noted in the past that no Government can legislate aroha. No Government can legislate love but through careful formulation of policies and legislation we are succeeding in wrapping services round the most vulnerable and the less well loved. People need something to believe in and someone to believe in them. The people of Manurewa and in communities all over New Zealand have seen the results of this Government believing in them and they are responding.It has been a huge pleasure for me in Manurewa to see Pacific matai and Pacific church leaders wearing that blue T-shirt and wearing the blue rosette in our community of Manurewa. The door has always been open but now more and more the Pasifika community is seeing evidence of the Government’s belief and walking through that door.As Nicolas Sarkozy said when he sought the Presidency of France “Ensemble tous devient possible”—together all becomes possible. He got elected but he could not bring l’Hexagone together and he did not win another term. This Government has worked with all New Zealanders and the results speak for themselves. I am proud to have worn the blue jersey and to have been part of a team that is reshaping the mesh in many different levels and areas and making our country a better place to live.What of my own personal goals and dreams on coming into Parliament? The concept of servant leadership has always resonated with me. Every morning when I look in the mirror—which I do not do for long given what confronts me—I ask myself: “Have I done the best I possibly can to honour the hard work and commitment of all those folk whose work on behalf of the National Party led to my working here and indeed have I done the best for all New Zealanders?”. I am pleased to say that the answer is generally yes but from time to time I have found myself a bit puffed. I have unbounded admiration for our Prime Minister whose ebullience and mastery of detail remains unmatched and whose workload is a log scale above that of anyone else in this House.In my maiden speech I outlined areas of special interest to me. Among them were tackling New Zealand’s growing incidence of obesity the need for more marine reserves and a prostate cancer awareness programme for New Zealand men. I soon learnt some fundamental truths of Parliamentary life. Few things move fast. As the French say “Petit à petit l’oiseau fait son nid”—little by little the bird makes the nest. One can plant seeds in soil but the soil receiving the seed may or may not be fertile. The idea might lie there quiescent for ever or receive a burst of interest from an unexpected quarter and suddenly flourish and be accepted. Certainly one never achieves anything in this House alone and success truly has a thousand fathers.I am gratified to note that the Government has made progress in all the above special interest areas that I mentioned in my maiden speech but today I make a call for more resources to be devoted to proven measures to combat the alarming incidence of obesity in New Zealand. The cost of such interventions will amply repay themselves in substantially reduced health care costs and in thousands of New Zealanders living longer healthier more productive lives.My call for New Zealand to adopt a genuine progress indicator and my plan to encourage distributed power generation from renewable sources fell on stony ground. However areas where other seeds I planted fell on more fertile soil include measures to control low-ball share offers the change to the right-hand rule and a bill to make it an offence to carry a high-power laser pointer in a public place without reasonable excuse. My Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill unanimously passed its Committee stage in the House on 25 June and I am hopeful it will pass its final reading later this evening.On my lapel I wear the White Ribbon. This is a statement of my stand against violence towards women and children. Domestic violence—men against women women against men—is a major challenge for New Zealand and a blot on our nation’s escutcheon. I have been proud to be a caucus champion speaking all over New Zealand on this Government’s determination to reduce the staggering number of our children harmed each year.Adolescent sexual and reproductive health and rights is another concern of mine. It is an important area for consideration in all countries including New Zealand and it is possibly the most effective area for intervention by a donor country in a developing country. In 2013 as a member of the New Zealand Parliamentarians’ Group on Population and Development I visited the Solomon Islands. The purpose of the visit was to meet with key parliamentarians policy makers and key regional leaders in sexual and reproductive health and rights to encourage scaled-up action to address these issues in the Solomon Islands. Family planning and investment in this area is also the most cost-effective investment a country can make towards its own sustainable development and the well-being and empowering of its women and children. It is also a fundamental human right. However despite decades of international agreement on the need to ensure universal access to family planning progress in the Pacific has been slow and inequitable.Following my visit upon returning to New Zealand I wrote a discussion paper entitled Adolescent Sexual Health and Reproductive Rights in the Solomon Islands—the unmet needs. I forwarded this to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I am delighted to report that the feedback I have received suggests that in future more of New Zealand’s aid to the Solomon Islands will be used in addressing these unmet needs.One comes into Parliament passionate with a host of good intentions but one must also have a plan. The passion has never left me and I am grateful that in looking back on my time in Parliament I have been able to progress my plan to further many of the projects in which I have had a particular interest. At this stage I wish to acknowledge the unanimous support my member’s bill has received from across the House and note for the uninitiated that despite the theatre of question time there is an enormous amount of cooperation in the House especially in the select committees. I particularly wish to acknowledge the collegiality of all members of the Education and Science Committee which I have had the pleasure to chair and their willingness to work towards the common good. It is just as well as otherwise one could be worn down by the relentless negativism that sometimes seems to pervade “Planet Parliament”.Being an MP can be a lonely role. May I thank my family—Jenny Carla and Leisha; my brothers Rob and Don; my sister Julie; and my sister-in-law Wendy—whose steadfast personal support has always been there though I am sure my brother Rob has never voted for the party I represent as many of the Opposition can probably testify.Talofa lava and fa‘afetai ma soifua to Telea and Fati Menefata who have cleaned Bowen House from the day I arrived and have always had a cheery smile and greeting every morning. The parliamentary messengers—always ready to help and keep me hydrated during the debate. I could almost use you now! My Manurewa secretary Jenny Collins—Jen came to me having worked for the Prime Minister. She is hugely experienced capable and ever-helpful. I will miss you Jen. Jamie Lee Burns my parliamentary secretary for many years—safe travels overseas Jamie. The Pride the Zephyrs the O group Dave Knowles and my oldest mate Lou Borok have always been there for me.It is a great pleasure to see my old parliamentary colleague and friend George Hawkins long-serving Manurewa MP and Jan up in the gallery. George there is a gathering tonight in the National Party caucus room—I am sure you will feel right at home.My friends from all over the House—go well and I hope our paths cross in the world. My mates in the Parliamentary Rugby Team—a pack of good bastards. We won the Parliamentary Rugby World Cup in 2011. Good luck in 2015.Finally I wish to record and place on record my deep appreciation for the long-term and steadfast support of Manurewa activists Richard and Penny Laughty.The old adage is undeniable: you have got to get into it before you get out of it. I have been in it for two terms. It has been my whole life and all-consuming. I look now to a life free of the strictures of a party whip where I can attempt to create my own reality again. Thank you. Je ne regrette rien. Kia ora. Adieu. Farewell.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa):This afternoon I come to say farewell and to share a few final thoughts with you my colleagues and the Wairarapa community. But first I want to thank the Wairarapa Tararua and Central Hawke’s Bay communities who three times elected me as their representative each time by a greater margin.It has been a privilege to have represented the people of the Wairarapa for 9 years—it actually feels like 9 long years. It has been an experience that few of us get. No one arrives here as an electorate MP without the support of many people too many to name. Some of them are here today. Thank you for coming.I particularly want to acknowledge the late John Falloon and the late Juliet Hensley. You departed too soon. I would never have made it here without your support. I want to acknowledge John and Helen McFadzean Sue Perry Snow and Di Peterson from Waipukurau and Bernard Cleary my kneecapper in Carterton. I acknowledge Keith Hancox in Masterton Richard Ellis in Pahīatua Alister Plimmer Stephen Kerr and many many others including my family Emily Neve Corrin and Luis Cunha up in Kuwait and Matthew Louise Edward and James Hayes and especially Helen who has carried the brunt of long absences and my distractions. They have tolerated not approved my being here.Being an MP is not a job; it is an all-consuming life and constituents deserve no less. I am deeply indebted to Yvonne Payne in my Masterton office for 9 long years and to Janet Castell in Waipukurau Rebecca Algie and Maureen Fenemor in Dannevirke and the wonderful Emily Broadmore here in Parliament. There are many others like Paul Jane and Mike at In Style Travel Lou and Fiona at Capital Travel and AJ at Lamb-Peters Print in Greytown who consistently made the impossible possible. Stan and the late Nola Mangin have been superb neighbours who without any fuss covered all those things I was never around to fix like the cows jumping the fence. Thank you. I would not have survived here without your support. I need to apologise to the crew of the Maranui—Captain Povey Doug Mike and Andrew—for never being around when you were short of crew.Nine years have passed really quickly—almost a quarter of a working life. It has been an interesting time. My friend and sounding board John Schnellenberg told me in 2005 that I would develop a carapace. I had never heard of the word but I can say now Schnell that you were right. Politicians need a tough outer shell. Mine formed pretty quickly when Michael Cullen whacked Finlayson and me around this Chamber one afternoon.I guess Parliament reflects our collective character and personality as a country. I am no saint—no I am not. Much of my first term here was spent reflecting on why I had come. The atmosphere was toxic not helped by a Speaker who was shrill and screamed and by loopy committee chairs Pettis and Yates. Visits to parliaments in Denmark and Sweden showed that parliamentary debate can be respectful focused on issues and without narcissistic tone. Better behaviour in debates might encourage more members of the community to come here and make a contribution. It might also arrest the decline in the numbers of people who are voting.I have brooded about our inability as a society to be more generous of spirit and accepting when people get something wrong. The media especially fall over themselves to beat up on anybody who buggers up—that is a Papua New Guinean word. “So what?” you say. Well I think the “what” is the question. Why would anybody expose themselves to public life when the risk of a mistake is the public pillorying which inevitably follows? We collectively pay a price in not creating an environment conducive to attracting more good leaders to Parliament. We could move our country forward further and faster by focusing on what is important; we bog down by arguing with each other.For more than 10 years the Wairarapa electorate has been trying to progress a couple of irrigation schemes. It is a simple task to collect and store water that falls at the wrong time of the year and then to use it in the summer drought but very little progress has been made. Why? Is it leadership that is wanting? Yep sometimes. Are Resource Management Act requirements a constraint? Yep. Are Māori demands a constraint? Sometimes they can be. Are nimby issues the problem? Yes. Well let us be up front and be clear that affected landowners will be fairly compensated for their land and the disruption. Irrigation is the quickest way to grow our national income and the whole country wins.It is difficult to fathom why simple sensible straightforward concepts have become so difficult to implement. Were I New Zealand’s next Prime Minister I would ensure that the next Parliament got rid of a plethora of unnecessary legislation and excessive regulation. Three years is not long enough. This year’s election is going to cost taxpayers $27 million together with the time they have invested in MPs who are going to be distracted by parliamentary campaigning. Were I Prime Minister—and do not laugh Brendan; it is not too late to nominate—I would promote a 4 or 5-year term to spread the cost over more years. Doing so would give Parliament a more reasonable time to implement its programmes.Colleagues from across the House—and Cam has just said it tonight—often say that Parliament provides a wonderful experience. Having spent time here and in the Foreign ministry my curiosity is satisfied. To those contemplating a political career I will say two things: if you have got kids do not come near the place because they are going to be short-changed; and if you want a really fascinating job head to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The big advantage: there is no election every 3 years. Besides foreign affairs ministers come and they go.Constituent work is rewarding. Few beyond the beltway understand how Government works. That is where I have tried to add value. The Labour candidate for the Wairarapa dropped a leaflet in my letterbox the other day proclaiming that he should be my member of Parliament because he had been compère at the Golden Shears competition this year. I have no doubt that that requires some skill but not the sort that is going to make him a competent member of Parliament. I doubt the community will elect a candidate who has so little experience and expertise. People who live and work in cities assume provinces work like the cities they live in. They do not. Much of my time has been spent bridging that gap. I have often felt like a scribe in an Indian bazaar drafting letters for people. But there is a satisfaction from securing good outcomes and seeing common sense prevail.The campaign to keep Mākōura College from closing in 2006 was a tough battle for an Opposition MP but the outcome keeping the school open was a victory for the Masterton community. That issue taught me the critical importance of school leadership. It is great to see the school’s roll today in a very different place to the projections of ministry officials who used to walk up my drive on a Sunday morning to beat me up—the same officials who wanted to close the school rather than address 6 years of Education Review Office reports pointing out dysfunctional relationships at senior levels in the school. I acknowledge and congratulate Mākōura’s outstanding principal Tom Hullena. He has more than doubled the school roll topped the country’s National Certificate of Educational Achievement results and in the last 6 weeks received the Prime Minister’s recognition for Excellence in Leading - Atakura Award here last month.The residence status of many Pacific families is a concern. Too many Pasifika people have irregular immigration status. They make no demands on social welfare—I see them in my electorate—but they live in fear. Their children do not easily sit in school and they do not access health care. These families are often desperate. They are vulnerable to being ripped off by unscrupulous lawyers and others who charge fees and deliver no results for them. It is a large but hidden problem. I urge Pasifika people to get appointments with your MPs after the election because they can help you regularise your status without charge.When constituents have sought help my driver has been a simple test: is it fair? When the answer was no then I have always gone into bat. In provincial New Zealand interpersonal issues are held much more intensely than in our big towns. People are inclined to stop talking to each other. If they only would talk to each other most problems would dissipate. The impact of the Horizons One Plan proposed for the Tararua a couple of years ago would have been that it removed $62 million each year from the local economy in the Tararua area. Bringing people to Parliament for a meal and a libation in my office afterwards was a formula that generally got people talking to each other. They then took responsibility and established frameworks for sorting out their problems. They got to common-sense outcomes.I think that economic and social progress in provincial New Zealand will happen only if we who live in provincial areas take responsibility for our own affairs. No one owes us a living. Those who think—and I am talking Wairarapa at the moment—that Wellington-based ratepayers are going to subsidise activity in the Wairarapa are at best misguided. They do not live on my planet. No one owes us a living. Air New Zealand demonstrated that a few months ago when it ended the air link to Auckland. That is why I worked so hard with others to secure the restoration of a financially sustainable air service between Masterton and Auckland. Eighteen people came to a meeting on Monday at Masterton’s town hall. As we speak contributions are now being put into a trust account held by accountants Amy Kerr and Associates. Subject to an undertaking to improve the runway I am confident that an air service based on an Air Chathams Metroliner with Wairarapa livery will resume in September.It is not possible to win on every issue. I spent a year trying to advance a plan to turn Masterton’s old hospital into an integrated family health centre. At the time the recession was in full swing and the proposal offered 70 immediate jobs and about 50 full-time positions when completed. Two letters from Māori asked for the site to go into the land bank. Despite an assurance from a colleague Pita Sharples’ clout was greater than mine and the building went into the land bank. After Opus International Consultants’ evaluation a local Māori leader told me 4 months later that they no longer wanted the complex. I have always stood the ground for Māori on issues like the seabed and foreshore and Treaty settlements. I suggest though that Māori could well reflect carefully on their actions if they want to carry the support of most Kiwis into the future. A growing number of Wairarapa people are keen to see an end to the grievance industry the end of Māori seats and the coming together of all Kiwis. I support the Prime Minister’s call for consultation about a new flag when Treaty settlements are completed. A new flag may help strengthen our nationhood.Finally a couple of things about foreign affairs. I was pleased in the last Parliament to complete a Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee inquiry into New Zealand’s relationship with the South Pacific. The Government did not have a majority on the committee and the report had more than 40 recommendations unanimously supported by all parties. This led to our being able to host the first ever Pacific Parliament last year in this Chamber with more than 50 Pacific participants. It was great to have five Fijians there at that gathering. Since 2005—being here—I have consistently argued privately with colleagues that it was better to engage Fiji than talk to them by megaphone as Helen Clark and Phil Goff did. The Pacific Parliament could never have progressed had I not been here.There have been some interesting interactions over these 9 years. I think of a visit to Israel with colleagues Paul—“Hutch” down here—Phil Goff Kennedy Graham and Jacqui Dean. During that visit I realised the extent to which the majority of Israeli politicians did not have the slightest interest in resolving issues with Palestinians. That was a disappointing lesson to me because I left that visit thinking that the Palestinian leadership was a bunch of people whom you could do business with. Before that visit I had not appreciated the extent of segregation being practised in Israel towards Arabs. To Israelis I simply ask you: have you no humanity?Finally can I say thank you to all parliamentarians from all parties. It has been fun working with most of you and I have made some good friends including in other parties. Thanks also to all the staff in the parliamentary complex especially the library and our staff here providing water and other things. Can I just say thank you one and all and wish you all the luck you deserve for the next election. Cheers.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National):Thank you very much indeed Mr Deputy Speaker for the call to give my valedictory statement. It is a privilege that is given to retirees: 15 minutes of uninterrupted discourse where the opportunity is given to say it the way it really is and the way I see it and I intend to do that now. If we glance overseas back to Westminster where our parliamentary system began before it was improved by the New Zealand system we see that the parliamentary media over there have adopted the sobriquet of “pale male and stale” for those whom Mr Cameron has decided should no longer hold Cabinet warrants. How cruel! How cruel is that to sensitive people? Well if you cannot take the heat do not stand in the kitchen. This is Politics 101 after all.Mind you all jokes aside I have always thought that members of the media try to see in others that which they least like about themselves. Let us think about that for a moment. Every day at a quarter to two as we come to the House I have in my diary “available to media”. I approach the melee of people cameras and microphones. Sometimes they say: “Gidday Chris.” That is it. There have been perhaps three times when I have had that wonderful surround sound of microphones and cameras—very exciting. Unfortunately it was always over a tragic association with Pike River rather than the sort of fun that our Ministers have.But does the Westminsterial sobriquet apply over here? Are we as retirees pale male and stale on this side of the world or on this side of the House? I do not think so. Oh no I do not think so. Well not yet at any rate but as my old friend Roy Hodgson in Rūnanga used to say—a good old coalminer—“Hang on. Let’s have a think about that.” So I have given it a bit of thought.Pale? OK I certainly do not have a ruddy or dark complexion but roseate enough on a frosty morning not to be described as pale.Male? I make no apology for being a male. I hope I am seen as a considerate compassionate and communicable male and I make no apology for that. If I have faults—and I am sure I do—well I do not think I can blame my gender for my behaviour without it being a cop-out. There ain’t nothing wrong with being a bloke if you behave yourself properly. I am pleased none the less that our new National candidate for West Coast - Tasman is Maureen Pugh thereby enhancing the opportunity for gender balance in the party.Stale? I do not think so. I have achieved more for the electorate in the last year in the cumulative improvement in West Coast - Tasman health infrastructure than ever before and have we not had such a wonderful Minister of Health? I have contributed as much on an annual basis to select committee work in the last year as in any other and have spoken more frequently in the Chamber. I have had a speech that went trending on Twitter. Lianne Dalziel had to say it was “trending” and not “trendy”. It was viral on the internet in the opinion of TV3—and this was after I had actually announced my retirement. So stale? No.So if that is the successful rebuttal of the Westminsterial criticism of gentlemen of European ancestry of a certain age and career achievement and if I have successfully rebutted that why the hell am I retiring? That is a good question but here is an answer because it is a question that does require answering. When I joined the National Party—signed up by Keith Holyoake who said “Be careful when you sign that membership form. You may end up in Parliament.”; that was in Kaikohe circa 1968—I actually made a commitment to work to support the party; not to seek to support myself but to support the party. I am now 69 years old and although so many people say I do not look it well I am!Hon Chris Tremain: Nah you don’t look it.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well thank you. I do not know of any other serving National MPs who are 69 years old but as we sign up to 3-year brackets of tenure would you really want to still be trundling around Parliament at 72? You need quite an ego if you thought you could not be replaced effectively by a younger person. I guess the only extenuating circumstance would be if you were a party leader who had a Scottish mother from the Isle of Skye but even then you would be pushing it.I guess this is the reality. Keeping a balance of diversity—age gender and ethnicity—in a caucus is a long game not a short one. Have we not all benefited from the inclusion of people of diversity and different ethnicity in this Parliament? I have got one sitting right beside me here Kanwal Bakshi who makes a huge contribution and National has certainly changed under the John Key leadership. Each of us has to think though about the future of the party and the part we want to play in it. We would all like to be here for ever but with my own retirement and the retirements of colleagues from National now the real effect will be first in 2017 when National will have an incredibly strong team—fresh but all with 3 years’ minimum experience as MPs youthful yet mature vigorous and energetic and may I say multi-shaded gender-balanced and fresh. That is the way it will be on this side of the House.I have no wish to be partisan but hey consideration should be given to how we will look as a party in comparison with one another in 3 years’ time or indeed in 6 years’ time because you have to plan that far out for refreshment and strength should some of the party’s older incumbents cling to the backs of their seats—and some of us do have a tendency to do that. Speaking entirely for myself I wish to be part of a refreshment process rather than a stagnation process within the party which will occur if people do not leave and allow replacements to come in. I think that the best way to do that is to retire at my present stage. So although I am not personally seeking re-election I am of course still steeped in the process of the election cycle.The political messages though that are put out by all the parties have a different emphasis if one is thinking as a voter rather than as one to be voted for. It gives you a different slant on things. It is interesting to see the way parties want to differentiate from one another. One of my regular phone-callers on the Coast brought this to my attention when he asked: “What about those parties that want to bring back smacking? Is it because they want us all to smack kids or do they have a secret dream of being smacked themselves if only the law would allow it? You just don’t know nowadays do you?”. He does have a point.The other point he made—and I am absolutely sure it will not cause any offence—was to ask why some parties insist on having binding referenda. He said: “It sounds to me like the way people always try to tell us what we should do and should not do with natural resources on the Coast when they do not even live here themselves.” He went on to say: “The really strange part is that the parties that say we should have binding referenda are always minority parties and by their own mandate they should not expect to be in Parliament because they did not achieve majority support.” He has a point. He has a point and I really look forward to continuing to benefit from the West Coast wisdom and the philosophical observations of people once I am outside and home again.I do not intend to speak any further on the new and emergent parties that hope to hold us in thrall to their whims and wants. In my view MMP is a reality that I think would be a pity to lose. As well as providing opportunities for new philosophies one of its vulnerabilities is that it can attract charlatans from time to time but the electorate is I trust developing a maturity in the way that it views and uses MMP.So what have I been able to contribute and what have I gained from my 9 years in this place? For me the most significant part of the parliamentary process as a backbencher is the select committee system. This is our second House our senate our House of Lords as this is where the public have a direct interface with the legislative process. This is where the public are asked what they think of the legislation being put forward. In my experience the adversarial relationship between parties and individual members is subsumed to less of a partisan system where members each consider the evidence put before them in submissions from people often based on a personal or observed experience. I have always been impressed by the sincerity and depth of explanation that the public provide. Organisations too be they corporate bodies commercial organisations or community groups come in with carefully prepared and sharply focused submissions to argue a point. Each and every submission is considered weighed and then reported back to the committee by the appointed officials who are assisting the committee.I would like to think that my main opportunity to make a contribution here has been through the committee process and I am extremely grateful for the appointments that I have had to those committees. I have developed a deep appreciation of colleagues from all sides of the House in the way that we have the capacity to work together within the committee system. It is always a bit of a surprise when you come out of the committee system. I remember when we did the review of the—oh I will not bother to deal with the individual Acts—but after some of the complex ones where we had worked together very well as parties we would come out and suddenly you could hear people speaking as if they wanted nothing to do with it and saying how dreadful it was. I can remember saying to a Minister once “This was not a reflection of the way those members spoke in the committee.” and they said “Chris they are not speaking to you in the committee. They are speaking to their membership in the public and it is not to their advantage to look as if we all work together too easily.”But representing people be they individuals or entire electorates is a big privilege and the West Coast - Tasman electorate will always be special for me. It is a delight to see that people have actually come up from the West Coast and Tasman to be with us today and I think we will give them a little clap for that. It is a hell of a long way to come. It is particularly nice to see three—one two three—Young Nats. There are four or more Young Nats in the back of the gallery. They have been with me since the third form I think at Greymouth High. They are at university now and they are doing very well.The West Coast - Tasman electorate will always be special for me. There were aspects of political opportunity that held special appeal for me when I first arrived in 2005 but I chose and was advised to concentrate my attention on serving the electorate and I have stuck with that prime intention. All politicians in my experience wish to achieve the best they can for the people they represent with each party having separate ways of achieving that and I have always been comfortable with promoting the policies of National. There have been good times in the electorate and times of awful tragedy. Both the good times and the tragedies are part of the political journey as an MP and it has been very pleasing to me to have seen the level of agreement between parties in processing the Pike River royal commission recommendations towards workplace health and safety reform.It has been a great time to be in Parliament over the last 9 years. New Zealand plays a significant part in world affairs as a small nation with a developed and still developing economy. People are not afraid of New Zealand. We do not threaten people because of our size or aggression or anything like that. New Zealand views are listened to and sought. I think it is fair to say that we have been well served by Foreign Ministers from all parties over the last few decades and we are regarded as a very responsible world citizen. I hope the influence we have built up can be used in some of the complex and tragic dynastic problems that are occurring at the moment between Governments to the detriment and horrifying physical cost to all their citizens.Finally I looked up “valedictory” in my Chambers Dictionary. Normally it is a final speech of a graduand leaving a place of learning. For me that is a fit. It is a fit leaving here. Thanks directly to my National colleagues and to the Prime Minister and his staff for the leadership they have provided. There is no greater call than that your country needs you and gosh New Zealand does need you John Key. Thank goodness we have you as Prime Minister. This is a dynamic place. It has managed without me before—before I arrived—and it will manage without me after I have left.Hon Members: No!CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Well all right all right. You are so kind. But it will honestly. Members and staff will concentrate on themselves the job in hand and their individual and collective party aspirations as before and that is what should happen. I will not be any more memorable than any other politician who has served here and moved on.But here is the one thing I wanted to leave with you: I do not expect the majority of you to remember me in any shape or form but I will remember each of you—each and every one of you—for all the transactions we have engaged in. I will treasure all the exchanges we have had I promise you that be it at the select committee in the debating chamber in Copperfield’s in Bellamy’s or in the gym; on social occasions on formal occasions in private conversation in private meetings or in public engagements; be it with the security staff Parliamentary Service staff the travel team the media team with Brent’s messengers the Clerk’s Office IT help services—bless them—the communications unit the research unit the library the exemplary In Style Travel taxi service headed up by Paul Rossiter Air New Zealand Koru Club the electorate teams the Young Nats my office staff past and present and bless them those who have left us: the late Dan Strong my electorate chair in Motueka and the late Margaret Dougan who worked for me and supported me in Motueka. To the voters of West Coast - Tasman and the National Party who provided me with 9 years of representation for the West Coast - Tasman electorate and to my darling wife Elspeth and my family I thank you all and I thank each and every member no matter which party you choose to belong to or which path you choose to walk along. Thanks for 9 unforgettable years. Thank you.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura):Thank you for the opportunity to make this my final statement in the debating chamber of the 50th Parliament of New Zealand. May I begin by acknowledging some of those who have put up with the 4-metre swells across the Cook Strait today to be with us: my electorate chair Brian Moore and his wife Roberta; campaign chair Alan Holdaway; branch chair and hoarding manager Barry Holdaway; and branch chair Don Moore and his wife Sue. May I also acknowledge Sir Doug and Lady Kidd. I also acknowledge my staff—my most valuable staff—in Blenheim and Amberley: Cathie Ferguson Willie Kaulback Rose Parsons and Jan Chisnall and my parliamentary staff over years Margaret Traill and now Karen Scarlett. Thank you for your support. It was just fantastic and well beyond what anybody could possibly expect.I must acknowledge also with great pride and satisfaction the support I have received from my wife Lynnette and our children Nickolas Natasha Laressa and Katrina. I must also take the opportunity to acknowledge the wonderful support that I have received from the National Party while I have had the privilege of being an MP for 9 years both from the political wing and from the party membership. Thank you for the guidance and support over those 9 years. I wish the National Party every success in the forthcoming election and we wait with bated breath for the election result on 20 September. Go well!Last week I did something that I had hoped to do for many a year and that was to visit the whale-counting operation that occurs every year at this time in the Tory Channel and Cook Strait. Fortunately on the day that we went out the observers perched up on Tory Channel sighted a large humpback whale cruising through the Cook Strait on its way to the Tropics. We were able to just motor straight out there and watch these guys in their 4-metre runabout in a 3-metre swell dart the whale to take a DNA sample. Just to give you some understanding about how difficult it was I could hardly hold my camera my iPhone camera to actually capture the moment to post it on Facebook. From the point of view of what has gone before us in history in the context it was most uplifting. You could entitle the situation: “Whaling—from Decimation to Restoration”. These old ex-whalers are now spending endless hours looking into the mist of the Cook Strait to identify that pencil shape of a whale coming towards them. The good news is that about 100 whales came through the Cook Strait during the month and is that not fantastic? There are more ways for the whales to go but through the Cook Strait is a bit like the drafting race—you can count them. So from that point of view it is a good measure.I want to make the point that although we may have a strong view on how people earned their living in years gone by they did sustain themselves and we should neither condemn nor ridicule. Sure the land-based whaling operations did not decimate the whales. The damage was done by the fleets of whaling vessels from other nations that hunted the whale to near extermination taking up to 4000 whales a year year on year. However I make the point because I personally have serious concerns along with many others about our attitude to sustainable management around the coastline. Today there are 10 times as many people out on the coastline collecting kai moana. The targeting of fish the catching of crays the taking of paua and other delicacies has greatly improved and yet we still argue that it is our birthright to help ourselves to such a resource.As rational human beings we know that continuing such a harvest of our kai moana will result in serious consequences for us today and for our future generations. It is therefore with much pride that I draw on the example of the community of Kaikōura who over the last 8 years based on the principles of gifts and giving were able to reach an agreement across the full range of stakeholders: iwi commercial fishers recreational fishers Forest and Bird and the wider community. They were able to agree amongst themselves as to the best way possible of managing their coastline between the Conway River and the Clarence River. I was amazed to witness the cooperation that existed on that group of Te Korowai people. It is with pride that I now look forward to this process of seeing the passing into law of the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Bill which will enshrine the management plan into law and protect it for the benefit of all Kaikōura and others who visit in the many years ahead.What made this achievement possible was that those involved the community clearly understood what was at stake. Local iwi—that is Ngāti Kuri—led because they held the kaitiaki over the area the commercial fishermen pulled in the same direction because they owned the quota and they knew what sustainable management was all about and the wider community stuck to the task because they knew and valued the employment and they valued their environment. There is no doubt in my mind that this situation is going to have to be replicated throughout New Zealand. Such iconic places as the Marlborough Sounds the Hauraki Gulf the Wellington headlands Bay of Plenty and the Northland coastline—to name but a few—will need to address this situation as pressure remains and grows. Again it will require skilful leadership a willingness to agree and make those gifts and giving. We must face up to the challenge otherwise we will end up in exactly the same position as those whalers who lost their careers their opportunities and their profitability overnight because of a culture of greed and a race to catch the last whale.My second point that I would like to make is the importance of hands-on learning within our education system. We must appreciate these very important students who in the future will continue to fix things build things—be it trucks be it motorcars be it buildings be it bridges be it roads be it essential infrastructure and all other manner of things. To do this the education system must equally value these people as we do doctors nurses lawyers and accountants and design an education curriculum accordingly. I just put it out here in very plain terms. To put it simply we want to create many Einsteins but to create an Einstein you need to also have 1000 skilled technicians to be able to make those things.I wish to mention two people by name at this time. It is always dangerous doing that but two people have had a big effect on my policy development. Firstly Stuart Middleton from the Manukau Institute of Technology who when I first came into Parliament was already talking about what was lacking within our education system. He has gone on to do some wonderful things around empowering youth especially Pasifika youth. I take the opportunity here to say how heartened I am to see the Pasifika people taking grasp of education and being aspirational. I also want to make mention of Stewart Thompson who worked with me in developing the trades academy policy which was introduced by the Government in 2009. Stewart Thompson convinced me that the passion of an inspiring teacher is what makes the difference. Stewart’s technology classes were full to overflowing and total engagement with education existed in spades.I ask those responsible for education in the future to maintain the momentum we have for hands-on learning and skills-based education. Education must be relevant to the learners for them to remain engaged and to develop the skills necessary to be successful in life and that is a pretty high threshold. We must keep them engaged. We are beginning to do better but there is a lot of work we need to do yet.The third point I want to leave with the House is my concern around a growing reluctance in this country—and this is my observation—to undertake physically demanding work. We should be concerned when we see those who want to continue living in one location and are not willing or courageous enough to collect up their families and move to where employment is better and more available where the cost of living is less and the price of providing a roof over one’s family’s head is also less. New Zealand has one of the most generous welfare systems in the world. However for New Zealand to remain a First World country we must possess the attitude as stated by George St John and restated by President J F Kennedy: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”—that it is good to create wealth and seek ownership.I admire greatly those Eastern European families who came here in the 1950s and 1960s. I was only a child at the time. They made New Zealand their home and they started afresh after experiencing the Second World War the Cold War and the Iron Curtain. It now concerns me that we do bring enthusiastic workers from the Pacific Islands to do the harvesting and cultivation within the horticultural sector and that we need to bring thousands of workers to fill the needs of the dairy industry. Is it not blindingly obvious to all that in doing the work that some of us despise these newcomers end up creating wealth for themselves and their families to enjoy into the future? It is all symptomatic of a nation that is losing its way when a newcomer can come here and see opportunities that we cannot. Individually we hold the key to our own success: careful living and good honest hard work. Personal responsibility and a desire to aspire should be the aim of us all. Lose this and we become no better than a domesticated animal.Sir Henry Maine speaking on social structure put it well when he said: “Nobody is at liberty to attack private property and to say at the same time that he values civilisation. The history of the two cannot be disentangled.” For the institution of private property has been a wonderful institution for teaching man and woman responsibility for providing motives to integrity for supporting general culture for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. To be able to retain the fruits of one’s labour to be able to see one’s work made manifest to be able to bequeath one’s property to one’s posterity to be able to rise from the natural condition of grinding poverty to the security of enduring accomplishment to have something that is really one’s own—there are advantages with this difficult to deny.” In drafting policy and bringing forth legislation in this House may all members continue to recognise the value of those who toil in the sun or labour under the tin roof neither despising the value of that work or thinking that it is beyond one’s dignity because the wealth of this nation was created on the back of physically demanding labour.In conclusion may I express my sincere thanks to all members of the House for the courtesy that they have accorded me. Thank you too for the joy of working for the best interests of all New Zealanders particularly in the primary sector and in the science and education sector while in Parliament. I am sure though that those who are coming behind us will be more than equal to the task. We do live in a blessed land.To the parliamentary sporting trusts what fun we had in raising money for the most worthy of causes and in the camaraderie of winning two Parliamentary Rugby World Cups—one in Paris and the other in New Zealand. There was also the pleasure of coordinating the parliamentary and diplomats’ annual cricket challenges and winning a few. That was quite good. I always remember Paul Swain leaving the House having won that year against the diplomats. That having been said we have not won for many years for about a decade. I am asking the House to make sure that they support Ian McKelvie as he carries on the mantle of looking after the shield and keeping that cricket match going. It has been going for over 40 years and it is actually quite an illustrious shield with some great MPs’ names on it.If I have one disappointment in leaving Parliament Mr Speaker it is possibly one we share together. It is that wisdom has not prevailed when it has come to storing water in North Canterbury. Sadly—and this again is my observation because I know that some of my Green colleagues would disagree—it is my view that a dog in a manger attitude still prevails making progress slow and difficult.Finally I wish to thank the taxpayers of New Zealand for providing the funding for three new hospitals while I was MP in the electorate of Kaikōura. I am also delighted to have witnessed as MP the Te Tau Ihu Treaty settlement situation that has provided eight iwi with their settlements which will restore their economic base into the future and also to being a witness to and being part of the 8 years’ labour of love—the management of the Kaikōura coastline the result of which is the bill I have here under a pile of papers. I look forward to it being put through the House completely by the time the House rises. I thank the Minister of Conservation and I also thank the Leader of the House for putting that in place. We are very satisfied with everything that is going forward.Just to conclude for the most part from my own point of view what is most satisfying is the momentum that has been achieved around education—the importance that has been put on the hands-on learning situation. Education is relevant. It needs to be relevant. If it is not relevant you will have disengagement.I want to thank everybody for the situation that I have enjoyed over the last 9 years. I acknowledge my wife and children. I acknowledge those people who have travelled across the Cook Strait. I acknowledge those people who are supporting departing members. I also acknowledge all the members in the House. We have worked in the very best interests of New Zealand. Kia kaha. Stand tall. Be proud. Thank you very much.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier):In life there are many different definitions of success and in Parliament the same goes. There are many different definitions of what makes a successful politician. Nine years ago I entered Parliament and I have to say I was pretty naïve. Some would probably argue that that has not changed too much. I had just won the Labour-held seat of Napier the first time in 50 years and I thought I had been pretty successful at that point in time. But like all politicians across this House I entered this place with the intention of helping to create a better New Zealand. We all have the same purpose just different ideas of how we might achieve that goal. But success in Parliament is not defined by just winning a seat or becoming a Cabinet Minister. Success comes with many different faces.I recall in my first year a gym session with Rodney Hide—you might not want to think too hard about that—at the Bolton Hotel. We had a discussion about what made a successful politician. “You’ve got to take scalps.” was Rodney’s advice as he sweated away on the cycling machine. “You can’t be successful in this place unless you take scalps.” was his advice. Shortly after I was presented with a completely different face of success from the Hon Jim Sutton who in his valedictory reflected on the importance of retaining family to ensure a successful political career: “Public life is often a selfish business. It can be all-consuming.” he said. “Those closest to public figures often pay a high or unfair price. To those I have hurt I say ‘sorry’.” said Jim. “To those who follow me here I say ‘try to do better than I did’.” Throughout my own political career I have reflected on these words of sage advice.For most however political success is defined with a more public face. On a daily basis we politicians are built up and we are cut down. Whether it be the number of bills you pass the number of times you are mentioned in the press or your performance in select committees success here is very transparent. This all culminates in an annual ranking of Ministers and MPs. It is a humbling experience and for some a crumbling experience. It is definitely not for the faint-hearted that is for sure. The fact of the matter is that only a few of us make it to the very top of this game. There is only a small number of John Keys and Bill Englishes and Helen Clarks and Michael Cullens. To those from across this House who make it to the very top in this game and who then stay there you have my absolute respect. It is no mean feat and staying there is even more difficult.To John Key and to Bill English I applaud you for your outstanding partnership and your leadership. I have been a member and a leader of many teams in my life so I can genuinely say that being a part of this team has been an absolute privilege. To Cabinet and to my wider caucus I congratulate you on leading our nation through one of the most difficult periods in our history. There is a depth to our team often overlooked by commentators that continues to provide new and exciting talent when others such as myself decide that their time in this place is at an end. That is exciting. Rejuvenation while a team is on top is often the hardest but actually it is the best thing to ensure longevity. Can I thank all of my team for your support of both my wife Angela and my family throughout my time in this place.I have not been one of the political rock stars. I have not climbed to the very top of the political ladder. In saying this I am proud—I am very proud—to have been part of a team that has made and continues to make a huge contribution to this nation. I am proud of the part that I have played in that team. To use one of my dad’s analogies it is all very well for the wingers to take the glory but if the props and the hookers did not win the ball—[Interruption] That is right. There are some good props around Mr Sabin. Listen to this. If the props and the hookers did not take the ball there would be no applause for the Twinkletoes. I guess I have been one of those in the middle of the ruck.Some commentators say that you need to watch those behind you more than those across the other side of the House. Well that has not been my experience—far from it. I have absolutely loved my time here and the friendships that I have made including many across the other side of the House and in the media. Thank you very much as well.Recently I attended the Aspiring Leaders Forum where the Maxim Institute brings together 120 of our young leaders. My own son Sam who is in the gallery today was fortunate to be an attendee there. The Warehouse Chief Executive Officer Mark Powell gave the keynote address and had another definition of success. He defined success as when you are part of something bigger than yourself and when you help others to flourish. It is a great definition of success and to this end Parliament has many many more examples of successful people who by other measures have not risen to the top or who have by their actions allowed others to shine. I have many examples of these people whom I want to acknowledge this evening.Can I start by thanking the people who have supported me while I have been in this place: my electorate office team—Tania Wright Vicki Sanders Sue Boyle Sharon Coates Sue Page and Mary Crarer. Tania and Vicki have been with me from day one. Electorate agents as we across this House all know are the unsung heroes of an MP’s business. Day in and day out they deal with all spectrums of our society. Being an electorate MP is an incredible job. The diversity of the role is both challenging and rewarding. I want to thank the people of Napier Wairoa and the Hawke’s Bay for giving me the huge privilege to represent you over the last 9 years.One of the more memorable experiences was being asked to be the guest of the Go Natural Lifestyle Club to open its new gazebo. I consulted my wife Angela as I was too scared to go on my own. She agreed to join me. I spent more time that Saturday morning deciding what to wear than on any other occasion I have ever been to since. Should I be in casual or formal dress or should I be in my birthday suit? Who knows? Well we arrived at 11.30 a.m. in time for a tour and lunch. To this day I will never forget driving up the pine-enclosed complex pulling over in the car-park and watching the reception party walk down to greet us both. Ange leaned over and whispered in my ear: “My God CJ they really are naked.”In my neighbouring electorate I want to acknowledge my good mate Craig Foss and his electorate staff particularly Susanna Clark. We have worked closely together to take Hawke’s Bay forward. Reflecting back on my maiden speech I set goals around Napier health Napier community policing the Hawke’s Bay Airport business growth and apple exports to Australia. Nine years on I can confidently say that we have made good progress. We have secured a 10-year commitment to the Wellesley Road Health Centre. We have got community police in at Maraenui and in Tamatea. We extended the Hawke’s Bay Regional Airport runway and we have championed business growth trying to get an oil and gas industry and new irrigation up in the Hawke’s Bay. There is still more work to do there Fossy actually. Although still only small volumes our efforts did help to ensure that apples can now be exported to Australia. I want to thank both Phil Goff and Tim Groser for their efforts in achieving that for us. Thank you.The partnership between Craig and me under the brand “Backing the Bay” was a key factor in holding our seats for three consecutive terms. Craig I have appreciated your friendship and support. In that regard can I thank my Napier electorate team who are out there supporting my replacement Wayne Walford as we speak. Some of you are here tonight. There are so many who have contributed and too many to mention you all but to my electorate chairs over the last 9 years Tom Johnson Marshall Savidge Duncan Watson Lynne Trafford and now Ian Mayne thank you very much.To the National Party board particularly my regional chairs Patricia Morrison and Malcolm Plimmer and national chairs Judy Kirk and Peter Goodfellow thank you for your support behind the scenes enabling your MPs to bask in the sunshine.To all the people of this House from the cleaners to the security guards who ensure the smooth running of Parliament thank you. If there was ever a group of people who quietly go about ensuring that others can flourish it is you.My time on the backbench was a huge learning opportunity. There is no better place to learn the craft of politics than on the Opposition backbench. It is a great place to make a few mistakes and to live to fight another day. One big mistake that I made required an apology to my leader at the time Don Brash. Early in my time as a constituent MP we received a visit to Napier by the Earthrace biodiesel boat. One Peter Bethune visited my electorate office asking me to visit his boat in the Port of Napier. I was busy but in the course of the conversation I worked out that he would be in Wellington during the next parliamentary sitting so I agreed I would come and visit with a few colleagues. I suggested to Nick Smith that this would be a great opportunity to give Don some much-needed profile. Ah not such a good idea! Nick agreed to invite Don. The rest is history and has become the stuff of walk-the-plank legends. Don please accept my sincere apologies for that particular idea.To Mac Dalton Alistair Shelton Pat Humphries and Stefan Slooten who have supported me in my parliamentary office thank you. In particular can I acknowledge Pat Humphries who has worked in this amazing institution for much of her life. From junior backbench MPs to two Prime Ministers Pat Humphries has supported MPs to rise to the top of the ladder. Pat thank you. [Interruption] Yeah give her a clap.To my whip’s office team a huge thank you for your support over the 3 years I served as a junior and senior whip. At the heart of that office is Sue Reid who has guided many new whips in the right path. Thank you Sue. I have often described the whip’s role as 50 percent sergeant major and 50 percent local pastor in the church. It is a role that requires the trust of the caucus. We were a tight team as we are today. There are lots of stories that the whip becomes party to many of which are not appropriate to share. However I have one story I would like to tell that involves another apology and this one is to Louise Upston. She is thinking: “What the heck have I done here?”. During the start of my parliamentary year I was asked by the Young Nats to send a party representative to the Massey campus to participate in O-Week. I asked Louise to be our representative to which she agreed. At 12 p.m. I received a call from the Young Nats: “Where is Louise?”. I called Louise. “I’m at the front gate.” she said. “We’re at the front gates as well.” said the Young Nats. It turns out that I had sent Louise to Palmerston North instead of to Wellington. I am sorry about that Louise.Can I thank my ministerial team headed by Keith Mason Jenna Raeburn and Mary-Jane Rendell. Like Pat Keith who is up in the gallery today has been a senior private secretary in this Parliament for over 20 years working to support the success of Ministers across both sides of the House for that matter and now he is supporting Minister Parata. Although I was a Minister for only 2 years it is an incredible workload that goes through a Minister’s office with huge diversity. During my time it was great to lead a review of the Fire Service to initiate significant change in the gambling sector to introduce the right-hand turn law to introduce online passports to oversee the whole-of-Government information and communications technology strategy and to lead the second tranche of local government reform amongst all manner of other things.I want to pay a huge tribute to the public sector especially to the team at the Department of Internal Affairs. Under the leadership of Colin MacDonald the Department of Internal Affairs has transformed into a modern forward-looking department. Congratulations. There are many in the department who deserve a mention none more than Marilyn Little. She has worked tirelessly for both sides of this House providing outstanding advice helping others to take the credit from her work.When one comes to Parliament we are all fortunate to give maiden speeches and one’s valedictory is the chance to reflect on that speech. In my maiden speech I commenced with a mihi: “Whāia te pae tawhiti kia tata. Whāia te pae tata. Whakamaua kia ū kia tī-na.”[Draw the distant and not so distant horizon closer to you. When that is achieved grasp it firmly and permanently.]The mihi speaks of reaching for the stars pursuing one’s dreams. At the time it was remarked how unusual it was for a Pākehā New Zealander to use so much Te Reo in his maiden speech. I actually think our intake surprised more than a few and set a tone for the National Party one that has truly connected us with middle New Zealand not the far left or the far right. We came from vastly different walks of life: nurses builders diplomats shearers—Colin King—teachers shoe salesmen teen parents and even real estate agents. We understood what made Kiwis tick. A few of our number have risen through the ranks and many of us have been the solid core of the National caucus providing stability consistency and connection to people at the coalface. We have been the props and the hookers of the team. This connection has been continued through the 2008 and 2011 intake which is absolutely fantastic.When a mainstream party loses that connection with the aspirations of middle New Zealand the results speak for themselves. To my colleagues I say to never ever forget that. In regard to the goals I set in my maiden speech I am proud to see how much progress has been made in the area of Treaty settlements and to see the huge progress in my own rohe. Although there are still settlements that need to be completed we are in a totally different place from where we started. The Hon Chris Finlayson will be knighted at a future time for his service in this area. You can hold me to that! In my maiden speech I expressed concern at the lack of progress in our nation at the lack of opportunities for my children and at the huge numbers of people leaving our shores.In spite of the Christchurch earthquakes the global financial crisis and the meltdown of our second-tier finance sector New Zealand is now judged as one of the best economies in the Western World. Just today Australia’s Treasurer Joe Hockey called New Zealand’s economy the envy of the world. It is fantastic to see the turn-round in the migration statistics. I am exceptionally proud to see that. Nothing else reflects people genuinely seeing a brighter future in Aotearoa than those migration statistics.In addition to the goals that I set in my maiden speech I am proud of my affirmative votes in the smacking legislation the seabed and foreshore legislation and the marriage amendment bill. In each of these bills I learnt that leadership is not always about following the status quo or majority opinion; leadership is about challenging the status quo for something that you believe is genuinely better. Under John Key’s leadership we have made huge progress. I am excited about the future of this country and the prospects available to all children in our nation including my own children. With the economy in such great shape it is an excellent time to leave this House in search of new opportunities. I have already bought into two new businesses and am exploring a third. I am looking forward to re-engaging with my entrepreneurial passion. It is going to be challenging but exciting.In particular I will have more time to spend with my family and it is my family whom I would most like to thank as I come to the end of my valedictory. In my maiden speech I said that I would endeavour to put families at the pinnacle of Government policy because I said without strong families we have nothing. I have a strong family and they are here tonight and even some of the members of my wider family in the provincial club—you know who you are. To my mother Pam thank you for your support and for giving me the opportunity and the independence to do all that I wanted from a very young age. To my father I miss you hugely and wish that you could be here with your family tonight. Dad I am wearing your cufflinks tonight. To my brothers Mark and Simon we have often been measured against our father’s success on the sporting field and in life. Each of us however has cut our own different paths. I am confident that he would have been very proud of each of us and of our young families. In saying that I was never able to emulate my dad’s prowess on the sporting field. However let the Hansard record for eternity that I did captain the Parliamentary Rugby Team to victory in the 2011 Parliamentary Rugby World Cup.To my wife Angela’s parents and family particularly to Trevor and Jeanette—thanks for Angela and for your huge support of me and our family. To Ange Sam Will and Lily—I love you all dearly. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.So have I been successful in this parliamentary career? By some measures certainly; by others not as well. Sorry Rodney I did not take any scalps while I was here but I have been part of something bigger than myself most definitely and my efforts have allowed others to flourish. Yes I have achieved that. I started my maiden speech in Te Reo and will end it in our first language. In 2012 I took the Prime Minister to Wairoa honouring a commitment I had made to the wonderful wonderful people of that part of my electorate. On that day we had a number of pōwhiris where we did not have a speaker to introduce the Prime Minister. That role and the waiata fell to me. Upon our return to the caucus on the following Monday I was required by the Prime Minister to sing that waiata in the caucus room possibly the first person ever to do so at the National Party caucus. It was rough. I will not make you suffer that again. But I will close with a whakatauāki—a proverb—that talks of a new beginning a touch of frost a new dawn. I think it is appropriate as I leave this place and pursue an exciting new future.Whakataka te hau ki te uru whakataka te hau ki te tonga. Kia mākinakina ki uta kia mātaratara ki tai. E hī ake ana te atākura he tio he huka he hauhunga. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa. Kia ora.[Cease the winds from the west cease the winds from the south. Let the breezes blow over the land let the breezes blow over the ocean. Let the red-tipped dawn come with a sharpened air a touch of frost and a promise of a glorious day. So greetings and salutations to you collectively and to us all. Thank you. ]Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri):When I first entered this House 9 years ago I was a list member of Parliament in a Labour-held safe seat. I leave this place as the electorate member of Parliament for Waimakariri in a National-held seat. This just goes to show that anything can happen and one should never ever take one’s electorate for granted. Now I will leave this place never ever to suffer defeat as an electorate MP. I especially want to thank the 16787 voters of Waimakariri—well actually one of them was me—who entrusted me with their electorate vote and with the responsibility of representing them in Parliament. What a tremendous honour and a privilege. Constituency work has always been for me the most satisfying aspect of the job. There is nothing better than seeing a constituent come into my office with a problem and leave without it. Of course not all problems are able to be solved. To the 20489 Waimakariri voters who had the common sense and wisdom to give National their party vote well done thank you and long may that trend continue and long may National be the party of choice for you. By the way when I first stood our party vote in Waimakariri was in deficit by 6790 votes. We won the party vote that election by 81 votes a good reflection that indeed every vote does count. In total that is a turn-round of about 20000 party votes during my tenure.I have been an Opposition backbencher and a Government backbencher. I have been a list member of Parliament and an electorate member of Parliament and I do not need to comment on which is better. I have been given the absolute privilege of being a Cabinet Minister. That is like being selected for the All Black team. Not everyone gets to be an All Black and not every All Black gets to play 100 test matches. So I feel very honoured and privileged to have been selected for the team and to have been able to play my part. Thanks in particular to our Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key. Without a doubt he is one of the best Prime Ministers in New Zealand’s history. I will certainly take some reflected glory in having been selected as part of his Cabinet team for just over 4 years and his caucus team. For those who have not yet read the biography I feature on pages 194 and 215.Hon Member: It’s a good read.Hon KATE WILKINSON: It is a good read. The stewardship and governance of New Zealand shown especially by both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance Bill English throughout what have undoubtedly been some of our most challenging times have been outstanding and I will always be proud of being part of that team.Special thanks must go to my electorate team over the years my National Party volunteers friends and family many of whom are here today and who have travelled so far just to be here. It is a bit embarrassing really. If they had not believed in me supported me befriended me advised me fed me and looked after me I would not have been here in the first place I would not have been able to be here for 9 years and my tenure here would not have been so fantastic. Thank you also to them and to the National Party for honouring me with this opportunity. To my class of 2005 thank you. To my caucus colleagues it has been a fantastic journey together. Those remaining do have a huge responsibility to keep looking after our country making sure it does not get into the wrong hands protecting both our economy and our environment. I know that you will do this well. To my fellow valedictors—if that is a word—all the best with your post-parliamentary lives. To Natalie Nat Natto—she hates that—my executive assistant and then my senior private secretary you are the best person I have ever worked with. You seemed to understand me which was no mean feat. You held our team together in room 4.3. I will not embarrass you by tabling in the House your long-awaited reference from me but here it is. Pick it up later over drinks. To all my team who are all here except for Svar who I understand is hopefully watching this from Russia thank you for all your support and friendship over the years.They say things happen in threes. Well I was a member of Parliament in Canterbury. Under my watch the worst natural disaster the earthquakes happened. I was Minister of Conservation. Under my watch the worst environmental maritime disaster the Rena happened. And I was Minister of Labour. Under my watch the worst workplace safety disaster Pike River happened. Can I say that at least as Associate Minister of Immigration I did not let Mike Tyson into the country.Like every Canterbury member of Parliament the earthquake events will always stand out for me. What a remarkable time to be a member of Parliament for an electorate and in a home town that was devastated by the earthquakes. I feel honoured to have helped our district in my capacity as MP through what has surely been its darkest time from shovelling silt during those early days to informing residents of each and every new service and funding the National-led Government provided towards our recovery as well as the hours and hours of work helping our residents navigate through the repair and rebuild of their homes. We have all learnt so much together developing a new vocabulary along the way and learning about resilience and community—concepts we lived and which held us together so well. To the Hon Gerry Brownlee Canterbury and Christchurch owe you a huge debt of gratitude. Your legacy will be remarkable.I have always believed that New Zealand is the best country in the world and that was certainly borne out during my nearly 4 years as Minister of Conservation. What a fantastic portfolio to have had the privilege of holding. I remember to this day my very first kiwi release. To hold one of those iconic beautiful birds was a treasure I shall always remember. On this first occasion I was given some very sage advice as I was holding the kiwi firmly fondly and possessively. I must admit that the advice was not that welcome. Basically I was advised in no uncertain terms. They said: “Minister the idea of a kiwi release is you actually let go of the kiwi and release it.” Thank you Gavin. One of the absolute highlights apart from naming one of our kākāpō Jack—who by the way is now 3 years old fit well and starting to boom—Hon Members: Oh!Hon KATE WILKINSON: Exactly. One of the highlights has to be taking Prince William to Kāpiti Island. What a delightful young man. I would not mind hanging him up in my wardrobe. I have a photo hanging in pride of place on my wall of the prince flanked by the Prime Minister and me. I must admit there was a fleeting moment when I considered cropping the photo but I did not. The trick as we all know with photos is to try to stand in the middle so there is no possibility of being cropped out. Sorry Nathan. I also remember when I was Minister of Conservation having to do a media stand-up with my colleague Gerry Brownlee who was then Minister of Energy and Resources. There were some critics who said I was not even there so I just want to put it on the record once and for all that I can assure them I was there; it is just that the camera lens maybe was not wide enough for the both of us.In my time as Minister of Labour there were good times and bad times. The ink on my warrant barely had time to dry when I was told that my 90-day trial bill would be one of the first in our term to go on the Order Paper. It has now been in place for just on 6 years. The protections we built into the legislation worked and in that time there has been no amendment needed apart from of course extending it from small businesses to all businesses. Indeed that one piece of policy and legislation was credited with having provided 13000 new jobs in its first year. We had finally caught up with what had happened in most jurisdictions throughout the world. It would be sad if ideology reversed all this. It has helped so many and hurt so few.Most memorable sadly was the Pike River mining tragedy. I cannot resile from the absolute fact that 29 men died under my watch. Although I was not personally responsible I was the responsible Minister and it happened under my watch. We all wish we could turn back the clock and prevent such a disaster and keep those men safe. We cannot but I am proud of the setting up of the Royal commission inquiry and now the implementing of its recommendations putting the spotlight on workplace safety. We often have a national culture of “she’ll be right” but it too often is not right. We lose a worker about once a week and a farmer once a month and a farmer is hurt about every 30 minutes. So often those deaths and injuries could have been avoided. We need to change that culture and simply look after our workmates. Governments can do only so much and can be only so effective. Workplaces and workmates can do more.The food safety portfolio is a fascinating one although when I was first given the portfolio a good friend of mine did comment that if the Prime Minister had looked inside my fridge he would not have given me food safety. Anyway it started for me with the folic acid debate—not the most memorable one for me. Throughout all the discussions as to how many slices of bread one would need to consume to get the daily intake of folic acid remarkably it went unnoticed that actually I cannot even eat bread. However the portfolio ended for me with a success having negotiated with our Australian counterparts on a joint health claims standard. I even had the Australian Minister who chairs the forum make a special trip over here to see me not particularly happy about trying to convince New Zealand to go with the Australians and not opt out of a joint standard. We won through in the end; otherwise it would have stifled innovation and cost our businesses millions if not billions of dollars. There are two lessons from that. Firstly we have definitely not lost our sovereignty to Australia and secondly if it is good news it does not always get the good publicity it deserves. In fact more column space was spent on my being mistakenly referred to as “Kate Middleton” than on this food treaty success.Our work in select committees as has been said often goes unnoticed by the public. They do not often see the collaborative approach to make good law whatever our respective ideologies and beliefs. My first success in a select committee was changing the word “the” to the word “a” and one of my last successes was changing “can” to “may”. Words can indeed make a difference. Yet we still have some really really stupid laws or maybe it is just that we have enabled some of our laws to be interpreted stupidly. Why for example can I no longer use my business card in the regulated period? Apparently that is deemed electioneering. It is a business card for goodness’ sake and I am not even standing for re-election.Local successes are always the sweeter. I am particularly proud to have been instrumental in obtaining our health hub in Rangiora and thanks must go to the Hon Tony Ryall for his support on this and for making it happen. This is a milestone eagerly and long awaited by residents to supplement our world-class St John Ambulance paramedic team serving residents after hours an award-winning response model. It is so much more worthwhile and responsible to look pragmatically and objectively for solutions rather than negatively focusing on the problems. I always preferred to work hard behind the scenes and help solve problems in priority to trying to attract any headline.We all have a best-before date and a use-by date although I believe that some do not recognise either. But I was reminded of that at a university club day I was attending to help out and support our wonderful energetic and enthusiastic Young Nats. A student coming up to our stand made the comment to me: “You look familiar. Do I know you?”. Since I am not one ever to use the phrase “Don’t you know who I am?” one of our helpful Young Nats started to say “Oh she is a local MP. She is a Minister.” etc. when the inquirer interrupted and said: “I know. You remind me of my grandmother.” That was a reality check. Still the alternative to getting older is worse but it does serve to remind us that this is not a job for life. It goes very quickly and we must make the most of each and every day. Most of us come to this place to make a difference to make New Zealand a better place. Some do it better than others some have different views on how to make that difference some do it differently than others and probably some do not make any difference at all. I hope in my small way that I have made some small difference to some people.It is a remarkable thing though. As soon as I made the decision not to stand again my bucket list magically got bigger and bigger. So now it is time to start emptying that bucket. A big job I know but I am up for it. Until 20 September I have a job to do but then I am away to tick off the first agenda item on my bucket list. It will be the first time in 9 years that I have not had to ask the permission of our whips. Obviously there will be some things I will miss about this place but there are also things I definitely will not miss. No longer will I have to ask for leave to go to the Christchurch Show Day or to go on holiday. I will always cherish my time working with and for our residents of Waimakariri as their MP. I have loved the job. I have valued the opportunity. I have been humbled by the privilege. But now it is time to step away and tread a different path or as my GPS frequently tells me “route recalculation”.As some have been known to say I have been around for over 30 million minutes so far—not all in this place although nearly 5 million minutes have been spent here. It is time for me to use those remaining minutes differently. There are now more restaurants and bars in Christchurch than before the earthquakes—more than 120 new ones. I have not tried them all so I can start working my way through them. Bucket list here I come. In closing can I say that in 2005 I was so excited to be here and now 9 years later I am so excited to leave.WaiataSitting suspended from 5.56 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment BillThird ReadingDr CAM CALDER (National):I move That the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. It is a huge pleasure to be speaking in the House a mere 1 hour and 50 minutes after my valedictory speech. It was something I did not expect I could do and—Denis O’Rourke: Coming back.Dr CAM CALDER: It does not betoken a comeback. No no it does not betoken a comeback. It merely betokens my delight and appreciation at being able to introduce for its third reading a bill that has been a long time in gestation. I have to acknowledge at this stage the support this bill has received across the House. It has been unanimously supported—Phil Twyford: It was a good dinner break Cam was it?Dr CAM CALDER: —by my colleagues across the House. Mr Twyford was one of those to support it. I did not see him at the post-gathering celebrations but he would have been welcome had he not been so busy as would my colleague here from New Zealand First who is sitting in his leader’s position at the moment.It is a pleasure to be at this stage the third reading of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. Those who watch Parliament TV will have been aware that there was a lot of debate about this bill at the Committee stage. I believe Mr O’Rourke was part of that debate. Mr Prosser certainly was part of that debate and spoke fulsomely in favour of said bill. He is only human. It was the right thing to do because this bill is small and perfectly formed and it will actually significantly increase the safety of all of us who travel by air in New Zealand. We have got an excellent airline Air New Zealand. I was privileged to go along to its annual parliamentary gathering last night. Once again it surpassed itself in the excellence of its presentation and in fact it is doing very well on the world stage.Something like this in New Zealand will improve safety. Legislation does not stop idiots behaving idiotically. We know that. However the fact that somebody will not be able to go out and stuff a high-power laser pointer which many speakers in previous speeches in the House did point out are actually weapons in their pocket and expect to get away with it will mean it will have a preventative aspect.I first became aware of the dangers of laser pointers in a sporting occasion strange as though it may be to report in 1997 in Montpellier. What was the occasion I hear you ask? It was the world pétanque championships. What was happening? Some recidivists in the audience were trying to put off some of the favoured players by shining laser pointers in their eyes. Even those of us who are not partial to the beautiful game normally—there are not many people in New Zealand who are totally immune to the delights of football. But many of us were watching the World Cup and we saw the Russian goalie—it was shown all round the world—who was attempting to be in full modus operandi for deflecting a corner kick. He was in fact struck in the face in his eyes by a laser pointer. Shortly after there was another attempt on the goal and he failed to repel that.That is just a sporting occasion—but of course it is never just a sporting occasion. But it is not talking about the loss of life. More important is the potential loss of life that could come from laser pointers being used against the pilots of aircraft. Many people in the House many colleagues across the House have pointed out the dangers of this. I believe that this bill will have a preventative effect and reduce the chances of this happening.Last year there were 119 reported laser attacks on aircraft and helicopters. The point was made by the New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Association that those are just the ones that were reported in New Zealand because foreign aircraft would report their strikes to their authorities back home. So this bill is timely. This bill is necessary. It will be a valued legislative tool to improve public safety in our country. I appreciate the widespread support it has received to date in the House and I commend this bill to the House.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):I think it is well known that Labour members are supporting the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. I wanted to use just a few brief moments to pay tribute to Cam Calder who gave his valedictory speech this evening. Cam is one of the good guys of Parliament. The Deputy Speaker is also one of the good guys of Parliament but he is not leaving as far as I know.Darien Fenton: Yes he is. He is.PHIL TWYFORD: Is he?Hon Member: Sadly he is.PHIL TWYFORD: Crikey! That is terrible news Mr Deputy Speaker. That is terrible news. All of the good people on the National benches happen to be leaving. I do not know why that is. But I just want to say that Cam Calder has been a very collegial parliamentary colleague since he entered this House. He was always good to work with on the select committees and a good contributor.This bill will be the legacy of Cam Calder’s parliamentary career. We are supporting it because we think it is a modest but useful contribution that will prevent some risk to the travelling public and particularly the hazard posed by people using laser pointers to interfere with aircraft that are coming in to land. So Labour is supporting this bill. We look forward to its progress.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East):On behalf of Cam probably I would like to thank Phil Twyford for those nice words. I am sure that they are most welcome. Yes I would just like to congratulate Dr Cam Calder as well on the fine contribution he has made to this Parliament on this Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill and also on his great speech this afternoon. I think there were two words that we had to look up in the dictionary but apart from that—Dr Paul Hutchison: What about the French?DAVID BENNETT: The French was fine. But apart from that Cam mentioned this bill in his speech. I think his dedication and desire to make a difference in this Parliament goes far beyond this bill. It is something that is nice to be able to do today on Cam’s last official day you could say in the House. His contribution is such that it is much bigger and stronger than this bill and it is something that we thank you very much for and we thank you for your friendship and your support in this Parliament and for the work that you have done for the National Party.This bill is a practical piece of legislation that will make a difference. I think during the select committee process we have all been impressed with the way that all members of Parliament from the different political parties have worked together constructively to get the best result we could for this bill. It is something that many New Zealanders probably do not think about that often but it actually can make a huge difference if it actually does occur in the public arena. There is the issue of a plane being under the guidance of one of these hand-held lasers which could cause an accident to occur. Should such an accident have occurred then I think the public would have demanded that Parliament do something about it. To take this action before that actually occurs is something that does not often happen in politics or in legislation but when it can and does occur it is something that we should all welcome with open arms. I look forward to the other smaller political parties in this House—the Greens and New Zealand First—adopting a similar rational approach to the one that Labour has taken to this bill. That is something that we look forward to.There were some changes during the progress of this bill through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee really to make sure that we had the best possible legislation going forward that would cover all the bases and deliver the right results for our communities. This is a good piece of legislation. It is something that I think Dr Cam Calder should be proud of and we thank him for his wider contribution. We look forward to the bill passing through this House this evening. Thank you.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):It is a big day for Cam Calder. I want to join with others in congratulating him on his valedictory today and also on his third reading speech on this bill the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill which was very enlightening. In fact I have to say that Cam Calder has lit up this Parliament over his time while he has been here. But he has decided to turn out the lights on his parliamentary career so we say that with some regret and we say farewell to him. [Interruption] I could do more. Do you want more? Would you like some? OK.It is a big deal to get a member’s bill through the Parliament and it does not happen for many members. Certainly I have tried many times. I have had four bills drawn from the ballot. But I did not have a cooperative party opposite me that was prepared to be as accommodating as the Labour Party has been with Cam Calder’s bill in terms of the spirit with which we conducted the examination of this bill in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the camaraderie with which we have worked over the time spent on this bill and on many other bills in fact. That is a disappointment for me but however this is Cam Calder’s legacy and it is not a bad one to leave actually.When you think about it aircraft are very much on our minds at the moment because of the horrific downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. It just gives you a reminder of the reality of what happens when a plane comes down by whatever means. Lasers and the pointing of high-power lasers being used to deliberately interfere with a flight path to shine a light into the pilot’s eyes and the consequences on public safety and on human life are enormous.The only note of disappointment I would want to contribute to this debate is that I missed all the excitement during the Committee stage. I understand that exercised Government members for just about the whole night 2 weeks ago. I thought: “Well this is great. They are practising their debating skills on such an important bill. They are all getting up and saying what they think and congratulating Cam Calder and so on.” But of course the really disappointing thing—it was really disappointing—was that it was about defeating a Labour member’s bill. That is the truth—that is the truth. It is such an abuse of parliamentary process. I think that member Cam Calder who is such an upstanding MP probably felt pretty uncomfortable about that. However we will get through the Committee stage of the parental leave bill tonight and it will be ready to pass after the election when Labour wins the election.Having given my congratulations to Cam Calder I do say it is a worthy bill which is why Labour is supporting it. I really hope we have the same camaraderie tomorrow when I deliver my valedictory and you will join me in a verse of solidarity. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green):I rise to take a short call on the third reading of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill and would like to offer my congratulations to the member on going out in such style. Not many MPs would get to have a bill passed on the evening of their valedictory. I think that is quite an achievement. I do think you are one of those MPs who have worked really collegially in this House and will be missed.We are supporting this bill of course because it just makes sense and is a good idea. I would like to say though that some of the joy of this moment Dr Calder has been tainted for me I have got to say by the behaviour on the last members’ day of that side of the House. I notice that things are moving quite quickly this evening on this third reading. There is actually not much substance. Although it is a very very important bill there is not a huge amount of detail to it. The fact that that side of the House took 23 speeches on the last members’ day to discuss this bill which has very little detail to it does make me very sad because it was about a political point. That your party chose to use your bill to do that has tainted it somewhat I think.Scott Simpson: What a sanctimonious arrogant comment from that Green member.JAN LOGIE: I am being called sanctimonious and arrogant for sharing my disappointment at the fact that this has prevented New Zealand families getting 26 weeks’ paid parental leave before the election. I think that is a bit of a shame. It was also a shame hearing some of the members on that side of the House after the debate last time saying “Well that was fun.” as they prevented families getting 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. It was one of the more disappointing moments for me in this House. But I will leave it there on a final note of congratulations again to the member on making a difference and on going out with such flair.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I am really pleased to take a call on the third reading of the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill and to shine a little light on Dr Cam Calder. In fact I have been shocked during the course of this bill. I have learnt two things: first and foremost tonight I have learnt you can deliver a valedictory speech and then return to the House and give a speech. I have almost been as shocked as I was in the Committee stage when I found out that Mike Sabin was a police officer.Mike Sabin: Really?SIMON O’CONNOR: Yeah I am still recovering from that.Hon Member: What’s his family background?SIMON O’CONNOR: Yeah exactly. Quelle horreur! I do remember actually in speaking in defence of what the last speaker was accusing this side of that we actually saw it as relatively important to draw out the important consequences of this bill. I remember that Committee stage well. In fact my father was here at that time. I suspect he is listening in again. He certainly sent his best regards to you Cam as you delivered your valedictory.This is an important bill. I think the member opposite Darien Fenton addressed it well when she referred quickly but quite appropriately to what has happened with flight MH17—not so much the particular nature of how that airliner was downed but the fact that the bringing down of an aircraft by whatever means is a major incident.Dr Calder right at the start indicated just the sheer number of times that this problem with lasers is reported by New Zealand pilots but importantly noted that a lot of the reports go to other airlines as is appropriate. This is a problem. It has taken Dr Cam Calder to see that issue to engage with the community and those experts in the field and to take the time and effort to draft this bill bring it to the House guide it through the House and bring it now here to the third reading where—well looking at the clock at the moment—it will I assume pass unanimously tonight. I think it is an excellent legacy for Cam. Again an earlier member alluded that not many members of this House have the opportunity to even have a member’s bill to get one drawn out and then if it is drawn out to have it concluded in the House. So Cam I think that is yet another achievement that you have brought here.I say “yet another” because this bill a good bill sits alongside an enormous amount of other work that Cam has done. I want to quickly highlight two of those elements. The first of course is as a hard-working MP in the heart of Manurewa. As someone who briefly worked alongside you Cam I saw day after day that hard work. It has now translated into something like this bill here around the summary offences. I think you will be missed Cam from this caucus from this House and by the people of Manurewa. I will miss you mate—that has to be said. The other side though is this Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. It is not the only contribution you have made. Obviously as the chair of the Education and Science Committee you are bringing to a closure the cross-party inquiry into parental engagement in schools. I think that is fantastic as well. But this bill is important and I am really pleased that everyone basically is supporting it.The misuse of lasers is a problem. I was talking to police officers a few months’ back when I had the privilege of going out with them on patrol. They were indicating that even those on an eagle helicopter were getting blinded. We had in a public meeting in Tāmaki a few weeks after that some people from the Airline Pilots’ Association noting the trouble that it was causing them. We in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee have taken quite a bit of time to go through this bill and I think that was reflected in the Committee stage.I just want to touch on as we hit this third reading some of the elements that the Committee of the whole House considered. The first is around the name of the bill. I think actually it was the Hon Kate Wilkinson earlier who in her valedictory indicated that words are important and good wording leads to good ideas. We have changed the name of this bill retitling it by using the words “high-power laser pointers”. Initially the bill title mentioned hand-held lasers and we thought that it was actually just a bit too specific. Lasers do not necessarily have to be hand held.This was a bill whose title we thought we could broaden out. The changed title which talks about high-power lasers accurately reflects the types of lasers that it can control. We had a lot of debate in the Committee stage around what those types of lasers were and a few constituents actually were emailing me at the time—obviously there is everything from military use to those interested in astronomy.One of the things I know Cam rightly pushed for and pushed back against was around the whole question of the commencement date. Once this bill gets the Royal assent should it come into immediate effect? Others said we should push it out for weeks or months. I think Dr Calder we came to a good agreement that we would allow this legislation to come into effect 28 days after it receives the Royal assent. I would suggest that there is an element of sort of natural justice in the way you have to give people an opportunity to understand the law and integrate it.The seizure of lasers was something that was particularly brought to my attention in a public meeting by a representative of the New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Association who it had turned out was actually a constituent of mine so it was doubly good and who was wondering about the seizure of these lasers. She was querying why there were not particular elements or provisions in the bill about this. We considered this and the reason it is not specifically there is that we are able to draw on the search and seizure legislation which this Government has proudly already pushed through so we were able to use that. I think that is an illustration not only of this Government but of the House understanding the import of existing legislation and how we use that moving forward.The last area as you would expect was around the whole definition of what a hand-held laser or a high-power laser device is. We took a long time considering this. We wanted clarity not only for the public but obviously for the police and the courts. They are ultimately the ones that need to manage this. We basically went down the line. I have to read it here specifically. It is the Customs Import Prohibition (High-power Laser Pointers) Order 2013. So this is an existing law on the statute books a regulatory power given—and I have forgotten the exact name of the official but they define what a laser is.One of the big elements of that is that a pointer needs to have an output of greater than 1 milliwatt but I think Dr Calder in his speeches throughout all stages has noted that even the smaller powered lasers can have an impact but we have felt that it is the right way to go by defining this as a power output greater than 1 milliwatt. And what is important here—and those who have heard me talk on various elements of legislation would note this—is consistency. So this Act in the name of Dr Cam Calder will use the same structure as that customs import prohibition. [Bell rung] Although that was a bell that rang this is ultimately a bill about lights and I want to end as I began which is—Scott Simpson: Bells and whistles!SIMON O’CONNOR: No no bells and whistles unfortunately. That might be a member’s bill for the honourable member for Coromandel. I think actually banning whistles in the likes of Mission Bay late at night would go down very well with my constituents. But I turn back to Cam Calder who has sponsored this bill created this bill and drawn it through the House. Cam I think it is absolutely fantastic that even post-valedictory you get the opportunity to speak in this House and may I join with other colleagues who have spoken in thanking you for your service to Crown and country and for being just a bloody good mate.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):It is always a pleasure to follow the erudite and enlightening Mr Simon O’Connor. I am very pleased to rise to take a final call on the third reading of the good Dr Calder’s most excellent member’s bill the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. We are proud to support it and pleased to have the opportunity to support it. This is a fine bill and we in New Zealand First believe that it will make a quite splendid law.This is a short simple bill but it will have quite far-reaching effects. By removing powerful hand-held laser pointers from the hands of people who have no legitimate purpose for possessing them Dr Calder’s bill—his swansong his legacy for this august institution—will make New Zealand a safer place. Of this there is no question. As we debate even as we plan their demise here in this House of the people there are ne’er-do-wells out there who look to the skies with lasers in hand and malice aforethought. Dr Calder’s bill will make flying in New Zealand a safer undertaking. Removing powerful lasers from persons of nefarious intent will materially lessen the risk and incidence of such devices being used to interfere with airliners on approach to our airports with other aircraft and with police and rescue helicopters. Indeed it will make driving on our roads safer as well.We are fortunate here in New Zealand that we have not as yet suffered greatly in the way that some nations have as a result of the same kinds of idiots who think it funny to blind pilots by using their dangerous toys to dazzle and to distract drivers on the motorway. This has happened in other parts of the world and it would have been only a matter of time before this country came to suffer similarly. Fortuitously Dr Calder’s bill has come before this House and through its processes just in the nick of time.Via this new mechanism we the people can negate the potential for harm posed by such persons and their illicit use of these devices. We can remove the said devices from the possession of the aforementioned scoundrels and bang said scoundrels up at Her Majesty’s pleasure for a short sharp 3 months. May it be an unpleasant and uncomfortable 3 months for anyone so convicted.Tonight we have been treated to Dr Calder’s valedictory speech as he prepares to depart these halls for whatever adventure life has in store for him next and a fine speech it was too I might say—as fine a speech as this bill is a fine bill. Standing ramrod straight and fixing us with a gaze every bit as steely and direct as any laser beam Dr Calder has bid us farewell and left us with this his legacy. Well done I say Dr Calder. Well done and thank you—fair winds and flat seas.We have come to the end of this process of lawmaking. At the conclusion of this debate we shall vote this bill on to the statutes and into law. It will be a fine law. It is a necessary law and as I have said a law that has found us just in the nick of time. I do not intend to delay the passage of it unnecessarily. Over the course of this bill’s passing through the House we have learnt about the need for such a piece of legislation we have examined the science of lasers we have heard harrowing tales from overseas and from the skies above us and we have learnt about legitimate uses for lasers as well.I bought another one myself only last week. Strolling as I was with no particular intent as one does through one of the admittedly less well-trod corridors of one of the lower floors of my extensive armoury I discovered a certain sporting long gun that I had somehow omitted to fit with a laser sight. That omission I can tell the House has now been rectified. But that is a legitimate purpose and what we are dealing with here is improper use. This bill addresses that improper use. It is a fine bill from a fine member who will be genuinely missed. We support it and I commend it to the House. Thank you.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I am very pleased to be able to take my last call on this bill the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill and I will join with all others in this happy moment this happy-fest to congratulate Dr Cam Calder on his fine valedictory speech today but more so on his outstanding contribution to New Zealand to the community of Manurewa and to us as a caucus team. You will be sadly missed my friend. I am saying that only because if I need a diagnosis of something on the cheap I will obviously be coming to see you.Hon Michael Woodhouse: He was an expert on prostate cancer.MIKE SABIN: Was he? Well I will withdraw that request.In all seriousness can I just acknowledge Dr Calder for getting a member’s bill across the line. When it comes down to it when parliamentarians come and go there are very few who will get the honour of being a Minister. I guess that in that position certainly the legacy that Ministers leave is the ability to really be in charge of the legislative agenda and many laws are made or taken away and so forth.The other vehicle for parliamentarians in the main is the member’s bill and many members’ bills are in the ballot. Some have merit and probably many do not but the fact of the matter is that to get a member’s bill drawn from the ballot is pure luck. To actually succeed in getting a member’s bill passed into law is about skill determination and having an absolute understanding of what this place is about and what the community needs in terms of legislation.Members’ bills face exactly the same scrutiny as any Government bill so the point I want to make on that is that although Dr Calder’s effort on this laser bill is something that most people will not stay awake at night wondering about it is a very important piece of legislation. He should be commended for the fact that he has been a parliamentarian who has successfully brought a member’s bill through this House and has been successful in getting it passed. So I just offer my congratulations on that score.Surprisingly enough we had some quite robust debate on the bill and a lot of discussion on a number of the facets of the bill. One of the main ones was whether it should be about high-power laser pointers or just about hand-held lasers. [Interruption] Yes so there was a lot of discussion on that and on where that should land. I certainly raised the analogy of when we have the unlawful possession of a knife for example—so the possession of a knife in a public place without a reasonable excuse—where the offence is not determined by the length of the knife but it is simply that the knife is in the possession of a person without reasonable excuse.I sort of felt that Dr Calder’s point in terms of the same rule applying to a laser pointer was actually very valid. But as we progressed and looked in more detail at the implications for all those university professors out there and all those teachers and people who frequent the land of the hand-held laser it was clearly determined that with this being a preventative piece of legislation it should fall squarely in the area of high-power laser pointers which would ultimately cause the most damage. If Dr Calder can just remind me is it 60 miles that the laser could reach?Dr Cam Calder: Yes.MIKE SABIN: It is an astonishing distance. So Dr Calder gracefully accepted the advice of the officials and I actually think it has landed in a very sensible space on that. The point is that it was last year I think when there were more laser strikes on aircraft than ever before. The Civil Aviation Authority—if I am correct; I am not exactly sure—Dr Cam Calder: That’s correct.MIKE SABIN: Yes the Civil Aviation Authority reported that there were more laser strikes than ever before in the last year and there has certainly been in excess of 100 strikes a year in recent years which is phenomenal. When you see how these things reflect in a cockpit it literally blinds the pilots. It is horrendously dangerous which is why I think that over a number of years now we have actually seen hand-held lasers used in warring countries to literally bring down aircraft. We have seen them used against rescue helicopters and a police helicopter.It defies belief why some idiots out there would think that that is a fun or an interesting thing to do or would even consider doing something as stupid as that. Possibly it is because they do not know of the impact of them—that they can be so effective at literally blinding the pilots or bewildering them—but I think that many have come to that conclusion because there has been a lot of publicity on this for a number of years. So one can only assume that they are actually doing it knowing full well that they could bring about a pretty significant outcome. We have seen them doing it at vehicles from overpasses and so forth. Dr Calder pointed out that we have even seen them used at the Football World Cup and they have certainly been used at rugby matches and so forth.There are some serious idiots out there and this law is about those serious idiots and about saying that actually this is not on and that there will be a consequence to doing it. This bill will make it an offence to be in possession of a high-power laser pointer without reasonable excuse and so it should be. So it is a preventative thing rather than a punitive move and that is why there is a 28-day period I guess. It is to get some education out there and to get the police in the right space in terms of them using this bill as a deterrent. Prevention will always be better than cure and my goodness me if there was ever a commercial aircraft taken down heaven forbid.So in that sense this bill is in many ways about preventing the loss of life. Although we have trifled and we have had a bit of fun Dr Calder I think it is fair to say that the reason this House is supporting this bill is that it is just good practical common sense. It is not the New Zealand First variety of common sense of course because that is just sort of sloganized populism stuff. This is the real common sense that New Zealanders actually know and understand not the one that you just paint on a sticker and that means that that is what we must have.In any event the bill is practical it is common sense and it is preventative and I think in that sense it certainly has deserved the support of the House. It has had the support of the House. I think that Dr Calder should be commended for the fact that he has been willing to concede some points in this bill to ensure that it was a bill that was fit for purpose right across the House and with the officials and so forth. I think the Labour Party certainly raised some concerns and said that it should apply to high-power laser pointers. I think that Iain Lees-Galloway famously said in the House that he actually uses a laser pointer at home to play with his pussy. I was not quite sure where he was going with that one. I mean I usually use a ball of wool or something like that but fine play with your pussy with a laser pointer—fair enough. We all have our different ways of entertaining the cat. Although we did trifle with that the reality is that a low-power laser or one under 1 milliwatt is it—Dr Cam Calder: Under 1 milliwatt.MIKE SABIN: It is under 1 milliwatt. You know if it is good enough for Iain Lees-Galloway to play with his pussy it is probably not likely to cause the sort of damage that a high-power laser pointer would and I think that is why we have—Moana Mackey: Grow up.MIKE SABIN: I am fully grown I think. I was supposed to be a lot taller of course but something went wrong along the way.So can I just join the House in commending Dr Calder for this piece of legislation. It will ultimately be something that does save lives. In all seriousness I think that the member should be commended for that and I wish him very well in his life beyond politics. He will be remembered well here and will be a friend to us all for a long time. Thank you.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour):It is a pleasure to rise and speak on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. I think that as we enter the final sitting days of this 50th Parliament it is appropriate and timely to embark on what I think we are all really here for—that is to act as parliamentarians. Occasionally it is permissible to shed the political colours and banners under which we arrive here in order to celebrate and honour the traditions of this fine House and the role that it plays at the heart of our democracy. You see that in valedictory speeches or you usually do. There were some valedictory speeches in which that generosity of spirit was not expressed today. That unfortunately reflects the true state and the modern state of today’s National Party—lacking in generosity charmless graceless a miserly and miserable party—which explains no doubt why Cam Calder is leaving.Cam Calder is somebody whom I have come to know in my 3 years here and is a man amongst men but he is one of those men who I think genuinely epitomises the spirit of leadership compassion and humanity which is not widely found in every political party in this House. Cam Calder has a number of other redeeming features to him. It helps that he hails from Taranaki—the mighty province the great province and the province generating great wealth not only in its minerals and its financial resources but in its people. Cam Calder is one of them and he wears I see tonight the colours of Taranaki—a region of which he is so proud even though he does not live there currently. Of course he is also known for another great achievement and that is his pétanque playing. We do not often talk about that about Cam but he is an accomplished and indeed an international-grade pétanque player. I defy any member of this House to challenge Cam Calder to a game of the mighty boules and see whether they can hit the kitty or do whatever it is they do with their very heavy hefty little items.But I want to talk about the legislation—because that is what we are here for after all—and to join with my colleagues who have I think been very generous not only in their acknowledgment and honouring of Cam Calder the author of the bill but also in paying due heed and seriousness to the objectives of the bill which is as Mike Sabin has said a public safety measure. It is about the safe conveyance of passengers and crew on aircraft. I know that Richard Prosser said the bill is about ensuring that there is not improper use of these high-power lasers. Actually it is not that. It is about the possession of high-power lasers without reasonable excuse and that is not a subtle difference; it is a very important distinction. There are very few legitimate uses for these sorts of devices. Obviously lecturing training and imparting information are some of them but there is no need for people to be walking on down the streets or hiding behind the bushes and dazzling passing traffic whether it is cars trucks whatever and certainly not air traffic.This is a well-directed piece of legislation and it rightly has the support of the House and it has the support of the Labour Party. I think it will send a very clear signal and a very clear message to those who think that this is some zany sort of fun now that there is an explicit sanction against it and some real penalties against those who would behave in that sort of way. I congratulate Cam Calder on having the bill selected and shepherding it through all the stages. I think there was a pretty good and detailed and serious consideration of it at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. This will be a good piece of legislation as that reflects the author of it and the contribution that he has made to this House in the time that he has been here.ALFRED NGARO (National):It is always good to speak after the member Andrew Little because he also provides a little platform to speak on. We know that the party slogan of the Labour Party is “Vote positive” but he could not stay on message. He began negative and talked about the National Party and all its negatives tones. Some of us wondered how Labour got its branding and logo. We sort of think the party members got together and they realised that the polls were not doing well so they had a little committee. They met together and they questioned what was going wrong. What was going wrong was that they kept on talking negatively about everything that was going on. So what they said was this: “Let’s go out there and let’s tell people to vote positive.” The difficult thing for Mr Little is that every time he tries to act positive it is very difficult and he goes negative. But he did go back on message. I would have to give you that Mr Little. You went back on message and became very positive as well at the same time.I want to join in that positive stance because really tonight is the night we want to congratulate our member our colleague “Mr Tripod” here the honourable member Cam Calder—because he is an honourable member. One thing I have absolutely enjoyed about our colleague in our time here is that on the many times he has stood up in the House he has been very passionate he has been honest and he has been true to his convictions and what he believes is important for the communities that he serves. Here he is. Yes he is the man from “the Naki”. He may live on the Shore but when the opportunity to serve Manurewa came he went in there boots and all.Even today I actually said to Cam: “That’s right—Manurewa hard.” He said: “Alfred we’re no longer going to go there. It’s Manurewa proud.” And he began to tell me about the reasons. He said that for the community that he serves out in Manurewa so many times things have been hard. He said he wants to change that. For the time that he has been there serving that community—over 6 years—he has been talking about how this community can be proud of the place that they live in of the things that they have there of the schools and the services they deliver. So I really want to commend you Cam because you have been absolutely a champion of the community of Manurewa. When people look into that community they may judge it by all sorts of different things but as you have worked in there you have wanted to say that Manurewa its community and its people should be proud of the place that they live in should be proud of the community that they serve and should actually grow that community from the inside out to be transformative. I want to commend you for the Government that you have been working in and the role that you have played as well.It is an honour for anyone to be able to have their own member’s bill drawn and we have talked about it being the roll of the dice. There you go—you have come out of the ballot and you have had your member’s bill drawn. But as my colleague here Mike Sabin said it is one thing to get drawn; it is another thing to take the bill to completion. One thing that I know from my colleague here is that as Cam Calder has worked on the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill—Mike Sabin: He’s lobbied like you wouldn’t believe.ALFRED NGARO: He has lobbied in a way that has made a difference and here is the proof in the pudding. He has been the chairman of the Education and Science Committee where he has had to work in a collegial way knowing that the fact is that the balance of power can sway either way. That is testament to your chairmanship. That is testament to the fact that you have lobbied and you have worked. You wanted to get a collegial and consensual response to supporting the things that you have led as well. You have done that and you have done a great job with your bill as well.There is another thing I want to say about this bill—and it is my first time to speak so it is actually an honour to be able to speak to this bill. But can I say that people have commented that it is only a small bill. But it is a small thing that makes the difference. You may tick it as an output saying yes the purpose of this bill is to be preventative in its impact. But you see it is the outcomes that I often look at which do make the difference.So here are some of the outcomes that I think make a difference. The bill tells juvenile offenders who are out there and it tells young people—and we have all been young in our days—that when they go out there that yes you can be a little bit cavalier you can maybe go out in a bit of folly and play. I am trying to use these words that I know that Mr Cam Calder would use. But the fact is that there comes a time when you need to be responsible and I think that is the key word. This is preventative because people are going to be responsible even for the things that they take into their hands. You have talked about this: that a hand-held laser can be used in a way that it can become a weapon. So here is an outcome that it is doing. It is sending a message to people who are out there to be aware and be responsible for their actions as well.The second outcome that I think is important is that it puts in the hands of our enforcement agency a tool that enables them to use this in a way that actually ensures that they can enforce this provision. It allows them to be able to take action if needed and to enforce the legislation and the laws that come out of this bill as well.When we think about this we think about the Malaysia Airlines tragedies and so forth and what happened there. I began to think about this hand-held laser legislation and the impact that it could have and I thought about NZ474. That is the 6.40 flight that leaves Wellington through to Auckland. I know that often Cam and a number of us Auckland MPs catch that flight. I think on average there would be about 12 to 15 MPs on there. Could you imagine if that flight NZ474 was coming down to land in Auckland and it was blinded by a laser all of a sudden it lost its path and the tragedy of all tragedies happened and 15 MPs of Parliament were tragically taken away? That would be a tragedy of all tragedies. We could have been in that situation.Dr Cam Calder: Some people may disagree with that.ALFRED NGARO: That is right. We laugh at it and we jest but the truth of it is that in the wrong hands in an irresponsible way we know that hand-held lasers can cause damage. We know that for instance as has been quoted the number of incidents of laser strikes has increased and it can only increase unless this bill which is an important bill enforces a key message of responsibility for people who are out there as well.What we also know is important is that this has caused damage. Here is some of the evidence that we know is out there. In June 2011 a young boy who played with a laser purchased in Thailand reflected the beam in his eye through a mirror and he suffered damage to his eye. We know they cause harm. In June 1998 at a Waikato rugby union game approximately 30 cases of arc eye were reported after a rugby match. So we know that it does happen we know the impact that it has and we know the damage it can cause.I just want to finally finish up on this. I just want to acknowledge my colleague. He will go out there. I just say that it is a proud moment to be able to ensure that at this third reading he has got unanimous support. Not many bills get unanimous support so that you can say that right across the House people support its intent they support its action—not only its output but its outcomes—to truly make a difference to our communities. I salute you Dr Cam Calder and thank you for your work and for your service to New Zealand to this Parliament and to the National caucus.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—Sue Moroney.SUE MORONEY (Labour):On the issue of every party in the House supporting this Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill can I say that yes it is supported by every party and therefore how bizarre it was that the bill was filibustered for so long given every party supports it.But before I come back to that issue can I just congratulate Dr Cam Calder on his valedictory speech today on his parliamentary career and on the very very good timing of getting a third reading of a member’s bill through on the same day as his valedictory. That is some remarkable feat of timing and I congratulate him on that.However on the issue of timing I am very disappointed that this bill has been used to stop families from getting 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. I think it is a very great shame that that has been the primary use of this bill because it deserves so much better treatment than that by the National Party. But that is indeed what has happened. It is an important measure that is being dealt with here. It is one that is worthy of Parliament’s time but it was not worthy of that much parliamentary time quite frankly. I do take it a little personally. I had my parents here on their 59th wedding anniversary and they had to sit and listen to the most bizarre boring speeches from the National Party about lasers.Denis O’Rourke: That’s normal.SUE MORONEY: I know it is normal. But I had to explain to my parents why this was happening. The fact that it was happening was an affront to New Zealand families and that is the great shame of it. I know that the National Party members opposite have just made reference to a couple of times when the Labour Party has filibustered. Can I say that the Labour Party has never filibustered to get in the way of supporting families. That has never happened and shame on the National Party for using this bill in order to do that.However my congratulations go to Dr Cam Calder. I think it is a great shame the way that this bill has been used but I congratulate him none the less on bringing it forward to this Parliament having it debated and getting it through its third reading.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I am pleased to be able to speak briefly to this bill the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill as well. I note that when it was first presented to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee following its first reading it needed some tuning as such. Tuning maybe is the right word when we are talking about lasers. It is good that the bill has ended up where it is and I congratulate Dr Cam Calder on that. The current bill is probably what was aimed for in the first place and it was probably a little bit broad initially.Sue Moroney: Excuse the pun.STEFFAN BROWNING: Yes many puns. That is one of the congratulations. The other congratulation is again for Dr Calder’s valedictory speech and some of the points in there. Some I might have found a little bit too much towards the National Party style and philosophy and I did not agree with it all but I felt it was a very good speech all the same.I would like to congratulate Cam as well—and I just use this laser bill in terms of the protections it is intending—on his wearing of the white ribbon. As a White Ribbon ambassador I have looked even further today Cam. I fully intend and it will be on the Hansard to get you nominated to be an ambassador for the future. We have talked about it at times and it is a shame that I have not had the response from White Ribbon to ensure that this has happened. But we need a couple of referees and the job will be done.I would like to leave with those congratulations. Again in terms of filibustering I find it is a shame as we could have had another bill through such as the foreign-chartered vessels bill. If we had managed to get some other bills through too that bill would have stopped a lot of harm to another bundle of people. It is great that this bill is here but the foreign-chartered vessels bill should get through. It would be great if National would see the way to get it through next week. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call—two National calls.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):It is a pleasure to rise in support of this very good bill in the name of my friend and colleague Dr Cam Calder the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill. I have not participated in this debate previously nor did I sit on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I have had an opportunity to hear some of the debate—some of the very good debate—that has occurred in the lead-up to this third reading. I have got to say that I am disappointed to hear from the members opposite who somehow want to discount the role and right of this member Dr Cam Calder to bring his bill to the House to have it debated fully and properly and have it adequately considered by this House because they think that their bill somehow has some kind of precedence or some kind of greater moral importance or substance than Dr Calder’s bill. That is an arrogance of enormous proportion but it is an arrogance of proportion that we see so often particularly from members of the Green Party and the Labour Party.It is a very big day for Dr Calder. I have had the very great privilege of knowing Dr Calder for a good number of years. In fact in a previous life I was chair of the northern region of the National Party and I well remember a conversation had maybe about 10 years ago when Dr Calder asked to meet with me and he had an important matter to discuss.Hon Member: In Auckland?SCOTT SIMPSON: We were in Auckland at that stage. Dr Calder said that he had an important matter that he wanted to discuss me and so I met with him over coffee I think and he revealed to me that he wanted to pursue a parliamentary career. He wanted to offer himself to the National Party as a candidate. He said that he wanted to take his voluntary role further to the next step to become a candidate and then ultimately a member of this Parliament and he did that. He has worked hard and diligently all that period of time. He sought selection a couple of times then ended up as a list MP and has done six very good solid years not only on behalf of his party but on behalf of this Parliament and the people of New Zealand. I want to congratulate him and I want to share my words of support along with other members who this evening have also wanted to express their support and congratulations on his very fine valedictory speech delivered this afternoon.This bill is one that is very important. I do not share the view of Opposition members that it is somehow of minor importance. This is a bill that is all about closing off an area of potential harm and risk to New Zealanders particularly when they are travelling. I think that it is a very important matter. I like the way that the select committee has relabelled the bill to indicate the better definitional approach to the naming. To call it the Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill does I think more accurately reflect the type of laser it seeks to control. Those possessing these lasers will be treated in the same way as someone who maybe is carrying a knife in a public place without lawful cause or purpose and I think this is very appropriate. As a previous speaker—my colleague Mike Sabin from Northland—said there are some irresponsible ratbags who are part of our society. They are irresponsible. They are irresponsible in their actions and they are irresponsible in the way that they use these devices with real harm and potential harm being done to people on public transport particularly aircraft.This is I think a very good bill. It is a bill that has been well considered both at the select committee and in this Chamber. Currently there are no laws to govern the possession of hand-held lasers in a public place. One would think that even with modern technology moving quickly it would be the responsibility of this House to keep up to date with these things. That sometimes is not the case and so sometimes it is beholden upon members to use the member’s bill process in this manner to achieve the result that Dr Calder has been able to do.It is very appropriate that tonight on the same evening that Dr Calder has given his very fine valedictory after six very successful years of contribution to this House to the National Party and to the Parliament of New Zealand we should be passing this bill in his name. It is my absolute pleasure and delight to stand here as one of the final speakers in this debate in support of his wonderful personal achievement. I congratulate him and endorse this bill with enormous energy to the House for its finest commendation. Thank you.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):I want to thank my colleague and friend Scott Simpson for the opportunity to share this call and I also give acknowledgment and congratulations to Dr Cam Calder not only on getting this Summary Offences (Possession of High-power Laser Pointers) Amendment Bill through to the finish line but also on his contribution to the National Party caucus and also to the class of 2008 of which he is such a valued member who will be missed. One of the things we will miss I think is his erudite articulation his ratiocination and the extra-large words he is able to inject into his speeches.He is a member of the parliamentary sports club the Parliamentary Rugby Team. We will miss him rising like a salmon from the middle of the line-out leaping for and catching those balls for the half back to spread wide and as our colleague Chris Tremain said for those twinkle-toed wingers to get all the glory. What we will not miss are those embarrassing things that poke out the bottom of his shorts and that he calls legs which skinny sparrows would be embarrassed to call legs. Nevertheless somehow they do eject him into the air and he can catch the ball with such aplomb.At the risk of injecting a little bit of negativity in here I want to add my voice to the rejection of the criticisms that somehow in the Committee stage of this bill there was filibustering of the worst sort. I will say two things about that. Firstly it is the chairman’s prerogative to decide the length quality and quantity of the debate in the Committee stage no one else’s. Secondly if there was a textbook written about filibustering it was written by the Labour Party in 2011 at the end of the 49th Parliament in the Committee stage of the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. Those in that Parliament will remember the Royal Society of New Zealand Amendment Bill. It was not filibustered for a day; it was not filibustered for a week. We spent about 9 months talking about a bill that did not matter so that that party could avoid a member’s bill in the name of Heather Roy being passed in that Parliament. It was unsuccessful—Sue Moroney: It wasn’t against families.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Oh! See there is the moral high ground. It was not as noble as Sue Moroney’s bill. There we go. It is the arrogance of the noblesse and I do not accept it. I do not expect we would agree with that at all.I want to just touch on Darien Fenton’s comments because she spoke with a note of sadness I think of the fact that she had had four bills drawn out of the members’ ballot but was not able to get one passed. I just want to remind her that she will go down in the history of the 49th Parliament as the first member for 88 years in this Parliament to have a member’s bill defeated at the Committee stage. She was the unfortunate victim I suppose of the fact that the Government had changed between the second reading and the Committee stage of the bill she had. But she will be noted for that. I certainly acknowledge her for her efforts and we will hear her valedictory tomorrow I think.It is time as we come to the end of the 50th Parliament to acknowledge the contributions of all members. I particularly want to talk about Dr Calder’s commitment to Manurewa because I know as much as anybody how hard it is to be a list MP in a red seat and to act in all respects like a constituency MP. It is a thankless task. “List MP” is a pejorative term amongst some. But I have seen his effort his energy and the commitment he has made to the people of Manurewa and the people of New Zealand. I think he can hold his head high and describe himself as one of this Parliament’s best list MPs in serving the community that this party this caucus asked him to serve. I think that of all the things he will be remembered for it will be this bill it will be his collegial support of this great Government and it will also be his commitment to the people of Manurewa. For that Dr Calder you can hold your head high. I commend you and I commend the bill.Bill read a third time.Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 25 June.Clause 2 Commencement (continued)ALFRED NGARO (National):Kia orana Mr Chair.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Meitaki.ALFRED NGARO: Meitaki maata Mr Chair. I rise to take a call on this Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to begin by saying that we know that families are important and children are important to us. I know that in the last Committee debate on this bill there were a number of accusations coming from across the Chamber. I wanted to stand to speak because one of the accusations was that we as politicians on this side of the Chamber in this Government do not care for families and do not care for children and that is absolutely not true at all. I also want to make the point that the comments that seemed to keep coming from the other side were that because we oppose this bill we do not care for children we do not care for families and that is not true at all.It is not true at all because when we look at the record of this Government and at the things that are absolutely important to this Government—at a time when we had the global financial crisis and at a time when things were difficult—it has been said time and time again that this Government actually stood firm and stood strong on the things that were absolutely important and that is our children and our families and the things that matter most to most Kiwis. So I just want to put on record that we absolutely do not agree with the comments that have been made from the Opposition at all.So how do we show that? This Government has actually said quite clearly in regard to paid parental leave that it was not against the aspect of the time period. In fact it has shown in Budget 2014 that it has been extended by another 4 weeks. Why? Because the fact is that as in all Governments and in governance you have to balance your responsibilities along with the rights that are actually important and that is what this Government has absolutely done. These are the things that actually show.For those who are New Zealanders out there those who are Kiwis out there those who are mums and dads and families out there who want to know what this Government has done and is doing in that regard Budget 2014 was really clear. We wanted to continue that role of working for families in New Zealand. So what is important is around health—free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions for children under the age of 13. We have increased that ability so that the mums and dads who are out there know that when their child is sick they can take their child to the doctor and can get a prescription. In fact it was Mr Faafoi who was talking about being down in Porirua where he saw prescriptions sitting on a chemist’s shelf waiting for parents to pick them up. Mr Faafoi actually talked about that. He talked about prescriptions in Porirua—you will remember that in his speech—and about how parents were waiting to pick them up but they could not afford them.It is quite clear that the extension by this Government to have not only free general practitioner visits but also the ability to pick up those prescriptions Mr Faafoi is important. We do care to ensure that families do get the medication they need as well. He is getting ready now. I can see a speech coming from him but there is more to come.The other thing that is important is that 4 weeks’ extra paid parental leave has been extended to a number of caregivers who were not traditionally eligible and that becomes important. We have increased the parental tax credit by $70 a week to $220 a week and extended it by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. That we know is truly making a difference to those families out there.What is also important out there is the issue around education. We know that ensuring our children can get into early childhood education makes a difference to their ability to go from the non-compulsory sector into the compulsory sector. We think that is important. In order to be able to do that again the party of actions has ensured Mrs Martin—the fact is that we have increased early childhood education services to get more kids participating and to keep fees down so that parents can access those services like Nukutukulea for instance in Māngere where we took the Prime Minister and where he met with that Niuean preschool and where they celebrated and enjoyed the fact that we have extended those hours as well.Le'aufa'amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Same name last one.ALFRED NGARO: That is right Mrs Asenati Lole- Taylor. They made sure that they enjoyed the opportunity to extend their care. This is what they actually said. They said: “Thank you Prime Minister because under your Government we have thrived as well.” So we know that participation in early childhood education has grown as well under this Government.The other thing that is important is to say that we care for our children. I have been involved in a sector where we know that our children are vulnerable. The issues of abuse and neglect have been of great concern to this Government as well so we have extended support for vulnerable children. It includes eight new children’s teams to work with at-risk children and families and to support children in care as well. That becomes absolutely important as well. With extended and expanded paid parental leave and increasing the parental tax credit this will give parents more choices about what is best for them at an important time for their families as well.The other thing we have done as well that is important is around again extending the ability for health early childhood education and secondary education and I know that becomes important. I know that Ms Martin is talking about the fact of charter schools and so forth and we know that that becomes a point of difference because it gives communities—[Interruption] Here we go again.I challenge Ms Martin to go to those communities look them in the eye and say to them that their vision for their children young and old and parents who are looking after their children—I challenge that member to go to them and say to them that actually their vision of a better tomorrow and a better outcome for their children is not valid. I challenge her to do that. She will not do that. Instead she will sit here with parliamentary privilege and begin to quote all the things that she thinks go wrong but she will not enter those communities. Why? Because they are the very communities that have actually asked for it they need it and they want it as well. That becomes absolutely important to what we are doing.I just want to begin to slowly sort of sum up what I want to say on this because I think it is absolutely important. It is making a difference. I do want to say that those schools—and I want to acknowledge the Rise UP school as well—are really important. They have said there in Māngere that these are the things that they need for their children whether young or old children who have got parents and parents with their children whom they are bringing along. They are saying that that is absolutely important to them as well.We know that the fact is that as a Government we are doing all the things that are necessary and that are needed to care for children from health to education. At the same time too we want to say that caring for children is not just about extending parental leave. It is about a whole range of things that make a difference to our families in our communities as well. I stand on behalf of the Government to say that we oppose this bill but what we do support is children. We do support parents in their role to care for their children as well hence the stance that we are taking at the moment. I stand here as a father of four children and a grandfather of two knowing the fact is that the things we are doing do make a difference. I am confident in knowing that fact. What I do support is the fact that—JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I move That the question be now put.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):Sat sri akaal Mr Chair. Thank you for your consideration of my call. It is my pleasure to discuss clause 2 of this bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. National is very concerned about the future of this country. That is why we have been working on very well-managed spending where we can afford what we have achieved in these 6 years. What we can afford in the Budget is because of that well-balanced spending. However at the same time I would like to say that children and families are at the forefront of every Budget. At the same time we want to ensure that as a country we attain a balance between the bringing up of our children and the financial implications for the nation due to the increase in the amount of paid parental leave. Also we have to consider the intergenerational effects on the debt that this bill seeks to create for our children whose well-being we are all seeking.To share with you some facts all of us know that the recent Budget announcement by our finance Minister invests almost $500 million in developing our children. Further the investment made by the National-led Government in various sectors of the economy will no doubt result in more jobs and higher wages. The flow-on effect of this is that it will result in better lifestyles for our families. There is further facility for the Government’s participation in health and well-being of our children. The Government announced free GP visits and free prescriptions for children under the age of 13 years. We extended paid parental leave by 4 weeks which we consider is affordable at this stage.We do not think that this country can afford the reckless spending that this bill proposes. There is an increase in the parental tax credit by $70 to $220 a week and leave is extended by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. These are some of the measures that we have taken now. New Zealanders understand that all this comes at a cost and that the Government is doing everything practically possible to look after each of our citizens young or old. We debated all these issues in the Government Administration Committee and also considered them in the submissions. However we were unable to reach an agreement. During the select committee there was huge discussion about these issues and whether the Government can afford these measures or not. Increasing paid parental leave to 26 weeks is unaffordable right now.Families will benefit from the growing economy and from jobs with higher wages. It will also be appropriate that they are among the first to benefit from the Government’s spending as the economy picks up.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Narrow it a little.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Changes to paid parental leave and the parental tax credit alongside other measures in Budget 2014 will provide increased targeted support within the current economic conditions for working parents and newborn babies. In the first year of the child’s life particularly in the first 6 months it is important for the newborn baby’s development to get full-time personal care. It is also important for the parents and the caregivers to get support to manage budgetary and other measures. Encouraging the attachment of mothers and caregivers to the labour market has broad economic and social benefits and can support a stable family environment for their children to grow up in. I think this is appropriate for the Government which has already made some real progress on this area and I think we will continue as time proceeds.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I move That the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the question that the question be now put.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National):I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The member Jacinda Ardern has twice now taken a closure motion once when it was rejected by you. It is my understanding that under the Standing Orders it is not possible to do that more than once for any particular clause and I am wondering why you accepted the closure motion.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is my understanding that a member can take more than one closure motion. It was a change by the Standing Orders Committee. I could be wrong and I am happy to seek advice on it but it is my understanding that the member can do more than one closure motion. I can check it for the member. I have been advised that I have already taken the question so I need to proceed.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I leapt lightning-like to my feet there Mr Chairperson. I want firstly to take a minute to acknowledge the member Sue Moroney like I did with Dr Cam Calder. Yes getting a member’s bill drawn is luck but actually bringing it to the House is challenging; I absolutely can see that. Although obviously National has a policy difference I just want to acknowledge the member for the fact that she is very passionate about the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. She has lobbied strongly on it and I acknowledge the efforts that have gone in there.From the perspective of National clearly we depart in policy on a couple of levels. I would have to say that on a personal level I also believe that paid parental leave is not actually the answer to vulnerable children and it is not actually the answer for communities in the sense that the most important role that a parent will have is to support to love to nurture and to bring up their child and that is not necessarily something that is about the Government. In fact if one asks me I actually think that the less involvement the Government can have in the bringing up of a child the better.Denis O'Rourke: Disgraceful.MIKE SABIN: Well it is not disgraceful. Why does the member think it is disgraceful? Why does the member think it is disgraceful?Denis O'Rourke: The Government should be interested in children.MIKE SABIN: No no; I did not say that the Government should not be interested in children but the primary—Denis O'Rourke: That’s a contradiction of what the previous speaker said.MIKE SABIN: Well the member is right off track. The member is right off track because the Government is far less important in a child’s life than the parents. The parents’ responsibility is one that will always be primary and will always usurp the responsibility of anyone or anything else. I believe that very firmly. So although I do see a place for paid parental leave—Denis O'Rourke: It’s nonsense.MIKE SABIN: It is not nonsense. It is not nonsense at all Denis O’Rourke—it is not nonsense at all Denis O’Rourke. It is about ensuring certainly from this party’s perspective that the primary responsibility of parenting is the responsibility of the parent. Responsibility is about sacrifice. There are plenty of times in a parent’s life when they will have to put themselves second and the needs of their child well ahead of them. The sad reality is that in this country—Tracey Martin: That’s what you’re saying isn’t it Mr Sabin—only people with money can have children.MIKE SABIN: That squawking does get to me. The sad reality is that in this country the default position of far too many parents is that the Government should take the primary responsibility role—it is the Government that should take that primary responsibility role. That in my world is wrong. If you ask me why so many families are falling apart it is because they have forgotten what it is to be a responsible parent. It is not the role of the Government to take over the responsibility of parenting.When it comes to paid parental leave most will actually put their child first and they will make the sacrifices not for 14 weeks not for 16 weeks not for 26 weeks but for 5 years or beyond. There is no magic figure that is the amount of time people should spend with their children. The reality is that if a parent can spend the first 5 years the formative years of a child’s life with them full time that will be the best for that child. It is not about 26 weeks. It is not about 18 or 16 weeks. Sure there will be some—Denis O'Rourke: An anti-parent speech.MIKE SABIN: Well that is absolute rubbish Denis O’Rourke. That is absolute rubbish. It is the parent’s responsibility to be a parent first and foremost and that is not about the Government stepping in and usurping that role. Regardless of what support exists out there the primary responsibility should always be and will always rest with the parent. Although I acknowledge that the member cares passionately about this particular bill the Government opposes it because we believe we have got the balance right.SUE MORONEY (Labour):Look it has become obvious already that the National Party members are going to continue to play their political games with the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. This is the last members’ day of the parliamentary session of this term of Parliament.Hon Christopher Finlayson: What a deadbeat. What a mediocrity.SUE MORONEY: And yes Christopher Finlayson the National Party members are at it again playing political games in order to get in the way of families having the support of 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. Well it is a disgrace. It is a disgrace and it is on display for the nation to see so feel proud of yourselves National Party members. I do not think that the rest of the nation enjoys this at all. I do not think they are enjoying seeing you actually be disrespectful to families in this way. I think it is a great shame.Here we are debating clause 2 of the bill and we are supposed to be talking about the commencement date. Just in case any of the members are interested—because they have not spoken once about the commencement date yet—this bill brings 22 weeks’ paid parental leave in on 1 July. It brings that in on 1 July next year compared with that Government’s offering of just 16 weeks. This bill would bring it in at 22 weeks and then finally 26 weeks on 1 July 2017. Those are the commencement dates. That is what we ought to be talking about. But I just say to all of those parties in here that actually do respect families that do really want to support families in this way let us just get on do the voting and do the right thing by families and by children.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I am pleased to stand and speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. I want to just say that I endorse Mike Sabin’s comments—and I am sure many members of this Committee also endorse them—regarding the responsibility of parenthood.Although one member across the other side talked about the responsibility of the Government the Government cannot be the parent of every child. Every child comes on to this earth because of two parents. What we need to do is continue to encourage adults and teenagers in this country who end up being parents to take on the responsibility of that parenthood with great seriousness. Although the Government might be there to assist and prop up sometimes we go too far. When we go too far we dilute the responsibility that people need to take for their individual lives and for their children. It does not mean that this Government does not care. It does not mean—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! [Interruption] Order! Just two things. First of all I would like to advise members that barracking is not acceptable in the people’s House. This is a place for debate. Members will conduct themselves with the respect for the traditions of the House as enshrined in the Standing Orders. That is the first thing I want to say. The second thing I want to say is that this is a debate on clause 2; we are not on clause 3.JONATHAN YOUNG: The commencement clause—well I believe that this bill should not commence because it goes too far. We believe that there needs to be some support for parents. We do believe that but we need to have support for parents that goes far enough but not too far and that does not dilute the responsibility that parents have.Tracey Martin: No no no—not too far!JONATHAN YOUNG: I do not know about you but I was raised—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order!JONATHAN YOUNG: I do not know about that member across there but I was raised in South Taranaki one child out of seven by farming parents who worked incredibly hard and who managed. And I believe that when people are faced with those challenges of how to manage—yes with the appropriate support but not so much support that they abdicate their responsibility—then they develop resources they develop strength of character and they develop ways in which they can care not just for their own family but for their community as well.So many of the families in our community when I was a young boy helped each other and I think it is a sad day when that stops and all the help comes from the Government—that faceless group of people in Wellington who have this incredible sense of obligation placed upon them by people who think that they do not have the resources. I think it is important to find those resources amongst families extended family amongst community and amongst grandparents. I mean how many grandparents actually fulfil a great role of assisting their families and their grandchildren? Many many many do and I think that that is a great thing. It brings the great sense of connection and purpose and fulfilment that they all have.We believe that supporting parents is a very important thing. Supporting children is a very important thing. The Vulnerable Children Act is one of the most significant pieces of legislation to go through this Parliament and that is all about supporting children. The Government Administration Committee that reported on Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill could not come to agreement. That is because there are differences of opinion. This is what—Jacinda Ardern: No it’s because we didn’t have the numbers.JONATHAN YOUNG: No there are differences of opinion Ms Ardern. There are differences of opinion and that is what this place is all about. It is about differences of opinion. We can come into this debating chamber and we can debate our viewpoints and I think that is what New Zealand likes to see. There will be myriads of people out there who will support Sue Moroney and myriads who will not. We are the representatives of viewpoints not only our own but the viewpoints of others in our communities. I know that yes there are people who are very concerned when they see deprivation and when they see hardship but the solutions to that are not always the same. So that is why sometimes we come to this place and we find that there are differences of opinion.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chairperson. I would like to speak about the commencement date which is in clause 2. I believe that the commencement date is appropriate—totally appropriate—for this sort of a bill and actually should probably be brought forward. But just while I talk about that on the comments of the previous speaker Jonathan Young I just want to remark on his hard-working parents in the Taranaki I believe it was. I agree with the honourable member Mr Young that his parents were probably an exceptionally hard-working farming family who were supported by their Government with family support for the first 15 years of his life. They could capitalise on it for their first family home and that got them ahead. If this bill commenced on the commencement date in clause 2 it would merely be a step towards restoring the support that families used to get before the neo-liberal movement of the National Party. Kia ora.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 472 in the name of Sue Moroney to clause 2 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand National 59.Amendment agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 2 as amended be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand National 59.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Clause 3 Principal ActJACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I am going to do a very novel act in this Committee tonight and speak to the clause as I implore my colleagues across the other side of the Chamber to give that a go. Clause 3 is the amendment to the principal Act of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987. I think it is a good opportunity for us to reflect on the fact that multiple amendments have been made to the principal legislation that set out originally paid parental leave. We often learn a lot from history. We learn sometimes that positions change. That is particularly the case for National. I applaud the fact that it has moved away from its ideological problem with paid parental leave because it did have that problem in the first instance.Labour introduced this scheme in 2002 when there was obviously a surplus at that time because we ran nine Budget surpluses FYI. At that time Anne Tolley in 2002 stated the following: “This legislation … shows how the Labour-Alliance Government is stuck in the radical feminist era of the 1960s and 1970s … and is completely out of touch with women of the 21st century and their diverse involvement in today’s labour force. … This is bad legislation. It is a travesty.” Anne Tolley a Minister of this Government called paid parental leave a travesty. And now members on that side of the Chamber try to implore hand on heart that yes they believe in it but just a little bit. So enough that we can have it to just where they are comfortable with it but anything that we suggest is a travesty.Well let me put on record tonight for those members of the Committee: one day you will reflect on your position here and now and you will be as ashamed as you are now of Anne Tolley’s comments in 2002. It took only a little bit over a decade for a little bit of reflection and to look back and say “Well we were wrong.” and surely you admit that was wrong because you have even taken a position that has gone further than what was introduced in 2002. So it would be bizarre if you continued to agree with Anne Tolley’s position. Just to be fair though she was not the only one. Nick Smith in 2002 said: “I say that if a member went out of their way to draft a dumb bill this would have to be it.” He said that he had looked around the world at various paid parental leave models and this one was as bad as they get. Apparently Nick Smith has now moved to it being so bad that National is going to keep it and extend it just a little bit until it is comfortable with it. Obviously he has supported the changes that the Government made in the Budget.And it continued. It was not just 2002 because of course we extended paid parental leave in 2004 because that is what Labour does. When we are able we extend a scheme that we fundamentally believe in. So what was said in 2004? We had Paul Hutchison saying that Labour was “cementing in that State dependency rather than incentivising individual responsibility.” For babies? Is that what he was implying? Judith Collins in 2004: “It is another example of this Government using taxpayers’ money to try to win some votes.” Again from babies? I am not entirely sure what she was trying to say.I think the point that I am trying to make is that it is very easy to look back in hindsight but we are providing you the benefit of hindsight tonight. I say to members on that side of the Chamber that you have already acknowledged you were wrong 10 years ago. We are providing you with the benefit of the doubt to not make that mistake again. You will one day reflect. We will read out again your quotes from tonight and you will hang your heads when you realise how wrong you were. I urge this House to pass the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill tonight to no longer let it sit on the Order Paper and to do the right thing.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland):I think the member Jacinda Ardern is quite correct—things do change absolutely. That is the nature of the beast. Positions certainly do change. Polls change leaders of political parties change the global financial conditions change and the landscape in Canterbury changes and that is pretty much how it goes. Things do change positions do change and that is exactly the position that New Zealand has found itself in in recent years.What this Government has done much to the criticism of people like Jacinda Ardern and the Labour Party and their friends over there the Greens and New Zealand First is support those who are most vulnerable—support those who need it. On the one hand those members have continued to vote against everything this Government has done to grow the economy while on the other hand they have criticised us for letting people in their view fall through the cracks. I say that members cannot have it both ways. So the member Jacinda Ardern is quite correct. Things do change.For what it is worth putting a figure of a matter of weeks—the difference between National’s position of extending moderately paid parental leave and Labour’s position in this bill or the difference between having 14 weeks 16 weeks and 18 weeks and having 26 weeks—is not what we should be talking about because the reality is that children need their parents in their formative years. That is the case regardless of how many weeks of paid parental leave exist. Sometimes that means that parents must be prepared to make a sacrifice. The member Sue Moroney as a parent has I am sure done that. Every parent in this Chamber knows that sometimes sacrifices must be made. Sometimes that means surviving on one income not for 16 weeks 18 weeks or 26 weeks but often for 5 years or for longer because that is what children demand of good parents. That is what good parenting is about. It is ensuring that those formative years are spent with the child.So we can debate whether 16 weeks is where it should be or whether 26 weeks is where it should be. I think there is actually a bigger debate to be had here about the fact that New Zealand parents cannot expect that they can just go about their professional working lives and not invest their time in their children and then expect that they will get the same results than if they had been willing to make the sacrifice and spend that time at home with their children. Ultimately that is an important time for development in a child’s life and yes it is true that in spending that time with the children many parents will do it hard for a while. But in this modern era when we look at say this Government’s approach to supporting families even a $500 million package is substantial. When we look at what we would consider to be the more financially challenged or vulnerable families for a family with two children that is earning somewhere in the order of $50000 it is essentially tax-neutral. It will receive from the Government as much support as it will pay in tax.In fact actually what the member Jonathan Young has said is quite right—actually more so. That seems to me to be quite unprecedented. Certainly when I was bringing up young children I do not remember that to be the case. It is certainly the case that MMP creates an environment where we see Labour Governments come up with lolly-scramble ideas and once families become reliant or dependent on a degree of support it is very hard to actually withdraw that support. That is not to say that to some extent there was not some support needed in the first place but what it is fair to say is that once people are given an opportunity to have something that they do not necessarily need they will certainly want to hang on to that.I am not so sure that MMP has been a particularly good electoral system for our families because in many ways what it has done is create a default position of: “What is in it for me? What will the Government give me so that I can be a better parent?”. Well nothing. The Government cannot give anything to someone to be a better parent because being a better parent is not about defaulting to the Government. Being a better parent is about making decisions that are in the best interests of that child.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):Sat sri akaal Mr Chair. Thank you very much for the opportunity. We are debating clause 3 of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill.I would like to start with the member opposite Jacinda Ardern who said that paid parental leave was increased from time to time. I would like to remind her that in 2007 the Families Commission gave a report to the Hon Ruth Dyson then Minister of Labour in which it recommended that the paid parental leave provision be increased to 13 months by 2015 including a month for fathers. Labour chose to do nothing at that time and the recommendations were just kept aside. The Government at that time was running in surplus which is a very important point that the Opposition keeps reminding us about—that it delivered nine Budgets in surplus. But did it consider these recommendations? No because Opposition members were not serious about them. They want to take all the credit for what they have done but what they have not done is think about the recommendations that were given by the Families Commission. They never thought about those.It is very important. We need to be responsible for our kids. I come from a culture where we are totally responsible for our children. For example I would like to share with this Committee that I have got two sons who are at the ages of 21 and 23—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Far too young to have children that old.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: No no they should not. They should wait for some time. They are still living with me and I am looking after them. It is not only me; it is me and my wife. Both of us—Hon Christopher Finlayson: Tell them to grow up.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: I will talk to you about that later on. It is very important that parents be responsible for their children. I am not saying that the Government should not look after kids. Vulnerable kids should be taken care of by the Government but the bulk of the responsibility should be on the parents. Parents have to take that responsibility. They have to grow up and make sure they provide the best facilities for their kids. There are cases where families are vulnerable and the kids are vulnerable. The Government should come and pitch in with whatever they want to do. It should help the families that cannot afford that.It is a bit rich for Labour to take a stand on this now that it is in Opposition when it had 9 years in Government to implement changes before the global economic crisis hit the world. This Government has gone through tremendous financial constraints and I think that the leadership of the National Government has done very well. Now that it will be affordable the finance Minister is giving a 2-week increase in paid parental leave in the coming year and a 2-week increase later on. As the financial situation improves for this economy I think you will see further increases in these paid parental leave subsidies to families. With these words I conclude my contribution.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):I move That the question be now put.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):I rise to speak on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in the name of Sue Moroney. As we look at the principal Act which is the purpose of course of clause 3 we wonder really why we are here debating this one. The Budget that we handed down in May has already dealt with all of this so you are wasting the time of the House. We have already moved into this space and taken ownership of it. Really what we are looking at is the unaffordability of what has been proposed by the member who is sponsoring this bill. In the very first reading—I remember it well—Ms Moroney did indicate that she would like it expanded out from 26 weeks to over a year. You will not stop at 26 weeks and we cannot afford that as a country at this time. It is not possible. She is nodding and smiling. So it goes on. We go into a dark hole of indebtedness over a very expensive vote-buying element that you are trying to indulge in. That is not in the best interests of the economy and of this nation. We have already covered it.I think there has been some kind of research through the archives and looking back in Hansard on what other people have said and how apparently they have changed their minds. The time is now better economically for us to be able to afford what we proposed. The legislation that has been changed in the Budget does allow for paid parental leave. We have extended it out in a prudent and moderate fashion which is all we can afford at this stage. We cannot continue to borrow large sums of money to fund unaffordable election-grabbing things such as what this piece of legislation represents. It really is not on. It has already been defeated. The Government Administration Committee could not agree on it. There has been a lot of to-ing and fro-ing around things that might or might not be included in this bill. But really one wonders why it is still before the House.When we look at the principal Act of something like this bill it is supposed to amend the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 but that has already been done. We have already covered that off. Really you need to move on. This may be the last members’ day of the 50th Parliament. There will be a lot that I can speak about when we come to the fourth part of this. When we look at what this Government has provided by extending the current 14 weeks out to 16 weeks—and that will be as of 1 April 2015—and then to 18 weeks as of 1 April 2016 then we are getting into territory that is affordable it is gradual it is helping parents it is helping children and it is helping families which is what this John Key National-led Government is all about.We put families at the centre of our policies which is why we spent $10.5 billion on health. It is why we continue to invest in education and reach targets for early childhood education. We are moving successfully to a stage where the economy can provide families with the ability to get off the benefit. Something like 1000 New Zealanders a week are going off the benefit. They will be able to put their families their children their households into a better state into a better place and remove them from poverty.Hon Member: More jobs.MAGGIE BARRY: More jobs of course as my colleague has pointed out. That is also what we are providing with the economy. It is incredibly important that we stay on track. Bill English is a classic Minister of Finance with short arms and long pockets. He has delivered two Budgets that have not thrown money wildly around. We are not about that. This is not what this Government does. But what we do is we target the money that is needed to the people that require it. The under-6s’ free general practitioner visits was an important development. It worked so well that we have spent a further $90 million and covered it off—Tracey Martin: New Zealand First policy.MAGGIE BARRY: Is there something wrong with the plumbing in the House? There seems to be an inordinate squeaking noise. Perhaps there are chihuahuas loose in the Chamber? It certainly sounds a bit like it. There is a funny squeaking noise which of course is unintelligible. Even if we could hear it it would not make any sense.As far as we are concerned when we look at the Budget and the changes that we have made we are providing funding to enable more pre-schoolers to attend quality early childhood education. That is giving the best possible start in life. It is something that is helping New Zealand’s most vulnerable. It is helping New Zealand children across the board and helping New Zealand families. We are rolling out eight more Children’s Teams around the country to help protect our most vulnerable children from abuse. The money that has been allocated in the Budget to sort out these historical sexual abuse claims—those sorts of things—is really going to make a difference and send a clear message to people who continue to perpetrate violence against women and children and families. We are not about to let that happen. Judith Collins has done very good work in this area. All of the entities the ministries of Government are working closely together. That is another characteristic of this Government. We are able to work together with the departments.SUE MORONEY (Labour):The member who has just resumed her seat Maggie Barry asked a few questions so I thought I would answer them. She asked the question: “Why are we debating this?”. Well it is for two reasons. I know they are not reasons that she likes but one is that this bill the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months' Paid Leave) Amendment Bill has a parliamentary majority. This bill defeats the Government. That is why we are here debating it. The majority of parliamentarians in this precinct believe and know this is the right thing to do. They know that it is indeed affordable. It is affordable because this is an investment in our children. There is no better investment that any Government can make than investing in our children.Maggie Barry: We’re already doing it.SUE MORONEY: That is reason one Ms Barry that we are here debating this. Reason No. 2 is the National Government for about a year now has been trying to stop the passage of the bill. It has been trying to stop it by doing exactly what people can see its members doing tonight: filibustering and speaking on the bill for no other reason than they want to stop it from passing. So those Ms Barry are the reasons why we are here debating the bill. It is about democracy. The majority of parliamentarians—Maggie Barry: You’ve been overtaken by events. It is no longer needed.SUE MORONEY: Can I remind Ms Barry that support partners of the Government support this bill. It is clearly not unaffordable. The previous Minister of Revenue for this Government supports this bill. It is clearly not unaffordable. That is just a weak and lame excuse for the National members who cannot bring themselves to support children and support families in this way. They are completely wrong. They should be ashamed of what they are doing this evening.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):I think what we want to probably make clear is that things are a matter of balance and when the sponsor of the bill says that this Government does not support children or does not support families that is incorrect. We know and she knows that this Government introduced with the Budget and passed through all stages into law on 16 May legislation that increases the number of weeks of paid parental leave from the current 14 weeks to 16 weeks as of 1 April 2015 and to 18 weeks as of 1 April 2016.I think that the member she was referring to made a comment around affordability. When I talk about balance and affordability what we have to understand is that this Government spends its money out of essentially a single bucket. So money we spend in one area cannot be spent in another and so we have issues. Last week for example the Hon Tony Ryall sent out a press release regarding people who need kidney transplants. There are 600 on the waiting list in New Zealand and we do a hundred a year. So he has increased funding—Andrew Little: What’s this got to do with paid parental leave?JONATHAN YOUNG: Yes it does have something to do with paid parental leave because it has to do with the balance of funding that we seek to spread over the needs of New Zealanders. We need to understand that when we say that some areas take too much it is not because there is a lack of concern; it is because there is also concern for other areas where money needs to be spent. I think that is the rationale that we need to understand when it comes to spending the Government’s resources or the taxpayers’ funds.So when the sponsor of the bill says that this Government does not care I refute that. What we are essentially saying is that her bill though well intentioned goes too far and costs too much because it takes away money that needs to be spent in other areas of desperate need for New Zealanders. So it is a matter of finding the balance. I think what Mike Sabin has talked about and what I spoke about not long ago is that the balance also around parental responsibility needs to be considered because as much as we would like to make everything easy we have got to understand that there is balance needed.I remember when parental leave legislation first went through—going back to the principal Act in 1987. I do not know about you but I remember hearing Richard Prebble speaking on the radio. I am not sure whether it was around this point in time but he said something about parenting that stuck with me all of these years. [Interruption] And he is one of them by the way. You know that. He said: “When it comes to having children and you can’t afford it”—because that can be a relative thing for a start—“love your kids and enjoy them even though there is going to be financial pressure.” What he was saying I think was that there is joy that comes with every child. I think that we forget some of those great values.I talked before about when I was brought up as a kid in South Taranaki on the farm and out in the rural areas before I became a townie at the age of 10. There were a lot of things that we could not afford but we had a great life. You know you think that you can have a great life only if you have got all the support that comes from the Government and we do not believe in that. We believe that it is appropriate to give support where it is needed and where it is affordable but sometimes when you go too far you create other things that happen. Some of those things that happen are a lack of community support and a lack of wider family support.We have gone through our society with 14 weeks’ leave and we have done that to assist families who need to have a transition period when they can make decisions about how they are going to manage financially—perhaps go back to work or if not then make adjustments so their budget can cope. We have done all that. But now to extend it out from 14 to 26 weeks—DARIEN FENTON (Labour):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes57New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West):I just want to point out to anybody who may be listening that it is not the Government’s intention to drag out this particular clause clause 3 but Mr Chair you did just accept a closure motion when only four members had spoken on this side of the Chamber and there were other members seeking the call.Andrew Little: Nothing genuine about this speech!TIM MACINDOE: I can assure Mr Little that this is going to be very genuine and I am happy to tell him why if he would like to stop sounding like a foghorn and listen. A number of Opposition claims have been made. He is clearly not interested in listening. He is just going to filibuster from that side by preventing me from speaking.First of all I would like to acknowledge Sue Moroney’s husband Shane who is in the gallery. I am sure it is a pleasure for her to have her husband here tonight. I do also want to acknowledge that Sue has been incredibly lucky with members’ bills because I think she has had several drawn out in her time as a member. In my time here I have never had a single one drawn out. People who are listening may wonder. It is a little bit like parliamentary lotto. If you get lucky they get drawn out of the ballot.I think there is an important point that does need to be made and that is that the members’ bills of the Opposition cannot be used to derail a Government’s Budget. It is very important to remind everybody who is listening that notwithstanding the very narrow support for the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill in the current Parliament of members with the composition of parties that are here this bill has never been voted on by the New Zealand public. It has never been taken to the public for a mandate and therefore it is a little bit rich for the members opposite to claim the moral high ground on behalf of the 60 members of this Parliament tonight who are voting for it when 4.4 million New Zealanders have not yet had a chance to vote on it. As I say members’ bills of the Opposition cannot derail a Government’s Budget because a Government has to have the ability to budget for the long term to plan its fiscal strategy and to work out how revenue and Government spending can be organised in a responsible way to ensure that New Zealand taxpayers—who after all will have to pay for anything that a Parliament commits expenditure to—can afford it and that it has been factored in. This clearly had not been.Even more important it is worth nothing that in this year’s Budget there was $500 million of new spending for New Zealand families.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How much?TIM MACINDOE: There was $500 million and that did include an extension to paid parental leave and I was proud to support that. So I reject utterly any suggestion that members on this side are not in favour of paid parental leave. We are and we demonstrated that with our Budget. We also broadened the scope with the extension of the parental tax credit which meant that more people qualify. Again that is very important particularly for those at the bottom end of the scale who most need support. Thirdly—and it is allied to this—we have extended the opportunity for families in New Zealand to access free doctors visits for children. Again that is an important measure that I am very proud of. So this is a family-friendly Government and that was a family-friendly Budget but this particular measure that we are debating tonight has not had the endorsement of the New Zealand people.I also just want to make a point about the accusation of filibustering because boy that is rich. In my 6 years here I have listened to the Opposition filibuster on the Auckland governance bill to the point where there were 30000 amendments tabled most of which wanted to change the date of commencement—30000—and we had to sit here all day on a Saturday listening to that nonsense. I heard the member whose name this bill is in filibustering on the Royal Society bill which was totally uncontroversial. She had nothing of any value to say nor did any of her colleagues. I also heard them do the same thing on the Parana Park bill. If they would like me to talk about the Parana Park bill which was a wonderful little local measure for Hamilton I am happy to do so but it would not be relevant. That is the sort of thing that they did—talk irrelevantly. I point out that every member of the Government who has spoken tonight has dealt with the substantive nature of this bill. They have dealt with the issues that arise from it they have dealt with their responsibility to the taxpayer and that is the way it should be. That is not filibustering. That is responsible parliamentary debate and I am proud of my colleagues this evening.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Chair. Can I just compliment Mr Macindoe on his contribution. Mr Macindoe is right and Mr Macindoe is wrong. Mr Macindoe is right that the Government has the ability to veto this bill because the budget of it has not been worked out inside the Budget that those members placed in front of the country. We know that. I think that what is most interesting and probably what the New Zealand public needs to understand is that some of the frustration of the Opposition is that we know that Mr Macindoe. Your Government has that ability. Use it. Do not continue this argument. Use the veto—use the veto. Do not be so afraid with regard to the election that is coming and the backlash that your party may receive from the New Zealand people.Where Mr Macindoe is wrong is that he said that there is no mandate from the New Zealand people for this bill and yet Mr Macindoe knows that like every other member’s bill it goes before a select committee and that the New Zealand public have just as much opportunity—and many many took this opportunity on this bill; many more than on other members’ bills that have been out there—to put their voice into the consultation process. Mr Macindoe knows that so he knows that the New Zealand public has had an opportunity to discuss this bill. Submission after submission after submission was in favour of this bill.Mr Macindoe and his party often use the fact that they have a mandate because they are elected representatives of the country. They argue against having a binding citizens initiated referendum on that basis so they bring their voice just as United Future brings its voice. One might not like the deal they have now done with United Future because it brought a vote to this House on the back of a deal with their Government which it chooses to use independently when the Government might not have wanted it to. It might not suit Government members that the Māori Party which they also did a deal with to try to keep their Government going chose to use its votes independently to support this bill. But that does stand as a mandate under the arguments that National has used before.Mr Macindoe is an eloquent speaker—there is no doubt about it—and Mr Macindoe is a good honest decent man who loves his family and supports his electorate and who actually believes in parents and children.Mike Sabin: So do I.TRACEY MARTIN: And Mr Sabin is not so bad either. But let us get real. What has been happening here is that the Opposition understands the position it is in. It understands that the Government has the power of veto. Get on with it. If you are going to veto the bill veto it and let the people of New Zealand see that and make their decision when they go to the polls on the fact that you vetoed a bill that almost 100 percent of the submitters actually supported.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore):When we look at the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill and at the purpose of this bill we are really reminded that this is not really fit for purpose. I have mentioned that at other times in my previous call and I would like to draw attention to what this Government has been doing instead in this space which is a tremendous thing. The work that we are doing in this space of allowing workers who have been with their employer for more than 6 months but for less than a year to be entitled to some form of unpaid leave is something that we are proud of.I think it is important that we consult and that we are seen to be looking carefully at what this country really needs: primary carers who provide permanent foster care akin to adoption such as Home for Life parents. People who have permanent guardianship—that is biological fathers and grandparents caring for grandchildren—need to be eligible as well as long as they meet the work test criteria of course. A number of proposals that we are putting together to modernise parental leave which allow changes to allow greater access and increased flexibility are also available. We are taking submissions on this through until about 25 August and then we aim to have those in place by 1 April. There are—Tracey Martin: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Excuse me but I am just not sure what relevance the current speaker’s comments are having to the clause that we are debating.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is a point well made. I urge the member to refer to clause 3 because that is what we are actually debating at the present stage.MAGGIE BARRY: Sure. Having said enough on clause 3 I will wait until clause 4 and devote my comments in more detail to that. Thank you very much.A party votewas called for on the questionThat clause 3 be agreed to.Ayes60New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1.Noes59New Zealand National 59.Clause 3 agreed to.Clause 4 PurposeSUE MORONEY (Labour):I want to make a contribution on clause 4 because it is the purpose clause of the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill that we are about to debate and I hope that members will stick to that. Also I want to take a call because I think that those watching may be a little tired of the moralising and the judgmental-type calls that are coming from the National Party members about what good parenting is and what good parenting is not. I think I would rather bring the debate back to making sure that there are choices for all families. Opportunity and choice—Mike Sabin: Rights and responsibilities—where does the measure lie?SUE MORONEY: —are what this bill is about Mr Sabin. It is actually about choices for families. It is not about requiring families to take paid parental leave. It is not requiring families to have one of the parents in paid employment.But the reality is that for most families these days unless they are very very wealthy there is a need for both parents to be in paid employment. There is a range of other things that we need to maybe address in our society. We need higher wages for example. That would be a good outcome would it not if we actually got the National Party members to agree that higher wages were something that would be good to resolve this issue? But no they are actually spending their time making judgmental-type contributions about parenting and what makes good parenting and what does not.This bill is about choices. It is about choices for families. It is about the ability for this country as a collective society to actually say that we want to invest in the future of our society that investing in children is a priority and certainly within the Labour Party that is what we believe—that investing in children is a priority. We want the best well-rounded citizens of this country because we know that will actually give the brighter future that the National Party members used to talk about. They have stopped it now but they once talked about a brighter future. This bill is a practical measure to bring about that brighter future that the National Party once believed in.It is very sad to hear the National members’ speeches because I think that people will hear them protesting far too loudly—far too loudly—that they do really actually quite like children. Of course they like children! But if they really wanted to prioritise families and children then they would be supporting this bill; they would not be speaking to try to stop it from having its votes. I agree with Tracey Martin that if the Government really was going to be honest and authentic in its debate about this bill it would stop this silly nonsense of the filibuster and would let the bill pass and then use its financial veto. If Government members really believe they have a justified case for saying it was unaffordable then I ask them to use the financial veto. That is what it is there for. I firmly believe that the Government has done this and gone through all these twists and turns to not use the financial veto because it knows that there is not the financial justification for using it. The Government members know that in their heart of hearts and that is why they will not go down that track.I want to remind some of the speakers who have spoken on the previous clauses that the bill does have public support. I say to Mr Macindoe that we know that because 96.4 percent of the submitters on this bill—and there were 3800 of them—Tim Macindoe: That is not a mandate.SUE MORONEY: “It’s not a mandate.” says Mr Macindoe. He is just running down the whole system of democracy in this country. The select committee process brought forward about 3809 submitters I think and 96.4 percent of them agreed with this bill as did a poll. The poll was not done by a political party. It was done I think by one of the TV channels. It was of 1000 people and it showed that even when the question was put to them that it was going to cost $500 million which it is not by the way—even then with that amount of money being put into that loaded question 63 percent of New Zealanders said they wanted it. So this bill—and I know the National Party does not want to hear this—does have wide public support in New Zealand. It has parliamentary support. The only thing standing between families and 26 weeks’ paid parental leave is the National Party.Dr JIAN YANG (National):Ni hao xiexie. I rise to take a call on the Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill. As a father of two I understand the importance of any support for families. Happy stable families are particularly important to the functioning of our society and to the quality of life. Supporting families is a fundamental service that any Government should provide. However on the other hand it is equally important that we manage our finances responsibly and make sure that the Government does not overspend. In this context this bill is not balanced and it goes too far.The National Government is committed to providing better services to New Zealand families including giving children the best possible start in life. That is exactly why our Budget 2014 invests almost $500 million more in the well-being of New Zealand’s children and families. Budget 2014 provides a comprehensive package of practical measures focused on young families and those vulnerable children who most need our care and protection—for example free general practitioner visits and free prescriptions for children under 13; 4 weeks’ extra paid parental leave and extended to caregivers other than parents; and an increase in the parental tax credit by $70 a week to $220 a week and extended by 2 weeks to 10 weeks. The total fiscal cost of both the extension of paid parental leave and the changes to the parental tax credit is more than $183 million over 4 years.Additionally we will be spending a further $30 million to increase paid parental leave eligibility following a consultation process. Just this week this Government has announced that parental leave payments will increase from 1 July 2014 to reflect the 3.3 percent increase in the average weekly wage over the past year. The maximum payment for eligible employees and self-employed persons will increase from $488.17 a week to $504.10 gross a week. The minimum parental leave payments for self-employed people will also increase from $137.50 a week to $142.50 gross a week. The Government has always said that it was prepared to extend paid parental leave but in a way that is affordable. When we could afford more we would do more. That is exactly what we did in Budget 2014. But Labour’s 26 weeks’ paid parental leave goes too far and it costs too much.National is focused on reasonably managing the Government’s finances. It is important we get back to surplus and get that under control. Countries with longer paid parental leave entitlements than New Zealand’s include Portugal Italy Greece and Spain. We know what happened to those countries during the global financial crisis. There is a real danger of running up huge deficits through unaffordable Government spending. This bill is also poorly targeted. Bear in mind that only around 40 percent of families with newborns get paid parental leave. Labour’s policy is not targeted on need. Twenty-six weeks’ paid parental leave does not help a lot of the most vulnerable children in New Zealand who would benefit from much more targeted support and services.Progress reported.Report adopted.Sitting suspended from9.56 p.m.to9 a.m. (Thursday)