Volume 694 Week 59 - Thursday 14 November 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 694 Week 59 - Thursday 14 November 2013[Sitting date: 14 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14701. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 14 November 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 19 November the Government intends to move an urgency motion to progress a number of bills that are on the Order Paper including the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill and the Financial Reporting Bill.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I wonder whether the Leader of the House could indicate whether the Government expects there to be question time during urgency.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): The Government has had question time through all of its bouts of urgency since coming to office. I imagine that discussions over the next couple of days with other parties in the House will lead to a similar result.Questions to MinistersBetter Public Services Targets—Purpose and Impact1.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to theMinister of Finance: How is the Government’s Better Public Services programme contributing to a stronger economy?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: Delivering Better Public Services has been a focus of the Government for the past 5 years. With the Government representing around one-quarter of the real economy it is important that Government agencies focus on achieving results for users of public services while at the same time delivering value for money for taxpayers. The Prime Minister last year identified 10 challenging Better Public Services results to address some of New Zealand’s most important issues over the next 4 to 5 years such as reducing crime reducing long-term welfare dependency and reducing educational underachievement.Simon O’Connor: Why has the Government made the Better Public Services programme one of its four priorities?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Government takes the view that New Zealanders are entitled to the most effective and efficient public services that can be delivered. The result areas are focused on improving Kiwis’ quality of life and getting better results for taxpayers. We have seen for example that the number of people continuously receiving a working-age benefit for over 12 months has fallen by almost 3500 since March last year to 74600. The target is 55000 by 2017.Simon O’Connor: Has the Government’s focus on improving public services had any impact on public satisfaction and trust in those services?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes indeed. The quarterly Kiwis Count survey into New Zealanders’ satisfaction with their public services has shown a significant increase from an overall score of 68 percent when National came to office to 73 percent now. At the same time the survey shows a remarkable 10 percent increase in Kiwis’ trust in public servants from an overall score of 67 percent when National took office to 77 percent today.State-owned Assets Sales—Air New Zealand2.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Can he rule out the partial sale of Air New Zealand proceeding prior to 30 November 2013?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: No final decisions around the timing of the reduction in the Government’s 73 percent holding in Air New Zealand have been made.Hon David Parker: Why is he so worried of the outcome of the referendum that he is sneakily selling off Air New Zealand as quickly as he can?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We are not worried about the result of the referendum although we do know that it is a waste of $9 million of public money and actually we made our commitments in this whole area very public at the 2011 general election. As was said by Russel Norman that election was a referendum on the whole mixed-ownership model and National won the election.Hon David Parker: Why then is the Government planning to sell off Air New Zealand in blocks to institutions and brokers rather than the so-called Kiwi mums and dads whom he promised at the election would be at the front of the queue?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The first thing is that no decision has been made. The second issue is that those shares are already trading on the market. It is fundamentally different from those two initial public offerings that have progressed so far so the sale structure is going to be very different.Tim Macindoe: What does Air New Zealand tell us about the benefits of the Government’s mixed-ownership programme?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Air New Zealand is listed on the New Zealand and Australian stock exchanges. For the last 12 years the Government has held a stake in Air New Zealand of around three-quarters of the company. That makes Air New Zealand a very good working example of a mixed-ownership company. It also demonstrates the benefits and disciplines of a sharemarket listing. I would like to thank the former Minister of Finance Michael Cullen for leading the way on the mixed-ownership model. It is one of the very few good decisions made by the last Labour Government.Hon David Parker: Can the Minister assure the House that Air New Zealand will be at least 85 percent New Zealand - owned after the sell-down process is completed?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The first thing to say is that no final decisions about Air New Zealand have been made. The second thing is that we have always said that in the mixed-ownership model in the float of these assets—in this case the sell down—we are going for 85 percent Kiwi-owned.Hon David Parker: Why did the National Government say when it made citizens initiated referenda the law in 1993 that this was “to give our people a greater voice …” and bring in “a more meaningful way to ascertain the views of [the] people.” that the citizens initiated referenda law is “a sign of the vigour of our democracy.” and that it does not want to “suppress that voice with subject-matter limitations”; and further why is it that those lofty ambitions were tossed out the window around the time of the asset sales programme?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The first thing is that I was not around in 1993. The second thing is that when that member said “ambitions were tossed out the window” the person who tossed them out was Helen Clark. The trouble with those members opposite is that they pick and choose on binding referenda. So when the smacking referendum came back and said that 87 percent of New Zealanders wanted it reversed those members ignored it. But now that they think they might get some sort ofresult on the next one they are suddenly very keen on the idea of referenda. The other point that I would make is that the referendum has not yet been held but it is a waste of $9 million worth of taxpayers’ money. You and they are both responsible for that gross waste of money and it will not change a thing.Dr Russel Norman: Can the Minister tell us who the Prime Minister was in 2009 when the so-called smacking referendum happened and who was the Prime Minister the leader of the Government who made a decision to take no action as a result of that referendum?Mr SPEAKER: I am struggling to see how that has much ministerial responsibility connected to the question but I will allow—[Interruption] Order! I will allow the—Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The issue of relevance is that the Minister—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not—Dr Russel Norman: —raised it in his answer to the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need—well I appreciate the attempt of assistance from the member but I do not need it. On this occasion I have said that the question is in order and I will leave it to the Minister to respond.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We all know the answer to that question. But the other thing we do know is that the economic suicide bombers of the Green Party would if they got the chance be bursting into the Cabinet room—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the Minister please resume his seat? I have another point of order from Dr Russel Norman.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not attempt to answer the question. Then he started a diatribe about the Green Party. It has nothing to do with the Green Party.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The difficulty I have with this point of order is that the Minister was attempting to answer the question when the member Dr Russel Norman rose to his feet and interrupted the answer. Until the answer is completed I cannot rule on whether the question has been adequately addressed or not.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We all know the answer to that question but we also know that if the Green Party got hold of the Treasury benches the Green Party members would be going out and printing billions of dollars to try to buy these assets back. I challenge them to deny it.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you please explain to me how this has anything to do with the question I asked?Mr SPEAKER: With some difficulty but I actually have difficulty understanding the exact question the member asked anyway. If the member—[Interruption] Order! The member asked what was without doubt a political question. He is unhappy with the answer. That is not my business. If the member wants to tease it out further then the opportunity exists for the member to use further supplementaries.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was completely in order. It was allowed by you it referenced the comment that the Minister made as to who ignored an earlier citizens initiated referendum and it asked him to confirm which Prime Minister it was. It was a very simple question. It was in order and it has not been addressed.Mr SPEAKER: I have already ruled that the question has been addressed maybe not to the satisfaction of the member but the question—[Interruption] Order! If the member wants to stay for the balance of question time I would be grateful if he would not interject while I am on my feet. The question has been addressed. I accept that it may not be to the satisfaction of either the member who asked the question or the HonDavid Parker. That is then a matter for teasing out with further supplementary questions.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify before I accept this point of order that it is an absolutely fresh point of order?Hon David Parker: No you cannot clarify that.Mr SPEAKER: Well then the member would—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. If the member is going to continue to question decisions I make he leaves me no option but to ask the member to leave the Chamber. If it is a fresh point—[Interruption] Order! If it is a fresh point of order I am happy to accept it but I have ruled on that particular matter and that is final.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek a ruling from you in general terms that is related to this question. If a member asks a Minister a factual question that has an answer that is factual and the Minister knows the answer to that question and can state it with a simple fact is it a requirement that the Minister answer with that fact?Mr SPEAKER: Yes indeed it is. If a question is asked that is absolutely fair concise and simple and it is one that I would expect the Minister to be able to answer I would then expect the Minister to answer it.Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just an additional clarification on the ruling—is it acceptable for a Minister to give the answer “We all know the answer …” in response to a very specific factual question?Mr SPEAKER: To a very specific question maybe not but to the question that was asked yes I have ruled that that is the case.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to raise with you a slightly different issue but it is related to the answer that the Minister gave and it extends to the issue of ministerial responsibility. It is well established in the Standing Orders and in the Speakers’ rulings that Ministers do not have responsibility for the policies of other parties or for what other parties might do if they became Government. What is increasingly becoming a practice at the moment is that Ministers are standing up and giving a very brief answer to a question and then saying “But if that party was in Government” and then saying a whole lot of other things. Previously Speakers have sat Ministers down when they got to that point without letting them go on because they do not have any responsibility for that.Mr SPEAKER: I think that point is a reasonable one. There are occasions when I do sit Ministers down when they attempt to attack another party. But at the end of the day this is a political debating chamber and there will be times when political barbs are traded from one side to the other.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does your ruling mean that if the way to get a question answered is to ask a further supplementary question questioners on this side of the House will get an extra supplementary question or does it just use up their time?Mr SPEAKER: On occasions—as the member will have observed on many occasions—I may well give an extra supplementary question. But the point that I am making to the member and to all members of the House is that if a supplementary question is asked on many many occasions the member who asked that question may not be happy with the answer. That has been happening since I arrived in this House. The way to then make progress is not to stand to one’s feet and expect the Speaker to rule on the adequacy of the answer provided the question has been addressed. The way to do it is to ask searching perceptive supplementary questions and to attempt to get the correct answer.Hon David Parker: Who was the Prime Minister when the citizens initiated referendum was held in respect of the anti-smacking issue and who was the Government that ignored the majority recommendation of that referendum all of which were referred to by the Minister in his answer to an earlier supplementary question?Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The initial question is about the partial sale of Air New Zealand proceeding prior to 30 November 2013. Although the Minister might have commented on a coming referendum to now be allowing a question to the Minister about what is simply historical fact seems to me quite unreasonable and a waste of members’ time.Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance on this particular point. The Hon Gerry Brownlee is right. It does not bear a lot of resemblance to the initial question but the members in their further supplementary questions and in the answers given by the Minister have talked about other citizens initiated referenda. On this occasion I invite the Hon David Parker to re-ask his question and it will be answered.Hon David Parker: Thank you Mr Speaker. Who was the Prime Minister at the time of the citizens initiated referendum in respect of the smacking issue and who was the Prime Minister and who was in Government when that referendum was ignored?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not have that information with me but if you would like to submit the question in writing the Minister will get back to you.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order is being raised and it will be heard in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can a Minister who previously said that everybody knows the answer but who apparently does not know it himself not be treating this House with anything other than contempt? This is an awful waste of Parliament’s time and it makes us look foolish in front of the public which comes naturally to some members but some of us do not like it.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am sure that you will find that the Minister has moved from that clear statement initially that everyone knows the answer to that. After such a long period of time with the House being so interested in this matter he has begun to doubt himself.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Again for the benefit of the Rt Hon Winston Peters it is not for me to judge the adequacy of the answer. It is for the members of this House and the public to judge the adequacy of the answer that was given. But the answer given was satisfactory.Schools Canterbury—Building and Redevelopment Projects3.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to theMinister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on repairing rebuilding and renewing schools in Christchurch?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) on behalf of theMinister of Education: Today with the support of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery the Minister of Education announced that 80 percent of classrooms across greater Christchurch will be modernised within 10 years changing the way children and young people learn. The final business case which was released today outlines the schedule for the rebuilding repairing and renewing of 115 State schools across greater Christchurch. The Government is investing over $1 billion in a 10-year programme of restoring and renewing schools in the greater Christchurch area.Nicky Wagner: What impact will this have on schools in Christchurch?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Schools in Christchurch have already been severely impacted by the earthquakes. This business case today though indicates that 13 schoolswill be built on new sites 10 schools will be rebuilt on existing sites 34 schools will be fully redeveloped and 58 schools will have modernising redevelopments. In other words it means the construction of over 1200 new classrooms and the repair of more than 1200 others creating improved learning spaces that are fit for modern teaching practices.Chris Hipkins: How much of the $1 billion announced today will come from money the schools were already due to receive in the form of regular property funding leaky buildings remediation and insurance payouts?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There will be various amounts in the $1.1 billion that have those component issues attached to them. I am not in a position today to give him those exact figures but certainly if he wishes to put a question down in writing then those breakdowns could be provided.Chris Hipkins: Will schools being built or rebuilt in Christchurch be built using public-private partnerships; if so why?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is certainly a desire to have some of those schools built using that model. That would of course free up principals from having to be property managers to being the educators that they are so well trained to be.Climate Change—Minister’s Statements4.MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to theMinister of Transport: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): Yes as long as they are properly reported and in the right context.Moana Mackey: Does he stand by his statement that “I think climate change is something that has happened always so to simply come up and say it is man-made is an interesting prospect.”; if so is he saying that the nearly 50 percent increase in global greenhouse gas emissions from transport in the last 25 years has played no role in causing our planet to heat up at an unprecedented rate?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes no and I am unsure.Moana Mackey: When he described man-made climate change as being “an interesting prospect” was he aware that anthropogenic climate change to which emissions from transport are a major contributor is actually not a new concept and that thousands of scientists worldwide have been working on this small issue for decades; if not does that allay his concerns that someone simply came up with the idea?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes and no.Moana Mackey: Does he agree with his colleague the Hon Tim Groser that to deny man-made climate change you would “have to be denying reality”; and if he does not agree then how can the public have any confidence that his Government is taking seriously the need to reduce our emissions from transport?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes and if they look at our record in transport in regulation and in the construction of roads that reduce emissions then of course they will agree with our position.Moana Mackey: Does he appreciate how embarrassing it is in 2013 to have a New Zealand Minister of Transport publicly questioning the science of climate change—a Minister who is responsible for policy settings in the sector with the fastest-growing level of emissions—and will he promise not to do it again?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well there we have it. I said yes and I stand by my statements when they are reported in the proper context. What we had yesterday was a bit of a cook-up between TV3 and the Greens attempting to get a result that would favour the Green Party. Everyone knows that. It was pretty clear. I tell you what—when you see a reporter bounding towards you and asking a question like that you alwaysgive an answer that is going to be a little tempered in terms of the madness that comes from the Greens.Housing Affordable—Government Measures5.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to theMinister of Housing: What initiatives has the Government recently taken to assist first home buyers and ensure more lower-cost homes are being built?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): This morning we turned the first sod on the $30 million - plus 150-home redevelopment at Pōmare. This community which has had more than its fair share of gang and crime problems is a good illustration of why we need to reform our historic approach to State housing. The new development will provide good-quality low-cost homes for sale which will open the door to homeownership for 110 families. The remaining 40 homes will be split between the community housing providers like Accessible Properties the Wellington Housing Trust and Housing New Zealand. I am confident that this remodelled community will deliver far better social outcomes for the future.Paul Foster-Bell: What reports has the Minister had on the Government’s initiatives that took effect on 1 October in expanding the Welcome Home Loan and the KiwiSaver first-home deposit subsidy?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There has been a big increase in the number of first-home buyers accessing Welcome Home Loan loans particularly in Auckland and Christchurch where we increased eligibility by $85000 and $100000 respectively. The numbers have doubled to 47 per week and are at an all-time high since the scheme was established more than a decade ago. I am also encouraged that three further major banks that were previously outside the scheme have now applied to join and this will in time expand the number of first-home buyers accessing the Welcome Home Loan scheme. Also the growth in the uptake of the KiwiSaver first-home deposit subsidy arises because we have lifted both the income and house price caps. This initiative is helping first-home buyers and is complementing the Reserve Bank concerns about low-deposit lending.Phil Twyford: Why if his Government is so concerned about the housing crisis has it as the Salvation Army has reported today cut the annual capital contribution to Housing New Zealand in half and pulled nearly half a billion dollars in dividends out of Housing New Zealand resulting in a net $142 million withdrawal of funds in the middle of a housing crisis when there are 4000 families on waiting lists and Government agencies are referring people to live in camping grounds; and will he confirm that the Government has been squeezing the lifeblood out of Housing New Zealand to pay for National’s tax cuts?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s numbers are all wrong. The Government is investing a record $2.9 billion in Housing New Zealand over the next 3 years and I challenge the member opposite to find any period of Labour Government when that sort of investment took place in Housing New Zealand. The development that we launched this morning in Pōmare is just a classic example of the major investment that we are making in improving the quality of our social housing.Phil Twyford: I seek leave of the House to table the report by the Salvation Army which details a $142 million—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Seeking leave to table a document is a matter of briefly describing the document; it is not about making a political point. What I just need to check before I put the leave is whether it is a document that has been circulated and is freely available to members of Parliament.Phil Twyford: The report has been released only in the last hour. It is not publicly available to everybody yet and it directly pertains to the information that—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The easiest way to move this forward is to accept what the member has said. I will put the leave. It is over to the House. Leave is sought to table that particular report. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Paul Foster-Bell: What interest has there been in the Government’sFirstHomeinitiative?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There have been 14000 viewings on the website and over 1000 phone and email inquiries for the scheme which is designed to give preference to first-home buyers of surplus properties in provincial New Zealand. Sales have been completed in Ōtorohanga Napier Marton Foxton Levin Picton Blenheim Timaru Cromwell Dunedin and Invercargill. I have been heartened by letters from first-home purchasers like the one I received from a family in Invercargill which said: “It’s a dream I never expected to attain and I will never forget that I’ve been given this opportunity to own my own home for myself and my son.”Climate Change—Government Position6.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to thePrime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) on behalf of thePrime Minister: Yes.Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with the views and have confidence in the accuracy of the views of his climate change Minister Tim Groser who said yesterday that the evidence of human-induced climate change is overwhelming and that you would have to be denying reality if you did not accept that?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes.Dr Russel Norman: Then does he agree with the views of his Minister of Finance who yesterday refused to accept the scientific consensus that human-induced climate change is happening?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What the Deputy Prime Minister was not prepared to accept were the mad excesses often quoted by the Green Party.Dr Russel Norman: If the finance Minister refuses to accept the science around climate change has the Prime Minister asked the finance Minister what he thinks the explanation for climate change is and does he believe that it could be the circulation of the planets that is causing climate change as Colin Craig seems to think?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As far as I know he does not.Dr Russel Norman: Has he asked his finance Minister whether he thinks the science around climate is like whether you believe in the tooth fairy or not—whether it is something you believe in—or does he think that his Minister of Finance should base his views on the science around climate change?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. We talk about substantial things not fairy tales.Dr Russel Norman: Is the reason his Ministers and his Government are promoting fossil fuel extraction and mining that they do not accept the science of climate change and hence do not realise that we cannot continue to increase the burning of fossil fuels?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. A well-known noted professor made the point back in the 1970s that if the world today was to replace with horses all the horsepower that internal combustion provides a city like London would be 30 metres deep in manure.Dr Russel Norman: Aside from stories about London and manure has he discussed with all his Ministers whether they accept the science of climate change and can he tell the House whether apart from Tim Groser there is any other Minister in his Cabinet who does accept the science of climate change?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It may be difficult for the member to recognise this but it was this group of Ministers and this Government that brought in the emissions trading scheme which is currently operative in New Zealand. Further it was this Government that started the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases this Government that started the Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre this Government that brought in the Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change Plan of Action and this Government that brought in the Primary Growth Partnership. It is this Government that has the forestry projects on the East Coast the Afforestation Grants Scheme and of course the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative. That tells me that the Ministers in the Government are very much on board with doing what New Zealand should do around climate change.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I took your advice and waited until the end of the question. My question was very simply whether there was anyone else other than Tim Groser who accepts the science of climate change. I am none the wiser.Mr SPEAKER: The member now needs to go back and read his original question. That was not his original question. His original question included the words “has he discussed with all his Ministers”.Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand—Disciplinary Powers7.Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to theMinister for Building and Construction: Does he agree with IPENZ Chief Executive Andrew Cleland that the Government needs to give the Institute greater powers to hold their own to account?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): What has become clear following the collapse of the CTV Building in 2011 is that the accountability regime for engineers is woefully inadequate. I find it abhorrent that an engineer found to have done poor work can still be practising even after being stripped of their Institution of Professional Engineers New Zealand registration. The Government is working to drastically improve the occupational regulations of engineers and I expect to be able to announce some changes next year. That extensive work that is under way will determine what additional powers the Institution of Professional Engineers would receive. It might be that the current structure of the institution playing all the roles it does may change as well.Hon Shane Jones: Why has it taken so long for the Institution of Professional Engineers to step up to the plate show accountability and bring this engineer into where he belongs—the dock next to the former chief executive officer of Pike River Coal?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: First of all I do not have responsibility directly for the Institution of Professional Engineers but I can tell the member that the institution itself does not have very many tools in its tool box to do such. That is why the whole case of the engineers involved in the CTV Building has been put to the police and the police are still currently investigating as to whether they will take a prosecution. I actually do not find it an acceptable regime where 115 people died in a building that was illegally designed built and certified and still no one held accountable. That is why I think that the regime must change.Hon Shane Jones: How much worse does a building failure need to be than the CTV Building collapse which killed 115 people before he secures accountability from the engineering professionals the Institution of Professional Engineers or are they all like Alan Reay—motivated by personal profit and not professional responsibility?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Well I repeat again that I do not find the current regime acceptable. I do not think that the current regime is acceptable. That is why we have been consulting with the engineering profession bringing an issues paper to the market early in the new year. We would hope to have legislative changes during the course of next year and I look forward to the support of members from the other side. In the mean time I am advised by the Institution of Professional Engineers that the only action it can take is deregistration and even that does not prevent an engineer under the current regime from still practising. I find that just woeful. [Interruption]Raymond Huo: Supplementary question—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Raymond Huo: That is a very good start! In light of his earlier answers given that 70 international students died in the collapsed CTV Building designed by Institution of Professional Engineers - registered engineer Mr Alan Reay how does his denial of liability and lack of accountability impact on the Government’s efforts to show other international partners that we have learnt the lessons of the CTV Building collapse?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Again as a Minister I can work only within the bounds of the law. I do not have the ability to prosecute somebody. I do have the ability to put the material in the hands of the police so that they make that decision and that material is with the police right now. I have to say that I find it a bit galling that when I make even a modest statement about how I find the regime unacceptable I receive lawyers’ letters that day saying “Say anything more and we will be suing you.”Hon Shane Jones: Does it strike the Minister as odd that the former chief executive officer of Pike River Coal mining engineer Mr Peter Whittall was in the dock for failures associated with Pike River Coal yet Mr Reay who was identified as the primary cause of the collapse of the CTV Building which killed 115 people is getting off scot-free continuing to trade and profit in the Christchurch rebuild?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yes I do find that an unacceptable dilemma and I am hopeful that the police will soon have a decision on the CTV Building.Financial Reporting—Reform8.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to theMinister of Revenue: Why is the Government seeking feedback on the financial reporting requirements that apply to most New Zealand companies?Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): The Government is focused on reducing compliance costs for almost all small and medium sized companies that have no more than $30 million in turnover or $60 million in assets. These companies will no longer be required to prepare general purpose financial statements. Instead they will need to prepare only simplified statements to a minimum requirement determined by the Inland Revenue Department based upon everyday accounting principles. This is a result of reforms in both the Financial Reporting Bill and the current tax bill before the Finance and Expenditure Committee.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: Would any changes to financial reporting following these consultations apply to all small and medium sized companies doing business in New Zealand?Hon TODD McCLAY: No they are focused on lessening compliance obligations on small to medium sized New Zealand - owned companies. Under the current settingsNew Zealand subsidiaries of multinational companies will still be required to prepare general purpose financial statements which will continue to be made public. As I have stated publicly I am not of a mind to make it any easier for those companies that may or may not be meeting their obligations to the New Zealand taxpayer.Housing Affordable—First-home Buyers Mortgages and Reserve Bank Intervention9.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to theMinister of Housing: What advice if any has he received on public support for measures designed to reduce demand in the housing market?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): I have seen various public polls on the Reserve Bank’s loan-to-value ratio speed limits and public commentary with some showing support and some opposed. The job of the independent Reserve Bank is to maintain financial stability not to win popularity contests. We need only look at the calamity resulting from out-of-control house price bubbles in Europe and in America to see the damage that they can do to economies. I have been confused by some reports. Earlier this year the Opposition was calling for the Reserve Bank to use loan-to-value ratios but now it is strongly opposed to them. I guess that is what happens when you put “Dithering Davids” and twits in charge—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That part does not help the order of this House.Phil Twyford: What does he say to the 56 percent of National Party voters who believe that loan-to-value ratio lending restrictions are unfair to first-home buyers and the 44 percent of National Party voters who support a capital gains tax as a way of restraining house price increases or are they just misinformed?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not give great veracity to those polls. For instance if you took a poll on whether the Reserve Bank should have put up interest rates at any time in the last 20 years I bet the majority of people would say that they do not want interest rates to go up. But how many people in this House—in fact the vast majority—voted for an independent Reserve Bank so that we would have financial stability? I note in the polls that 75 percent of Labour supporters give greater credibility to the economic policies of this Government than they do to his party’s economic policies and he should have a look in the mirror.Phil Twyford: To what extent has his chaotic and inept management of housing policy driven support for a capital gains tax from 37 percent to 52 percent since August along with the fact that he has shut first-home buyers out of the market house prices are still going up and new builds are going down all on his watch?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would just like to challenge members opposite and say that if house prices go up by double or by 10 percent compound per year during their time in Government how would you rate a Government where they have gone up by 3 percent per year? I would say a heck of a lot better. I would also note that building permit figures the reliable measure of new builds have gone up every single month this year—have gone up every single month. The final point I would say to members opposite is that all economists agree that Labour stuffed it up in the last decade by not taking any steps during that house price bubble. We are learning the lessons from Labour’s mistakes.Phil Twyford: Is he surprised that more young people aged 30 to 44 than any other age group think that loan-to-value ratios are unfair to first-home buyers that loan-to-value ratios will not restrain house price inflation and that a capital gains tax is fair and will restrain house price inflation or does he believe that people in this age group are also wrong and misinformed and that as usual he is right?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point is that that is interesting coming from a member who at the beginning of the year was asking for loan-to-value ratios. So myquestion is why it is that he is so disconnected from the young people he claims to represent. Secondly I note that in Australia where they have some form of capital gains tax—not very successful—and they have foreign buyer bans the latest report this week shows that there is a lower portion of first-home buyers than ever showing the nonsense of the policy of members opposite. The worst damage for young homebuyers is from the ongoing escalation of house prices. Enormous damage was done to young homebuyers when house prices doubled under the previous Government. That is why this Government has got so many policies under way to improve access for first-home buyers.Trans-Pacific Partnership—Release of InformationRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): My question is to the Prime Minister and asks—Mr SPEAKER: Order! To the Minister of Trade.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): Sorry yes. I forgot—I forgot he is never here on a Thursday.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let us just have the question please.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): He is never here on a Thursday though you see. OK then this one is to the Minister of Trade—[Interruption] Look take a Valium honey.Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!10.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to theMinister of Trade: Why is he not prepared to release the text of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of theMinister of Trade: Because at this present point there is no agreement.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to the fact that the question was in respect of the text not the finished agreement and New Zealand’s opposition to the intellectual property articles of the Trans-Pacific Partnership—that is protecting New Zealanders’ access to cheap medicine industrial innovation and our native fauna—why does the public of this country have to rely upon WikiLeaks to provide them with the truth of what is going on with this secretive deal and not their elected Government?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would not rely on WikiLeaks for any accuracy in the information. I would note that when that member was Minister of Trade he did rely on confidentiality.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was never Minister of Trade. Why does Gerry not do a bit of homework?Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is very much a debating point. Is the member raising a real point of order or a supplementary question? A supplementary question—Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. He was of course Minister of Foreign Affairs. He was also—Mr SPEAKER: And that equally is not a point of order. Can we ask the Rt Hon Winston Peters for his supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: They still miss me.Mr SPEAKER: Please proceed with the supplementary question. Otherwise we will move to the next question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he still expect the Trans-Pacific Partnership to be completed by Christmas; if so how can he reconcile that with an unprecedented letter—in US history that is—to President Obama by congressmen of his own party and half of the US House pledging to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s fast track through Congress?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Every effort has been made by New Zealand to participate in the negotiations to this date. It is of great value to New Zealand. We anticipate a $5 billion year-on-year boost to our export economy and we would of course like to see the negotiations favourably concluded as soon as possible but there are many parties to this agreement.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he confirm to the House that the chapter regarding State-owned enterprises is in even worse shape than the intellectual property chapter which was leaked overnight?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We do not comment on leaked documents have not commented on leaked documents and will not comment on leaked documents.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree with Lori Wallach of Public Citizen that “All these other countries are like ‘Wait you have no trade authority and nothing you’ve promised us means anything? Why would we give you our best deal?’ Why would you be making concessions to the emperor who has no clothes?”Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am unfamiliar with whom the member is quoting.Rt Hon Winston Peters: What faith can New Zealanders possibly have that he will not sell out in favour of foreign big businesses over the Trans-Pacific Partnership when that is all he and his Government have been doing for the last 5 years?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Firstly I totally reject that last comment and then I would ask him to reflect on the prospect of New Zealand export businesses gaining a $5 billion a year increase in export values as a result of being part of this agreement. If that is somehow selling out New Zealand business then God help us should he ever get the chance to be trade Minister.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a very important document that was leaked overnight and is not generally available to the members on the other side.Mr SPEAKER: Is the source of the document WikiLeaks?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: Well then it is very freely available I assure the member.Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Minister of Trade leave it to WikiLeaks—[Interruption] Mr Speaker is it permissible that somebody—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is indicating that he cannot hear because of the level of interjection. Would the member please start his supplementary question again.Hon Phil Goff: Thank you. Why did the Minister leave it to WikiLeaks to inform New Zealanders of the critical issues around intellectual property that are being debated in the negotiations rather than informing New Zealanders himself so that they could have a say on what the Government’s stance should be on those issues now when it counts not afterwards when it is too late?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have to express some disappointment that a man of such experience as the Hon Phil Goff is prepared to swallow hook line and sinker everything he sees on WikiLeaks.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was straightforward. It was not excessively political and there is nothing in the Minister’s answer—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to ask his question again.Hon Phil Goff: Thank you very much. Why did the Minister leave it to WikiLeaks to inform New Zealanders of the critical issues relating to intellectual property that are being debated in the negotiations rather than informing them himself so that they could have a say on what they believe the Government’s stance on this matter should be at a time when that can make a difference not afterwards when it will not?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I said before we do not comment on leaks we have not commented on leaks and we are not going to comment on leaks.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was about why he has not informed the public about the issues that are being debated. It is not—Mr SPEAKER: No no. [Interruption] Order! The question started with: “Why did the Minister leave it to WikiLeaks to inform New Zealanders …”. The Minister has addressed that part of the question. Again that may not be to the satisfaction of the member. The way forward then is to use further supplementary questions.Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table the documents informing New Zealanders of what is being debated in the intellectual—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just clarify that because a member earlier sought to table a dossier from WikiLeaks. Is the member seeking to table that?Hon Phil Goff: That is where it comes from yes.Mr SPEAKER: No. I ruled that that stuff is freely available if members want to go and get it.Regional Economies—Northland11.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to theMinister for Primary Industries: What announcements has he made on boosting growth in the Northland region?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries): I have recently launched a new programme to help unlock the potential for primary industry growth in Northland. This is the first step in a wider programme for the Government to work in partnership with the regions to help them further develop industries like agriculture horticulture forestry and aquaculture. Unlocking the potential of New Zealand’s regions is an important part of building a more productive and competitive national economy. It will be very important to achieving our goal of doubling our primary sector exports by 2025.Mike Sabin: What growth potential is there for the Northland primary sector?Hon NATHAN GUY: There are three key opportunities to boost growth and create jobs in Northland. One is the development of a new finfish industry which has the potential for a $300 million investment per annum employing 700 people by 2030. Also optimising the 116000 hectares of Māori freehold land has the potential for a $331 million gross contribution to GDP and for creating well over 300 jobs. Also moving the productivity of the bottom 50 percent of Northland farmers to the median is estimated to generate around $50 million per annum.Mike Sabin: What is the Government doing to help Northland reach its potential?Hon NATHAN GUY: The Ministry for Primary Industries is working closely with Northland iwi education providers council industry organisations and the Northland Economic Action Group which was set up by the local member Mike Sabin to make sure that Northland reaches these growth targets. For example the Northland Hub is a collaboration between education—Mike Sabin: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that you have picked up on the point I want to raise here. The constant barrage of interjections denies the opportunity for members at this end of the House to hear the Minister’s response. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not an unreasonable point. The level of noise coming from a particular quarter is certainly very loud. All members have a right to hear the answer. I invite the Minister to start the answer again.Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You characteristically look in my direction. I definitely heard the Minister talk about a bull farm.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I was not referring to the member on this occasion. Most times I probably am.Hon Damien O’Connor: Supplementary question—Mr SPEAKER: No there is an answer still to occur. The Hon Nathan Guy will start that answer again.Hon NATHAN GUY: The Ministry for Primary Industries is working closely with Northland iwi education providers council industry organisations and the Northland Economic Action Group which has been set up by the local hard-working member Mike Sabin to make sure that Northland reaches these growth targets. For example the Northland Hub is a collaboration between education institutions and local Māori who are working together to train and attract school-leavers into primary industries. The Ministry for Primary Industries is also working closely with two Māori-owned farms—one in terms of developing potential in dairying and one in terms of sheep and beef expansion—and it is doing that work in partnership with Landcorp Dairy New Zealand and Te Tumu Paeroa. The Government is committed to growing the primary sector increasing exports and creating more local jobs.Hon Damien O’Connor: How many jobs will be lost in Northland as a result of the meat industry decision to export carcasses to China for processing and is this a new policy developed from the $350 million he has given to the meat industry for wonderful initiatives?Hon NATHAN GUY: That member always wants to criticise the Primary Growth Partnership. Some of the investment in the Primary Growth Partnership is being made in the red meat sector. The member should stand up here and salute and celebrate the investments that this Government is making to support industry to grow jobs and to grow our exports because New Zealand relies on strong primary industries backed up with research and technology. It is an embarrassment that that member does not support the Primary Growth Partnership irrigation or the Trans-Pacific Partnership.Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table a paper outlining the new policy of the meat industry to export carcasses to China for processing.Mr SPEAKER: The source of the document please.Hon Damien O’Connor: It is out of a newspaper.Mr SPEAKER: In that case no.Climate Change—Impact on Transport Planning12.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) to theMinister of Transport: Does he stand by his statement that “I think climate change is something that has happened always so to simply come up and say it’s man-made is an interesting prospect”; and how does that view affect his decisions on transport investment?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): Yes; it does not.Julie Anne Genter: How will spending the lion’s share—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! Any member has a right to ask a supplementary question.Julie Anne Genter: How will spending the lion’s share of the transport budget on motorways that do not give New Zealanders choices to get around without using their car help reduce carbon emissions and futureproof our transport system?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well it is an interesting question which relies on I think a couple of policy positions taken by the Green Party. Firstly it is actually drivers of cars who subsidise those who choose to use public transport. That is very clear. The second thing is that New Zealand’s transport emissions have been static for quite some time. The member will know that from her own investigations. Third roads of national significance for example where journey times are significantly cut do contribute to a reduced emissions profile.Julie Anne Genter: Can he name one place in the world where carbon emissions have reduced or where peak congestion has reduced as a result of new motorway construction?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As far as I know I would be correct in saying—because there are no motorways there—the Antarctic.Julie Anne Genter: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not sure that the Minister answered the question. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have a point of order which I want to hear in silence. What is the point of order?Julie Anne Genter: I am not sure that the Minister answered the question. Perhaps he did not hear it correctly.Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to think about the question she asked. It was to name one place and the Minister named one place.Julie Anne Genter: Well the question was—I think he misheard with due respect.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister responded to one part of the question. The question has been addressed. I accept it was not to your satisfaction. The way forward is further supplementary questions.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of order is that there are roads in Antarctica and anybody who has been around knows that. How come—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. That is a matter of debate. Members can judge the adequacy of the answer and so can members of the public. I invite the member to continue if she has further supplementary questions.Julie Anne Genter: I seek leave to table this paper “The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: A Comprehensive Review of US Cities” which shows that new motorway lanes do not reduce congestion or reduce emissions; they increase traffic.Mr SPEAKER: Is the document freely available already to members on the website?Julie Anne Genter: It is from theAmerican Economic Review published in 2011.Mr SPEAKER: I want the member to answer my question. Is it freely available already to members—Julie Anne Genter: It is behind a pay wall. It is a journal article—Mr SPEAKER: I will accept the request. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Julie Anne Genter: If this Government is serious about the economy given the reality of climate change why will he not reprioritise investment to smart transport projects like the City Rail Link like safe walking and cycling and like other public transport projects that not only give New Zealanders more low-carbon choices and more affordable choices but also free up our existing roads?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We have committed over $2 billion inside our current programme to public transport and on many of those things. [Interruption] It is beautiful—I congratulate the member on a fine morning’s work. Can I also say that where it is possible to put a cycleway alongside a road of national significance that is happening. But in the end what the member has to accept is that New Zealanders buy cars New Zealanders pay for the roads and New Zealanders actually expect to be able to use them.VotingCorrection—Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment BillMr SPEAKER: Yesterday when the House was considering the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill the result of the vote on the question that the bill be read a first time was incorrectly announced as Ayes 60 Noes 61. The correct result is Ayes 60 Noes 60. In the case of a tie on a vote the question is lost so the result of the vote has not changed. The record will be amended accordingly.Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) BillThird ReadingHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of thePrime Minister: I moveThat the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill be now read a third time. The Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill represents a significant improvement in modernising the law relating to members’ remuneration and entitlement to services. The bill establishes a new framework for setting entitlements for members of Parliament and the executive. In doing so it implements subject to some modifications many of the recommendations in the Law Commission’s report Review of the Civil List Act 1979: Members of Parliament and Ministers. The bill repeals the Civil List Act 1979—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member. It is a longstanding convention that members should not conduct conversations in the House unless it is necessary to do so and then only so as to not disturb the proceedings. Would members leaving the Chamber please do so and show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address the House. It is good conduct and it is being considerate of others.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Thank you. I will not name and shame Mr Twyford on this occasion. The bill modernises and modifies the law relating to the salaries and allowances of MPs; support services provided for MPs Ministers and certain electoral candidates; annuities and other benefits and privileges for former Prime Ministers; and benefits and privileges for former members of Parliament.As members know the bill makes the Remuneration Authority rather than the Speaker responsible for determining accommodation services for MPs and Ministers and also travel services for family members of MPs. It makes the Speaker responsible for setting directions on travel and communication services for MPs and party and member support funding. Thirdly it makes the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services responsible for determining any additional travel services for Ministers over and above those set by the Speaker for MPs. This division of responsibility reflects what are intersecting interests here one interest being that of having entitlements determined independently from those who receive them and the other being the democratic interest in the proper operation of the House and the ability of its members to carry out their functions.The bill also updates the legislative framework for the setting of salaries and allowances for MPs and Ministers. It addresses the current gap in the law relating to authorisation of the starting date for payment of salaries to MPs who enter Parliament mid-term following the vacancy of a seat held by a list member of Parliament. The proposed amendment will allow these members to be paid lawfully. The bill validates the commencement of salaries paid to mid-term list MPs since 1996 and it is a measure that will not incur further costs to the Crown.The bill also substantially increases the financial penalty for MPs who are absent from the House without permission with deductions starting after 3 days’ absence and the amount deducted reflecting the member’s actual salary rather than the salary of an ordinary MP. The financial penalty for absent members used to be based on an ordinary MP’s salary. Now in the bill it is based on the actual salary of the member and as I said it commences after 3 days of absence rather than 9 days’ absence in the original proposal.The bill introduces a financial penalty for members who are suspended from the House. The clauses covering financial penalties for members suspended from the House are new and reflect a recommendation made by the Standing Orders Committee.The bill also provides for entitlements to services to be determined in a way that takes into account the particular requirements of members with physical or sensory impairments. As all MPs are aware in recent years there have been a number of moves to improve transparency around the costs of the House and this bill codifies those moves. It imposes a statutory obligation on the general manager of Parliamentary Service and the Department of Internal Affairs to publish quarterly reports on travel and accommodation costs for both MPs and Ministers. It also imposes a statutory obligation on the Clerk of the House to publish quarterly reports on MPs’ and parties’ use of the interparliamentary relations programme.The bill also addresses the operation of the scheme providing certain former members with entitlements. As recommended by the Law Commission the bill legislates for the former member travel entitlements of MPs elected before—take note Mr Assistant Speaker—1999 thereby making those entitlements transparent and able to be changed only by legislative amendment. It introduces a statutory regime that sets out how these travel entitlements can be lost including for various offences. It also imposes a statutory obligation on Parliamentary Service to publish on an annual basis the travel expenses of former MPs.In conclusion this bill makes a number of very sensible changes and these are done to ensure that the House and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament. I commend the bill to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I commend the Minister Chris Finlayson for his words in the third reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill and also acknowledge the members of the Government Administration Committee who have worked pretty hard on this bill. I think we asked for two extensions in order to get the agreement of all members of the select committee. There are three parties in the Government Administration Committee—National Labour and the Greens—and all parties agreed completely in the end. Actually during the process we had quite a lot of differing opinions even within each party because some of these issues are not as black and white or as straightforward as some matters are. We also had pretty impressive contributions to our deliberation including from the former Speaker of the House the Rt Hon Sir Lockwood Smith now resident in London who made a very considered and robust contribution to the thinking of the committee. I want to acknowledge his contribution as well as the contribution of the Clerk of the House and others who also made very considered contributions.The primary driver of this legislation is to modernise the regime under which members of Parliament’s remuneration and services are provided and not only to address what are some clear anomalies or gaps in the system but also to improve transparency. I think without doubt that that was an issue on which all members of the Government Administration Committee which I am privileged to chair reached agreement immediately. We understand from our own constituents that when publicmoney is used when taxpayers’ money is funding the operation of Parliament there has to be the highest level of transparency in the use of that money. I am very pleased that this legislation has progressed that transparency even further than the original proposals. It certainly has been the case in the last 10 or 15 years particularly I suppose that there has been more transparency in the use of public money. I do not know whether the public is yet at a time when they can say: “Yes this feels right and we understand what the money is used for.” but I certainly hope that after the passing of this legislation that transparency will increase the public confidence in the operation of Parliament because that is pretty important.The next round of decisions that we considered were who made determinations about remuneration and support services that members of Parliament and their parliamentary staff and out-of-Parliament staff may receive—whether that determination should be made by the Speaker of the House or whether that determination should be made by the Remuneration Authority. We changed by unanimous agreement of the select committee the provision in regard to the travel for members of Parliament. We agreed that that would remain the responsibility of the Speaker and this is for a very simple reason. It is because we view the travel that members of Parliament undertake as being a fundamental part of the work of a member of Parliament. For those of us who live outside Wellington—thankfully—and indeed outside this island we know that it is our responsibility to come to Parliament every week. That is part of the travel that we undertake as part of our job.It was our view that the work-related requirement of a member of Parliament to be able to travel to perform their duties—not just travelling from home to Parliament but also travelling from home or Parliament to other duties either as a Minister as a spokesperson as a National Party backbencher or as an Opposition spokesperson—is really critical to not only fulfilling your job as a member of Parliament but also ensuring that we have a healthy democracy. We cannot have a democracy that flourishes in Wellington and ignores the rest of the country. So it was our view that the proper place in which that determination should be made was with the Speaker. We did not however feel the same in regard to the travel that family members are able to access. We agree that it is a very important supporting part of being a member of Parliament to have family members able to travel to provide support on various occasions but we did not agree that it was fundamental to your job. Therefore we agreed that the determination of travel for family members should properly go to the Remuneration Authority.With the provision of support services we believe that that is again a core role of fulfilling your duties as a member of Parliament and it should therefore be a determination of the Speaker. I am really delighted that this bill clarifies that the funding of support services for any member of Parliament is the responsibility of Parliament and not the responsibility of the individual party to which the member who needs those support services belongs. We have had instances—over the last well perhaps since Invercargill was held by a Labour member of Parliament so it goes back quite a long way—where members of Parliament have a physical or sensory impairment and may require different support services in order that they can perform their full function as a member of Parliament compared with other members. There has been a debate in recent times about whether those support services for a member with a physical or sensory impairment should be funded by the party that that member belongs to or whether it is the responsibility of Parliament. We have kicked that out the door and said that without doubt this is the responsibility of Parliament. I hope that this gives a really clear message to all disabled New Zealanders that they would be welcome in this Parliament as contributing members regardless of what party they were elected torepresent and that Parliament would consider it our responsibility to provide proper support services so that they are able to perform their duties.There are a couple of other points that I just want to draw to the attention of the House. I mentioned right at the beginning our very quick and unanimous agreement on the point of recognising how the public feels about their taxpayers’ money being used for these purposes—to fund the operation of Parliament including not only the salaries of members of Parliament and their support services but also the allowances that former members of Parliament get. That is often an issue of contention. It was our view that this was a very important area in terms of improving transparency of the use of those funds. So the travel of former members of Parliament will now become part of the public record. Again I do hope that members of the public see that as a good thing. It is their money not our money and how it is used should be a matter of public record so that people can then make their contribution known in a debate about whether that is a fair use or a good use.I am sure that many people in our constituencies quite often wonder what we do when we come to Parliament as indeed will the thousands and thousands of people who will be watching this debate on television. They will look around the room and they will see many seats that do not have a member sitting on them. They will wonder whether the person has knocked off early and gone home or whether they have gone down Lambton Quay to do some shopping. What are they doing if they are not sitting in the House? Well we know as members of Parliament that the commitments outside the Chamber are real. We have other meetings that we all attend and they are meetings that are important to us for various reasons. But for a member of Parliament just to go AWOL and not turn up at all is not acceptable to any of us so we have increased the penalties that those AWOL members will have to pay. We have linked it directly to their salary so if a Minister goes AWOL they will not be penalised on the basis of their salary being a backbencher’s salary; they will be penalised as a percentage of the ministerial salary they receive. That should give a very clear message that when members of Parliament are elected to be representatives they should turn up and do their job.The same applies for members of Parliament who are suspended for bad behaviour. Fortunately we do not get that very often. I did think during question time today that there might be a bit of a clear-out but in the end there was not; the Speaker dropped his focus on removing some members. But if a member is suspended from the House then we think there should be a financial penalty attached to that and that is included in the provisions here. Clause 14A in the bill came directly from a recommendation of the Standing Orders Committee.I think that the work that we have done has been pretty rigorous. It was not always black and white. There were some differences in consideration but I think we got quality submissions. I think that we all worked really hard to make sure that the public funds that are used to support our democracy in New Zealand have not only a fair process but also a transparent process. Thank you.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a pleasure to stand for the third reading of this particular bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I felt that the Attorney-General Mr Finlayson gave a wonderful introduction to the third reading—Chris Hipkins: He thought so too.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: —yes; indeed it is a very serious bill—and it was followed equally well by the speech made by the chair of the Government Administration Committee Ruth Dyson. It has been a pleasure to work with her as her deputy on this particular issue.I guess one could see this bill as a continuum—a continuum of change of updating of looking ahead and of bringing the services that we have in Parliament which are entirely for the nation to a level that is commensurate with modern travel modern working ethics and modern communications systems. Things change. In the past there have been all sorts of different ways of establishing processes procedures and entitlements for MPs.There used to be a time of course—and I am sure the Speaker can correct me if I am wrong; not that I am suggesting it is within his purview or memory—when MPs simply stayed here for a whole block of time during a year completed the business and then went back and worked in their electorates rather than the weekly business that we transact now. Who knows? With electronic communication we may well be able to change further in the future.This bill has been a refreshing bill to be part of and I am very pleased that we have addressed this during my time in Parliament and that I have been able to participate in the process. This Government is committed to having MPs’ and Ministers’ entitlements determined in a transparent independent and non-partisan manner. It is important that the public has confidence in the regime for setting entitlements. The bill puts more power in the hands of independent decision-makers appointed to do the job. The Speaker and the Government have already taken several steps to improve transparency around entitlements and this bill takes that a step further and sets it in legislation.One of the features that I think was particularly important was the select committee process. Members of the Government Administration Committee were particularly well advised during the process of this bill. The submissions came from a range of people with much experience in the matter of how Parliament runs and the officials available to the committee were drawn from several disciplines. I think I speak for all committee members when I say that the advice we received was uniformly of a very high calibre indeed.Changes were introduced to the bill as it progressed through the select committee. This is actually what select committees are there to do. There has been some criticism in some media that—gosh—the select committee has made changes. Well it would be of concern if the select committee did not make changes as a result of its consideration of the submissions it received. That is why we do not need two Houses of Parliament; we just have the one because select committees fulfil such an important part of the process.I might make the point that I think it is particularly important to have full involvement of all parties in the process that select committees go through. I am always a little concerned when everything seems to be completed in the select committee process which is the real place to have debate and parties then put forward Supplementary Order Papers. The select committee is the place to have the debate—when the committee is working together with the advisers and after the advisers have gone when the committee makes its own considerations. For parties to then come forward with Supplementary Order Papers that we have not had the opportunity to debate is a disappointment and it did occur with this bill. However the bill reaches its completion in the third reading and I am very very happy to give it my support. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Christopher Hipkins.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): That is what my mother called me normally when I had been very poorly behaved.I do have to disagree with something that Chris Auchinvole said when he said that he was delighted to speak on the third reading of this bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I do not feel quite the same level of joy. It would befair to say that there is not a huge number of MPs queuing up to speak on this particular topic because there is a fair degree of public cynicism I think when it comes to MPs talking about their own pay and rations if you like. I think potentially that if you look at the situation historically often with some good reason the public would look on us debating these matters and talking about how hard we work and how we need this and how we need that with a degree of cynicism.I think that if you look back over the history of this debate sometimes it has actually been fair and justified. I think that is absolutely right. I think that over time MPs have if you like responded to the public pressure and public criticism of those matters and have put in place steps to ensure that there is a degree of independence in how many of these issues are decided. We do not vote on our own salaries contrary I think to what many in the public would think. We do not determine our own salaries. We actually get very little say in how much we get paid. I do want to say however that I love being a member of Parliament. I feel incredibly privileged to have the honour of being a member of Parliament. I certainly do not think I am poorly recompensed for being a member of Parliament. All I ask for is that we are given the tools we need to do the job we are put here to do by the voters of New Zealand and that we are able to do that job effectively.I do not expect to get rich by being a member of Parliament but nor do I want to see a situation evolve where you have to be rich in order to become a member of Parliament. I think it is very very important that in this House of Representatives we do have a genuinely representative Parliament. I think that if we sort of erode a lot of the support that is available to members of Parliament to the extent that many in the public would like to see happen we will create a situation where somebody needs to be independently wealthy and able to support themselves before they can actually function effectively as a member of Parliament and a representative of the people. I would hate to see Parliament become that way. I do not expect to become hugely wealthy by being an MP but nor do I think I should have to go out and become wealthy before I can come here and represent the people who elect me.I think there have been some really important aspects to this debate that I do not want to overlook. Metiria Turei is here and I am sure she is going to be speaking after me. One of the points that Metiria Turei raised in the debate in the Committee stage earlier in the week was the need to distinguish between what is of personal benefit to members of Parliament and what is a work-related expense. In principle I want to say that I absolutely do agree with that. The reality though is that it is quite difficult in many instances to determine that particularly when it comes to travel. On the issue of accommodation and on the issue of salary where there is personal benefit that has been removed from parliamentarians’ hands and given to the Remuneration Authority which is independent and I think that is the right thing to do.The issue of travel is very difficult because members of Parliament travel not just to and from Parliament but to and from their homes to other parts of the country for work-related reasons and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish what is work-related travel and what is personal travel. For example—I will give a nice easy one—a member of Parliament from Auckland flies to Wellington each week to be here as a parliamentarian and to be in the House. From time to time members of Parliament will need to go home during the week for family-related reasons. Is that personal travel or is that work-related travel? They are here for work but they have to return home for personal reasons. How would we classify that? If someone is at the other end of the country—say in Dunedin—on work-related business and then they might have a gap of a day where they go back home and then they return to Dunedin 2 days later to do some other work-related thing is that work-related travel or is that personal travel? They are returning to their home for personal reasons.It is sometimes very difficult to distinguish between what is work related and what is personal when it comes to travel. In many many other things it is very easy to distinguish. When it comes to our salaries it is a personal benefit. That is what we get paid back for the jobs we do.Tim Macindoe: I hope it’s work related.CHRIS HIPKINS: Well we are earning it but there is an element of personal benefit in earning money. I do not think anyone would disagree with that. So I think that it is fair that that be determined independently of us but I think that in the case of travel that can be quite difficult.The other thing about travel is that I agree with transparency in so far as MPs’ travel costs are concerned but I think we need to be careful about the extent to which we take that. I think that the transparency we have around travel now has already changed behaviour probably to what it was before I ever became an MP. I have been an MP for only 5 years. I think that prior to that MPs could have free unfettered travel anywhere around the country. There was no transparency and accountability around that. Now the total amount that MPs spend on travel each year is disclosed. I think that is probably the appropriate level for disclosure.If we got into the situation where every individual flight or every individual taxi fare had to be disclosed we would quickly find ourselves in the position where members of Parliament would become less accessible to the public because every individual visit a member of Parliament did would have to be justified publicly one at a time. People would stop doing things because they would not want to disclose the individual details of all the things they were doing. I think that would be unfortunate. So I think the disclosure level we have got now where we are disclosing how much is spent on travel is the appropriate level and it does encourage members of Parliament to be as efficient as possible in making their travel arrangements. I think we have got that balance about right.The other thing I also want to make clear is the safeguards that have been built in to this legislation for the taxpayer. If any one of the things that takes place under this bill does amount to a personal benefit to members of Parliament then the Remuneration Authority must take that into consideration in determining the salaries of members of Parliament. Basically what it says is that if parliamentarians appropriate for themselves something that has a personal benefit then the Remuneration Authority will take that personal benefit into account and offset that against the salary and the salary will be deducted accordingly. So it is a safeguard to stop—I am sure it would not happen in this Parliament—any future Parliaments from basically awarding themselves some personal benefit in addition to their salary because it will be offset against their salary. I think that is a good safeguard for the taxpayer to know that there are protections in place to stop that sort of thing from happening.There are a few things in this bill that I think are welcome and overdue and normally I guess in any other place would just be dealt with by an employer. But here because of the unusual employment relationships we have we do have to have legislation. The “AWOL” clause as I refer to it has been mentioned several times—members of Parliament being absent without leave for a period of time. There have been very few provisions that have been able to discourage that behaviour and penalise that behaviour and this bill deals with that. I mentioned my solution to that in the Committee stage of this debate which is that I believe speaking as a former whip that some form of microchipping or ankle bracelets would be an appropriate monitoring mechanism to ensure that members of Parliament were doing—electrified ankle bracelets would beeven better to incentivise the appropriate behaviour by members of Parliament. But I have yet to have widespread support for that idea from my colleagues unfortunately.I also believe that in the cases where members of Parliament are suspended from the House their salaries should be docked. I want to be clear though that that does not mean that they get turfed out of the Chamber for naughty behaviour and they go back to their offices and continue working. Suspension from Parliament means they are named and being named means there has to be a vote in the House. It happens rarely but I think it is important that when it happens there is some consequence for that because that encourages MPs to lift their behaviour and to avoid getting named by the Speaker. Now there is provision in this legislation to ensure that their salaries will be deducted accordingly if they find themselves in that position.The final clause that I want to mention which I think is long overdue is the ability now in this legislation to cancel under certain circumstances the travel and other entitlements for former members of Parliament. There is a lot of public disquiet about the fact that former members of Parliament actually get travel entitlements once they cease being members of Parliament. Again I want to make it clear that that has changed. The world has changed. It relates only to an ever-diminishing group of members of Parliament. Anyone who came in after 1996 I think it was does not qualify for that any more. We do not have the gold-plated superannuation scheme that they used to have. A lot of those things have gone now. There is a lot more transparency about it and I think that that is a welcome thing.This bill is a step in the right direction. I think we will continue to evolve continue to increase the level of transparency and accountability that members of Parliament have around these matters and I think that that is a very positive thing.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I want to thank Chris Hipkins and say that I agree with a great deal of what he has just said in the House on the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I think he is absolutely right that the process by which we are increasing the transparency and the independence in the setting of MPs’ allowances and expenses and salaries is a very good thing. It is continually evolving and we have had a great deal more change over the last 5 years than we probably had in the previous 30 years. So clearly Parliament is doing its best to respond to public issues respond to media scrutiny and respond to a modern environment. We are in the 21st century now. We operate in a different environment than we did last century.I agree absolutely about the concern of representation. This is a House of Representatives. Wealth is not a criterion for entry here and should never be. It has been in the past I think but it should never be ever again. Anyone from any walk of life should be able to come to this House based on their community support and on the nation’s support to represent their people and their interests here.I would disagree with Chris just on one issue really which is around the public view of MPs and MPs’ expenses. I have more optimism actually about the public view. Iain Lees-Galloway raises his eyebrows and understandably so. But I would just note for the House that we have been debating this legislation around MPs expenses and allowances which is of intense interest to a few and there has been very little public discourse or discussion about the debate that we are having and are about to conclude. We are doing so in a week where theNew Zealand Heraldhas run three stories on MPs’ expenses and other media have been doing rolling stories as well. There has been a little bit of heat around that but nothing like what we saw in 2009 and 2010. We also have the issue that people tell me about—that the Remuneration Authority is soon to announce what MPs’ pay will be for the next 12 months—and yet there has not been this great public fury. There has been a public discussion. There have been different viewsexpressed and expressed publicly—expressed on Twitter on social media and in the news and people are asked for their views. There is I agree some cynicism from the public about how all of our expenses and allowances and salaries are set and our involvement in all of that. But again it is nothing like the public backlash that we might have expected in earlier years and nothing like the public backlash that I think MPs are concerned about.I think that the public in the main understand that we need to be paid for our job and that we need financial resources to do our job and to do our job properly. What they expect from us in exchange is transparency on how we use those public resources that we do our jobs properly that we are a good workforce and do what is expected of us and that we do not take personal benefit from the use of that public money beyond our pay. It is a perfectly reasonable expectation and there has been a perfectly reasonable in my view debate about this. I am very surprised at how little heat there has been this week comparatively speaking. So I have a more optimistic view about the public and their view about how we are managing this issue and I do think that it signals very strongly that there will be further change.As the House knows the Green Party did not agree with the travel expenses for MPs remaining with the Speaker. We preferred the original bill that came to the House which said that the travel expenses would go to the Remuneration Authority along with the accommodation allowances and other issues. We talked about that at the Government Administration Committee. We came to an agreement that we had got as far as we could get with that committee. We have put those issues back to this House. The House decided not to support that view—such is the democratic process. But again there is no great heat in this discussion. It is simply about how we are managing to evolve in taking the steps as far as we can go.We are very pleased with the changes that the legislation has made—make no mistake. We are very pleased with the recognition of MPs being entitled to support when they have an impairment that prevents them from being able to use the same supports that MPs without impairment get. We think absolutely that a financial contribution to managing the barriers that those impairments place on MPs’ engagement should be the responsibility of the entire organisation and not just of an MP. We are very pleased that accommodation allowances are moving to the Remuneration Authority. That was raised this week. We are very pleased that the Green Party’s original proposal for the release of our expenses which we started in 2009 has now been put in legislation. Up until now it had been a policy. It had not been a legislative requirement and now it is. It is fantastic. That is the process of change. That is what progress is—the process of change. So that is all great work.There is still a question—and Chris Hipkins raised this—around how to deal with the issue of personal benefit from the travel allowance. Chris Hipkins is quite right. If we were to say that we would keep the travel allowance in-house under the Speaker but that we would restrict it to being used for parliamentary purposes only we would have to have a conversation a discussion about what constitutes parliamentary purposes and we would need to have that with the public because there is public interest in determining how that works. There may be the construction of rules—or guidelines; rules actually not guidelines—that we would develop to show that we could do our jobs do them effectively represent our communities and return to our homes which was the example that was given. All of those things would be within a set of rules that we largely agree to by consensus—by all members of the House and by the public. That is possible. We can have that conversation and I expect that we will. This is not the end point. There will be more change and those conversations will get easier over time just as this one has been much easier than the last time we talked about these issues.Increasing transparency is great. It is good to see that in the bill. MPs will always be under scrutiny.I would just note one thing of interest to the public—if it is of interest—which is of course that MPs are not employed. We are here by the operation of the law. We are removed from our role only by the operation of the law. So that is why our salaries for example and the other tools that we need for our jobs are incorporated into the law. We have no legal structure for our employment so we are in a very unique situation compared with any other group of employees anywhere else in the country and that is why so much of this is public. I do not know about other members but it seems to me that often we read about our salary increases in the newspaper. There are little small things like that that make our lives more interesting and it does bring some real public transparency into the work that we do.The Green Party will support this legislation. We see it as a great step. We are very pleased about the nature of the conversation that has been had over this legislation particularly given some of the political heat this week but we do remind members that there will be calls for more change. So the question then becomes: how do we want to respond to those calls and how do we express to the public that we do trust them to acknowledge the right that we have to do our job properly the right to the tools that we need to do our job and the right to fair remuneration for it?My final comment is that it will always be difficult for us particularly in terms of MPs’ pay for as long as there is severe inequity in this country for as long as the minimum wage is a political decision made by the Prime Minister and not made independently of the political environment and for as long as there continues to be an increase—a significant increase—in higher salaries which MPs also receive and very very small incremental increases if any in the lowest wages. That inequity will continue to bring more scrutiny on MPs. We are making decisions about other people’s pay and other people’s employment conditions—every year we go through cycles of making changes to their pay and changes to their employment conditions—and yet we squeal a little when those decisions are being made about our own pay and employment conditions. That is not fair and we will need to change that also. Thank you.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Sat sri akaal Mr Assistant Speaker. Thanks for the opportunity to speak on the third reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. The bill before the House for its third reading today improves the legislation relating to elected members’ remuneration and entitlement to services. It provides a new framework towards providing entitlements for members of Parliament and the executive. The improvements to the legislation are based on the Law Commission’s reportReview of the Civil List Act 1979: Members of Parliament and Ministers.As a member of the Government Administration Committee I acknowledge the work that my colleagues the officials and the submitters have done on this bill. I agree with my colleague Chris Auchinvole that this bill is in line with the Government’s decision to bring transparency independence and non-partisanship into determining the entitlements of Ministers and members of Parliament.By way of this legislation the Remuneration Authority will decide on the entitlements of MPs and the executive. Also under the new legislation and by way of a statutory requirement all MPs whether present or former will need to disclose their travel and accommodation expenses on a periodic basis. Furthermore MPs can no longer skip Parliament with a token penalty for their non-attendance. The deduction from an MP’s salary for non-attendance will rise from $10 a day currently to 0.2 percent of the member’s salary. This equates to about $289 a day. No doubt this is a significantamount to pay and it will ensure that all of us are present here in the House doing our duties. With these words I commend this bill to the House.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call in the third reading of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. It is a good bill. It has got to be a good bill when for example the legislation is based on the recommendation of the Law Commission in December 2010 that the current sanctions for MPs who do not attend Parliament for long periods are grossly inadequate. For example when Labour MP Chris Carter was fined only $10 a day for his 14-day absence that was only $140 for that 14-day absence. Under the new law he could be fined about $289 a day as my colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi just said or more than $4000. It has got to be a good bill. Thank you.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I commend the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill to the House.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): I will have to write down that contribution from Jami-Lee Ross after I have finished mine. That was astonishingly short. I can understand members’ reticence to make a contribution on this bill but I think we do owe it to the public to at least discuss the contents of the bill and discuss what it is designed to do. It may be something that we as members feel a little uncomfortable discussing in front of the public but the fact that it makes us feel a little uncomfortable discussing it probably ought to be one of the reasons why we do actually have a proper debate about this Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill.The purpose of this bill is to establish a new framework for setting entitlements for members of Parliament and the executive. It repeals the Civil List Act 1979 and changes the law regarding the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament the support services provided for members of Parliament Ministers and certain electoral candidates the annuities and other benefits and privileges for former Prime Ministers and the benefits and privileges for former members of Parliament. Essentially what that all means is that it modernises the regime for giving members of Parliament and members of the executive the resources and tools we require to carry out the tasks of being a member of Parliament and being a representative of the people of New Zealand.A number of members have said—those who have contributed to the debate today—how these things have changed over time. One reason why the regime for pay and support services for MPs has changed is a desire for greater transparency—a desire expressed both by the public and by members of Parliament. But another reason is simply the fact that the environment in which members of Parliament operate now and the expectations of members of Parliament have changed over the years. There was a time when members of Parliament did not receive resources to open an office in their electorate. They did not receive resources to staff offices in their electorates and to provide services to their constituents although most members of Parliament did. They either funded it themselves or relied on volunteers—often members of their family—to provide those services to their constituents. A decision was made pleasingly some decades ago that that was not adequate and our constituents deserved better service than that so resources were provided to members of Parliament in order to provide those services.Likewise with the advent of air travel and other forms of travel it was deemed appropriate that members of Parliament should not only be able to travel to and from Wellington to carry out their functions here as legislators but also be able to travel around the country to carry out their functions as representatives. This is because we do not just represent the people of our constituencies—although for those of us who are electorate members of Parliament it is our primary function I believe to represent thoseconstituents—it is also incumbent on us to make sure that we are representing the interests of people across the country. Most of us hold portfolios of one type or another and it is a requirement that we travel around and actually speak to the people working in those areas so that we actually have a grasp of what is happening at the front line what is happening in reality and we do not get stuck in the ivory tower that is the parliamentary complex.Hon Maryan Street: Or in Nelson.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: Yes—Ms Street suggested Nelson might also be an ivory tower. So these resources are very much made available to members of Parliament so that we can provide the services that are expected of us.Other more recent innovations are the internet and email. I am sure all MPs—just like probably most other people in New Zealand and workers in New Zealand—have a love-hate relationship with emails. They certainly give constituents far better access to us. It is certainly much faster—usually—to email your member of Parliament and hopefully get a timely response from them rather than relying on old-fashioned mail. But that of course means that we have to be resourced in order to provide that service; we have to be accessible and available to our constituents. That ultimately is what the resources side of this is about.Of course it is also about ensuring that members of Parliament are reasonably recompensed for the work that they do. As Chris Hipkins rightly pointed out I think it is about striking a balance and ensuring that someone does not need to be independently wealthy—they do not need to be a rich person—in order to enter Parliament because it is a House of Representatives. We ought to represent the whole diversity of our nation—rich poor old young ethnicities of all varieties backgrounds of all varieties careers of all varieties. If we were to overly restrict the remuneration of members of Parliament that would limit the different kinds of people who could come into this place. Nor should you come to Parliament in order to become rich. That is not a reason to seek election and to seek to represent the people whom you purport to represent. I think we have over the years come up with systems that do strike that balance appropriately. However members of Parliament are well remunerated when compared with most people in New Zealand. I think we have to acknowledge that although we think it is a fair remuneration we are amongst the top income earners in New Zealand. It is understandable that there is scrutiny and an expectation that we will be absolutely transparent about what we earn and the way we use the resources that are available to us.So the key changes in this legislation are around improving transparency and are around ensuring that we have the right matters dealt with by the Remuneration Authority and the right matters dealt with by the Speaker. Particularly I think it is important that members of Parliament acknowledge that our primary function when the House is sitting is to be here in the House legislating. That is our job. That is not to say that there are not good valid reasons why some of us for some of the time need to be away from the House but our primary role is to pass legislation. That is actually what we are sent here to do. That is what people elect us to do.One of the key changes that this legislation allows for is to the penalties for being away from Parliament without good reason without the authority of the party whips or the Speaker depending on the different regimes for different people whether they be independent small parties or part of a larger party. It is true that the penalty system that was in place before really had no impact. There was no incentive to carry out our primary functions and be here in the House under the old system. The new system certainly does create an incentive for members of Parliament to be here. With it will come a new regime where we are now all going to be checked off to make sure that weare here in Parliament to ensure that at least at some point in time in the day we make an appearance here in the debating chamber and/or that we make an appearance at a select committee and if we do not do that that there is a good explanation for that that the Speaker or the whips are aware of. I think that does create the right incentives and that members of the public will appreciate that that expectation has been built into the legislation.I think that this is good legislation. It strikes the right balance both in terms of the remuneration of MPs and also placing the correct responsibilities with the correct authorities so that the right decisions are made. It grants members of Parliament the tools they require to carry out the functions of this role to an adequate level and ensures that the constituents that we serve get the services that they expect from their members of Parliament. I commend this bill to the House.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I think members have traversed the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill very well and have articulated very well the main points. In the spirit of this bill I do not wish to waste any more taxpayers’ money by taking up Parliament’s time. I commend the bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this going to be a split call?GARETH HUGHES (Green): That is up to Labour. No I understand that it will not be. Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I do not think I will take my full 10 minutes for this call. What we are discussing are MPs’ remuneration and expenses. I think the important thing to put on the public record is what an incredible privilege it is for each and every one of us to be able to sit in this Chamber at the public’s pleasure because of their direct democracy and their votes. It is an incredible privilege and one that we must remind ourselves of every day. We get budgets to employ staff and to travel the country as part of our work and a very very fair remuneration package. I think it is important to remember that each and every one of those dollars is paid by a New Zealand taxpayer. It is incredibly critical that we are reminded of the privilege and reminded that we are not spending our money; we are spending the public’s money.I believe that every single member in this Parliament has entered this Chamber with a desire to do what is right for this country to do what is behind their vision and I do not believe that any MP has come to this Parliament to get wealthy. Obviously though there is a huge discrepancy between the average wage the median wage the minimum wage and the wage that MPs and Ministers get in New Zealand.It is right that the public should scrutinise MPs’ expenses and remuneration. It is right that the public should question the entitlements and the perks. It is also right that the cartoonists and people at barbecues can poke a bit of fun at MPs as well because what we know is that sunlight is the best disinfectant. It is important that we have a public conversation out in the open when it comes to MPs’ entitlements remuneration and other aspects of our financial accountability. For too long it was held behind closed doors. MPs were seen to be the ones setting their own pay rates setting their own entitlements and setting their own superannuation. Obviously the public was against that because it is not right. It goes against the principles of appropriate decision making. Those affected should not be the ones setting the decisions. That is why you see cartoons of pigs in the trough and the like.So I am quite proud to say that the Green Party for a long time has been the champion of greater transparency and openness when it comes to MPs’ remuneration and expenses. It was the Green Party members who in 2009 publicly and voluntarily disclosed our expenses and then we saw the commendable decision by Speaker Lockwood Smith to apply that across Parliament. We believe in transparency. We have championed it for a long time and although the Members of Parliament (Remunerationand Services) Bill is a step in the right direction and we will be supporting it we still think that there is some way to go.So what we see with this bill are basically a few minor changes. We are seeing the so-called Chris Carter clause clause 14 which is increasing the daily penalty rate for MPs who are not present on the precinct or doing parliamentary work. We are seeing changes around the Remuneration Authority’s role. What we did originally see in the first reading of the bill was that MPs’ travel expenses were also going to be moved from the Speaker to the Remuneration Authority. That was taken out of the bill. It is something the Green Party attempted to put back in through an amendment to the legislation but it was not successful.Just to go through a bit of history it is not just about the recent allegations from theNew Zealand Herald and in particular the staggeringly high number of private superannuation schemes of the National Party members; this has been an issue for a long time. It is not just about moats and UK parliamentarians rorting the system there; this has been an issue for a long time. I take your minds back to some of the superannuation schemes and travel allowances that I believe led to Metiria Turei putting a motion some years ago to the Parliamentary Service Commission. That stimulated I understand the Law Commission investigation that is the genesis of this bill which we should be passing today. It has had some history. It is good to be seeing progress on it.A point of debate and controversy through the second reading and the Committee stage of the bill was what should happen with MPs’ travel and accommodation expenses. We supported the original inclusion that it should be an independent body that decides because if MPs through the Speaker of this Parliament are the ones deciding the travel and accommodation entitlements quite rightfully the public can question whether MPs are making decisions in their own interests.It is much more desirable to have an independent authority such as the Remuneration Authority setting this entitlement. I also note that Sir Geoffrey Palmer said it was incredibly sad that this recommendation from the Law Commission was not adopted. We put the amendment on Supplementary Order Paper 369 to the Committee. Unfortunately it was not successful but I think that this is where we are ultimately going to see it because the principle is consistent. Those making decisions and benefiting from them should not be making those decisions.I would also like to acknowledge the amendment put up by the member Brendan Horan on Supplementary Order Paper 368 which was to have a 3-year freeze on remuneration entitlements. I think that from the public’s perspective it is absolutely galling that they are struggling to pay the power bills they are struggling to purchase healthy food and housing costs are going through the roof but what we see every Christmas it seems is MPs getting another pay rise. Despite their being set by an independent authority we also know that those pay rises only ever go in one direction.So we think having a 3-year freeze could help the public have some more confidence in it. Obviously we have now got to a state where there is a media frenzy before every Christmas about what the pay rise will be for MPs and how far it will be backdated. We support the proposal that it should be set at a 3-year period so we would not be getting those constant increases. So we put up some proposals and we supported some other proposals. They did not pass but ultimately I think this is the start of a process for greater transparency and openness for our Parliament.We would like to celebrate the inclusion of greater support for members with disabilities. I think Mojo Mathers has made history by being the first deaf MP in our Parliament. What we saw in the early days of her taking her seat in this House were some wrangles over who was going to pay for her support. What this legislation does issay very clearly that every MP has the right to fully participate in the House and if additional services are needed they will be provided whether they be for a member in wheelchair which may mean we have to modify the Chamber and the precincts through to providing a TV screen and translation services so Mojo can participate fully in this House. I think it is critical that this Parliament sends a message to all New Zealanders no matter what their disability that their views and opinions are respected they are valued and we want to hear them. What we do not want to be doing is sending the signal either consciously or subconsciously explicitly or implicitly that disabled members because of the extra needs should feel guilty about taking extra resources.Thirdly in this bill we are seeing the attendance register for MPs being created in statute. I know the Standing Orders Committee is looking at how we are going to deal with this in practice. I think what we are going to see is an extra workload for the whips and the Speaker of Parliament but I believe what we saw with the member Chris Carter was that the $10 a day fee was simply laughable. Increasing that figure will give the public greater confidence. Ultimately this is what this legislation is all about. It is about the public being able to have confidence in their elected officials—all of us who have the privilege to sit in this House—to represent the people of New Zealand. To represent our electorates and constituencies we need them to have confidence. If MPs are seen to be rorting the system we are lessening the respect for this institution.Four quick points I want to say going forward are firstly obviously we need to set travel allowances independently. Secondly I think we need to remove the personal travel perk. I know it is seen with a great deal of scorn by the public that MPs can go on a holiday on the taxpayer’s dime through their travel entitlements. I understand this is a historical remuneration package but I do not think that the public understands it. I do not think the public sees the rationale behind it. It is something that I do not use and have never used. I think in the future this has to go.Obviously travel for professional parliamentary business is most appropriate. But every time you are at the airport—and I am sure that many members have this—most likely on parliamentary purpose the public are looking at you questioning whether you are off to Great Barrier Island or Queenstown for a weekend. So I think for the public to have greater confidence in the system this must be removed. Thirdly I think we need to have greater transparency and increase the ability of the Official Information Act to include how parties spend their public money.I think there is a lot more we can do. This is just the beginning. It is not the end. I think the public and this Parliament should celebrate greater openness and transparency when it comes to financial accountability for our elected members of Parliament. Kia ora.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): When the member for Palmerston North spoke a few moments ago he expressed some surprise—and in fact he was quite critical—at the fact that some of the latter speakers from the National side in this debate made very short contributions. This is a matter of genuine public interest so I just want to put it on the record for anybody who may be listening that there are actually only two National MPs on the Government Administration Committee who are eligible to speak in debates in this House. That is actually the reason for that. In fact I should also point out since the chair of the committee Ruth Dyson is interjecting at the moment that not all the Labour speakers have taken their calls in this debate either. So I think they just need to be mindful of the fact that it cuts both ways.The Government Administration Committee nevertheless has done very good work on this Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I was not involved in their work at all. I did not hear the submissions but by all accounts they did give them due consideration. They have paid sufficient respect to the sensitivities of the membersof the public on this issue so I thank them for that. I acknowledge the very thoughtful and intelligent contributions of all members of the House in this third reading debate and I too support this bill.Bill read a third time.WorkSafe New Zealand BillHealth and Safety in Employment Amendment BillMines Rescue BillThird ReadingsHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): I moveThat the WorkSafe New Zealand Bill the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill and the Mines Rescue Bill be now read a third time. It gives me great satisfaction to support these bills at the third readings. Following the release of the report of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy in 2012 this Government committed to implementing the royal commission’s 16 recommendations by the end of 2013. By establishing WorkSafe New Zealand strengthening worker participation arrangements in the mining industry ensuring that the Mines Rescue service is adequately funded and supported by legislation and paving the way for a new set of mining health and safety regulations these bills fulfil key elements of that commitment.Both the royal commission and the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety recommended that a new regulator be established in the form of a Crown agent. A stand-alone agency sufficiently resourced and with an executive board with a wide range of skills and experience will have the necessary focus to help reduce New Zealand’s high rate of fatalities and serious injuries in the workplace. But just creating a new agency is not enough on its own. The establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand is just one aspect of the most significant reforms to the workplace health and safety system in a generation.As I announced recently this Government intends to introduce a replacement for the Health and Safety in Employment Act which is now over 20 years old. The new legislation will be supported by a full spectrum of regulations approved codes of practice and other guidance material in support of the primary legislation. This was one of the areas that drew particular criticism from the royal commission in relation to mining. The commission identified that there was a lack of supporting material sitting beneath the Health and Safety in Employment Act. So although duty holders knew what they had to comply with they had no guidance as to how to comply. In the high-hazard industry of coalmining this fact among others led to the tragedy at Pike River.The Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill will pave the way for a new set of mining health and safety regulations as recommended by the royal commission. These regulations among other things will set out the processes that must be followed and the minimum standards that must be met to safely manage the hazards that can cause catastrophic failure of the kind seen at Pike River. Mine operators will be required to develop detailed hazard management plans to demonstrate how they will meet these requirements. These regulations will bring the regulation of mining health and safety in New Zealand into line with international best practice. I would like to express my appreciation to both the expert reference group that has been advising officials and the industry stakeholders who have engaged in a productive and open manner throughout the development of these regulations.The Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill also responds to another recommendation of the royal commission by significantly strengthening worker participation arrangements in the mining industry. The provisions of this bill will ensurethat all mine workers at a mining operation including contractors subcontractors and labour hire workers will be covered by these arrangements.Health and safety representatives will be supported by a range of statutory functions and powers. Those who have undertaken prescribed training will be able to carry out inspections and suspend operations if there is an imminent risk of serious harm. In the underground coalmining sector which has seen the vast majority of the fatalities in mining in the last 60 years these strengthened provisions will be further supported by the appointment of industry health and safety representatives who will provide in the royal commission’s words “an extra set of eyes and ears”.The Mines Rescue Bill responds to the recommendation of the royal commission concerning the mines rescue service. The bill clearly sets out the functions of the service and the legislation and provides that the levy to fund the service can be set through regulations. These changes will ensure that this vital service is sufficiently resourced to assist mine operators with their emergency preparedness and to respond to emergencies and other incidents when required.This bill also provides statutory support for the role of the incident controller in a major underground mining emergency. This is a key role in the inter-agency protocol that has been developed in response to another of the royal commission’s recommendations. The incident controller will lead the decision making at the mine site during an emergency. This legislation will ensure that he or she can effectively carry out this important task.It is our duty to the 29 workers who died and their families to oversee the implementation of the royal commission’s recommendations. It is also a duty we owe to all current and future workers in the mining industry in New Zealand. These bills implement several key recommendations of the royal commission and I commend them to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): It is a pleasure to speak on what is now a collection of three bills—the WorkSafe New Zealand Bill the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill and the Mines Rescue Bill—on this very important topic. Labour has supported this legislation notwithstanding some reservations we have had about it and actually continue to have and I will come to those shortly. But as the Minister of Labour has pointed out this Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill makes some significant changes and I am confident that it will make a significant difference at least in the extractive industries that it largely refers to. The introduction of beefed-up powers for the site health and safety representatives and the introduction of the new beast if you like the “industry health and safety representative” are innovative steps. They are new steps—some would say long-awaited steps—but nevertheless that is now happening under the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill and they are both welcome changes.As I said this legislation falls short in some areas and I will comment on those shortly but it does provide a foundation on which to build. Labour will await the introduction of the broader reform of the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill which is the bill that is currently the subject of an exposure draft that has gone out to sector groups and others. Depending on what is in that bill we will build on some of the parts of the present legislation this Pike River implementation package of legislation.Before I go further I want to make a plea. This legislation corrects some longstanding flaws and failures in our health and safety legal framework. It no longer matters which Government over the last 20 years did or did not do the right thing. Parliament is now fixing it. We are plugging the gaps and we are paving the way for a safer New Zealand and safer workplaces in New Zealand. But it would be an insult todeny that we have been brought to this point by the worst and possibly the most avoidable industrial tragedy in nearly 100 years—the most lives lost in an industrial tragedy I should say since the 1914 Huntly mine disaster when 43 men perished. The truth is that getting this legislation even this far has seen many New Zealand workers pay the ultimate price. Twenty-nine of them still lie entombed deep within the Paparoa Range. By passing this legislation this Parliament acknowledges the price those 29 men and their families paid and by putting aside our usual fractious and antagonistic behaviour and accepting that nothing less than meaningful change is necessary and by acting accordingly.But that is not enough. In truth this Parliament and successive executives that have been part of it were part of the failure of the system that led to the tragedy we now know as Pike River. The Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy found failure by the company and by the Government as regulator. A court has since found the company at fault but then that court had only the company before it. The regulator prosecuted the company but did not prosecute itself. In July this year Judge Farish of the District Court in Greymouth imposed on Pike River Coal the highest aggregate fine and reparation order imposed on any employer under the Health and Safety in Employment Act—$760000 in fines and $3410000 in reparation. The judge said that the fines are to condemn the practices of the company and “to indicate that this company should never have been in operation”.Mr Bridges we let that company operate. Mr Key make good the losses the families have suffered. Mr Key accept on behalf of your Government and all Governments before it that the Crown failed those workers and failed their families. Make a contribution. Do something. Put a line under this for the families. Take the final act to restore the confidence of the families the faith of the people and the dignity of this House. Let the Pike 29 rest in peace.Let me turn to three points in this legislation where improvement is still possible. They are the three points that we have debated in this House during the passage of this legislation when it was originally one bill—it is now three bills—as it worked its way through. The first point is the governing board of WorkSafe New Zealand. The future of health and safety in this country must be built on a genuine respectful relationship both at a corporate level and at an enterprise level between workers their employers and the Government—a genuinely tripartite structure and model. That must start at the top and the top when it comes to a regime affecting health and safety is WorkSafe New Zealand the new body established to champion the cause and regulate workplace health and safety and make life safer and better for workers in New Zealand. But that should reflect a genuinely tripartite model too and it does not at the moment. I ask the Minister when he gets to a point at some point to review the legislation to bear that point in mind.The second point is the scope of the role of the industry health and safety representatives under new section 19ZP in the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Act in this package of bills. As it stands now that role is confined to only underground coalmining but it should apply to tunnelling and quarrying as well. We are only 2 or 3 weeks out from the aftermath in the District Court in Auckland of a tunnelling disaster that led to a fatality and serious injury to people involved. It was not a mine and it was not a tunnel that was there for extractive purposes—it was there to lay cables and it was in an urban area—but there was a build-up of gas which exploded and killed and maimed. There is no less reason for there to be the best possible health and safety regime covering that type of work than there is for underground coalmining. Indeed other forms of mining such as open-cast coalmining are nevertheless coalmining activity. It is hazardous and dangerous and there is as much a case for theindustry health and safety representative in that situation as there is for underground coalmining notwithstanding the extra-special hazards involved in underground coalmining and I ask the Minister to bear that in mind for future consideration.The third point is—and it seems a somewhat small point and hopefully is a situation that we will never have to experience again—the role of the incident controller in a significant and large-scale incident such as the one that happened at Pike River. The way it is defined at the moment the incident controller who is appointed by WorkSafe New Zealand but is required to consult with the range of other agencies that invariably get involved—the Police the Fire Service the Mines Rescue trust—is required to consult with every other agency but there is no signal given in the legislation about the need for timely and effective decision-making which was one of the let-downs in the early days the first week or 10 days of the Pike River incident. They might seem small issues but they are important issues.Let me conclude by congratulating the Minister on shepherding this legislation through. These are big steps taken in the leadership and management of health and safety in every workplace in New Zealand. We look forward to the next phase that the Minister is putting through as well. This will be good for New Zealand. It will be good for miners in the mining industry in New Zealand and ultimately it will be a signal for us all to be more careful for those who work in our workplaces and generate the wealth that keeps this country the great place that it is.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I just want to follow on from the two speeches we have had first up and pay tribute and our respect to those miners who were lost in that terrible tragedy. I think the Minister of Labour Simon Bridges expressed that very well and Andrew Little also expressed that very well in his speech just passed. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee did travel to the region and I would like to acknowledge Damien O’Connor who will probably be speaking soon and Chris Auchinvole. Both have a special interest in that area. I also acknowledge our Green members as well for their work in that event when we went down there.This is not a pretty occasion for any Parliament or any community to have to go through. It is something that I guess brings home the dangers that a workplace does involve. It brings home the danger that many people engage in every day in trying to make this country the productive place that it is. It also brings home the role that the Government business and the community have in protecting and looking after people who are engaging in work that may involve that kind of level of danger.As the last speaker said this legislation—the WorkSafe New Zealand Bill the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill and the Mines Rescue Bill—is overdue and is probably something that many parliaments should have done a long time ago. Unfortunately that is the situation but this is the nature of this legislation and the circumstances we are now in. In saying that this is good legislation. I would just like to thank the Minister Simon Bridges who has done an excellent job in listening to the community being aware of these issues and trying to find a way to incorporate into legislation the needs of our communities in a way that is practical and will work going forward. I also thank the members of the select committee—National Labour and the Greens—who have been part of that committee and have worked conscientiously to get the best result for the community.When we look at this legislation it does make some significant changes which have been canvassed by both speakers and there have been some changes at the select committee really just to accommodate some practicalities of different industries looking at finding the balance that will be the best so that we can maintain safety in a very dangerous mining industry especially where coalmining is involved. It isunderground and there is the possibility that gas could explode and then cause loss of life as we saw at Pike River.This legislation is a balance in trying to achieve the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy in regard to that situation but at the same time being the right balance for business community and also employees as they go about their daily work in our best industries. This is legislation that all political parties have shown an endeavour to work towards getting through this House and we commend it to the House.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): Every time I rise to speak on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill and the legislation arising out of it there is so much to say. It has been a long time coming to this House. I have to acknowledge that this is good legislation but it is not perfect. We have pointed to the deficiencies that we believe are still in it but it is good legislation necessary legislation.It started back in 1992 with the change to the law that in effect placed the onus of safety on to employers and employees in the belief that they could get on and ensure a safe workplace. I remember warnings to me personally in 1995 about what might happen. In 1999 we raised these issues in the Government again to be refuted by officials who had the wisdom of experience they said and knew what was best for all health and safety but mine safety in particular. In the meantime within the country we continued to see—and still do of course in some industries—workers killed and not returning home from their workplaces.I would like to acknowledge the excellent speech from my colleague Andrew Little who summarised all the issues very very well. I apologise if perhaps I might be less focused and a bit more emotional relating to issues that have been part and parcel of the culture of our West Coast economy for a long time.The assurances once again repeated from Wellington were about concerns that had been in the community and in the workplace for a number of years. There were assurances from the Minister of Labour as recently as 2010 that employers were in a good position to understand the hazards arising in their workplaces and were best placed to take steps to control them. That was not the truth. It was not the reality. This legislation will make some changes to rebalance the input into health and safety in the workplace and it is necessary.There have been a lot of words a lot heard a lot said and we hope a lot learnt through the process of the royal commission post - Pike River. We have a summary. It is just a small document which I am holding up with some of the wisdom that came from that royal commission. There is a book to be launched in Greymouth tomorrow that contains a lot more wisdom—a summary a very good summary of what happened down there. That is good. We need to have things written down so that in the future people can look back and learn from the mistakes that have been made but in the end it is action that is important. No amount of words whether they be oral or in written form mean enough to ensure safety into the future without action.One of the issues that are still to be resolved is the one of accountability. My colleagues spoke of it. There were assurances and support was given to the families at the time of the tragedy. They needed that and it was acknowledged at the time. But moving beyond the lessons of the royal commission and into the changes in legislation as we have seen here there has not really been one person held to account other than the previous Minister perhaps who resigned because she was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Next year we believe there will be a court case here in Wellington not on the West Coast so that that person will be tried not by their peers but actually byanother group of people outside the region. I am not going to get into the wisdom of that.There is a reasonable expectation from families and they want some accountability. Accountability comes not just from nice apologies; it actually comes from acknowledgment of the mistakes made—and it is fairly hard to deny those—followed by action. The payment to families that has been I guess reasonably expected is not for some kind of mercenary offset for the tragic losses that those families have suffered; it is the action part of accountability that comes after acknowledgment. There has been acknowledgment of the mistakes as I have said and there has been a royal commission that points to the areas of fault but there has been no real action.I implore the Government to actually take action to make a payment to families as an acknowledgment of the failings at every level of Government responsibility: not resourcing the mines inspectorate having inadequate legislation not having put in codes of practice and not running a system that gave some reasonable expectation of safety not only at Pike River but in fact at Spring Creek Mine as well. The failures were systemic. They were the responsibility of Governments. I do not think that anyone can step back from that. But the Government of the day—that is the National Government now—has a responsibility to take action following acknowledgment to deliver accountability. Then the families can move on.The families have some comfort from the changes being made through this legislation in the House today but there is still reluctance. The Prime Minister says payment to them may set a precedent. I think that is rubbish. What kind of precedent has been laid down by a $30 million payment to a huge multinational for no guarantee of jobs? What precedent is set if you do sweet deals to get economic development in this country through Skycity? That is a precedent—I say a far more dangerous precedent than paying something as acknowledgment and accountability for systemic Government failure. That is a reasonable request. In the passage of this legislation the Government has acknowledged that change was needed. It has taken action here but it needs to acknowledge that faults were made and to take action by way of some form of payment to families.I hope to be at the launch of the book I am holdingTragedy at Pike River Mine tomorrow. I am working my way through it. It is a factual recollection of the very sad set of circumstances leading up to and through the whole Pike River disaster.But the next chapter is not written. That will be what has come from this. I hope that it is written in 10 years’ time. I hope that the Minister can rightfully claim that he has done his part to make the necessary changes in health and safety in mining but he knows full well that actually the resources to ensure that that occurs have not been put in place. The fact that we had two mine inspectors when the Pike River mine blew up and we now have three with one head inspector does give an indication that there is still much to be done in this area and that there are resources to be put in place. The establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand is a step forward the ability of workers to have input into workplace health and safety is a step forward and the upgrade of the Mines Rescue Trust Act is a step forward but they are only steps. We need action delivery of the necessary resources and commitment from the Government to be accountable for the terrible mistakes that have occurred through Governments and that led to this disaster.My final plea in the passage of this legislation is to say follow through Minister. Talk to your leader John Key. He comforted the families at the time. He needs to comfort the families now show accountability and with the Government acknowledge the terrible losses that they have suffered.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Next Tuesday will mark the third anniversary of the Pike River disaster and I wanted to begin this contribution by reading a couple of paragraphs from the summary of the report of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. “It is the commission’s view that even though the company was operating in a known high-hazard industry the board of directors did not ensure that health and safety was being properly managed and the executive managers did not properly assess the health and safety risks that the workers were facing. In the drive towards coal production the directors and executive managers paid insufficient attention to health and safety and exposed the company’s workers to unacceptable risks. Mining should have stopped until the risks could be properly managed. The Department of Labour did not have the focus capacity or strategies to ensure that Pike was meeting its legal responsibilities under health and safety laws. The department assumed that Pike was complying with the law even though there was ample evidence to the contrary. The department should have prohibited Pike from operating the mine until its health and safety systems were adequate.” The commission goes on in damning quote after quote saying that the law was inadequate and describing our own regulatory framework as being years behind those in operation in similar countries.The fact is that those 29 men were fundamentally and comprehensively betrayed and let down by the directors of the company who drove increased production at all costs yet dealt with health and safety as a tick-box exercise and by the Pike River Coal management for its failure to implement proper policies and procedures and its failure to implement training ignoring health and safety advice and taking short cuts at every turn. Those men were let down by the mines inspectors whose monitoring and enforcement were totally inadequate. They were let down by the senior management of the Department of Labour who under-resourced those same mines inspectors and ignored the pleas for further resourcing. It also applied a light-handed approach to regulation of the mining industry. They were let down by Bill Birch Max Bradford and all of those in this House who voted for those laws to gut health and safety regulation and to gut the mines inspectorate and all the subsequent Parliaments that as Andrew Little says have failed to reverse those until now.We come now to putting right. The royal commission and the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety have certainly done their jobs. The question as I said in my second reading contribution is whether we in this House have done our jobs. I still have a question mark over that matter. Chris Finlayson to his great credit acknowledged in this House the role that deregulation had played in creating the environment that caused this disaster. But on the same day John Key denied that same role. Simon Bridges is the new Minister of Labour. I have not yet heard the Minister speak about the matter of deregulation and what role it played. So for me the jury is out as to whether the Government acknowledges that deregulation of health and safety and deregulation of the mining industry played that crucial role in creating the environment that created the disaster.The fact is that this Government still comes from that same DNA of that 1990s Government. The Government still sees its role as facilitating business and maximising its profits and sees people as just the labour input into the microeconomic theory of the firm. I believe that that is inadequate. So despite all the assurances of implementing the royal commission’s recommendations as others have said for me these bills arising from the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill are still inadequate. Andrew Little has spoken of several of the matters that he has repeatedly raised and I also have repeatedly raised in the House.The creation of WorkSafe is the right thing to do but the Government still steps back from a genuine commitment to tripartite regulation of health and safety. That board ofWorkSafe will still be accountable to the Minister and not to workers or to employers. That is wrong. In my view the functions of the organisation are still inadequate. They actually describe the light-handed approach to ensuring health and safety that I have mentioned already in this contribution. And the failure of the Government to comprehend that this is not just about underground coalmining seems to me to be a failure of responsibility and a failure to understand one of the basic findings of the royal commission. So yes as other speakers have said this is a really major step forward but it is also a lost opportunity and I regret that. If the Minister disagrees I say to him now: “Show me. Show me show the families of the 29 and show my community that actually you are genuine about this health and safety business.”The Green Party is voting for this legislation but we regret that it is not better legislation. Those failures that I have mentioned—to act ethically and responsibly to prevent this disaster from occurring—are now being mirrored as my colleague Damien O’Connor has said in the failure to take responsibility for putting things right. PeterWhittallis still to face charges but others who are implicated in this business have escaped accountability. The owners of Pike River Coal have not been held accountable and have not stepped up to fund the settlements that the court has awarded the families of the 29. They were happy to take the profits and happy to own that mine but not happy to actually fund the consequence of their company acting illegally. The directors who made the decisions around the short cuts likewise have gotten away scot-free from accountability for this disaster and for the loss of those 29 and despite their own personal wealth have also declined to actually fund compensation to those families.The Department of Labour which investigated Pike River Coal did not even bother to investigate its own inaction—one of its statutory responsibilities. It did not bother to investigate whether or not charges against itself were appropriate. So that department also escapes scot-free and with the Prime Minister’s announcements this week the Government which the Department of Labour represented is also declining to fund any kind of compensation for the failure of its department to perform its duties properly. It seems as though those who actually take a loss from this are the 29 families and the 29 men who still lie underground at the Pike River mine.In preparing this contribution I opened the front of the royal commission report where the photographs of the 29 men and boys are a constant reminder to me. I live in Greymouth. I knew quite a number of these men. Joseph Dunbar often played league with my nephew. I often interacted with that boy. I cannot help but feel that this House has not met its responsibilities and I express my regret to my community and those families that we have not been able to live up to the debt that we owe them.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): Could I make just a short contribution. I just want to acknowledge a few people—firstly and obviously the Minister of Labour and the work he has done on this legislation arising from the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. He has done a heck of a lot of work across this labour space around health and safety and workplace safety—and still a lot more to come. I just want to also acknowledge three particular members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee all members who have contributed to this legislation—they are Damien O’Connor Chris Auchinvole and of course the member who has just resumed his seat Kevin Hague for his heartfelt contribution. I just want to acknowledge all three and say that as someone who has little knowledge or experience in this area and who does not come from the area I think you have absolutely represented your constituents your experience and those views very very well. I do not necessarily agree with all the views that were shared but I certainly respect all of those members for their contributions to this legislation.The genesis of this is a tragic event and we have reflected well on that—and so we should. But I think for me the important thing in acknowledging the mistakes and the oversights looking back through a lens with 20/20 hindsight is to ensure that the balance is achieved so that the pendulum is not seen to swing too far because in every matter of health and safety there are two elements to it really. Those elements are the systems and the processes that we have in place and obviously this place has a role to play in the legislative framework that assists and establishes the right platform for that. But there is also the human element. The human element is one that cannot be underestimated in terms of the role that each individual must have in using their common sense their work experience their training and their compassion care and understanding of the environment they are working in and of the colleagues they are working with as to the role that each individual must play in terms of health and safety. Although there are some legislative levers that we can pull in terms of ensuring compliance with legislation we can never escape the fact that every individual in every workplace has a role and a responsibility to think and act and work in a safe manner and we must support them to do that.But when we go too far in terms of swinging that pendulum so that that role and that responsibility the personal responsibility for the individual are somehow taken away and replaced by some system or some lever or consequence or so forth it can sometimes result in people defaulting to the system and forgetting about themselves. I am in no way suggesting that that is the case in terms of the Pike River disaster or anything that is linked to this legislation. I make it simply as a point as a balance in legislation that we should always remember that it is a match between the systems the processes the levers that we put in place and the individual humans who contribute to working them if you like.I want to just reiterate that this legislation does create three effectively new streams or levers. It creates WorkSafe New Zealand a new regulatory regime that puts clear expectations on hazard management and everything that falls underneath that and of course the new Mines Rescue Act. As to the importance of them I think Damien O’Connor has rightly pointed out the importance of the skill sets that come with those who are involved in this particular industry of underground mining and the difficulties and challenges that it brings.Again I just want to commend those members for the contribution that they made to the passage of this legislation. Although we do not agree on everything actually what we have done is get good legislation that I hope can help give effect to making the New Zealand workplace in particular in the mining area a safer one.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I stand today on behalf of New Zealand First to support the third readings of the legislation arising from the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. I must quote from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. This sums up the situation regarding work very well we believe. It states: “New Zealanders expect work place safety conditions to be of a standard that controls the risk of accidents. In industries such as mining maintaining safety standards are especially important since the environment and operating conditions present a complex range of hazards. These range from occupational safety hazards that impact on individual workers through to catastrophic accidents that result in multiple injuries and fatalities as well as economic financial social and environmental damage.” I would like to add to that “the human loss of life which is catastrophic.”We welcome the decision to split this important piece of legislation into three separate bills. This is a move that actually acknowledges that the Pike River mine tragedy was not caused by a single transgression but by a multitude of factors all ofwhich require attention. It is a move that will allow for each of these very important sections to get the attention that is needed to implement changes with the level of detail that is required. In some ways it is an acknowledgment of the mistakes and the need to take some action. Like others in this House we would have liked to see more firm action but this is a start. Although none of these bills will make up for the Pike River tragedy we hope that the families and friends of those lost are able to take some comfort in seeing some action taken to prevent future occurrences and minimise danger in the future.This legislation is long overdue. It is essentially practical and it makes significant changes. It is very necessary legislation. The WorkSafe New Zealand Bill is setting up the centralised agency and as we have said this is long overdue. This agency needs to take a strong leadership role in order to protect our workers in New Zealand. We applaud the amendments made by the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which ensure a sole Government agency that will have centralised responsibility. This will lead to responsible health and safety practices being undertaken. But like previous speakers we believe that the board must be a tripartite model. The board cannot afford to be party political with members changing after every election.We are pleased to hear from the Minister of Labour that WorkSafe New Zealand will have the necessary resources to carry out its functions and to ensure that these objectives are met. That is absolutely paramount. We hope too that these functions will be monitored that the objectives are met and that if this organisation is not meeting the requirements some action is taken. We cannot afford to just sit back on our hands. This is an area that does need to be followed up.The Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill is a positive step forward too towards the goal of reducing workplace injury and death by 25 percent by 2020. The Mines Rescue Bill is another very important piece of legislation. We know that underground coalmining has its unique risks but the bottom line is that all mining all tunnelling and all quarrying is hazardous if not dangerous.New Zealand’s health and safety record is very poor compared with that of other countries particularly when we read the report of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. What makes our appalling safety record worse is that quite often we do not learn from mistakes that have occurred in the past. We want to see changes. Every worker has the right to go home at the end of their working day uninjured and able to carry on and come back to work the next day. We cannot afford to ignore advice that would safe lives. New Zealand First hopes that this legislation will change that. The Mines Rescue Bill ensures that the Mines Rescue Trust is able and ready to respond to any future mining emergencies. We cannot have a repeat of what we saw with Pike River.In closing I would like to thank the people who worked on the royal commission’s report and the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. The final legislation that is presented here today reflects the hard work and the commitment that have gone into ensuring that we have legislation that is going to make a significant difference to our mining sector. We want and need that difference. This legislation will be good for mining in New Zealand and for workplaces in general.I would like to once again pay our respects to the families and the friends who lost loved ones in the Pike River tragedy. New Zealand First supports the passing of this legislation which we believe is a much-needed step towards recognising the health and safety needs within this industry.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): It is a pleasure to follow Barbara Stewart in this debate and all the other speakers who have been involved because this is very much a matter for the whole House to agree on to consider and to work with. Thetragedy that occurred happened at the time when I was the local electoral MP and when you are met with such a public outpouring of grief it is an occasion an event that one is never going to forget. It has been a great privilege to work with the community and all the people involved including other politicians right through the whole event and I am very conscious of the level of activity that the Government has been involved with.We have a large number of memorials throughout the West Coast to the 29 miners who were lost. I honestly feel that what we are creating here is more than an enduring memorial but it will be an enduring memorial. It will have a function it will have a purpose that everybody who has been involved in this tragedy would approve of. It was painful but a privilege to sit through the daily hearings of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. It was impressive—the level of professionalism that was applied to that whole event. It was a pleasure and a privilege albeit painful to sit as a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee as we went through this legislation. It was a privilege and in a perverse way a pleasure to be a part of the committee that went down to Greymouth to listen directly to the people who had been involved so that they could express their views and their feelings to the select committee and the response of the committee was a tribute to the way that Parliament does its work.I could speak at length but there is little purpose to that other than to acknowledge all that has occurred in reaching this point and to say that I have a glad heart that we have reached this point. It is very pleasing to see how seriously this legislation arising from the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill is being taken by Parliament by the industry and by the community. Thank you.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I want to start by acknowledging the members of Parliament who have been directly involved in this tragedy: Kevin Hague Chris Auchinvole Damien O’Connor and of course Andrew Little who was the secretary of the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union (EPMU) at the time and I think something like 17 of the 29 men were members of his union. Next week next Tuesday is the third anniversary of this dreadful event that dreadful day that I do not think those of us will ever forget. It was a dreadful day when we realised that the 29 men were all dead that they had all died that there was no hope and that they had lost their lives in a mine in the South Island.How far we have come in 3 years—how far we have come. I have vivid memories of the memorial service that many of us went down to. There were 10000-odd people who turned up to the memorial service at the racecourse in Greymouth. I remember very well Peter Whittall speaking at that memorial service. The fellow workers of the dead miners and the EPMU were down among the crowd unacknowledged. The union was unacknowledged as if it played no part and as if it had no role to play in that workplace. I also remember very clearly that Peter Whittall was nominated as New Zealander of the Year. He was treated like a hero—he was treated like a hero.When you think about Joseph Dunbar that 17-year-old boy on his first day at work at the Pike River mine who actually asked to go to work on Friday instead of on Monday because he was so excited about his job and when you think about the responsibilities of people like Peter Whittall it just shows you how much we have through the process of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy owned up to some of the things that went wrong and accepted that there is a legacy of terrible terrible errors. It shows you how far we have come when we have this legislation—the WorkSafe New Zealand Bill the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill and the Mines Rescue BillI think an important thing to note in this legislation are the observations of not only the royal commission but also of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health andSafety that the failure that culminated at the Pike River mine which occurs in our workplaces almost every week when a worker dies has been driven by labour market and health and safety deregulation going back 20 years or more. Although we all like to say New Zealanders should have the right to go to work and come home safely we have ignored the role of regulation in making sure that happens. In the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and the collapse of the responsibility of the Department of Labour and the regulator we have been responsible for negligence.Although I celebrate this legislation—with reservations of course—I still do not believe as I have said many times that the Minister of Labour understands the connection between regulation workers’ rights and the way they are treated at work and health and safety on the job. There is a huge disconnect between the regulation we are making in this legislation and the changes to the Employment Relations Act he is pushing through. I suspect that in time—well maybe we will not have to because Labour will repeal those changes but I hope in time we will not be standing here saying that that deregulation contributed to more tragedy like this.I also know that the pain of the families is far from over. I mean how does a family ever get over losing a loved one—a 17-year-old son a husband a partner? I do not know how that happens. I hope that this legislation will be seen by them as a legacy—a positive legacy a meaningful legacy—that offers some comfort to them.There continue to be many unresolved injustices. Kevin Hague talked about the lack of accountability and the fact that no one—no Government agency individual or corporation—has been held to account for the deaths of 29 men. It is very disappointing coming up to the third anniversary to have a Government that is denying accountability as well as evidenced by its refusal to entertain the idea of paying compensation in place of the company which has refused or been unable to pay these families out.I think we need to remember that this tragedy started and ended with systemic failures by the regulator and by multiple Government departments. The licence should never have been let to open the mine in the first place. We then had the failure of the Department of Labour and the running-down of the mines inspectorate so that there were only two inspectors for the whole mines inspectorate. We had the terrible stories about how they had to scratch around for resources and even had to beg for travel so they could go and inspect mines. That is systemic failure negligence and not taking responsibility. For the Government to take no responsibility for the regulator for its own Government departments by offering these families some compensation I find really abhorrent. Let us not forget that two of the shareholders in the Pike River coal mine were also Crown agencies. I am talking about ACC and the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. We all know that ACC has a huge bulging surplus at the moment. Why can the Prime Minister not pick up the phone and say “How about it? How about we help these families put to bed their pain?”It is true that some of them will have had some small amounts of compensation. Many of them did not receive ACC because the men who died did not have dependants. There were not of course any funerals so there was no ACC assistance with that. They have had to fork out for travel and for representation. It was not until some weeks—2 or 3 weeks—after the travel that the families were calling out for someone to help them. I know that not only has it cost them in bearing the loss that they bear but also it has cost them financially.As I said I hope the passing of this legislation will offer some comfort to the families. My colleagues Andrew Little and Kevin Hague have referred to the concerns we still have about this legislation and the things that have been missed or that could have been strengthened. I also hope that when we see the next health and safety bill theMinister listens and picks up those issues because we all have a responsibility to make sure that we never see a tragedy like this again in New Zealand. The Government has a responsibility to help those families through this and also to make sure that the new WorkSafe agency is properly resourced. I understand there are now four mines inspectors. I want to know whether that is adequate. The Government has a responsibility to make this work. It is fine to pass legislation but you have got to put the money in and you have got to make sure it happens. Labour is very pleased to support this legislation with as I said some reservations. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to it.Dr CAM CALDER (National): It was a harrowing and poignant experience serving on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and hearing submissions on the former Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. As we have heard two members of our committee Kevin Hague and Chris Auchinvole personally knew men who lost their lives in the Pike River disaster. It made our consideration of this legislation very personal and we could share the very real pain of their loss through their close proximity to us when we were considering the submissions. This legislation had its genesis in tragedy. It is the earnest wish of all of us on the select committee—and I am sure of all of us in this House—that through the provisions contained within this legislation future tragedies may be averted.SUE MORONEY (Labour): I rise to speak to the third reading of the legislation arising from the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. The right to go to work leave your loved ones in the morning and come home safe and unharmed at night is a pretty basic right and in this instance that right was not upheld. Those 29 men left in the morning and they never returned. They may never return from where they currently are. This legislation is one chapter in the book of things that we need to learn from this disaster. Labour is supporting the third reading of this legislation because this is part of what we have learnt from this tragedy. In a previous decade it was Cave Creek. It seems that pretty much every decade in this country we need to remind ourselves about the importance of workplace rights. It seems that about every decade we need to go through the misery and the tragedy and relearn lessons that we have learnt before. I hope that this is the last decade when we will have to revisit these types of remedies.Some people might think it is the first time that some of the things contained in this legislation have ever been contemplated but actually if you look back through history some of these are things that we once had and that were stripped away in the name of deregulation in the name of having the market—the invisible hand of the market was going to fix everything. If there is one thing that I can say during this debate that I hope will resonate in this debating chamber for all the years that it needs to it is to ask that we please never have to learn the lesson again. Can we please never have to learn the lesson again through losing lives. The market and deregulation do not keep people safe at work—they do not keep people safe. Regulation is an important factor in having civilised decent workplaces where people can actually have the expectation of the basic right to earn a living and not to die from it—the basic right to earn a living and not to die from it.There are some inadequacies in this legislation. We would have much preferred that all of the recommendations from the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy be followed but they have not. I genuinely hope that I or other MPs in the future will not be back to stand up and revisit that in the future. When the Government has inquiries of any nature it would be useful that it picks up all of the recommendations and does not cherry-pick recommendations. I think that that is another disaster waiting to happen. When Governments do not actually look at thewhole picture and just cherry-pick pieces that they feel comfortable with then we are doomed to fail yet again.I also want to echo the words of my colleague Darien Fenton and urge the Government to not believe that it has fixed the problem because of the passing of this legislation this afternoon. This is but one chapter of what needs to happen. The broader context is actually having people valued their voices valued their work valued and their workplaces valued and not taking the approach—as the Government has done in other pieces of legislation—of stripping away workers’ rights. That is the context in which this series of bills needs to sit. I think that the Government does need to stop pause and think about the broader context of what constitutes a decent fair and safe workplace.The last thing that I will do in the course of this debate is acknowledge the loss that the families have endured and encourage the Government to make good for those families. They are still suffering. They will continue to suffer for a very long time. This is but one chapter. I am pleased that Parliament is today making this move but there is so much more to do in honouring those men their families and the tragedy that has taken place.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare Pāremata. I too am proud to stand here and take a small role in this issue. I will start by acknowledging the MPs of the West Coast the families of the West Coast the people who put work into trying to make this legislation arising from the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill better legislation and all the effort of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I would also like to start with a quote from my own community Waihī which could equally be from Pike River. It is an old quote: “If blood be the price of your cursed wealth good God we have bought it fair.” That quote from the 1900s is a sad reminder that health and safety in the mining industry have followed tragedy and disaster rather than existing beforehand over and over and over again. Once again at Pike River coal production Government inaction and deregulation led to the deaths of 29 people who did not need to die.The mining industry is littered with avoidable deaths as is the forestry industry and others at this point in time. I do commend the previous speakers who pointed out that the environment of deregulation is an environment that can equate to death. Deregulation in the workplace can lead to death. So we have to be very serious about what we are doing in this House right now and very serious about whether these bills meet the needs of that environment because we have gone so far away from safe working environments based on strong organised labour for whom the employer has a good relationship based on recognising that production does not come first over health and safety. Health and safety should come above production. It is very saddening to see once again that we are writing pretty good but not perfect legislation and making steps forward after the event.The two things that I want to talk about are the after-the-event nature of this legislation and also the nature of truth reconciliation and that relationship with resources which others have touched upon. In the history of mining the failure to listen to people who have tried to blow the whistle has led to disasters like this over and over and over again. As Kevin Hague so clearly said it is time to put this right. We are pleased to support these three bills and this one is well overdue but it is with great sadness that we remark on the price paid. Indeed we want to support other members’ calls for proper compensation. The reason that we support that call is that truth and reconciliation acknowledgment accountability and apology do not add up to peace of mind for those who have been harmed without resources. We see in many processes around the world that words are beautiful things and apologies can be accepted but ifthere is no resource to back those words and if there is no acknowledgment that the cost is not only human but financial and real for those people then we cannot have peace.It was very disturbing today to hear the first item on the news when I woke up which was that Cabinet had decided that no compensation would be paid to the Pike River families because of precedent. It was very disturbing when you think about the South Canterbury Finance $1.6 billion payout and other interesting payouts that have not been treated as precedent but the Pike River families will not get compensation. This is alongside the comments of Andrew Knight of New Zealand Oil and Gas that there would be no more payout to the Pike River families. The Green Party says that truth and reconciliation are necessary and good law but that there also needs to be resources to acknowledge these people.Others have commented on some of the problems with the legislation although we support the good work and its good intent. But we do feel that some of the issues that Andrew Little raised around the incident controller consulting but with no time frames and issues around the tripartite model and the need for union workers with a background in understanding these issues to be part of the picture and the need for adequate numbers of mines inspectors to be part of the picture because this is not a trust board like any other. We need trust not trust boards. We need proper representative involvement in workplace safety and there is expertise across the workforce in workplace safety.I would just like to say as a final comment—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.Catherine Delahunty: I would just like to say—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I am pleased to take what I believe is the final call on legislation arising from the Health and Safety in Employment (Pike River Implementation) Bill. I think there has been a dignified tone across the House today because this is important legislation in and of itself. It is in fact a bill that has been split into three bills now around workplace around Mines Rescue and around health and safety—all areas that are incredibly important.I think it is useful to look at that dignified tone because I think it does speak to the unanimity of the House in moving forward in a positive way. It is important to acknowledge that there are differences of opinion but I think underlying that is a real sense not only of the tragedy that occurred at Pike River but the importance to learn from that—which is often the consequence of tragedy—and to put in place important changes and recommendations. So I suppose in many ways it is a sense of thanks to all those involved in helping to bring these pieces of legislation together from those who worked through the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy to the Minister of Labour himself to the officials to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but I think particularly to the families of Pike River who have taken the time to share that tragedy that pain in order to make this legislation better.I want to follow other colleagues and acknowledge Chris Auchinvole Damien O’Connor and Kevin Hague in particular. They are local to that community and have been a voice for that community. Speaking personally the welcome that the West Coast community through those three MPs gave us as a select committee was quite moving and provided a poignancy around these bills.We honour as best we can those 29 who died and we do that by passing legislation today to make New Zealand a more safe and healthy society.Bills read a third time.Harmful Digital Communications BillFirst ReadingHon CHESTER BORROWS (Acting Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Harmful Digital Communications Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. Rapid advances in technology over the last few decades have changed the way that people communicate with each other. We now communicate with form relationships with and do business with people on the other side of the world. Our lives are increasingly entwined in the digital world. Smartphones tablets laptops and desktop computers are everywhere. Smartwatches are also on the horizon. Modern technology has opened up a whole new world of opportunities.However new technologies also present new challenges. It is now easier than ever to threaten others spread destructive rumours publish invasive and distressing photographs and harass people. People are bullied more easily instantly and anonymously. Bullying is no longer confined to the classroom or the playground in the lives of young people. A digital age has meant that tormentors can harass their target anywhere at any time and the trails of abuse remain in cyberspace for ever. Research suggests that as many as one in 10 New Zealanders has personal experience of harmful communications on the internet. In 2007 it was estimated that one in five adolescents experienced some form of cyber-bullying or harassment that year.The Law Commission was asked in May 2012 to fast track its consideration of harm from digital communications. In August 2012 it made its recommendations on how to tackle the problem. I want to thank the Law Commission for its thorough work. The bill will give effect to the commission’s legislative recommendations. I say “legislative” because there is already a lot of good work going on to help combat the problems presented by harmful digital communications. For example NetSafe is helping people to deal with these issues by providing users with the tools to protect themselves online. Schools are also moving to implement policies to deal with cyber-bullying. As the Law Commission notes all of these are good measures but are simply not enough by themselves to tackle the problem.The Harmful Digital Communications Bill provides for quick effective and proportionate responses to the harm caused by digital communications. The bill sets out 10 communication principles to guide the work of the approved agency for the courts. For example “a digital communication should not be threatening intimidating or menacing.” Let me be clear that this bill is not aimed at censoring debates and robust exchanges of ideas or suppressing speech online. Freedom of speech is something this Government and all New Zealanders value. However free speech is not an absolute right. It must be balanced with other rights and freedoms. The bill strikes the appropriate balance between freedom of speech and protecting people from being bullied or victimised. It also requires the agency and the courts to act consistently with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to avoid any doubt about the importance of our fundamental rights.The first port of call for complaints about harmful digital communications will be the approved agency which will help other people to resolve disputes through negotiation through mediation and by providing advice. The majority of complaints should be resolved by the approved agency without any further need for action. This Government does not want people unnecessarily involved in the court system especially our young people who may be the victims or the perpetrators of harmful digital communications.However for instances where the approved agency cannot resolve the complaint a person can apply to the court for a number of civil orders. For example the court could order a person to remove harmful content issue cease and desist orders or reveal theidentity of an anonymous bully. The court will provide speedy informal and fair remedies but will not be able to order fines or imprisonment. The most serious cases can be dealt with through the new criminal offences of posting a digital communication with intent to cause harm punishable by 3 months’ imprisonment; or inciting a person to commit suicide punishable by 3 years’ imprisonment. To complement this new regime there are also amendments to existing law to ensure that they are fit for purpose and applicable online. For example the Harassment Act is amended so that making contact online is explicitly included as an action that may constitute harassment.The final part of the bill that I would like to discuss is the safe harbour provision. This provision clarifies the law relating to websites and other content hosts and provides people with an easy accessible and direct way to remove harmful content. A content host could be any number of people—blog sites or organisations including the likes of Facebook Twitter Vodafone and TradeMe. Most of our legislation was written before the advent of the internet and is not always clear about when a content host is liable for the contents posted by its users. Some recent court decisions suggested that the content host could be liable for unlawful content that they do not even know about. Given the ease and speed of posting content online and the volumes of information involved the majority of content hosts cannot actually read and vet all content before it is published.The safe harbour operates via a notice and take-down regime. Broadly speaking an online content host will not be liable for unlawful content that another person has posted on the website unless they are notified that the content is unlawful and fail to take reasonable steps to remove the content. The basic principles behind this safe harbour are as with the rest of the bill personal responsibility and fairness. The author of a harmful or illegal communication should be responsible for it. Content hosts should not be liable for things they have no knowledge of.This bill is not a silver bullet. It will not stop overnight people bullying and posting harmful content online. It will however create a First World regime to complement other efforts already taking place to effectively tackle harmful digital communications. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to talk on this new bill the Harmful Digital Communications Bill and to indicate that the Labour Party will support the bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee for closer examination.It is fair to say that this bill is yet another step in the struggle for the law and for Parliament to catch up with and make some order out of the anarchic world of the internet and social media. The objectives of the bill are needless to say laudable. They are about mitigating harm. We have seen in a very extreme example in just the last couple of weeks how social media at least can be used to be humiliating and abusive to people who may not have known originally that they were being treated in that sort of way.I have to say that the objective of the bill that says that it is about providing a quick and efficient means of redress looks more cynical when you see that it means that redress is to be obtained by private action—private civil action—in the District Court. It is cynical because it is then left up to the victim—or the putative victim—to have to meet the cost of going to court to apply for an order whether it is an interim order to get material taken down or a longstanding or permanent order that is slightly more punitive. Nevertheless it is the victim who has to meet that cost. There would not be many people I suggest who are active on social media today and who are frequent users of the internet—let us call them the digital natives—who have the means to instruct counsel and go to court for these sorts of things.Of course the other reason for my cynicism is that the District Court is already overloaded and there are long delays in many courts. So there is a real question about whether it has the capacity to pick up an extra load of work given the growing numbers of people who are active daily on the internet and on social media.Another issue that we will be examining closely when this goes to the select committee is that one of the faults of this bill in our view is the same as the fault in others being sponsored by the same Minister—not the Associate Minister who just spoke Chester Borrows but the Minister of Justice Judith Collins. Let me draw a comparison with the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. That again is dependent on civil action. The victim has to meet the cost of dealing with something that actually the criminal justice system and the State might be better equipped to deal with. The harmed person has to go to the District Court. They have to go at their expense. Under the modern legal aid regime there is real doubt about whether they would qualify for legal aid and even if they do they may well be subject to the requirement to repay it and that repayment is then subject to interest. This is not looking good for the people who are most likely to be victims of abuse on the internet and therefore the people who are needing to avail themselves of this legislation. So we will be asking if it is to remain in a civil jurisdiction whether some easily accessible means can be made available to ensure that people can actually partake of the provisions in this bill.Just turning to some of the issues of substance in the bill and I do not want to get too heavily into this as it is yet to be examined by the select committee but we will be looking also at the communication principles. Chester Borrows spoke about one of them. I note that principle 2 in clause 6 says that “A digital communication should not be threatening intimidating or menacing.” So it will be interesting to compare for example the Minister of Justice’s own tweets over the last several months under that provision to see just how compliant they are. Then we might even look not just at the Minister of Justice’s tweets but at her good friend Cameron Slater’s contributions on the internet to see the extent to which they comply with these communication principles.Dr Rajen Prasad: Very abusive.ANDREW LITTLE: Well principle 3 says: “A digital communication should not be grossly offensive to a reasonable person in the complainant’s position.”Dr Rajen Prasad: That’s Whale Oil gone.ANDREW LITTLE: Well every time Whale Oil takes a breath of course he is in breach of that provision. But the question there is of course that I think lawyers will be having a field day with what is “a reasonable person in the complainant’s position.” That looks like a shifting test and the courts will be having great difficulty with it. So no doubt with the assistance of the erstwhile Scott Simpson there will be considerable consideration given to this as Mr Simpson shepherds the bill through the committee. I know that he will be wanting to make sure for the sake of his own reputation that a good quality piece of legislation comes out of the sausage factory that is select committee consideration—something that he can proudly stand up and defend. The communication principles will be one area that we will be looking at closely.Then there will be the offences. Clause 18 of the bill sets out an offence provision. The question will be asked of course of why we do not just resort to contempt of court provisions. If it is an offence to breach an order why do we need to have this offence provision that requires separate enforcement? If the court has made an order and it is breached then that is a contempt of court so the existing contempt of court provisions I would have thought would apply.Let us examine that and look at it a little more closely. In clause 19 there is a very interesting and I would say infelicitous use of the English language. One of thequestions posed in clause 19(1)(b) is whether a person commits an offence if “posting the communication would cause harm to an ordinary reasonable person …”. So we no longer have just a reasonable person; it is an ordinary reasonable person. I do not know what the difference is between an extraordinary reasonable person or a reasonable person who is no longer ordinary. I think we will need to tease out exactly what that means. I would hate to be considered to be just an ordinary reasonable person. I think I am a reasonable person but I do not think I am necessarily an ordinary reasonable person nor do I want to be considered an extraordinary reasonable person. So let us understand exactly what that is because we want this legislation to be meaningful and to speak to the vast bulk of people who are going to be looking to it for some sort of protection.We know what the ill is that this bill is trying to remedy. It is the nasty ugly stuff that goes up on Facebook on other social media on blog sites and on other things. People can be not just offended but harmed seriously harmed by some of the things that are put up. This is not a recipe for calling those in public office to account. I think people in public office stand in a separate category but people who are going about their daily lives—ordinary citizens who can make mistakes or who can attract commentary and criticism—should not be beaten up in these fora which are now so public so widespread and so easily accessible. We understand all that.I want to finally just refer to the safe harbour provisions that the Associate Minister talked about. We think they are a sensible measure a sensible protection for the internet service providers. They should not be caught up at least in the initial complaint phase that will take place under this legislation but of course they do have some responsibilities. We need to know that the internet service providers and the hosts once damaging and harmful material is drawn to their attention understand that their duty if only a moral one is to respond with alacrity to remove it or to at least suspend broadcast of the posts and of the material until if there is to be court action or some sort of application under this bill that at least is resolved. Those are sensible provisions and I can see that we would be quite happy to support those.I think this will be a useful contribution. There are some contentious issues here. Let us see whether we can get around the table and resolve them and make this a meaningful and workable set of provisions for the people who are looking to it for the protection of their reputations and their dignity.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is always a pleasure to follow the reasonably unordinary reasonable Andrew Little and it will be good to have him back on the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider this very useful and good piece of legislation the Harmful Digital Communications Bill which has been introduced into the House.Hon Maryan Street: Why what’s wrong with me?SCOTT SIMPSON: I think the Hon Maryan Street needs to be there as well. But what I am suggesting to the member is that we are missing him from the committee. It is often appropriate I think usually that the justice spokesperson for a serious party should sit on the Justice and Electoral Committee. But however in this case usually we do not see too much of him but he will be welcomed back for this piece of legislation.Bullying sadly has been around since time immemorial really. The difficulty with bullying in the past has been how to track it down how to stop it and how to control it. But one of the challenges that those of us who were not born digital natives have is that we were raised through our adolescence and our teenage years in an environment where we were not subjected to harassment by digital technology.Simon O’Connor: Some of us are younger.SCOTT SIMPSON: Some of my colleagues are of course younger. But today we find that for most people under the age of about 30 I guess they are what we now know as digital natives. They have grown up in an environment where sadly it has been a lot easier to partake in bullying and abuse and far worse by the use of cyberspace Facebook the internet texts and all those modern communications. The purpose of this bill of course is to mitigate the harm caused to people by digital communications and to provide victims of that harm with a quick and efficient means of redress.The trick I guess for this piece of legislation is how do we manage that in an environment that is in many respects a little bit like the wild west of technology? It is a challenging conundrum for legislators I suspect all over the world. I am looking forward in the select committee to seeing what steps are being taken in other jurisdictions because I suspect this piece of legislation has the potential to be quite world leading. I suspect that there will be others who will be watching closely what we do.The Law Commission has found that there could be as many as one in 10 New Zealanders who has already experienced harmful communications on the internet and that for those aged between 19 and 29 the number could well be double that. There is obviously a serious issue here. The Law Commission was doing work already on harmful communications as part of its report on new media. The report was entitledThe News Media meets ‘New Media’: Rights Responsibilities and Regulation in the Digital Age. It was last year that the Minister of Justice Judith Collins asked the commission to actually speed up their work and to fast track the work. In August of last year she received the Law Commission’s recommendationsHarmful Digital Communications in the form of a briefing paper and it was in this April that she announced a suite of proposals to tackle cyber-bullying which will be implemented through this bill.The main provisions of the bill are to create a set of 10 communication principles to guide the approved agency that will be created under the bill and that I think will be something we will want to look at closely in the select committee. But the bill will create essentially a new civil enforcement regime that includes the setting up of this new agency as a first port of call for complaints. The agency will be able to investigate and resolve complaints directly and very quickly with the most serious complaints being referred to the District Court which can then issue what is known as a take-down order and of course they will also be able to put in place cease and desist notices. This legislation provides a mechanism for people to quickly and easily request the removal of harmful digital content from websites and blogs if necessary and it also creates this “safe harbour” provision.I am very much looking forward to the select committee process. I am pleased that the Labour Party is supporting this bill through to the select committee and I hope that other parties across the House will do likewise. I commend the bill to the House.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me some pleasure to rise to speak to the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. Although it may have been a long time coming that does not alter the fact that it is here now and I welcome that. We are supporting it on this side of the House with some reservations. They are only reservations that anybody would have around this kind of issue I think. I want to outline three areas in particular that will need careful scrutiny on the part of the Justice and Electoral Committee which the previous speaker Scott Simpson chairs so adeptly.It is true as Scott Simpson said that there was a Law Commission issues paper that came out in 2011 but also last year the Law Commission’s ministerial briefing calledHarmful Digital Communications: The adequacy of the current sanctions and remedies came out. I think that that is a significant contribution to how we might get legislation todeal with issues that a decade ago people had not envisaged arising. Because of new technologies it is incumbent on this House to make sure that we keep our laws up to date. I think that my colleague Andrew Little put it well when he referred to the law chasing or having to keep up some pace with some technological developments.It puts me in mind of the time when I was serving on the Commerce Committee and we dealt with copyright legislation. It was very difficult to get copyright legislation that did not put people out of business and yet protected the rights of artists and creative people in particular to their work. With every exposure through digital media the copyright problem became more pronounced. It did not matter whether it was music or writing; it became more and more difficult to get the law to fit.This issue is not dissimilar. There is a sense of the horse having bolted already but it is appropriate that this House turn its mind to it. We are all acutely sensitised to this issue because of recent revelations about Facebook behaviour that has been nothing short of despicable. Whether or not crimes end up proven to have been committed the behaviour is despicable. I think that some young people will find their reputations and their career prospects destroyed because of what they have indulged in by way of Facebook revelations. That is a lesson to all young people or will be in time I think.There are three things I want to cover. First of all I am particularly interested in Part 2 of the bill which refers to the number of Acts that need to be amended by the passage of this legislation. First of all there is the Crimes Act and that is almost self-explanatory. There are three other pieces of legislation that will be amended simply by the insertion of words that are to do with electronic communication or electronic media or words like “participation in fora for the exchange of ideas and information.” These pieces of legislation are the Harassment Act of 1997 the Human Rights Act of 1993 and the Privacy Act of 1993. Each of these presents the select committee with a different nuance a different layer of application of this bill.The Harassment Act—fine we are bringing that up to date by putting electronic media and electronic communication into the meaning of “harassment” as it is expressed in that Act. That is a good thing because we are aware of and as I say at the moment acutely sensitised to harassment bullying and exposure of people in a way that is despicable as I have said. So the Harassment Act is going to be an important part of the consideration.The second important point in my mind is the amendments to the Human Rights Act. Subpart 3 in Part 2 of the bill will amend the Human Rights Act. It will amend section 61 which addresses racial disharmony; it will amend section 62 which refers to sexual harassment; and it will amend section 63 which refers to racial harassment. That is critically important because next come the amendments to the Privacy Act. There are provisions in the Human Rights Act that with the addition of this bill and the amendment by this bill will really go to the heart of freedom of speech and the inability of people to compromise other people’s right to exist peacefully. That is covered in the Human Rights Act through a range of provisions and making electronic media or electronic communications susceptible to those Acts is a good thing. We do not need neo-Nazi fascist websites to proliferate in this country. I am pleased if by this means there will be some address of that. In other countries around the world we have certainly seen such proliferation and that is undesirable.The third point is around privacy. This bill will amend the Privacy Act but it is going to be an area that requires considerable submission from interested parties and real consideration of those submissions on the part of the select committee. In addition to that we need to be careful around internet service providers and we need to be mindful of the impact of “notice and takedown” measures on their services and their ability to function as businesses. That is another area and I hope that that businessconsideration will be represented by a submission from InternetNZ because the bill does impact on it.I think that this bill is a worthwhile measure. It has got some fish-hooks in it. It has got very sensitive and far-reaching implications across other parts of our legislation. I commend it to the House.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. I rise to take a call in support of the Harmful Digital Communications Bill. I think probably every member in this House has been bullied at one point in their life just like every New Zealander. It is a tragic part of life but what we are seeing with online technologies is that it is a different kettle of fish from what it was even 10 years ago 20 years ago or 1000 years ago. We commend the Government for taking action in this area. I think there is detail we will be looking through and engaging closely on during the select committee process. But what we need to make sure is that our young kids particularly are looking after themselves.I note the clauses around—I have lost my words for a minute; I think it is definitely the end of the week and I see the Serjeant-at-Arms standing there—inciting a person to commit suicide. We have seen some absolutely tragic accounts through the media. I am sure many of us are familiar with cyber-bullying which young Kiwis face. It is good that the Government is adopting the Law Commission’s report after some tragic cyber-bullying.What we see is basically three parts in this legislation three main provisions the first of which is the new civil enforcement regime to quickly and effectively deal with harmful digital communications; secondly a criminal offence being established with criminal penalties and new penalties there; and also some other subsidiary changes to other Acts of Parliament.What we also see from an information and communications technology perspective is that—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time has come for the House to rise.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.