Volume 692 Week 48 - Thursday 11 July 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 692 Week 48 - Thursday 11 July 2013[Sitting date: 11 July 2013. Volume:692;Page:11963. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 11 July 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsBangladesh—Delegation ParliamentMr SPEAKER: I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the National Parliament of Bangladesh led by the Hon Muhammad AbdulLatifBiswas Minister of Fisheries and Livestock is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.PrivilegeReferral to Privileges CommitteeQuestion of Privilege Regarding Use of Intrusive Powers Within the Parliamentary PrecinctMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Dr Russel Norman raising as a matter of privilege statements made by the Rt Hon John Key Prime Minister in the House in reply to supplementary questions to question No. 4 on 2 July 2013 concerning the release of information from parliamentary information and security systems. Standing Order 400 requires an allegation of contempt to be formulated as precisely as possible so as to give the member or person against whom it is made full opportunity to respond. An allegation of contempt against the Rt Hon John Key in regard to the statements made is not clearly made out.However the member’s letter raises serious issues. The exercise of intrusive powers against members threatens members’ freedom to carry out their functions as elected representatives and the House’s power to control its own proceedings and precincts without outside interference. The release of information from parliamentary information and security systems relating to the movements of journalists within the parliamentary precincts has also been questioned. Although the media do not necessarily participate directly in parliamentary proceedings they are critical to informing the public about what Parliament is doing and public confidence in Parliament. Actions that may put at risk journalists’ ability to report freely are a significant concern.The parliamentary precincts are also a workplace for both parliamentary employees and the employees of Government departments. Access to parliamentary information and security systems data of any sort must therefore also have regard to the respective rights of employers and employees and the role of the Speaker as a responsible Minister and the Prime Minister and his Ministers. I believe some sort of common understanding is required to ensure on the one hand that the functioning of the House and the discharge of members’ duties is not obstructed or impeded but on the other that the maintenance of law and order and the ability to investigate and prosecute offences committed within the parliamentary precincts is preserved.The concerns raised are ones that should be looked at by the Privileges Committee. It is the body the House has established to investigate such matters. It has the power to hear evidence and formulate recommendations for the House that will provide guidance for the future. Consequently I have determined that a general question of privilege does arise. The question therefore stands referred to the Privileges Committee.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to ask whether when you made that decision you looked over all of the previous occasions when information of this type has been demanded by parliamentarians and that information has been made available and whether or not youhave regard to that precedent and that you find that something was wrong with that behaviour in the past or are we entering new grounds now that we did not consider to be relevant back then?My information is that in 2008 the Privileges Committee demanded the telephone records of a member of Parliament and a Minister who voluntarily and willingly gave them up because he believed amongst other things that they would prove him to be right. That is of the same information that you now find to be a matter of privilege. So why would that be a matter of privilege now when it was not deemed back then to be of any moment when such a demand was made by a member of Parliament across party lines—or one party’s set of lines for a start—and went as far as a Minister’s telephone records? Can you tell me what is new now?Mr SPEAKER: I can inform the member that I have not looked back as far as the incident the member is referring to. I have based the judgment on information made available over recent months and in particular with reference to a letter from Dr Russel Norman. I believe there is an issue here whereby there needs to be an absolute understanding by us as members of Parliament of what information may or may not legitimately be released in the event of an investigation into a security breach. We need an understanding of that.I am certainly concerned about the release of information regarding a journalist’s access to and from the parliamentary precincts and again in my opinion there needs to be some clear guidance for members of the press gallery who work around this place as to what is being determined. The appropriate body for that is the Privileges Committee which is already working on a protocol with regard to issues such as the actions of the Commissioner of Police and the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service with regard to their operations or potential operations within this building.Business StatementHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House):Next week the House is in a 2-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 30 July the Government will look to make progress on the Appropriation (2013/14) Estimates Bill and the Resource Management Reform Bill.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):Can I ask the Deputy Leader of the House whether the report inTrans-Tasman today that we are going to enter into urgency this afternoon is accurate or whether in fact they have subcontracted their fact-checking to Duncan Garner?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House):I understand that what is inTrans-Tasmanis to do with the discussions at the Business Committee.Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges BillInstruction to Justice and Electoral CommitteeHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House):With the agreement of the member in charge and the select committee I seek leave for the date by which the Justice and Electoral Committee must report the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Judges Bill to be extended to 25 February 2014.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.Sittings of the HouseHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House):As the House goes into a 2-week adjournment that coincides with the school holidays there is a real risk of a black market developing for psychoactive substances prior to the completing of the new Act. Iseek leave for the House to adjourn following the third reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection to that happening? There is. Leave is so denied.Questions to MinistersGovernment Financial Position—2013 Long-term Fiscal Statement1.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki)to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received on the long-term benefits of strong fiscal management?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Treasury has today released its long-term fiscal update required by statute. This confirms that the sorts of decisions the Government has been making in recent years—careful and considered decisions about getting effective use of Government spending—have put New Zealand in a stronger fiscal position to be able manage the future impact of an aging population and rising health costs.Jacqui Dean: What does the report say about fiscal discipline and how is the Government’s fiscal strategy supporting the delivery of public services in the future?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government believes that the best way to get the Government’s books in order is to provide effective public services. What works for the community and for New Zealand citizens works for the Government’s books. The long-term fiscal update highlights the long-term impact of the careful decision making that this Government has processed around containment of Government expenditure by offering effective public services. The Government will continue with that strategy because the report shows that if we do New Zealand will be in good shape to handle the rising costs of national superannuation and the rising health costs associated with an aging population.Jacqui Dean: What does the report say about the costs of meeting superannuation and how does this compare with the benefits of sound fiscal management?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The report shows that increasing the age of eligibility from 65 to 67 for national superannuation makes a difference of around 0.7 percent of GDP by 2030. The report also shows that maintaining the Government’s fiscal strategy of returning to surplus with moderate increases in spending and investment and better public services through to 2020—just 7 years from now—will reduce net Government debt from around 50 percent of GDP to under 10 percent of GDP. So clearly managing Government expenditure well has a much bigger impact on our future debt loading than small adjustments to national superannuation.Jacqui Dean: What alternative strategies for fiscal management would put the Government’s progress in reducing debt at risk?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well of course we get to reduce debt once we get to surplus and once we get to surplus we need to make sure that we do not spend those surpluses on ineffective public services but that we do spend them on reducing debt. Alternative strategies that would make it harder would be those that we inherited as a Government from when Government debt was forecast to reach 50 or 60 percent of GDP simply on the basis of loose and wasteful spending by the previous Government.Hon David Parker: When he made reference to 0.7 percent in his earlier answer was it 0.7 percent of GDP per annum and given that his own department says that over time New Zealand superannuation payments will consume an increasing share of Government spending if current legislative settings are retained and given the Prime Minister’s well-known memory lapses has he been advised by the Prime Minister thathe forgot his statement of 5 years ago to resign rather than raise the age of eligibility; and if so is he willing to do the responsible thing now as is clearly Treasury’s recommendation and give advance notice of a gradual rise in the age of eligibility?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Bill English—any of about four questions.Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well the Prime Minister means what he says and what he said was he would not raise the eligibility and he will not. That is a better policy than Labour’s policy which is to raise the age of eligibility so it can waste money on all sorts of other stuff.Skycity Convention Centre—Expressions of Interest Process and Legislation2.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour)to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister)on behalf of thePrime Minister: Yes.Grant Robertson: How does he justify his statement that his Government was “totally vindicated” by the Auditor-General’s report into the Skycity deal when that report said that the process was flawed and not transparent and it established deficiencies on behalf of both Ministers and officials?Hon BILL ENGLISH: He can justify that statement because the Opposition asked for that inquiry on the basis that it believed that it could knock the deal over. But of course that did not happen and now hundreds of Aucklanders will benefit from the long-term job creation of a national convention centre that is finally one of international proportions.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that in the course of the 6 months while the tendering process for the convention centre was under way he his Deputy Prime Minister or his chief of staff met with Skycity a total of six times; if so were other bidders for the convention centre build given the same opportunity?Hon BILL ENGLISH: By the sound of it that was fewer meetings with Skycity than the Labour Party had.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that there were two legs to that question but neither of them was addressed.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I think the member raises a fair point. Would he please ask the question again.Grant Robertson: Certainly Mr Speaker. Is it correct that in the course of the 6 months while the tendering process for the convention centre was under way he his Deputy Prime Minister or his chief of staff met with Skycity a total of six times; if so were other bidders to build the convention centre given the same opportunity?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm that detail but the Opposition has tried very hard to raise issues of probity about the negotiations. It has failed even after the Auditor-General’s close and forensic examination of the whole process. I suspect that it followed a similar process to the one that—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The acting Prime Minister said at the start that he did not have the information. He is now going on to irrelevant material. His answer should—Mr SPEAKER: I—[Interruption ] Order! It was a relatively political question but the Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister has now adequately addressed the question.Grant Robertson: What is his response to Major Campbell Roberts from the Salvation Army who said that the proposed legislation cancels out any benefits that the harm minimisation measures allowed for in the legislation are a joke that they are neither robust nor effective and that they do not represent any significant improvementon the current ineffective practices of Skycity Casino which are already failing to reduce gambling harm? What is his response to Campbell Roberts’ comments?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have a great deal of respect for Major Campbell Roberts. He is a long-time and thoughtful advocate for many New Zealanders who do not always have an effective voice. In this case we simply disagree with him and it would not be the first time.Grant Robertson: Are National MPs exercising a conscience vote on the legislation coming to the House today?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The National MPs are voting consistent with the manifesto on which they campaigned. I know that is a novelty for the Labour Party but we take it very seriously. I have noticed there are no Labour MPs on a conscience vote.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was an extremely direct question that the acting Prime Minister has not answered.Mr SPEAKER: It was answered by saying “consistent with the manifesto”. That is an answer. That is one that I rule as satisfactory.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points of order. Can you indicate whether saying something is consistent with a manifesto indicates that it is not a conscience vote?Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not for me to indicate; it is for the Minister to answer it the way he decides. It is my job to determine whether in my opinion the question has been adequately addressed. I have done that. Your second point of order?Hon Trevor Mallard: My second point of order is that both when Grant Robertson was taking a point of order and when you were ruling on it four or five members including especially the Minister for Economic Development were interjecting.Mr SPEAKER: All members know that points of order should be heard in silence and when they are not heard in silence it leads to that sort of point of order being quite legitimately raised by the member. Hopefully there will be no further breaches today but I will keep an eye on it.Grant Robertson: When he says National MPs are going to vote in accordance with the manifesto does that mean National MPs are exercising a conscience vote on the bill before the House today?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It means that the National caucus as is its right to do decides how it is going to vote. It is a misunderstanding that the Speaker or Parliament decides on that; they do not. The National caucus has decided to keep its promise to deliver on what it said which is an international convention centre and the thousands of jobs that go with it having weighed up all the issues involved with expanding the convention centre.Christchurch City Council—Building Consent Accreditation and Code Compliance3.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First)to theMinister for Building and Construction: Has he received any reports of substandard buildings being built as part of the Christchurch rebuild; if so how many buildings are known to be substandard?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction):No I have not. During the course of the removal of Christchurch City Council’s accreditation by International Accreditation New Zealand IANZ did identify 17 consents that it had some concerns with. Staff from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment have gone back and looked at all 17 of those consents and have found that where they did not comply it was of a minor technical nature with regard to paperwork and documentation but the consents are indeed sound with regard to the buildings themselves.Andrew Williams: When was the Minister first informed that there were issues regarding building standards as part of the Christchurch rebuild and what action if any did he take to address these issues?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The first I was informed was on 6 June after International Accreditation New Zealand had published its 1-month notice document on 28 May. At that stage we had Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment officials in the Christchurch City Council working alongside—in fact we had actually had them there for some time before but they intensified their work from that point on—to be able to satisfy ourselves that the consents being issued were actually sound.Andrew Williams: Why has it taken his officials until today only after the lodging of this question this morning to contact engineers who have previously raised concerns with him and his department when those engineers made him fully aware of their concerns as far back as 2008 and he chose to do nothing?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: If the member is referring to MrScarry then I say to him this: if MrScarry does have a particular building—Grant Robertson: “Scarry”. That’s the other book you were reading Maurice.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Well I am going to choose to pronounce it as “Scary” and I can tell him that if MrScarry does have a particular building that he thinks has a problem then he has a moral obligation to bring that building to our attention and not use a scattergun approach of just saying “I know of buildings” but not giving us the details.Andrew Williams: I seek leave of the House to table three emails from structural engineers including Mr JohnScarry in relation to information and advising the Minister as far back as 2008 on this issue.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Andrew Williams: What did he do about the serious problems in the building consent authority functions of the Christchurch City Council which included approximately 18 months post earthquakes given his department was made aware of these problems as far back as 2009?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Many of the issues around the Christchurch City Council were of a similar nature to those that many other councils have had with regard to complying with the accreditation process of International Accreditation New Zealand. In fact in the September report of last year the Christchurch City Council was not the worst of all the councils in New Zealand with regard to that compliance. However in the May report of this year six corrective actions were identified that were incredibly serious. It was those six actions that International Accreditation New Zealand said it would withdraw the accreditation from and on 29 June that is what happened.Andrew Williams: What does the Minister know about a building that is now referred to as the “Son of CTV Building” because it has a similar structure and design to the original CTV Building which collapsed with great catastrophe and does he now agree with structural engineer JohnScarry who commented in August last year that some members of the building industry were guilty of allowing illegal building practices in Christchurch under his watch?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Once again I will tell the member that it is officials in my department who advise me as to whether buildings meet the code or not. After the CTV Building collapsed Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment officials went and identified about 300 buildings across New Zealand that were of asimilar genre of a similar style and of a similar design. So far every one of the evaluations they have done of those buildings has come back as the buildings being OK. But again I repeat that if the member wants to bring to me the case of a specific building my officials will look at it. There is no benefit for me in ignoring such advice and I will have the building looked at by them.Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does he stand by his statement onCheckpoint last week that the Government would never have allowed consenting to carry on if it did not comply with the law; if so why was the Christchurch City Council building consent authority allowed to do so in light of the September report from International Accreditation New Zealand which included the six corrective action requests or does he still not realise that that is actually what the report says?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I am delighted that the member has raised theCheckpointinterview because immediately after theCheckpointinterview the chief executive of International Accreditation New Zealand wrote to me and said that Mary Wilson onCheckpoint had got it wrong. None of the consents issued were illegal. What they did have were concerns about compliance with the building code but actually no illegal consents or consents that were not consistent with the law had been issued.Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table the transcript from thatCheckpoint interview—Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption ] Order! That information is freely accessible by any member who wants to get it.Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The difficulty that I have is that the Minister referred to a statement as if the interviewer made it. He was the one—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is now a debating point. If the member has further supplementary questions she can use them but it is not a means of justifying the tabling of a radio transcript.Hon Maurice Williamson: I seek leave to table the letter from the chief executive of International Accreditation New Zealand to me pointing out that what was raised on that programme was incorrect.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Lianne Dalziel: Was it the Minister who in fact used the word “illegal” in the interview with Mary Wilson onCheckpoint ?Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I would be foolish to try to recall every word used in the interview but I do know that the words used during the interview by the person doing it Mary Wilson were incorrect and that is what the chief executive wrote the letter to me to correct—what Mary Wilson had said.Freshwater Management—Reform4.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National)to theMinister for the Environment: What recent announcements has the Government made to improve New Zealand’s freshwater management?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment):Yesterday with my colleague Nathan Guy I announced the Government’s decisions on the first stage of what will be the most comprehensive reform of freshwater management for many years. The announcement confirmed that a collaborative planning option for freshwater management will be created that legislative changes will be made to facilitate the introduction of a national objectives framework and that councils will be required toensure that iwi views are properly considered in freshwater planning. All these changes were key recommendations of the Land and Water Forum and received widespread support during our consultation on freshwater reforms earlier this year.Claudette Hauiti: What reports has the Minister seen of reactions to yesterday’s announcement?Hon AMY ADAMS: I have seen some very positive reports in relation to the announcements. I have seen them welcomed by many groups including Local Government New ZealandNgāiTahu the Environmental Defence Society and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. That consensus is testament to the successful collaboration project this Government created to improve freshwater management—the Land and Water Forum.Hon Maryan Street: In the context of that announcement why has she chosen to limit the right to appeal court decisions that might harm the environment and how does this square with her environmental protection responsibilities and the comparable rights that people have in other jurisdictions?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well I would just refer the member to the Land and Water Forum report which made it very clear that for collaborative projects to work there need to be the right incentives for the people sitting round the table to understand that the decisions are best made there not by trying to reserve a position and then coming around and appealing in any event. And I would note that the Environmental Defence Society specifically made the point yesterday in its comments of agreeing that in this situation taking that approach is entirely to use their word “kosher”.Te Ururoa Flavell:Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia oratātou. Does she believe that the rights and interests ofMāori as Treaty partners have been protected in freshwater management; if so how?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well I would say to the member that the rights and interests of iwi in freshwater management are a complex set of issues that have to be worked through and they will have many more iterations before we can say that we have completely resolved all issues but I am very confident that the changes we have made in respect of how iwi engage with freshwater planning have the support of a wide range of iwi are sensible will help clarify the arrangements and will ensure that the views of iwi are expressed properly and much earlier on in the process which is critical to having a more meaningful engagement.Skycity Convention Centre—Advice on Gambling-related Harm5.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green)to theMinister for Economic Development: When will he release all of the advice he has received on the social harms from theSkyCity deal given his statement yesterday that it is his “understanding” that only “most” of the advice has been released?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):I said to the member yesterday that I would check again and I have. On Monday we released most of the material relating to social harm along with Cabinet papers relating to the agreement and of course the regulatory impact statement. As I said to the member yesterday there is more information relating to the wider agreement that will be released soon. That material includes a number of briefings and correspondence relating to the negotiations themselves. Inevitably some of that material will include some information about harm reduction but the main documents in regard to harm minimisation have already been released.Metiria Turei: Has the Minister seen any advice on how many Auckland children will be left alone in the Skycity car-park as a result of increased gambling under theSkycity deal given that there were seven reports—seven—of children left alone in that car-park last year?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well I have received advice regarding harm minimisation more generally not on the specific item that the member raises and that information is contained in the report. It makes it clear that it is not possible to say that as a result of the changes there will necessarily be any increase in some of the social issues the member outlines.Metiria Turei: Has the Minister asked for or seen any advice about how many jobs in Auckland will be lost due to Auckland businesses folding from more gambling-related fraud from increased gambling under the Skycity deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. What I have received advice on in relation to jobs are the 1000 construction jobs created with the convention centre and the approximately 800 jobs that will be created for its ongoing operation which go of course with the 3500 jobs currently held by employees of Skycity.Metiria Turei: Has the Minister read the KPMG fraud survey that shows that gambling remains a major motivator of fraud with high individual losses and has he sought advice on the economic cost of fraud from increased gambling under the Skycity deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have not seen the particular report that the member outlines. I am sure she could dig out some other reports if she wished to. What I have been through though in some detail is a regulatory impact statement that lays out the potential risks and also lays out the benefits of this arrangement. I can inform the member again—and the House will get the opportunity to vote on this this afternoon—that it is the Government’s view that the balance is in favour of proceeding with this arrangement.Metiria Turei: Has the Minister sought advice on how much money Auckland charities can expect to have stolen as a result of gambling-related theft arising from the Skycity deal given that more than 50 percent of stolen charity funds are stolen to fuel problem gambling and how many jobs in those charities are expected to be lost as a result of that theft?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well with the greatest respect to the member we could go through every possible social harm in Auckland but again I would point out to the member that there is no guarantee that they would increase under this arrangement because the reality is that the marginal increase in pokie machines by Skycity in this arrangement is more than offset by the decline of pokie machines across the rest of Auckland and the country.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific and was as to whether the Minister has sought advice on the issue of theft from charities—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I certainly heard the question. I thought the Minister made a reasonable attempt but if he could just clarify whether he has sought any specific advice on that specific issue of Auckland charities having money stolen from them then that would presumably be of satisfaction to the member.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No; and I can probably give the same answer for a number of her further supplementary questions.Metiria Turei: Why did theKordaMentha report into the Skycity deal omit to factor in the increased risk of business fraud and increased theft from charities and the subsequent job losses and can we take it then that the report does not provide an accurate assessment of the actual costs or benefits of the Skycity deal?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member constantly—and I can only think deliberately—seeks to misrepresent the position of theKordaMentha report. TheKordaMentha report was designed to balance the economic benefits to Skycity versus the economic benefits to the Crown to check that there was fairness in terms of the allocation. It was not designed to assess the social harm risks. That has been adequately dealt with as I said in the regulatory impact statement. Again it is by no means clear at all that a marginal increase in machines in one casino will increase gambling harm especially when the total number of machines across Auckland and across New Zealand continues to decline.Metiria Turei: Given that the Minister has no idea how much money will be stolen how many businesses will fold or how many jobs will be lost from the increase in gambling-related crime under the Skycity deal can we take it then that his job numbers are at best inaccurate and at worst just made up?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. I can tell the member what I do have no idea about and that is why it is that the Greens are so vociferously opposed to this deal when they were so silent about the deal that occurred under the previous Labour Government. I can conclude only that it is politics and it is not principle.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for the Greens’ policy he has no responsibility for the previous Labour Government and he has no responsibility for the decisions of Judith Collins before she was a Minister.Mr SPEAKER: Order! And I do not think that in any way the Minister through his answer accepted responsibility for the Green Party the former Labour Government or decisions by Judith Collins. He simply responded to a question that was relatively political and he responded politically back again.Future Investment Fund—Potential Financial Support for Solid Energy6.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour)to theMinister of Finance: Does he take responsibility for the composition of Budget 2013?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):I am responsible for the Budget and presenting it to the House. Cabinet is collectively responsible for the policy decisions taken for the Budget. Treasury is responsible for the fiscal and economic forecasts because it is required by statute to be independent as it is with reporting the Crown accounts the physical preparation and printing of Budget documents.Hon David Parker: In his Treasury documentEstablishing the Future Investment Fund  dated 2 April 2012 did he agree with Treasury that “any new capital expenditure will count against the Fund” so Treasury followed his instruction by appropriating $100 million for Solid Energy from the Future Investment Fund in 2013?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I do not agree with that characterisation of it. As we pointed out the Government has contemplated support for Solid Energy. It has not been required. The form in which it was contemplated was a secured repayable loan which would not count against the Future Investment Fund. The Budget documents give a misleading impression of Cabinet’s decisions.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table that Treasury report dated 2 April 2012 which included the Minister’s—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it included in the Budget documents?Hon David Parker: No. It is not a Budget document. It is the direction dated 2 April 2012 of the Minister of Finance agreeing that any new capital expenditure will account—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I think it is well enough described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.Hon David Parker: Does he really expect the public to believe that he and all of his staff Ministers Joyce and Ryall the Secretary of the Treasury and all his staff and thePrime Minister were so incompetent that they all made a $100 million error and mistakenly appropriated $100 million from the Future Investment Fund for Solid Energy recovery facilities or is he once again covering up for the Prime Minister who does not want to associate the Future Investment Fund with mismanagement of Solid Energy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I do not agree with the questioner. But I am surprised that he thinks the public thinks it matters an awful lot just how Treasury accounted for a Cabinet decision. What the public want to see is growth jobs and better incomes. We are focusing on that while he is focusing on whether Treasury got its accounting right.Hon David Parker: Is it correct that he has caught the same disease as the Prime Minister which has rendered him unable to comprehend his own officials or read and recall his own Cabinet directives to Treasury and Budget documents?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. I fully understand the Cabinet decision on this matter and Treasury’s treatment of it as one that does not reflect the Cabinet decision. As I said the Government spends a good deal more time on trying to help create jobs and grow incomes and a good deal less time than the member might presume on the details of public sector accounting which is actually a job for Treasury which it needs to do in a way that reflects Cabinet decisions.Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the A3 document that was presented to Cabinet calledFinalising the Budget 2013 Future Investment Fund Package  which included the $100 million allocation to Solid Energy.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that. Is there any objection? Yes there is.Business Growth Agenda—Callaghan Innovation7.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura)to theMinister of Science and Innovation: What support is the Government giving to businesses to increase innovation and speed up the commercialisation of new products and services?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation):The Government is very focused on doing exactly those things. This week Callaghan Innovation released its first full 3-year statement of intent which lays out its road map for becoming the high-tech HQ for New Zealand businesses. Established by the Government in February this year as part of the Business Growth Agenda Callaghan Innovation will assist firms across New Zealand to turn their ideas into exportable products and services more quickly providing jobs and growth for New Zealanders and their families.Colin King: What will be the key areas of focus for Callaghan Innovation?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government recognises the importance of increasing investment and innovation achieving economic growth and making New Zealand businesses more internationally competitive and successful. So Callaghan Innovation’s role will be to provide research and technical services supporting near-to-market innovation award and administer grants to encourage business investment in research and development assist firms to develop skills and expertise to take ideas to market help businesses access the services they need across research organisations set up and support national technology networks and foster a culture of innovation among current and future business leaders.Child Youth and Family—Resourcing and Increase in Notifications8.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)to theMinister for Social Development: Does she stand by the statement made on her behalf in the House yesterday that “there will always be times when resources are stretched but I believe we do have sufficient resources to care for the needs of vulnerable children”?Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Acting Minister for Social Development):Yes. In particular I stand by my statement that we now have more social workers with a bigger budget investigating more cases in a more timely way.Jacinda Ardern: If Child Youth and Family has all the resources it needs to deal with the 50 percent increase in notifications that require further action since 2008 why do the Midland region and the central region which include Rotorua right through to Porirua have fewer permanent social workers now than they did 5 years ago?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: It is important to note that across the country there are 250 more social workers working on the front line. They are investigating more cases that are reported to them and there are 150000 notifications a year. Each is triaged each is investigated and in the cases that the member quoted yesterday every one of them was dealt with within the time frame and the issue was around the length of time it took to record not to act and intervene.Jacinda Ardern: Point of—Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. That was a very specific question about a particular region and the numbers and it was not addressed.Mr SPEAKER: There was a specific question around two regions Midland and central. I think it would be helpful for the member to ask the question again for the Minister.Jacinda Ardern: If Child Youth and Family has all the resources it needs to deal with the 50 percent increase in notifications that require further action since 2008 why do the Midland region and the central region which include Rotorua through to Porirua have fewer permanent staff now than they did 5 years ago?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: I can only conclude because they are meeting the time frames required that they do have sufficient resources in those two regions.Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree with the statement by LucySandford-Reed Chief Executive of the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers that “CYF staff levels have not increased at the level that’s matching the number of notifications that are being recorded” and “are simply a drop in the bucket”; if not what evidence does he have that staffing levels are sufficient?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: I believe that Child Youth and Family social worker numbers have increased adequately to deal with the increased notifications and I also note that the way in which matters are dealt with now—the way investigations are run technology use and cross-agency collaboration—means that we are doing it in different ways from what we have in the past and that reflects the numbers.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did ask what evidence was available to back up—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption ] Order! The difficulty is the member asked two questions within her supplementary question and the Minister has obviously chosen to answer the first question. [Interruption ] Order! The Minister quite clearly answered the first part about whether he agreed with the statement by a lady you quoted. He has quite clearly answered that.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It seemed to me that actually the Minister was addressing the second part of the question but in doing so did not go all the way to actually providing any kind of evidence rather than just—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled that the Minister addressed the first part of the member’s question. He is not required to answer the second part. Has the member further supplementary questions?Jacinda Ardern: Why will the Minister not agree to a baseline review of Child Youth and Family given that the last one was 10 years ago under Labour and since thattime demand on social workers has grown exponentially or has the Minister instead prioritised her trip to Malta to sign a pension portability agreement that affects just five Kiwis?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: It is interesting to note that the Minister in charge of Child Youth and Family in 2003 the Hon Ruth Dyson quite appropriately did a baseline review because of the fact that that department was in disarray. We have benefited over time from that review but just to give an example in March 2004—a year after that review—the number of unallocated cases was 4709. As of 31 May this year there were 44 unallocated cases.Emissions Trading Scheme—Issuing and Price of Units9.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green)to theMinister for Climate Change Issues: How did he meet his obligations under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 to maintain the proper functioning of the ETS when he directed the issuing of 30 million additional New Zealand Units?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Acting Minister for Climate Change Issues):The Minister set this out in the ministerial statement he made accompanying the direction to issue New Zealand Units both of which were tabled and gazetted in accordance with the Act: “The proper functioning of the NZ ETS requires the issuance of sufficientNZUs to meet entitlements of post-1989 forestry participants; any entitlements under an allocation plan; and any auctions ofNZUs the Crown undertakes.”Dr Kennedy Graham: Given estimates that there is a current supply of some 85 million New Zealand Units while annual demand is around 15 million New Zealand Units how can he justify issuing 30 million additional units?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I would have thought that the Greens were sympathetic to printing off more currency given that that is their current policy. But the fact of the matter is that I am obliged to ensure the Government has enough New Zealand Units to meet certain legal obligations so that is what I do.Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister believe that issuing 30 million more units will increase the price of New Zealand Units which are currently trading at around $2; if not how will the additional units incentivise decarbonisation of our economy in particular the disincentive to foresters which is the rationale that is adduced?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I am not a soothsayer so I cannot predict what prices will do. The fact of the matter is our emissions trading scheme is working well. What the member asks about is a product of a very low international carbon price. We believe in this country that we want New Zealanders to do their fair share—not to be paying above that.Dr Kennedy Graham: How is having a carbon unit worth $2 which is actually lower than the international price in Europe meeting his ministerial obligations under section 68 of the Climate Change Response Act to maintain the proper functioning of the emissions trading scheme given that our gross and net emissions continue to rise?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The member clearly was not listening. As I said we are committed to doing our fair share. That means working at not trying to have policy settings above the international price. Actually the member is wrong. I think he will find international prices are much lower than he suggested. That is the situation they are in today but it would be a brave person who tried to bet the bank on what the prices may be even a couple of years into the future.Housing Affordable—Impact of Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill10.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū)to theMinister of Housing: How many homes does he believe will be built as a result of the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill and what percentage of those homes will be affordable?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing):Many thousands. The Auckland Housing Accord provides for 39000 homes over 3 years. The accord specifically allows conditions of consent for qualifying developments to require a proportion of homes to be for first-home buyers or to be in the affordable range but these conditions would be set by council. The Government has successfully implemented such a requirement with 20 percent in Hobsonville but is actually achieving 26 percent. I note that the proportion of affordable houses built dropped from 16 percent in 2000 to 6 percent in 2008. I am confident that the Government’s initiatives will reverse that negative trend.Phil Twyford: What does he say to the Property Council Todd Property Group the Salvation Army and the Auckland Hamilton Waikato and Tauranga city councils which all told the Social Services Committee that they do not believe that the bill would result in any affordable homes being built; and will he keep blaming councils when his housing policy fails to deliver affordable housing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I simply point the member to Hobsonville where this Government is building thousands of homes and is specifically requiring a portion of those homes to be affordable. But I am not going to take a lecture from the Labour Party when the proportion of affordable houses dropped from 16 percent in 2000 to just 6 percent in 2008.Phil Twyford: If the council follows the processes in the Auckland Housing Accord and the number of houses agreed to by the Government is not delivered will he take personal responsibility for the failure of his policy and will he step down as Minister?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that there is a strong increase in the number of houses that have been built both in Christchurch and in Auckland. I note that the Auckland Council is delighted with the deal that we have been able to achieve with this Government to get more houses built. I also ask how many members opposite are taking responsibility for the hard facts that when Labour became Government 16 percent—Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked whether the Minister would take responsibility if the targets in his policy and his accord are not reached. He has not even addressed that.Mr SPEAKER: You went further than that though. You asked whether he would take responsibility and if particular targets were not reached whether he would resign. I think a yes or no answer to that is unlikely to be delivered. The Minister has chosen to deliver the answer that he has.Phil Twyford: Did he admit to the select committee that there was no way of measuring the success of his bill; if so how will he know whether to blame the council for the failure to meet the targets as will inevitably happen?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Every month the number of building permits is published and so we will know—not just in Auckland but around the country—although I note that in every month this year there has been an increase in the number of building permits that are being issued. The target sets out an ambitious target of 39000 houses. But what the Labour Party cannot stand is that this Government is working effectively with the Auckland Council to address the issue of housing that it ignored for 9 long years.Brendan Horan: What specific steps has the Minister taken in the 15 days since he last answered a question from me to ensure that in Auckland there are sufficient townplanners tradespeople developers and funding to cope with his promised threefold increase in houses to be built?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would simply point to the many initiatives that this Government has taken. A key feature of the Budget was our housing reforms the special housing areas accords the social housing legislation—Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. I asked what specific steps the Minister has taken.Mr SPEAKER: And the Minister is attempting to answer it. If the member would stay seated and listen to the answer I hope he will then be satisfied.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We have two major bills before the House one on the housing accords and special housing areas as well as the social housing legislation. The main grizzles I am getting from members opposite are that we are going too fast in getting this legislation through to make a difference rather than the complaints we now hear from one of the members of the Opposition that we are not going fast enough.Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I still did not hear any specific steps that the Minister is taking.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member needs to listen more carefully to the answer.Brendan Horan: Will the Minister acknowledge that his promise of 39000 new homes consented in 3 years represents an extra 50 new homes consented every working day and can he tell the House just how many new homes have been consented in the 39 working days since the Budget?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is a bit rich for the Opposition to be criticising the effects of legislation that has not yet been passed and that members opposite are opposing.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is not my normal habit to defend that member up there but on this particular occasion he asked a hard but straight and factual question and I do not think that even he deserves that abuse at this point.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his point of order. I invite Brendan Horan to re-ask that last supplementary question.Brendan Horan: I take offence at “even he”.Mr SPEAKER: Then I will attempt to help the member on this occasion. He asked: if there are going to be 39000 new houses built it is 50 a day and how many consents have been issued in the 39 working days since the Budget.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The measures that the Government has announced in the Budget are being advanced as quickly as possible through the select committee process. I would ask the member to support the good work of that select committee and support that bill through the House so that we can build more houses and create those special housing areas. But I further note that this year already each month we have seen an increase in the number of building consents granted.District Health Boards—Health Quality and Safety Markers11.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel)to theAssociate Minister of Health: Has she received any recent reports regarding district health board performance in taking steps to improve patient safety in hospitals?Hon JO GOODHEW (Associate Minister of Health):Yes; in June the Health Quality and Safety Commission published district health board performance data against the new health quality and safety markers. The data shows some excellent achievements by district health boards but also areas where more work is needed. No district health board performed well on all four measures or performed badly on all four.Scott Simpson: What are the quality and safety markers?Hon JO GOODHEW: The markers set goals for district health boards’ use of interventions known to reduce patient harm caused by falls health care associated infections and surgery. The June results are a baseline from which I expect district health boards will continue to improve. District health boards’ performance will be reported again in December and quarterly after that.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Well normally you do it from your seat.Hon Trevor Mallard: I apologise. Well actually in some other Parliaments of course you do not have this rule; you can do so from anywhere.Mr SPEAKER: Just get to the point of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: The point of order goes to the reason for that question being allowed to be put to the Associate Minister. I have reviewed the Associate Minister’s delegations as have been tabled in the House and they include functions to do with public health including water environmental health and measles—but excluding emergency management—to do with aged care certification health care services the Health Quality and Safety Commission health promotion agencies and rural health—Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please get to the point of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: Well the point is that there is nothing stopping that Associate Minister answering a question on behalf of the Minister but there appears to be nothing in her delegations that gives her responsibility to have that question asked as an Associate Minister. As you know although you can transfer from Minister to Minister you cannot transfer to an Associate Minister in that circumstance. [Interruption ]Mr SPEAKER: I do not need assistance from the Associate Minister. On this occasion the difficulty I have is that the question has been put it has been accepted by the House and it has now been answered by the Associate Minister.Health and Safety Workplace—Forestry Industry and Pike River Mine Disaster12.DARIEN FENTON (Labour)to theMinister of Labour: How many workplace deaths have there been in the last four years?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour):I cannot provide definitive statistics for 2011 and 2012. They are not yet available. What I can tell the member is that since 2003 on average there have been 75 workplace deaths per year.Darien Fenton: Further to his answer to my question on 3 July about safety in the forestry industry when he said: “We know what the problem is. Actually we know what the solutions are.” can he tell me what solutions he has to long working hours in this dangerous industry while at the same time he is trying to cut rest and meal breaks for all workers?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: As the member knows she and I have a different perspective on that. She would say that it is primarily about hours and meal breaks and so on. What I say and actually what I have heard is that it is much more about some of the more substantive issues in forestry which the approved code of practice deals with like tree felling and having the correct techniques there and breaking out and the equipment and gear used for that.Darien Fenton: How can he claim he knows the solutions when the provisions for breaks and fatigue management in his 2012 approved code of practice are similar if in fact not weaker than the provisions of the 1999 approved code of practice signed by the Hon Max Bradford?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I think as I have made clear previously to the member that there have been agendas and action plans but what is new and what is recent is theApproved Code of Practice for Safety and Health in Forest Operations . What I have heard when I have been with owners and inspectors and the like is that actually if this isfollowed we will not have the number of deaths that we have today. The member and I both agree that there are far too many deaths. We need to see this bed in and put into practice in a much greater way than it has been.Denise Roche: How many more deaths in the forestry industry need to happen before this Government will action an inquiry into health and safety in the forestry sector?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No death is good enough. It is entirely unacceptable. But I think this Government more than any other Government in the history of New Zealand has had royal commissions and inquiries in the health and safety arena. I will very soon be responding—I think in a substantive way—to the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety. Of course we are setting upWorkSafe New Zealand an independent agency. I think we can quite rightly make the case that we have done more than any Government in this area and an inquiry in relation to forestry specifically is not needed. Actually what we need to do is bed in good practice that we know about.Darien Fenton: Given that the Forest Owners Association is now also saying that there should be an independent inquiry will he take responsibility for any forestry deaths while he continues to insist he has all the answers?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not think the member is correct because what she calls an inquiry is not actually what as I understand it the Forest Owners Association is talking about. I have certainly made it quite clear that I do not support a Government-led inquiry but if the Forest Owners Association is prepared to go out and do some of the things that is good. But as I have also said on record I think we actually know what the solutions are. It is about embedding them and seeing them acted out and practised in our forests around New Zealand.Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the Minister take responsibility for due compensation to be paid to the 29 Pike River families given the failure of his department to uphold proper standards of workplace safety; if not will the Government change legislation to make the directors of Pike River Coal directly responsible for that compensation?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I need to be I think reasonably judicious in answering that question because the fact of the matter is there are still related matters before the court and I have not received substantive legal advice on that very issue.Urgent Debates DeclinedFree-trade Agreement—New Zealand - TaiwanMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have received a letter from Dr Kennedy Graham seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the signing of a free-trade agreement with Taiwan. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The Government is required to present such international agreements to the House along with a national interest analysis. These stand referred to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for examination. This is the manner in which the House considers such agreements in the first instance. In this case the member’s own authentication indicates that legislation is also required to give the agreement effect sometime during next year.There would need to be something exceptional about such a free-trade agreement to warrant the business of the House being set aside for an urgent debate. There is nothing in the member’s application that convinces me that I would be justified in allowing a debate today. The application is therefore declined.New Zealand International Convention Centre BillFirst ReadingHon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development):I moveThat the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Commerce Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be reported to the House by 14 November 2013.It gives me great pleasure to introduce this bill. This bill is first and foremost about investment jobs and growth for New Zealanders and their families. For years the tourism industry and the business sector have been seeking an international-size convention centre to be built in New Zealand to ensure that we compete with Australia and Asia and tap into the growing market of high-value business visitors. This bill shows that this Government is again delivering on not only that but its economic promise to create jobs and growth. The agreement signed last week between the Government and Skycity to build a world-class convention centre in Auckland will create jobs boost tourism and bring significant benefits to the Auckland and New Zealand economies—and all of this for little if any investment by New Zealand taxpayers. These benefits include a projected $90 million annual injection into the economy an estimated 1000 jobs during construction and 800 jobs once it is up and running. It is estimated that the new facility will cater for 3500 international convention delegates at any one time and attract around 33000 more delegates each year. It is yet another worthy initiative—one of many introduced under the leadership of this Prime Minister—to build a more competitive and productive economy for this country. It is very similar to an arrangement signed in 2001 to build a much smaller convention centre one signed off under the Labour Government of that time and celebrated by the former Prime Minister Helen Clark and her then Minister of Tourism without any of the hysterical protest we see today from the Green Party or indeed parts of the Labour Party.This bill gives effect to the New Zealand International Convention Centre and Licensing Agreement including giving effect to the regulatory concessions ensuring that agreement terms may be enforced as intended establishing the protection of the names “New Zealand International Convention Centre” and “NZICC” and ensuring that the land upon which the International Convention Centre is to be built cannot be used for any other purpose. The concessions granted in the agreement are applicable only to the holder of the Skycity Casino operating licence and not all casino licence holders. The bill provides that the regulatory concessions may not be varied except by an Act of Parliament. In one simple amendment the regulatory concessions provided under the agreement will be subject to the existing gambling regime. The Gambling Act will apply to the concessions and all gambling conducted under the concessions as if they were permitted under that Act. The concessions will therefore be administered monitored and enforced in accordance with the Gambling Act and any rules or regulations made under that Act. That is a very important point for this House to note.Under the bill a person will be prohibited from incorporating or registering any entity under the name “New Zealand International Convention Centre” or “NZICC” and a person is also prohibited from using either of these names as the names of an organisation or building and from trading or carrying on business under either of those names unless the person has authorisation from the Minister for Economic Development. The House should note that it is the Crown’s intention to grant to Skycity an exclusive licence to the New Zealand International Convention Centre brand as part of the agreement.The bill provides for the following regulatory concessions for Skycity and these take effect on the signing of the building works contract and will apply until 30 June 2048 unless the agreement is terminated prior to that date. These include an extension of the Skycity Casino licence which is due to expire in 2021 out to 30 June 2048; an amendment to cover all ofSkycity’s properties in Federal Street; an additional 230 pokie machines on the casino floor; an additional 40 gaming tables; a further 12 gaming tables that can be substituted for automated table game player stations but not pokie machines; up to 17 percent of pokie machines and automated table games in restricted areas only being able to accept banknotes of denominations greater than $20; and introducing ticket-in ticket-out and card-based cashless gaming technology on all pokie machines and automated table games at Skycity Casino.The Government as part of this agreement has insisted on a number of significant harm minimisation measures to deter problem gambling and money-laundering. The agreement requires Skycity to implement these by the time the regulatory concessions come into effect. They are a predictive modelling tool that analyses data to identify players at risk of problem gambling; a voluntary pre-commitment system where players can elect to restrict the amount of time they play or the amount they spend; doubling the number of Host Responsibility specialists to deliver 24-hour 7-day-a-week coverage; and the introduction of player identification requirements when amounts over $500 are being put on to or cashed from ticket-in ticket-out tickets in non-restricted areas. The adoption of these measures does not affectSkycity’s ongoing obligation to comply with harm minimisation and anti - money-laundering obligations which again is a very important point for this House to note.An independent assessment by finance advisory firmKordaMentha has described the value of the concessions made to Skycity in exchange for the construction and operation of the convention centre as reasonable for both parties. Again the 230 new pokie machines is exactly the same number granted to Skycity under the previous Government in 2001 for the development of the existing and much smaller convention centre. Overall the number of pokie machines in New Zealand is falling by around 500 a year. This deal slows that reduction by less than 6 months. It is by no means clear at all that a marginal increase in the number of machines in one casino would increase harm overall especially when the total number of machines across Auckland and New Zealand continues to decline.We on this side welcome this bill being regarded as requiring a conscience vote. It will allow any remaining MPs in the Opposition who actually say that they see themselves as being in favour of jobs and growth to demonstrate that. By voting in favour of this bill they can really say that they support jobs and growth. We look forward to their support. This measure is just one measure in a number that this Government has been proud to support as we focus on jobs and growth for New Zealand families. Our changes to the Resource Management Act the Crown Minerals Act legislation for ultra-fast broadband the Employment Relations Act the economic exclusive zone legislation and so on have all been about creating jobs and growth in this country while minimising social impacts. This Government lines up behind minimising the social harm of unemployment. New Zealand needs an international-size convention centre in our biggest city to be internationally competitive. A $402 million international convention centre in Auckland will do that and will be a major asset for New Zealand for years to come. I commend this legislation to the House.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour):This casino bill the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill is a disgraceful piece of legislation built off a dodgy deal done without transparency or accountability and off the back of morally bankrupt exploitation of problem gamblers. The epitaph of this Government iscronyism: make the deals with the vested interests make the deals with its mates and ignore New Zealanders’ interests.Skycity is a business. It saw a chance to make some money. It saw a chance to avoid some costs. It saw a chance and it went for it. Whatever I might think of that it is a business looking out for itself. Well I have got a message for John Key: New Zealand is not some corporation that he gets to play around with; New Zealand is a democracy with a good reputation for transparency and accountability. New Zealanders expect honesty and accountability from their leaders and John Key has failed to deliver honesty and accountability on this. New Zealand is not a corporation to be John Key’s plaything. He needs to respect New Zealanders’ wishes that we have an accountable Government we have a transparent Government and we have a Government that is upfront with its citizens.This Government owes its citizens much more than dodgy tawdry deals like this one. It owes its citizens some respect—respect for their interests and respect for the basic rules of democracy. That has been absent from John Key’s dodgy deal from day one. Let us start at the beginning with the whole process of awarding this contract. The Deputy Auditor-General has done her report on this. John Key likes to tell the House that he has been totally vindicated by that report. He says that the Government was totally vindicated by the report of the Deputy Auditor-General—except for the fact that the Deputy Auditor-General says that the process for awarding this contract to Skycity was flawed it was not transparent and it was not even-handed. They are the words of the Deputy Auditor-General and John Key tries to claim that this process was OK.I can tell members of the House when this process went dodgy when this process became non-transparent. It was when John Key wrote on the top of a briefing note on 24 August 2009: “Close off the Skycity angle.” That is what John Key wrote on that briefing paper and from that moment on all the officials working on this process directed their energy towards Skycity and no one else. The other bidders in this process were not given a fair go. The Deputy Auditor-General actually said that. She said: “we regard it”—the failure to clearly communicate the Government’s position—“as symptomatic of the lack of attention to procedural risks” and that gives rise to concerns about “the fairness and credibility of the process.” That is the Auditor-General saying that the other people who were bidding to build this convention centre were not treated the same as Skycity. Skycity was taken out of this and taken away by the Government and dealt with differently. That is not the kind of fairness or transparency that New Zealanders expect.The Prime Minister is donkey deep in this dodgy deal. In May 2009 he met with the chief executive of Skycity. In July 2009 his chief of staff met with Skycity officials. In August 2009 he told officials to close off the Skycity angle. In 15 October 2009 Bill English gets alongside the Skycity officials. Then by November 2009 it is another one of John Key’s mandates—he is there with the Skycity chief executive finishing off this deal. No other bidder got those opportunities. They were afforded only to Skycity. This is a dodgy deal. This is cronyism. This is looking after vested interests. This is looking after the Government’s mates not New Zealanders’ mates. This dodgy deal was wrong from day one and the Deputy Auditor-General has been clear about that.Then the Government comes to this House with a bill that binds future Governments into concessions to these people: 230 extra pokie machines 40 extra gaming tables cashless gaming machines and ticket-in ticket-out machines—a whole load of concessions. That is a whole load of concessions which include a 35-year extension to the licence. Those concessions will increase gambling harm and it is outrageous for Steven Joyce to stand up in this House today and say “We can’t say whether there will be an increase in gambling harm.” What the regulatory impact statement says is that wecannot say just how much it will be but there will be an increase in gambling harm—there will be. What they estimate in this report is that there will be around an extra 8000 potential problem gamblers because of this change—because of this change.It is interesting to note that the Government had the option of amending the Gambling Act rather than bringing in this new piece of legislation. The reason that the Government has not gone ahead with amending the Gambling Act rather than introducing this new piece of legislation is in the regulatory impact statement. What it says is that the Gambling Act’s purpose is minimising the harm caused by gambling. So the Government cannot amend that Act because this bill would be against that purpose. That is why it cannot amend the Gambling Act. It is because the Gambling Act says that we should minimise gambling harm. This bill increases gambling harm and that is why the Government has to do a stand-alone piece of legislation.If nothing else what that must tell New Zealanders is that this bill is about increasing gambling harm. The trade-offs that this Government thinks it is making between building a convention centre and an extra 8000 problem gamblers have been accurately described today by Campbell Roberts from the Salvation Army. He has made absolutely clear that the harm minimisation measures in this bill are a joke. They are neither robust nor effective and they do not represent any significant improvement on the current ineffective practices of the Skycity Casino. This Government is making gambling harm worse. It has introduced this bill today which will get an extra 8000 potential problem gamblers.But at the same time Skycity is laughing all the way to the bank because it can extract the extra profits and it will not have to go through the process that other people in the gambling sector will. By having its licence extended it means that it does not have to undergo the statutory renewal processes that it would have undergone in 2021 or in 2036. In doing so not only does that save it money; it means that the public do not get to know what is going on in terms of what Skycity does. It removes the opportunity for local authority input. It removes the opportunity for public input into the licence renewal proposals for Skycity. On that point alone the Government members should hang their heads in shame—that they are prepared to extend the licence of Skycity so that the public and the local authority in Auckland will not be able to have a say.This is shameful on all counts—the dodgy process and this bill that comes to the House that extends the licence that creates extra problem gamblers. We cannot even use the Gambling Act because the Gambling Act says “reduced harm” which is why Labour brought it inin 2003. That is why the Government is avoiding it today because it knows that this legislation will increase gambling harm.Today there is meant to be a personal vote or a conscience vote. There is no personal vote or conscience vote coming from the National side and I can tell you why we know that. We know that there are members on that side of the House who understand the impact of gambling harm who understand how it destroys families who understand the damage that it does right across communities. In the past they have stood up against problem gambling but today they do not. They are not exercising their consciences.John Key has systematically and deliberately undermined basic New Zealand values through this dodgy deal. It is shameful legislation and the National members who are today being prevented from exercising their consciences know this. This bill is morally wrong. This bill is morally bankrupt. The Labour Party is disgusted by this bill. Labour will not be bullied out of making changes to gambling law because of what this Government says. If Labour sees gambling harm when it is in Government it will legislate to deal with gambling harm. John Key cannot get away with this dodgy tawdry deal. It is morally bankrupt and the Labour Party is utterly opposed to it.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth):Well the previous Labour Government has a significant convention centre under its belt. Helen Clark speaks from the past. She said that the Auckland Skycity has “pumped $140 million into its new Convention Centre and Auckland City hasrebranded and upgraded its conventions facilities.” She says it is a good thing. Mark Burton who was the Minister of Internal Affairs at the time said: “The potential gains from this are widespread—not only for Skycity but for the Auckland city and region the tourism industry and the whole of New Zealand.” Oh my—have they not changed their tune! The Labour Mayor of Auckland Len Brown agrees too. He welcomed the “significant opportunities that a national convention centre will bring to Auckland both in terms of jobs and wider economic growth.”We understand very very clearly that there are issues around gambling harm and harm minimisation. That is why we have placed upon Skycity a very very strong obligation and requirement to introduce further substantial harm reduction measures. In fact Associate Professor PaulDelfabbro from the University of Adelaide who works in the psychology department recently describedSkycity’s Host Responsibility programme as one of the most rigorous in the world.It is important to understand that these things are also on the Government’s mind and because of that there are very stringent obligations placed upon Skycity in order to minimise gambling harm. Under the agreement Skycity will have to introduce a predictive modelling tool that analyses data to identify players at risk of problem gambling as well as a voluntary pre-commitment system where players can elect to restrict the amount of time they play or the amount they spend. Skycity will also have to introduce player identification requirements when amounts over $500 are being put on to or cashed from ticket-in ticket-out machines in non-restricted areas. As well it is doubling the number of Host Responsibility specialists to deliver 24-hour 7-day-a-week coverage.Arguably Skycity will be better equipped to deal with problem gamblers because of this bill than it would be without it because it will put into place industry best practice. I am not a gambler but this place is full of gamblers. Right now there are bets going on in this House on who is going to be the winning horse wearing the red tunic and games of Russian roulette are being played in the Labour caucus. But I want to say that this bill is going to be good for New Zealand and at the same time we are going to minimise the impacts and the harm upon people of gambling.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the next member I advise the House that this is a split Labour call and I will ring the bell with 1 minute remaining. I call the Hon Clayton Cosgrove.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour):Before I make my substantive comments in this speech I want to make a personal comment. The personal comment is that in respect of Skycity I attended a corporate box function—as is well known. I want to say to the House in all seriousness that it may come as a shock to some people here but like other members I have attended and received hospitality from Federated Farmers occasionally. I have received and attended hospitality from Sky TV occasionally and I have to say in seriousness I have been to the annual function of SaundersUnsworth at some times over the years although I suspect that the invitation may not come this year. I say in all seriousness that one engages with groups and entities as a member of this House and one makes judgments as to the rights and sometimes the wrongs of those engagements with entities and groups. I take responsibility for both the right judgments and—hopefully not that often—the wrong judgments. I take responsibility. But I say this: my vote is not for sale. My vote cannot be bought. My vote will never be bought. Isay with respect to the House that my comments I think are appropriate before I get to the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill.The problem with this bill is the following. You can understand a private sector organisation like Skycity wanting to get the best deal it can under any legal circumstances. That is how businesses proceed in terms of maximising their profitability. The problem though is that even though John Key is a product of that same private sector where things are done differently and there are different processes—because there are commercial arrangements and private sector moneys involved—there is a big difference when you are dealing with public money with legislation and regulation and with taxpayers’ money and when you are charged as a Government and as a Prime Minister with working in the interests of all people. And though John Key in his private sector capacity may even in a legal sense have been able to expedite decisions without a lot of due process in a legal sense even without due process to get the deal done get it done fast and move it ahead the difficulty when you are a Prime Minister and when you are charged in Government with guarding the public purse and the public well-being is that you must have transparency you must have openness and you must observe proper due process especially in tender processes. You cannot express a preference for one group against another. You must leave key decisions to be delegated to officials to keep them out of the sticky fingers of politicians and avoid some of the challenges and allegations that Mr Grant Robertson has put to the Government. You must observe those public sector processes.The difficulty Mr Key has with this dodgy deal—and from the taxpayers’ point of view it is; you cannot blame the Skycity boys for having a crack and forgive the pun rolling the dice—is that he has failed to guard the well-being of the taxpayers. He has been criticised by the Auditor-General for a lack of due process even though in his own mind he keeps telling himself that he was totally vindicated—though the Skycity report says otherwise. He has done this and done the deal whether it be with the film industry at the cost of selling legislation or whether it be this in a dodgy non-transparent and underhand way. He has done it simply for political motives and political motivation. The Government may cry jobs and we are all in favour of jobs. It may cry that it wants to grow incomes for people and we are all in favour of that. But you have got to do it openly and you have got to do it fairly. It cannot be a dodgy deal done at midnight with high-level Government ministerial intervention that has been deemed inappropriate. I will oppose this legislation for those reasons. Mr Key has to learn that he is a Prime Minister. He is not in the private sector. He is not dealing with his own dough or company dough; he is dealing with taxpayers’ money and taxpayers’ welfare. There is such a thing as the public interest the taxpayer interest and he is charged with guarding that. This legislation and his conduct fail those critical tests.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I think there are some things that I too should put on the record. I think in 2009 I accepted a couple of glasses of wine from Skycity at one of its lower bars in 2011 I went to a test match as part of the Rugby World Cup with Skycity and earlier this year in 2013 I accepted a cup of coffee and a muffin with one of its lobbyists when we were discussing this legislation the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I am however reminded of the statement of the late California State Treasurer “Big Daddy” Unruh and that is: “If you can’t eat their food drink their booze …”—there is another phrase that has to do with the relationship with women which I will not read out—“and then vote against them you have no business being [in Parliament].” That is the case. I just want to say that if people cannot have a proper policy discussion and at the end of that say “No we disagree.”—as I have on a number of occasions with Skycity—and tell people that youare against something and then come here and vote against it then we have not got a proper democracy.I am adamantly opposed to this legislation. My view is that gambling using any form of pokies was originally a mistake. I think that in allowing it Peter Tapsell—probably without any right of legislation without any right and proper regulation back when he was Minister of Internal Affairs in the early 1980s—was wrong. I am still convinced that it is wrong. I voted the wrong way on the casino legislation when it was set up originally and that is something that I am now ashamed of. It is my view that that casino should not have been set up and my view that the harm that is caused to tens of thousands of families is something that this Parliament and people of my generation in this Parliament have to take responsibility for. What I will not do is support in any way legislation that will make it worse.Pokies and gambling tables cause immense harm to families. People gamble much more in some cases than they can afford to. They lose their houses they lose their families and in extreme cases they lose their lives as a result of this evil. And for the Prime Minister to trade this loss of families this loss of houses and this loss of lives for a convention centre is in my opinion morally bankrupt and the way that it has been done is effectively corrupt. The Prime Minister wrote on a piece of paper to finalise a deal with Skycity. He wrote on a piece of paper and breached everything that is ethical about having proper tenders and proper arrangements in making Government deals. The Prime Minister of New Zealand lowered the standards of our democracy and the ethics and the integrity and the transparency that we expect in New Zealand and this bill is a result of it.And I say to Jonathan Young who was the National Party speaker who preceded me shame on you. Jonathan I know that you know better. I know that you know that people will die as a result of this bill. I know Mr Young that in your heart and in your conscience you do not support it and I say shame on you for standing up to support this grubby bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I call the honourable member Metiria Turei.Tēnā koe. Kei tepēhea koe?METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):Tino pai Mr Speaker.Tēnā koe. “But gambling is not just the scourge of my communities. We all know that there are teachers there are lawyers and there are even politicians who gamble. So let us not say that this is a problem defined to one area but across the country. It is also personal because I have had numerous constituents come into my electorate office in Onehunga in Maungakiekie and I have seen the broken relationships. I have seen kids who have gone without the essentials the broken families and the broken relationships. It affects our communities right across this country.”—so said Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga last night in this House and I agree with him. I agree with him 100 percent and so do thousands of New Zealanders. So my plea to all of my parliamentary colleagues today is: “Do not vote for this bill.”—the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill.Today we have a rare opportunity to vote with our conscience on a bill that we all know grates so deeply and it grates because it is wrong. It is wrong to sell the law to Skycity so that Skycity and no one else can make millions of dollars off the misery of problem gamblers their families their children and their communities. It is wrong to use the authority of this House to excuse Skycity for 35 years from the Gambling Act the Act that constrains the harm of gambling by stemming its growth. It is wrong to know that increasing gambling at Skycity will produce measurable predictable harm to people who can least afford to be harmed but to choose to do so anyway. It is wrong to subvert the very foundation of our law—the law that says that we are all equal beforeit—to confer on Skycity a special privilege that the rest of us simply do not have. That is wrong and there is no more simple way to put it.People’s lives have been destroyed by gambling and by Skycity. Every few months we hear another story about another business that has gone under about people who have become sick their lives destroyed who have stolen from their employers have harmed or abandoned their children and have even harmed themselves because of that place. So please do not use this one vote you have today to make Skycity bigger more rapacious and more damaging than it is already. We all have the power today to stop that from happening.I would add to that a concern about the nature of Skycity. Today in fact just a few moments ago I saw a press report on Skycity and a comment that it made where it is in effect threatening MPs today saying that if MPs choose to deny this legislation and vote it down Skycity will take its money—hundreds of millions of dollars says Nigel Morrison—and spend it overseas. So it is effectively attempting to threaten MPs—Hon Trevor Mallard: Good riddance.METIRIA TUREI: —good riddance I agree Mr Mallard—by saying that it will remove its business and take it elsewhere in a deliberate attempt to use its financial power to influence the votes of members of Parliament. We are seeing that happen right as we speak today with this release from Skycity.John Key would have us all believe despite the fact that these gambling extensions breach the law and despite the demonstrable harm that they bring that these extensions are necessary for Auckland to get ahead on jobs. Well of course Auckland as we know is much much better than that. Aucklanders are creative innovative and imaginative and they are better than this dirty deal of expanding a casino and placing a casino monument—plonked right in the middle of their beautiful city.The other fallacy that John Key and Steven Joyce would have us believe is that jobs should come at any cost but that is just simply not true. Not only are the numbers false—there are not those numbers of jobs that they say and if you look at any of the reports it is clear that they are overestimating the jobs—but jobs do not come at any cost and they most certainly must not come at the cost of 6500 children who Joyce’s own officials warn will be harmed by this bill. That is 6500 children who the officials say will be at risk of not being fed and clothed properly as a result of this bill. This is not my information. I did not produce this information. This is information that is in the Government’s own albeit heavily edited carefully redacted and selectively released documents. It is information that it has produced and has known about.The jobs claim of Steven Joyce is untrue. One need only look at the reports to show that that is the case. Even the $90 million claim that is being made by Steven Joyce is untrue. The Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment reports that its analysis shows that 72 percent of that money will go to Skycity through the hotel and through the convention centre. So very little of that $90 million is going anywhere near outside the Skycity boundaries.Steven Joyce and John Key say that because we cannot know for sure exactly how many people are to be harmed or how they will be harmed by the increased gambling that this bill brings the risk to those people or the risk of that harm is somehow irrelevant. Joyce claimed yesterday that the regulatory impact statement said that putting a precise cost on the potential increase is difficult. Well yes it does say that but it also goes on to say why it is difficult to put a precise cost on the harms. It says: “Reportedly only a fraction of those who are affected by problem gambling seek help and the cost of the intervention services is in any case only a fraction of the cost (harms) associated with problem gambling (such as suicide; family violence; children inadequately clothed and fed and other examples of deprivation and poor parenting; costs to the justicesystem to businesses and to community groups of gambling-related crime lost productivity etc.).” That is what it says in the regulatory impact statement.All of those harms are identified as being real and the risk of those harms being real. Yes it is difficult to quantify the cost but that does not mean that those harms do not exist. It does not mean those harms are irrelevant to this debate. In fact it raises serious questions when this bill is proceeding knowing that those harms are a risk and when Mr Joyce today confirmed that he has made no attempt to find the real evidence behind that. No he did not seek any advice about whether more children would be left in cars in the Skycity car-park even though we know that that happens. No he has not assessed the risk of increased fraud for those businesses that we know will suffer from theft and fraud—usually by people who own or are senior in those businesses—as a result of problem gambling. No he has not sought any advice on the risk to charities—charities that not only receive funding from the members of the public but also receive funding from Government—of that money being stolen when we know that more than 50 percent of the money that is stolen from charities is stolen to fuel problem gambling.These are the facts that we know. This is the information that we have available to us but John Key and Steven Joyce have deliberately refused to investigate that information because if they do not know then they can pretend it does not exist. Yet that harm will be experienced by thousands of New Zealanders and more important by thousands of their children.I am going to end by quoting a member of this House who fought against the 1997 Casino Control (Moratorium) Amendment Bill 15 years ago. He said: “We are talking about a problem that we all own. We cannot just sweep the problem under the carpet because we believe in free enterprise. We cannot just sweep the problem under the carpet because we think it is an individual’s right to throw the dice to play blackjack ... We have a problem in this country and it is the addiction of gambling. It creates havoc amongst families be theyMāori be theyPākehā. It creates a problem and we need a Parliament with the strength and courage to face up to that problem and face up to it we will.” and “We have a problem and those people who vote in favour of this Bill are on the side of the angels and those who vote against this legislation are on the side of evil.” Thank you Mr Tau Henare for those wise words.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie):Talofa lava. I want to acknowledge the Minister for Economic Development Steven Joyce for bringing the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill to the House. We have heard the debate. The bill is a trade-off—it is a trade-off in terms of the positives that we get from jobs from tourism from opportunities and from the economic benefits that this bill will produce. We also understand and we know that gambling is a legally permitted activity in this country and that there are some spin-off effects that are detrimental to some individuals and some families.But let me talk about the benefits. It is a major asset for New Zealand because it will generate huge benefits—a projected $90 million annual injection into this economy and that is an estimated 1000 jobs. [Interruption ] I challenge those opposite to come to Skycity and say to the bouncers down at Skycity—those who have jobs and are supporting families and are supporting their wives families spouses—that they want to talk to them about their jobs and about taking the jobs away from those people who have them. I challenge those members opposite to do that.The 230 new pokie machines is only the same amount that was produced under the Labour Government. I acknowledge the Hon Trevor Mallard who has actually said in this House that he did make a mistake under that legislation. I challenge others to make the same statement because they are in effect voting against something that they voted for 10 years ago. But let us talk about the facts because members opposite do not wantto talk about the facts. Under Labour there were 6700 extra pokie machines in 9 years—6700—and under National we have decreased the number of machines in circulation around this country by 2300. So we have decreased the ability for harm to be caused by decreasing accessibility to those machines for those who are being harmed by these machines by decreasing the number of machines across this country.What are the measures to deter problem gambling at Skycity? Well we know that it is introducing a predictive modelling tool which analyses data to identify those gamblers with problems. It is also introducing player identification requirements—[Interruption ] members know that—and some of those will be visual identification requirements. But it is a balancing act as I said at the outset. Overall the net benefits are positive for our economy positive for our country and positive for those who are getting jobs under this legislation. That is why I will support it in its first reading.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to this first reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. New Zealand First opposes this bill and everything it stands for unequivocally and in its entirety. We oppose this bill because it epitomises everything that is wrong about core governance of a nation from an economic standpoint from an ideological standpoint from a social good standpoint and perhaps as important as—if not indeed more so than—any of those from the standpoint of the voluntary adherence by the Government of the day to the otherwise unenforceable yet constitutionally fundamental and indispensable convention by which those who hold executive office choose to maintain their subservience to the laws of the land choose to maintain the ethos by which laws are made and upheld in accordance with the principles of democracy and the best interests of the common good and choose to conduct themselves and to execute their responsibilities of their office in a manner uncorrupted by the temptations of material gain or regulatory and jurisdictional advantage—or not. They choose to conduct themselves and to carry out the business of Government in this manner or they choose to not do that.When Governments choose to depart from these fundamental conventions it is the beginning of an insidious process of thought and the beginning of a very dangerous road that leads towards corruption and at the end of which lie the remains of societies that have traded democracy for the usurpation of power. It is a road that begins in the corruption of thought and ends in dictatorship. Fiji lies at the end of that road. So do Zimbabwe Pakistan and Egypt—only this month Egypt. Half the nations of South America and West Africa have gone down that road and none of them have ever truly come back. Is that what we want for New Zealand? Is that what we are going to allow? Is that what we are going to sanction for New Zealand—for the future of New Zealand—here in this House by passing this cynical and insidious piece of legislation? I say that in all seriousness. I ask all members but particularly the members opposite on the Government benches the members of the National Party whether that is what they really want and whether that is what they really want to allow.I say again that this bill is the beginning of a process that culminates in the ending of democracy and I suspect that those who are responsible for initiating it are not even aware that it is happening. I make this charge because this bill sends a message and I make it because of what this bill is and what it does and what it represents and because of the message this bill sends. What it says is that the law is for sale. The law here in New Zealand and the process of making law is for sale. Make us an offer and we will change the law to suit! The Government can spin this any way it likes. It can dress it up any way it likes. It can plaster that pig with as much lipstick as it can stagger under the weight of but the reality remains the same and that reality is that our laws are for sale.We have laws limiting the activity of gambling. We have laws that limit gambling and place limits on how much gambling can go on and where and when and by whom. We have them because gambling can and does cause harm and as a society we have decided that we need to be able to limit that harm. We believe as a society that it is in the best interests of the common good to see to it that the harm that can be caused by gambling is minimised. Yet through this bill that impetus towards harm minimisation is being abandoned. Through this bill with this bill what we are doing—what New Zealand is doing what the Government is doing and what the Parliament is allowing to happen—is that we are deciding arbitrarily that the minimisation of gambling and the minimisation of the harm and the potential harm caused by gambling is not important any more. It is not as important as some other considerations—economic considerations monetary considerations. Jobs are important. On that I think we are all agreed. Industry and building and construction are important. No one is denying that. We need jobs for people. We need building and construction and major projects in the economy. That goes without saying.But within that reality is another reality and it is this. Even when we as a nation acknowledge that we need jobs and industry and construction we still have this other reality which is that we have problems with gambling in this country. We have problem gamblers and we have harm being done and that is why we have laws pertaining to gambling. They are there in an attempt to minimise that harm but through this bill the Government is denying that reality. The Government is attempting to justify the changes in this law by referring to the jobs that will be created by the construction of the new convention centre and by referring to the revenue that it anticipates will be generated in the economy by having the convention centre operating and from the overseas visitors whom it will attract. And it is true that those things will happen. Building a convention centre will create jobs and it will inject new revenue into our economy but that is not good enough. There are other ways in which jobs can be created and there are other ways in which Crown revenues can be enlarged.Does Auckland actually need another convention centre? Have we as a nation actually asked that question? Auckland already has the Aotea Centre of course. Whether having another one as a crucial element in the Queen City remaining competitive with the other 70-odd convention venues in our region is a matter for some contention. But if we do in fact need another one someone has to build it and someone has to pay for it. So the question then is whether we should as a nation and a Parliament be changing the law in order to allow Skycity to build one for us free of charge in exchange for their being allowed to expand their casino by an additional 230 pokie machines and another 35 gaming tables. Does Auckland or New Zealand need another 230 pokie machines? I would contend that they do not.It is true that some people use pokies responsibly and gain some enjoyment from doing that. But it is equally true that these machines are designed to make a profit and that is what they do. Eight-five cents of every dollar that goes into a pokie or thereabouts stays in that machine. They are programmed and built that way. There is no getting away from that but people play them anyway because they are fun and exciting and they come with the promise of reward and that promise can be and often is addictive. As such these machines have become a scourge in our pubs and suburbs and communities. We have problem gamblers in this country—far more of them than many people would care to admit. It is not a problem that is restricted to the poorer parts of New Zealand or to brown people or to the less well educated. Gambling addiction cuts across all socio-economic levels and all strata of society all ethnic groups and all levels of income.I have had firsthand experience of being in a relationship with someone who was unable to resist the temptation of putting another coin in the machine. I watched as my best efforts to assist failed and a person who held a good job in a position of responsibility succumbed to her affliction just as progressively and just as destructively as the damage and decline experienced by an untreated alcoholic or drug addict. Gambling addiction destroys lives. It ruins livelihoods it breaks up families and it breaks up relationships. It is a horrible thing to watch and an even more horrible thing to experience. We do not need 230 more pokie machines. We need 230 fewer and that would be a good start.We most certainly do not need to tear down laws that have been put in place to protect the vulnerable because we have succumbed to the temptation of a promise of $400 million in the form of a convention centre. This windfall win as it is being perceived and promoted is no less a mirage than any other win on the pokies. Has this Government I ask been seduced by the promise of the bright lights and the flashing colours and the big dollars to be had from this exciting casino deal? I ask because there is a common thread. There is a common set of indicators in people with addictions. Drugs alcohol gambling—they are all the same. One of the most common early signs is denial accompanied by justification and minimisation. Smokers begin that way and so do drinkers. They say: “Just one more puff. Just one more beer. Go on have a chaser with that. One more won’t kill you. Everyone else is doing it. The sun is always over the yardarm somewhere in the world. Just one more twenty. Ten more coins and that’s it. I’m not feeding the pokies anymore this week—well tonight.” It starts that way and then every subsequent indulgence is justified by the one before it and then there is full-blown addiction and a cycle of self-destruction that is inescapable. There is minimisation justification and denial. The psychology of addiction is very similar to the psychology of the corruption of thought.Is there a parallel here? I ask the House and the members opposite to ask themselves whether that is indeed what they are doing and whether this is what is happening with their thinking: “Just one little law change that’s all. Just a few more pokies. Think of the jobs. Think of the investment. Just one little law change. Go on it won’t hurt.” I ask them to contemplate that because do you know what? Once they have done it the next time it will be so much easier—so much easier to do and so much easier to justify. They might say: “What law shall we sell next I wonder?”.The Prime Minister obviously understands the maxim that one should never gamble with more than one can afford to lose and that is why he is whipping his caucus and their individual consciences into line. But I ask those members whether they have the intestinal fortitude to do the right thing here today rather than the thing they have been told to do. If they vote to sell this law today how will they justify not wanting to sell another one tomorrow? We are at a fork in the road. One way is the right way. At the end of the other is Zimbabwe. We all have a choice as to which road we will take and which way we will vote. We must live with the consequences of that choice.I will be voting against this bill as will my New Zealand First colleagues. I would urge the members opposite to choose very carefully whether they support this law or not and to vote accordingly while they still have that free choice in a free society. Thank you.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):Satsriakaal Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to participate in the first reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I congratulate this John Key - led Government on achieving an agreement that is way better than what our Opposition predecessors tried to achieve in 2001. I am sure others have shared this to some degree earlier today. However just to re-emphasise this agreement that the National-ledGovernment has formed with Skycity is better for the economy better for Auckland and better for New Zealand. With my clear conscience I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand the next call is a split call. The Hon David Parker—5 minutes.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour):Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. I would appreciate a bell at 1 minute if I could?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you. This is the result of a backroom deal by our Prime Minister done with vested interests.Le’aufa’amuliaAsenati Lole-Taylor: It was a dirty one too.Hon DAVID PARKER: A dirty one someone says here. The Deputy Auditor-General inquired into the probity of this arrangement. I want to quote a couple of paragraphs from the Deputy Auditor-General’s report because we heard continual misrepresentation including by National members today that it was all in order. The Deputy Auditor-General concluded in the report that was done by one of her deputies that “The result was that one submitter was treated differently from others during the evaluation process.” Only one bidder for this project knew that regulatory holidays were available. Only one bidder knew that the Government was willing to change the laws so that they could get a break. No other bidder knew that and that is why the Deputy Auditor-General concluded that this process was wrong.That fundamental error was never fixed and we will never know whether had the prospect of regulatory holidays been conveyed to other bidders we would have had others. There are lots of rumours around that Vector would have been interested in bidding. It faced regulatory risk around the revenues that it gets from its lines businesses. Vector may have been willing to subsidise a convention centre if it had certainty as to its revenue flows and if it had a regulatory change that took away its risks in the way this regulatory change being done for Skycity does.There is another really shady thing going in here. There is a pretence by National that it was not warned. We know from the Deputy Auditor-General’s report—and again I am reading from it—that “The Treasury … noted that an important part of the standard PPP process was a market tender which provided assurance that the taxpayer was receiving value for money. … Overall the Treasury comments suggested that officials should think about other more conventional procurement approaches.” The Treasury comments were referred to in an email of 12 November 2009 that went to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet from the Ministry of Economic Development. Treasury comments went to the Ministry of Economic Development then from the Ministry of Economic Development to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and then the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet in addition wrote a briefing note to the Prime Minister. None of those documents has been disclosed. Are we such a corrupt country that we cannot see what warnings were given to the Government by the Civil Service?I raised this very issue with Steven Joyce when he was at the Finance and Expenditure Committee on estimates for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the other day. He said that they would be released in due course when the other documents were released. I checked today. They still have not been disclosed because this seedy underhand irresponsible disreputable deal is wrong and these notes from the Government departments to the Government told it that it was wrong. So in addition to all of the problems with this casino deal—it is a casino deal; it is not a convention centre deal—that results in a convention centre being built on the back of gambling harm the Government knew it was wrong for reasons other than gamblingharm. New Zealand’s reputation as being a transparent country free of corruption is tarnished by this deal and that tarnish cannot be undone.I want to say a couple of other things. No Parliament can curb the sovereignty of a future Parliament. That means that future measures to remedy gambling harm are always within the jurisdiction of a future Parliament. We in the Labour Party say that we reserve the right to legislate for gambling harm in the future. That does not mean to say that that will be without cost to taxpayers. This deal with the Government effectively promises compensation to Skycity in respect of some future steps by a Government and not all of that could be avoided by a future Government despite the fact that future Governments might want to go the whole hog and reverse everything. That would come at a cost. But make no mistake: future Governments have a right to regulate for gambling harm. This bill reflects poorly upon the Government and I for one will be opposing it.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I rise and speak as a resident of Auckland but also a resident of central Auckland the place where this eventual convention centre will reside. I rise also as someone who lives in the area where Skycity is the most significant employer in terms of numbers. It was absolutely irresponsible of that member opposite to claim that not building a convention centre under the auspices of Skycity would have led people who are currently employed to losing their jobs. That was an outrageous statement to make. It is also outrageous to try to claim that this was the only option on the table. Let us not be naive. Labour has been opposed to this casino deal from the beginning. We have never been opposed to a convention centre being built. There is a very important distinct difference there. Of course this side of the House wants to see decent economic development. Of course this side of the House wants to see Auckland thrive tourism grow and people being offered opportunities that a potential convention centre could bring. Did we want that to happen off the back of harm and misery? No and that is why we oppose this deal.Also we cannot be naive and pretend that this was the only offer on the table. That seems to have been somewhat lost in this debate. In fact before the Prime Minister had a chat with Skycity and realised that it was interested to the point that it might not cost him a pretty penny there were several other deals on the table including one fromNgātiWhātua and another from The Edge. Auckland Council put forward a proposition that we had the Aotea Centre which could be better utilised and we could expand the footprint of that centre. We could transport the arts side of the Aotea Centre to the St James—a beautiful jewel in the Auckland crown that is in desperate need of restoration. It is something that the people of Auckland have been crying out to happen for years and while it sits and crumbles in the centre of Auckland we had a proposition on the table that could have seen a beautiful trade-off that would have allowed a convention centre and for that jewel in the crown of Auckland to be restored. Instead the Government bought a crown of coin machines for Auckland. That was the trade-off that that Government decided to make.I have been interested in the debate that we have recently seen around inequality. According to the OECD measures theGini coefficient New Zealand is the most unequal it has ever been. One of the points that the IMF makes around inequality is that countries that live with deep inequality tend to have Governments that start making decisions on behalf of those who are most powerful rather than on behalf of the good of the country and the economy and that is exactly what this deal represents. It was made on behalf of those who are powerful rather than those who cannot vote—in particular kids. The Expert Advisory Group on Solutions to Child Poverty points out that problem gambling is correlated with child poverty and in fact it exacerbates it. That is a point that has been made time and time again by the Problem Gambling Foundation and any expert who works on child poverty issues. If you want to support those who are mostvulnerable you do everything you can to remove problem gambling and in particular pokie machines.Any Government that argues that it is happy to simply minimise harm I think is making a ridiculous argument. It is like saying that you would rather raise the speed limit knowing people would die and then simply minimise the harm by putting more gurneys in a hospital. It is a flawed argument and it is a point that is right to have been made before now. Any Government that argues it would rather make that trade-off is trying to put power before people. This comes back to my main point. This deal demonstrates I believe the stark difference between National and Labour. We both want jobs—yes. We both want economic development—yes. But Labour would have conducted an open and transparent process that would ensure a convention centre that was a place of pride not harm and was about people not pokies.Debate interrupted.Points of OrderPsychoactive Substances Bill—ProcedureHon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Pursuant to the notice given by the Leader of the House at the Business Committee I seek leave for Government order of the day No. 2 the Psychoactive Substances Bill to be taken under urgency in order to ensure that it is passed before the 2-week adjournment.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National):I apologise; I was on a phone call so I missed the beginning. Can I ask the shadow Leader of the House to repeat the beginning of his point of order.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I think what I said at the beginning was that pursuant to the notice given at the Business Committee by the Leader of the House I seek leave of the House for urgency to be accorded to Government order of the day No. 2 the Psychoactive Substances Bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.New Zealand International Convention Centre BillFirst ReadingDebate resumed.Dr JIAN YANG (National):Here is what Auckland Tourism Events and Economic Development Chief Executive Mr BrettO’Riley has to say regarding the convention centre: “We are delighted with the opportunities this will bring to the region. It will allow Auckland to compete strongly against other international cities and secure major conventions that we would otherwise miss out on.” Also Business New Zealand Chief Executive Phil O’Reilly said: “New Zealand as one of the most remote tourism destinations on earth needs facilities and attractions of world standard.” So this is a good deal for New Zealand. It will create jobs boost tourism and bring significant benefits both to Auckland and to the New Zealand economy. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call.Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere):I rise to take a call on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill the Government bill here. I want to appeal to the House to put politics aside and do the right thing for the community. The people ofMāngere strongly oppose the bill for the following reason: the harm of gambling is real.Le’aufa’amuliaAsenati Lole-Taylor: In Manukau East?Su’aWILLIAM SIO: Absolutely. I dare say my colleague there is absolutely right. Throughout Manukau the feeling is the same. Throughout the Manukau region the feeling is that the harm is real. Any member in this House who believes that it is not real is either blind or just ignorant of the reality out there in our community. All they need to do is talk to the Salvation Army. All they need to do is talk with the communities on the ground that are having to deal with the harm. People in this House need to know that the sole reason for the existence of casinos and pokie machines is to exploit and prey on the vulnerable. They make money but not for the community.Let me just read out part of the regulatory impact statement given to the Government: “The key concern … is the potential impact this may have in increasing the incidence of problem gambling and its associated harm for New Zealand society. … Research shows there is a clear link between the availability of gaming machines and opportunities to gamble and the incidence of problem gambling.” The region of Manukau has always known this. In 2003 we carried out research into the social harm on the people of Manukau and the research revealed that $91 million was what it cost that region each year in terms of the social effects of gambling. It also said that the number of people affected by problem gambling is virtually unknown although it is about 15 to 20 percent of the population. By and large it is a hidden problem. But Australian research found that the net gain in jobs and economic activity from gambling is small as the money involved is simply being diverted from spending in other areas. Again the Australian research showed that the national cost of problem gambling is greater than the taxes raised by the Government from gambling activities.As my colleague Trevor Mallard said earlier it does impact on family relationships. It does impact on people losing their homes. It has impact on people—some commit suicide because they have lost virtually everything. It is addictive. Despite what we say that there are avenues to help problem gamblers the reality is true that those avenues are just not helping our communities. It is wrong for this Government and for any future Government to think that by increasing casinos we can provide benefits to the community. It has been argued that jobs are created—certainly. But the reality is that these are low-value low-paid jobs and that is not the kind of New Zealand the community wants. The community deserves quality jobs. The community deserves a living wage. That is what the public have been arguing for.Again I would appeal particularly to the Government members to put politics aside and do the right thing. The way is open for you to conduct a conscience vote and I would ask members particularly those who live in the Manukau region—Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga Alfred Ngaro and Claudette Hauiti—to do the right thing for the community and vote against this bill. I would ask them to use their conscience. I know thatJami-Lee Ross does not have a conscience and I know that Mr Bakshi will not have a conscience. They are going to vote in support of this bill despite the harm that happens in our community.But the most important thing—and members of the House will be fully aware of this—is that this a bad stinky deal hatched and consummated on the dinner tables at Skycity. Like my other colleagues have said this is a deal that undermines the credibility of this country of ours. In passing this bill what this Government does is it ushers in a new dark era of dirty politics with its mates. I will be voting against this bill.DENISE ROCHE (Green):Tēnā koe.Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I rise to take the second call for the Greens on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. It is no secret that we have been opposed to this bill since we first uncovered the dodgy dealings that have resulted in the legislation we are discussing today. The Greens have a proud history of opposing mining on schedule 4 land opposing deep-sea oil drilling and opposing fracking and we oppose this deal because it favours another nastyextraction industry one that hoovers money out of the pockets of those who can least afford it and just like the worstfrackers it leaves a hell of a mess. We all live with the consequences and we all bear the costs.And what are the costs? Well we do not know. We have some clues. The regulatory impact statement says that there will be increased problem gambling from the 230 extra pokies and more tables. There will be increased risk of suicide and domestic violence. There will be more kids going hungry and kids being neglected and left in cars. We know that there will be increased crime as a result of increased gambling opportunities. We know that there will be more thefts of businesses and charities to fuel gambling. We know that there will be more gangs more P dealers and even some international criminals laundering their money at the extended casino.In terms of cost-benefit analysis that really has not been done. The Government keeps stating that there will be jobs and there will be benefits to the economy but actually the losses and the social harms that we will all pay for have not been factored into the equation. I ask the Government to do the maths. I query the overstated economic benefits. The research undertaken by the Australian Productivity Commission shows that casinos suck the money out of the surrounding areas and take it away from restaurants from theatres from shops and the surrounding area. It will basically concentrate all that money at the Skycity venue.Yesterday I went to a talk by Robert Wade from the London School of Economics and Political Science. He was talking about inequality. He showed a graph representing the ever-widening income gap between the very rich and the very poor and showed how most of the wealth in Anglo countries is concentrated with the wealthy. Here the top 1 percent of income earners own 16 percent of New Zealand’s total wealth compared with the bottom 50 percent who own just 5 percent of the wealth. He explains how this comes about by the policy directions that Governments take that ensure that wealth stays with the wealthy. He talked about the money empathy gap where those who benefit from the Government policy directions who have lots of money develop less empathy for those without money considering those on low incomes even as feckless. He also talked about the need to get rid of the big money from the political system and to stop political parties taking donations from big businesses. Does that sound familiar?This legislation illustrates very very clearly everything he said. We have a deal on the table here that will deliver a convention centre in Auckland and it will increase inequality in Aotearoa New Zealand. We do not have to do this deal. We really do not. If we really need a convention centre publicly funding this would cost in the vicinity of $20 million per year over 35 years. That equates to less than $10 per year per taxpayer. We would own that convention centre. We would control that convention centre. We would avoid the increased social harm that will certainly come with it under the Skycity arrangement. We would also avoid a 35-year compensation clause that unconstitutionally chains future Governments to providing profits for Skycity Casino’s shareholders. I call on all MPs across this House to ditch this bill.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney):Every single day New Zealand is in competition with the rest of the world. Every single day visitors are getting on planes to go and visit other parts of the world and we are part of that competition every day. New Zealand needs an international convention centre. We are too small to stand still. I commend this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): This debate has concluded. The Speaker has determined that the vote will be a personal vote. Following the personal vote there may be two other procedural votes. These will be cast as party votes. The question is that the motion be agreed to. Those of that opinion will say Aye to the contrary—Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question as to the select committee is it a question as to which select committee?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): It is a procedural—Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is quite an important decision and there is certainly a view amongst some of our members that the Government Administration Committee which has had a lot of experience dealing with conscience votes is a better committee to deal with the bill but that is a divided opinion. The ruling has been previously given to us I think as far as the substantive vote. We were expecting that a conscience vote would apply on the later questions as well. I just want to check with the Greens as to whether notice was given to them that we would be denied a conscience vote on the subsequent motions. We have not and it certainly has been our expectation that a conscience vote would apply on all these questions. If any part of it frankly is a conscience vote—and the Speaker has been I think partly fair because he has done only this stage but we will look at other matters later on—the question I have got is where the precedent is for votes on conscience issues as this is for subsequent motions to be denied a similar conscience vote.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member for that contribution. If we look at Standing Order 139 it states: “Where the Speaker considers that the subject of a vote is to be treated as a conscience issue the Speaker will permit a personal vote to be held instead of a party vote.” He has already announced and I have announced here that we are going to accept that on the substantive motion. A bill if it is passed—and I make the point that it may be—must go to a select committee. It is a procedural matter. The Government has the opportunity to decide which select committee the bill goes to. That is a procedural matter just as the report-back time is. The Speaker has determined that those two votes should there be votes will be on a party basis. That is the position that I am also endorsing now and that is where we are going to.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there are effectively two points of order that have been raised by your explanation. In fact whether or not a bill goes to a select committee is not a decision of the Government; it is a decision of the House. Equally it is a decision of Parliament which select committee it goes to. Again that is not a decision of the Government; it is a decision of this House and there are procedures for amendments which—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I hear what the member is saying. If the select committee that is nominated is not the select committee that the House decides that it should go to there can be a split vote or members can vote against it on a party basis. The opportunity for the House to decide is simply in the hands of the House. That is why we treat it as a party vote.GARETH HUGHES (Musterer—Green):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just seeking clarification. Is this a ruling the Speaker has made on the question of the vote on where this bill should go or would the Speaker reconsider this matter he has raised if a member called for a personal vote?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no. I have already ruled that these are procedural matters. We are having a personal vote on the substantive motion which I am now going to put. Some member once I have put it can call for a personal vote and that is fine. But if this is passed when we come back and we look at the select committee and the report-back time those are procedural matters and will be treated as party votes as I have explained.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you ruling that a member cannot call for a personal vote? The StandingOrders as I look at them certainly leave the option of calling a personal vote open to members.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes Standing Order 141 “Personal vote following party vote” says: “A personal vote may be held following a party vote if a member requests one and the Speaker considers that the decision on the party vote is so close that a personal vote may make a material difference to the result.” So you are right in terms of asking for one. I have ruled that it will be a party vote but Standing Order—Hon Trevor Mallard: You were a bit premature.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Well I said that maybe there would be a vote. Right at the beginning I said that there may be one. Standing Order 141 covers that point.A personal vote was called for on the questionThat the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be now read a first time.Ayes61Adams (P)DunneKey (P)Simpson (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King C (P)Smith (P)AuchinvoleFinlayson (P)LeeTisch (P)BakshiFossLotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-BellMcClayTremainBarry (P)Goldsmith (P)McCully (P)UpstonBennett D (P)Goodhew (P)McKelvie (P)Wagner (P)Bennett P (P)Groser (P)Mitchell (P)Wilkinson (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)Ngaro (P)Williamson (P)BridgesHauiti (P)O’Connor S (P)Woodhouse (P)Brownlee (P)Hayes (P)Parata (P)YangCalderHeatley (P)RossYoung (P)Carter (P)HenareRoy (P)Coleman (P)HutchisonRyall (P)Collins (P)Joyce (P)Sabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)MacindoeNoes59Ardern J (P)Goff (P)MahutaSharples (P)Beaumont (P)Graham (P)MartinShearer (P)Browning (P)HagueMathers (P)SioClark (P)Harawira (P)MoroneyStewartClendon (P)Hipkins (P)Norman (P)StreetCosgrove (P)HoranO’Connor DTirikatene (P)Cunliffe (P)HughesO’Rourke (P)TureiCurranHuo (P)Parker (P)Turia (P)DalzielJones (P)Peters (P)Twyford (P)DelahuntyKing A (P)Prasad (P)Walker (P)Dyson (P)Lees-Galloway (P)ProsserWall (P)FaafoiLittleRobertson G (P)Williams (P)Fenton (P)LogieRobertson RWoods (P)FlavellLole-TaylorRocheTeller:Genter (P)MackeySage (P)MallardBill read a first time.The question was put that the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be referred to the Commerce Committee.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Question agreed to.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources)on behalf of theMinister for Economic Development: I moveThat the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be reported to the House by 14 November 2013 .Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South):I move an amendment to that motion. I moveThat the word “November” be replaced with the word “December” . This is an attempt by the Government to shorten the process in this area and to get this bill through before Christmas. The people of New Zealand deserve to have the full 6-month period at a select committee in order to have proper debate proper submissions and proper discussion on this. The attempt by the National Government to ram this legislation through is in my opinion something that is shameful and it is caused by its embarrassment. This is a matter that the House needs to consider really carefully. It is a matter on which I am sure that thousands of New Zealanders will want to properly prepare submissions. We do not want to have a rushed period for those submissions; we want people to prepare them properly and to have them lodged and for the select committee—albeit the wrong select committee but the House has decided on that—to move its way around the country and we want there to be proper opportunity for that to happen.What has happened in the past on some of this sort of legislation—and I know that my colleague Mr Flavell knows that with his legislation—was that there were a lot of people who wanted to be heard and wanted to be heard more extensively and who were not able to be heard because of the time frames put on the committee especially because of the leadership of the chair of the Commerce Committee. I do want to say that I think it is vital that there be an adequate time frame for this discussion to occur at the committee. And although members opposite might argue as we go forward that there has been a lot of notice about the possibility of this and time for people to prepare their submissions the point that I would make is that it is as recently as Monday that some of the information was made publicly available. And it is my understanding—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I refer the member to Standing Order 286. Although a member may move an amendment there is no debate on the question of amendment. So I am going to put the question.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the word “November” be replaced with the word “December”.Ayes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Amendment not agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be reported to the House by 14 November 2013.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; Independent: Dunne.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.Psychoactive Substances BillThird ReadingHon TODDMcCLAY (Associate Minister of Health):I moveThat the Psychoactive Substances Bill be now read a third time . It is my hope that today we take a very significant step to protect New Zealanders particularly young New Zealanders from the harm caused by untested drugs and an unregulated market. The Government’s position is clear as I believe this House’s is. No one will be allowed to sell psychoactive products unless it can be shown that those products pose no more than a low risk of harm. Passing this bill will ensure that these products cannot be sold to children that they cannot be sold from dairies and that there are robust controls on what is in them and how they can be marketed.Normally I would take 10 minutes in this debate but as we go into the school holidays it is my concern that there are products there on our wharves that are going to flood the New Zealand market to be used to create a black market and to drop prices in supermarkets. I will not speak for a single moment longer in this House and put children’s lives at risk. I commend this bill to the House.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North):This is a great day. Our communities up and down New Zealand will be celebrating because this is the day that we legislate to get drugs out of dairies and I have to say that it has been a long time coming. I am appalled by that Government over there which has prioritised creating more opportunities to gamble and increasing the harm related to gambling ahead of this legislation the Psychoactive Substances Bill which is designed to reduce drug-related harm. That is a shocking indictment on that Government’s priorities and it saddens me. It saddens me that this excellent piece of legislation which communities have been waiting for which people working in the drug and alcohol treatment sector have been waiting for and which indeed the people working in this industry who want to see a regulated smart cowboy-free industry have been waiting forfor so very long. And once again—this has been the theme of this legislation and the way that this Government has managed this legislation—we are rushing it.We are rushing one of the most worthwhile pieces of legislation that have appeared in the world of drug regulation in a very long time. This Government places such a lowpriority on reducing drug-related harm that it is rushing it in the last minute in the last hour before we go on a 2-week adjournment. It is an outrage. It is an outrage that the Government puts such a low priority on keeping our children safe that it is rushing this legislation. Every moment of this process has been rushed. The Government left it for 2 long years after the Law Commission presented its recommendations. The Government brought this legislation to the House in February and it sat on the Table for month after month after month sitting way down on the Order Paper because there were other things that were more important to this Government than reducing the harm related to drugs. Then the Government made us rush the select committee process. We could not hear all the submitters and we did not have time to get everything right. Then the Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay presents amendments handwritten at the last minute of the Committee stage.And then we get to today. We are selling legislation to Skycity. Binding future Parliaments to not be able to address gambling-related harm is an issue of greater priority to the National Government than reducing drug-related harm. That is an outrage.Melissa Lee: Calm down.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY: That Government should hang its head in shame. Melissa Lee wants me to drop my voice. I will not drop my voice. I am angry at you Melissa Lee. I am angry at that Government because that Government does not have the interests of our communities at heart. That is why I am shouting Melissa Lee because this could have been great legislation. This could have been a marvellous step forward for drug regulation in New Zealand. This could have been the opportunity to not only get the drugs out of our dairies but also create for the first time a legal regulated market designed to reduce the harm associated with drugs. It will do that but the attitude this Government has taken is just appalling. It has dithered it has wasted time and here we are rushing this through right after that Government has voted to increase harm to our communities by allowing more gambling and selling off legislation to a corporation—outrageous.I do support this legislation. I think it is a good bill. It has been a very long time coming. I am pleased that members around the House have seen through some of the distractions and the things that have divided us to eventually get to a piece of legislation that we can all support. Although this does do the job of getting the drugs out of dairies there are a few things that could have been done better. One of those is to deal with the issue of possession. This is about creating a regulated market and ensuring that the manufacturers and sellers of high-risk substances get everything that they deserve and that those who continue to flout the law get everything that they deserve. That is where we should be focusing our attention not on the young people who find themselves in possession of these substances. It does nothing to advance the cause of this legislation to make the possession of an unapproved substance an offence and it does nothing to fine those people. In fact it will be an absolutely unenforceable component of this legislation. So I hope that in the future we will see fit to decriminalise the possession of these substances.The other thing I am concerned about is the new transition period that the Minister dumped on the Table at the very last minute. The Minister who was not the originator of the bill the Minister who took no part in the select committee process and the Minister who is ajohnny-come-lately to this legislation and dumped at the very last minute a change to the transition period. It is a transition period that was deliberately designed to avoid a black market. I have noticed that the National Party has been throwing around today the idea that a black market might be created. The only thing that will create a black market is prohibition. My fear is that because we did not have time to properlyconsider all the consequences and unintended consequences of the Minister’s amendment what we may discover is that by reducing that transition period down to 3 months a black market is precisely what the result will be. I am hoping that is not the case. I am hoping that the Minister is right and that the manufacturers of substances that are up for approval will be able to prove within that 3-month period that they have made some steps towards initiating clinical trials and that the Minister will then see fit to allow those substances to stay on the shelf because what is really important is that the low-risk substances do stay in the regulated legal market. The last thing we want to do is create a black market by having effective prohibition being the result of this legislation.One of the aspects of this Psychoactive Substances Bill is a review after a maximum of 5 years. That is a good idea given that this is innovative and world-leading legislation. We need to have a review after 5 years to see whether we have got it right. There are a couple of things that I think are absolutely necessary in that review if not before. The first is to consider the possibility of applying an excise tax to these substances. It is what we do with tobacco. It is what we do with alcohol. It is a good way of one raising revenue to fund the addiction services that may be needed to deal with the problems relating to these and other substances and two using price as a demand-limiting control. We failed to do that with the alcohol legislation. We do it very well with tobacco. I think it should be applied to these substances as well. But I appreciate that we need to have a look at the pricing points and we need to look at what the appropriate way of using an excise tax is.Finally what I want to see is what the Law Commission actually originally envisaged and that is a comprehensive review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. It is outdated. It is outmoded. It may have been appropriate in 1975 but it is not appropriate in 2013. In fact the Misuse of Drugs Act is doing more harm than good in the 21st century. All we have done here is actually create an added layer. So now we will have some high-risk substances that are legal some high-risk substances that are illegal some low-risk substances that are legal and some low-risk substances that are illegal. If that sounds confusing to people it is because it is. Our drug legislation is utterly confusing and what we really need is—better than this more than this—a true review of the Misuse of Drugs Act. But for now because this bill will get the—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.Hon PETER DUNNE (Independent—Ōhariu):Given the exigencies of time my call will be a brief one. I do not need to feign my delight this afternoon as the author and the originator of this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill to see it finally pass into law. It is a world first. It is the creation of the regulated market that the member Iain Lees-Galloway who angrily preceded me referred to. It will put in place an environment within which these pernicious substances that are doing so much damage to our young people can be removed from the shelves immediately. There are issues for the future relating to the breadth of its scope in terms of other issues and also the issues that the member Iain Lees-Galloway raised relating to excise tax and the general treatment of these products moving forward that I think do merit consideration. That is for another day. What is important now is that this legislation is passed and is implemented so that the temporary bans on various substances that I implemented over the last couple of years do not expire and we start to see those products come back on to the shelves.Can I acknowledge the work of current Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay and can I acknowledge the support of the House. This is a good day for New Zealand communities and that is something the previous speaker and I do agree on. Manypeople will be saying: “This is long-overdue legislation. Let’s get it in place let’s make our community safe for our kids and let’s move forward.” and I am with them on that.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):Thousands of New Zealanders are watching tonight wanting this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill to pass because it is a really important piece of legislation. It is about getting a horrible toxic poisonous set of drugs out of our dairies out of our lives and dealing to an issue that I think everyone in this House acknowledges is really important.It is just such a contradiction to the previous piece of legislation the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. None of the Government members in this House today want to get up and talk about this important piece of legislation but they wanted to speak about the last piece of legislation which was about keeping another major problem in our community and making it worse. So on the one hand we are trying to take out toxic poisonous drugs from our dairies and on the other hand we are increasing another toxic problem in our society—that is problem gambling. Those members should be ashamed of that and they should be ashamed that they did not take a conscience vote a personal vote on that issue. It is a conscience vote and it just shows that the people across the House do not have a conscience.This bill is important. I am proud to be speaking on it. I am proud to be part of a caucus that has worked really hard on this bill. We have got some people on our side of the House—Iain Lees-Galloway and Annette King being two of them—who have worked really hard during the select committee process to make sure that this is a much better piece of legislation and who have made sure that we have made this bill a better bill and a better law that will go into our community and will take these drugs out of the community.I also want to commend the Greens for the amendment that they put forward on animal testing. We did support that amendment. We do not want these drugs to be tested on animals. National refused to give up animal testing but we in Labour are proud of the fact that our MPs were able to get the Government to agree to changes to the bill to ensure that there were alternatives to animal testing—that alternatives exist that cannot be used in the evaluation of these substances. Although Mojo Mathers’ amendment did not pass at least there will be some safeguards now around that animal testing.I have received emails all day today from people about this bill as well as emails about the other bill that passed its first reading in the House before the debate on this bill—as no doubt has every member in this House. They are emails from people who are raising the issues and are talking about the increased harm that is happening as a result of the taking of these substances. I am going to read to you one of those emails that I received this afternoon. It said: “I have ongoing concerns with people who use these drugs and who have future access to them increasing burdens on health care providers and patients suffering clinical effects related to psychosis withdrawal symptoms which can prevail for weeks and addiction. There has already been a noticeable increase over recent months but will most likely increase.”When I stood up in the Chamber in the Committee stage I showed members a report from the National Poisons Centre on the number of calls on these substances that had been coming inin the last year. I have got another table to hold up today which shows in red the number of calls for June. It shows that it has gone down very very slightly from May but there has been a huge increase in the last few months in the number of calls that have come into the National Poisons Centre about these psychoactive substances. The reason for that may be related to the increased publicity around this bill but health professionals are sending us warnings that as politicians we have to put in place legislation and along with legislation comes the need for increased resources in our health sector to deal with the effects of these psychoactive substances and in ourmental health sector and we also need to look at what is happening with the increase in crime related to the use of these substances.I will just read to you the latest report that has come in. It says: “The rates of calls to the National Poisons Centre have remained high”—and this is for June—“continuing trends since April 2013. Adverse symptoms reported in April and May notably acute kidney injuries seizures and acute psychosis have continued to occur during June with a further observation of an emerging trend of delayed seizures that are increasingly difficult to control.” These drugs are doing serious harm—harm that is not being seen done by other drugs. “Ongoing discussions and meetings with emergency departments medical centres and other health care providers also report increasing burdens on their services by users of these drugs. Rates of attending patients are continuing to rise—in particular patients suffering addiction and withdrawal effects. With the banning of all present designer drugs in July the National Poisons Centre anticipates this demand on health care services will continue to increase.”It goes on to say: “The National Poisons Centre continues to be concerned by the rates of reported adverse effects following exposure to these analogues. Although the introduction of the new legislation this month will ban present designer drugs being legally sold there will be ongoing burdens on health care providers with patients suffering adverse psychiatric effects which in some patients will be permanent and issues centred on addiction and withdrawal syndrome.”Throughout the whole of the discussion on this bill I have asked over and over again as have a number of my colleagues—we ensured that it was mentioned in the commentary to this bill—where the comparable resources are that are going to be put from the health sector into the need for what is going to happen after these drugs are banned and what we are seeing right now. The health professionals tell us that there is increasing need and that there are no more resources being put in. There is an increasing burden happening as a result of this. I ask the question again in the House today: where are the extra resources that will be put in?We support this bill. We know it is an important bill. We know that it has got a lot of measures in it that are changing the way that we are treating our attitude to drugs in this country. We are looking at it from a harm minimisation perspective which is a healthy and constructive and positive thing to do. I just want to quickly say that the purpose of going into a couple of those measures—and I know that my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway and other colleagues on the Health Committee worked hard on this on changing parts of the legislation particularly around the purpose which now reads: “The purpose of this Act is to regulate the availability of psychoactive substances in New Zealand.” That was what was originally said but they added the words “to protect the health of and minimise harm to individuals who use psychoactive substances.”Those are such important words—the minimising of harm. It is moving the effect of drug taking into the health sector. We need to be looking more across the spectrum of the drugs that are being taken in New Zealand and the harm that is occurring and looking at it from the perspective of harm minimisation. We need to be looking at other social harms that are occurring such as problem gambling. This Parliament today could have done a brave thing and it could have addressed problem gambling as well as psychoactive substances. Instead it has cancelled out more or less what we are achieving with psychoactive substances and is increasing problem gambling in New Zealand.KEVIN HAGUE (Green):In the interests of ensuring that this bill the Psychoactive Substances Bill is passed today I am going to take a somewhat shorter call than I would otherwise have done. This bill is one that takes New Zealand a substantial step forward towards the kind of drug law reform that we need. It puts the emphasis onreducing harm and improving health—that rather than criminal justice being the point of the regulation. It places the emphasis very much on the supply chain for these substances rather than on the end user. It makes the regulatory response proportional to the risk that is associated with a particular substance. Those are all good things. Those are all things that we need to apply to drugs currently both legal and illegal across the board. I look forward to the opportunity of it doing that.This could have been a great bill. [Interruption ] Not quite Barbara. It could have been a great bill but there are three major problems that hold it back from that. I am disappointed that the Government either has not understood its own bill or has needed to appease different factions within its own camp which has resulted in these problems. One is the issue of animal testing about which I have spoken and colleagues across the House have spoken and I acknowledge John Banks’ particularly passionate support on that particular issue. The Green Party’s Supplementary Order Paper 260 on the bill would have ensured the same level of protection for humans but would have also resulted in protecting animals from harm and it is a source of considerable regret that the House did not take the opportunity to ensure that that occurred.The issue of possession was introduced almost at the last moment by the Government against the advice of the Ministry of Health and in contradiction of the evidence that we have seen in relation to the Misuse of Drugs Act—and indeed the temporary prohibition notices—that possession offences do not assist with the purpose of this bill which is to reduce harm and promote health. What is more as I demonstrated at the Committee stage those possession offences that are in this bill are essentially not only more hassle than any benefit that they provide if at all but also they are entirely unworkable.Finally if I thought possession was last minute actually there is a last-second amendment by the Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay to drastically shorten the transition period for the bill. As a result of that the very careful balance that was struck by the Health Committee between trying to move as quickly as possible to regulate these substances in the way that I have described and at the same time ensure that the flood of substances that have been legal but will not be legal under the new regime does not result in an underground market for those substances has been entirely overturned on the basis of the Minister attending a meeting in Invercargill. I believe that that will come back to bite the Minister and come back to bite the Government and I urge the Minister to try to find some way of ameliorating the problem that he has created. Thank you.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua):It is a great pleasure to stand and support the third reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. Submissions from throughout the country supported this bill none more so than that of the Mayor of Timaru who said this was the No. 1 problem in her community. I want to finish by saying thank you to all those who constructively worked towards this bill. I commend it to the House.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First):I stand to take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Psychoactive Substances Bill. New Zealand First believes that ideally these products should have been banned. We are realistic and we know that this cannot and will not occur at this particular point. However this bill is a very positive step forward from the situation that actually exists at this point in time. We want this bill passed today. We are sick of seeing the damage and the harm that is created among our young people from these particular drugs. It is ironic that the manufacturers the importers and the dairies are getting wealthier and wealthier at the expense of young people’s health right here in New Zealand.We have to congratulate those dairies that acted before this bill actually came into the House and stopped the sale of these substances. Of course we have to recognise the Waikato town ofPūtāruru which has actually banned synthetic highs from its town—so well donePūtāruru.There is a whole range of regulations that will stop the manufacturers from their merry trip around with these particular drugs. We want the bill passed. It will provide greater transparency. It will improve the health of New Zealanders once these substances have to be proven to be safe. We want young people to be safe. We care for our young people. These substances have basically been an outrageous assault on our young people which we in this House have let happen so this bill is an important step forward. New Zealand First supports this bill.Dr JIAN YANG (National):The Psychoactive Substances Bill is an excellent bill. I commend it to the House. Thanks.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana):Well I do have to agree with the one thing that that member Jian Yang said which was that the Psychoactive Substances Bill is an excellent bill.Hon Member: It was only one.KRIS FAAFOI: It was just that one thing. Many months ago I went to a meeting in my electorate and met the principal of BishopViard College a good Catholic college in my electorate. Teresa Cargo the principal there highlighted her concern about synthetic cannabis and the awful effects that it was having in her classrooms. She spoke of the students who were constantly stoned under the effect of K2 I think it was at that stage and also her concerns about the approaches that were being made to the students. Many of her students were not going to the local dairies or the tobacconists to buy their K2; they were actually being approached in the streets under the canopies in the centre of Porirua by people on the street selling K2 to them targeting young students in uniform and she was very concerned about this.This is an excellent bill for the community of Mana. I also want to praise the other principals in Porirua who at the meeting also raised concerns. Many of them were actually primary school principals who were talking about the effects that not just some of the students had been displaying in their classrooms but unfortunately some of their parents. So today is a victory for those communities.I would also like to praise the work of the local Porirua City councillor WaynePoutoa who runs the Streets Ahead 237 scheme in Porirua. He is another person another leader in my community who came forward and proactively came to me and said: “Look we have got some kids some teenagers who are vulnerable.” He looks after them and he was very concerned about the effects that synthetic cannabis was having on some of the young people that he was looking after. Teresa Cargo WaynePoutoa and Paul Basham who is the local area commander for the Kapiti-Mana region were three leaders of the Porirua community who came together and wanted this House to do something swiftly about synthetic cannabis. That is why today is a victory for many communities around the country.I also pay tribute to some of whom I call the responsible retailers in the Porirua area who responded to a letter that I sent out asking them not to sell synthetic cannabis any more. They were perfectly within their legal rights to do so but because of the concern that was obviously there in the community that I have mentioned before they took a proactive step and took the product off their shelves. To those dairy owners who did not and willingly did not I think they should have a good look at themselves. Obviously they were legally entitled to do this but they were well aware of the harm that was being done in our communities and they actively kept selling synthetic cannabis. One good thing out of this bill is that they will no longer be able to do that.Those concerned people in our communities have been waiting a fair amount of time to have this bill passed. As the member previously said this is an excellent bill but if there are some criticisms about how this bill has gone through the House one of them is that it has taken far too long. The recommendations out of the Law Commission report that basically were the base of this bill were presented to this Parliament about 2½ years ago. We had to wait 2½ years for this Government to prioritise it and we had the communities getting up in arms all these young people had all these bad effects and we had the disruption to classrooms and the disruptions and the rubbish in our streets and our homes before we took some serious action.So although I do want to praise Peter Dunne who was the Minister originally responsible for this bill there also has to be some scepticism as to why this was not given higher priority given some of the other bills that this Government prioritised ahead of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. This bill languished on the Order Paper for well over 12 months when this Government could have done something much sooner to take this stuff off the streets. Looking around the House I am pretty sure that everyone in this House is supporting this bill but we have had to wait so long for us to get—Hon Trevor Mallard: I don’t think John Banks is.KRIS FAAFOI: OK maybe I stand corrected. But we had to wait so long for this bill to get to where we are. I praise MPs right around the House who have taken action—Dr Paul Hutchison: Worked constructively.KRIS FAAFOI: —and constructive action. I thank Dr Paul Hutchison the chair of the Health Committee. And well done as well to the members on the Health Committee who have taken proactive action within their own communities like I did in order to make sure that before this legislation was passed we did as much as we could to reduce the harm especially to our youngsters in our communities. I think that showed not just leadership in this House but also that we were listening to our communities to make sure they were much much safer.I also heap praise as I already have not only on my local police force but on police right around the country. I know certainly listening to public debate that they have been working hard and I guess there may have been a bit of sense of frustration on their behalf that this law had not been passed sooner. But they were dealing with the rough end of the stick here because this House had not done something sooner. They were dealing with the crime that was being caused they were dealing with the disruption and unfortunately they were dealing with some violence amongst families because people were taking this drug. You should not be able to walk into a dairy in this country and legally buy something that gets you high. That should not be fine. I think that if there is a criticism of this House from the public it is that this House should have some done something much much faster.As you heard from my colleague Clare Curran the National Poisons Centre has had a huge spike in requests for help in terms of synthetic cannabis. If that is not a sign for this House that something should have happened much much sooner I do not know what we would need to see.This is a good day. It is a victory for our communities right around the country many of whom have taken positive action and protested outside their local dairies that have been selling it. Many have asked for a responsible retailing regime within their own communities to make sure that across the board we can identify those retailers who have taken responsible action and said that it is not OK to sell this rubbish in our communities.I do want to also back up a point Clare Curran made. We also need to make sure that there are the resources within our communities to follow up this law and if there is onecriticism or one point I do want to make it is that police are under so much pressure at the moment with resources that they need to be given the backing to make sure they can go out and give effect to this legislation that we are passing today. Paul Hutchison made an interjection earlier—it was not necessarily heckling—and I would like to pay tribute to the Health Committee.Hon Trevor Mallard: It was shocking that they didn’t hear the submissions.KRIS FAAFOI: I have not finished yet. I used to be a member on the Health Committee in the previous Parliament and I found that Mr Hutchison always acted with dignity. I thank the Health Committee for its work and for making sure that most of the submissions were listened to. I know there is some scepticism as to why some submissions around animal testing were not heard and that is something that this side of the House is very disappointed about.This bill is a victory for communities. They have put up with a fair bit of rubbish but today we are getting through this House a piece of legislation that will hopefully stop that rubbish from being in our streets our schools and our homes.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):As a member of the Health Committee I am very pleased to take a very brief call on the third reading of the Psychoactive Substances Bill. Others have congratulated the originator of the bill Peter Dunne Associate Minister of Health Todd McClay and of course the chairman of the select committee Paul Hutchison. Today when this bill is passed communities up and down the countryside and in Coromandel will be safer and our youth will be better off for it. This is a very good bill and I commend it to the House.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Psychoactive Substances Bill be now read a third time.Ayes119New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7;Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independents: Dunne Horan.Noes1ACT New Zealand 1.Bill read a third time.Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment BillThird ReadingHon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House)on behalf of theMinister for Building and Construction: I moveThat the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill be now read a third time . On behalf of the Minister for Building and Construction I take another opportunity to thank all members of the House for their consideration of the bill. The Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill is validating legislation. It validates a disciplinary levy and an offences fee set by the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board under the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006.The disciplinary levy and the offences fee were imposed on registered plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers to fund the board’s disciplinary and prosecutorial functions over registered plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers and non-registered people carrying out sanitary plumbing gasfitting or drainlaying work as intended by Parliament. However there is a lack of clarity regarding the board’s ability to use these funds to investigate and prosecute non-registered people. Validation of the disciplinary levy addresses legacy issues as it covers the disciplinary levies imposed by the board on registered plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers from 1 April 2007 to 11 January 2012.The bill also validates the offences fee imposed by the board from 12 January 2012. Overall the validation of these fees and levies was the most practical and cost-effective option because the money has been spent on investigations and prosecutions.This bill provides an enduring solution to the technical funding difficulties currently faced by the board by extending the board’s power to impose a disciplinary and prosecution levy on registered persons to fund the cost of prosecutions of those working illegally in the industry. This bill provides clarity and certainty to the board and the industry going forward. It ensures that the board will now continue to be appropriately funded to carry out all of its statutory functions including the prosecution of non-registered people carrying out sanitary plumbing gasfitting or drainlaying work. This will allow the board to effectively do its job of protecting public health and safety. It will also allow the public to be confident that people undertaking plumbing gasfitting and drainlaying work are competent registered and regulated to carry out safe work. I commend this bill to the House.RAYMOND HUO (Labour):What a surprise. I got last-minute notice from the Government that the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill would be debated this afternoon. What a surprise. So just like the manner in which this bill progressed we got ambushed again. Nobody had any idea that this bill would be coming up in the House this afternoon. We had it at the last minute.At the Committee stage I congratulated theCampbell Live television show “The politics of plumbing” because that show picked up lots of important issues that we did not pick up. For instance who are the cowboys? Because enabling the board to prosecute these so-called cowboys in the sector is one of the main reasons why the Minister has chosen to get the bill rushed through the House. Through that television show we understood that lots of competent quality and experienced plumbers drainlayers and gasfitters choose to boycott the undemocratic process of the board and choose to boycott the fees imposed on them and—to borrow the words of the Ombudsman—that is not only a kind of unjustified fee but also a kind of a new form of tax imposed on those experienced plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers. Therefore they have become the so-called cowboys. As I reinforced in my speech contributions during the Committee stage nobody would be in a position to defend these so-called cowboys. But again as the television show picked up lots of the quality and experienced tradespeople choose to boycott the board and have therefore become the so-called cowboys.I would also like to congratulate the officials on their hard work because although this particular bill is not terribly complicated it does involve lots of hard work especially when the officials are placed in the unnecessary position of advising the select committee and advising the members.But having said that I would like to pick up two major points. They are very important points that I would like to touch upon. One is that to the surprise of many of the members one of the pieces of advice that appeared in the Ombudsman’s briefing—and that is on paragraph 4—reads: “The Ombudsman has upheld the complaint and recommended among other things legislation to validate the disciplinary levy imposed by the Board between 31 July 2010 and 11 January 2012 … The provisions of the PGD Amendment Bill form part of the Ministry’s response to the Ombudsman’s recommendations. The Ministry has been asked to respond to the Ombudsman by 29 March 2013.” It is all correct but I have a major problem with the set phrase—the magic phrase—“among other things”. What are the other things in the magic set phrase “among other things”?If we turn to page 18 of the Ombudsman’s ruling released early this year we will find that—and I will read it out—there are basically two recommendations. The firstone is: “To the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board that they together or separately make proposals to the Minister of Building and Construction concerning the desirability or otherwise of: a. legislation to validate the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Fees) Notice 2010 as it relates to the disciplinary levy;”. That is correct. What was missing from the briefing is No. 2 which says: “To the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (regardless of the outcome of 1 above) that”—and I will it read out—“it enter into discussions of representatives of persons registered under the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006 to achieve a satisfactory arrangement with persons who have paid excess amount of levy under the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Fees) Notice 2010 in respect of the disciplinary levy.”So there are two sets of recommendations and the two sets of recommendations come hand in hand. They are namely to bring legislation to validate the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board (Fees) Notice 2010 and also—reading into the Ombudsman’s view on this matter on page 10 of the ruling—as a condition of validation the board should engage with industry representatives whereby the excess levies paid could in whole or in part be refunded over a period or some credit could be given in respect of future fee or levy payments in compensation. But unfortunately that second set of the recommendations was missing hidden or buried in the set phrase “among other things”. This is unfortunate and unhelpful because one of the main reasons why half of the sector took the complaint to Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee the Office of the Ombudsman etc. is unfairness.What is in issue here—to borrow the Ombudsman’s words on page 7 of the ruling—“is an unlawful levy a tax that the Board was not authorised to impose.” Secondly in relation to procedural fairness or unfairness there was a failure to consult adequately before making the continuing professional development notices. Again I would like to refer to the Ombudsman’s recommendations released earlier this year. Page 13 of his opinion reads: “Consultation is often seen as a necessary element in ensuring the fairness of administrative decision-making by enabling those affected by proposed decisions to express their views before such decisions are taken. No doubt this is an important perhaps the principal reason for requiring consultation prior to decision-making.” Secondly: “… another important reason is to promote the effectiveness of any decision itself. By drawing on the knowledge and expertise of industry participants it can be expected that the decisions ultimately taken by the Board in regard to registration and licensing will be better more grounded decisions than those taken without the benefit of such input.”Lack of fairness and lack of adequate consultation are two of the main reasons why the industry took complaints to the Office of the Ombudsmen and to other officers as well. It is therefore important to present the full picture not only for the general public but also for National members of Parliament who have voted for this bill and I believe will vote for this bill again. This is a bill seeking to validate retrospectively the unlawful imposition of an unlawful tax. Having understood all the issues if those members still believe that they should support their Minister for Building and Construction by voting for this bill I say good on them. At least they have the guts to be a political hooligan.The second issue relates to another point I picked up from the briefing and I believe it is one of the grounds for the Minister believing we should rush this bill through. On 12 May 2011 the chair of the Regulations Review Committee moved a motion in Parliament to disallow the clauses providing for the July 2010 fees notice relating to the disciplinary levy with effect from 31 March 2012 the end of the board’s 2011-12 registration year. It goes on and on and the last sentence is—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National):First of all I would like to reiterate that National will be voting for the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill. I acknowledge the contribution made by Raymond Huo who was on the Government Administration Committee for this business.Raymond Huo: I was.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI: Yes you were there. I am acknowledging that you were there. I am acknowledging that to the House.The primary objective of this bill is to legislate to ensure the protection of public safety and most important for reassurance that when you call a plumber or a gasfitter to your property you can expect a qualified skilful and professional job to be done. This bill tidies up the legislation around the funding of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board so that it can effectively do its job of protecting public safety.The bill validates the board’s disciplinary levy which funded the investigation and the prosecution of plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers. The bill tackles anomalies of the funding of this and tidies up any irregularities around the funding of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board so it can effectively carry out its job of safeguarding the public and impose the offences fee for the prosecution of people working illegally. The board is funded entirely from the fees and levies charged under this legislation. The funds are collected from only people who are registered under the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act. One such levy is the disciplinary levy which is set out by the board to fund the cost of complaint and disciplinary actions against such people. There is also the offences fee which the board collects in order to fund prosecution against non-registered persons working illegally in the industry.The validity of the disciplinary levy and the offences fee has been the subject of complaint to the Regulations Review Committee and to the Office of the Ombudsmen. The board was established under the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 1976 and it has continued to exist under the current Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006. The board is responsible for protecting the health and safety of people by regulating and ensuring the competency of the people carrying out sanitary plumbing gasfitting and drainlaying work. One function of the board is to prosecute those who are working illegally in the industry—non-registered persons performing work that only registered persons are allowed to do.The Government is determined to bring about safety measures throughout the building sector and improve skills and capability within it—to “build it right first time”. As a result of the Regulations Review Committee’s recommendation that the House review the disciplinary levy imposed by the board from July 2010 to January 2012 the board changed its fee and levy structure removing the part of the levy relating to non-registered persons and in January 2012 it set an offence fee to fund prosecution instead. This would affect the safety and the well-being of New Zealanders and the professional reputation of the sector. It is clear that the Government’s intention was always that the board’s prosecution function would be funded by the industry because all its statutory functions are funded through these fees and levies charged under the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Act 2006. I commend this bill to the House.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):Thank you very much Mr Deputy Speaker for what is probably my last contribution to this piece of legislation the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Amendment Bill. I regret that it is not going to be a happy contribution. My concern with this legislation has been for a long time that firstly it is retrospective and nobody likes retrospective legislation. Secondly it seems patently unfair to plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers who have been socked with an illegal levy. For them there will be no repayment or compensation for that by virtue of this bill passing its third reading. We are about to make legal an illegal levy imposed by thePlumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board in order to providepūtea—a basket of money—that can help prosecute people who should not be practising in any of those trades. The purpose of that is entirely fine. The method of it was illegal.I have been constantly told by the Minister for Building and Construction and others that should we not pass this legislation the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board would be bankrupt. The extent of this moneys owing back to plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers from whom it was taken illegally is in the order of some $600000. Labour was always keen to find a different way through for this and we made that clear at the beginning. It was contained in Supplementary Order Paper 204—which my colleague Raymond Huo had put up—that there be an agreement a way of compensating in part those tradesmen who had been disadvantaged in this way. They would not get everything back that they were owed but they might get something and that was the import of an amendment that my colleague put forward. It would have been a reasonable thing to do.As it stands now and as this bill is due to pass in the next few weeks there is an injustice that is being done. People are being required to pay for something that was illegally taken from them. This disciplinary levy was collected illegally. As I say the purpose of it might have been entirely valid but it is not inconsistent with the history of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board to not have done things entirely properly.There has been an inquiry into this board previously under the Labour administration and there was some change as a result. However we have now seen this piece of behaviour come in and be discovered only latterly and the remedy that the Government is jumping to is this one of retrospective legislation. I contend that there are other ways to have addressed it that there could have been ways of arriving at a settlement that left the tradespeople not so disgruntled and the board not so out of pocket. But quite frankly having had those suggestions that the board will be bankrupted if this bill does not pass I must say that I have not seen evidence to that effect. I do not understand why a board that receives annual fees for registration purposes and additional fees for licensing purposes can go bankrupt. If a member opposite is able to clarify that for me I would be grateful to hear from them.But it seems to me that threats of bankruptcy are exaggerated and areoverhyped and I am not persuaded that that is the case. The board has constant revenue streams derived from registration and licensing fees. What it is doing now is compelling tradespeople by dint of its own overreaching of its ability in law to flee the cost of licensing. So what we will have is registered plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers not being licensed on a regular basis—in other words not having to prove that they have upgraded their qualifications and their skills on an annual basis. They will now become the prey of the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board which will now seek to punish them—Chris Auchinvole: What?Hon MARYAN STREET: —by virtue of the very fee that it has extracted from them illegally. If that is difficult to understand Mr Auchinvole look at it this way: they have been required to pay a fee for disciplinary processes to get rid of the unlicensed cowboys in the industries right?Chris Auchinvole: Partly yes.Hon MARYAN STREET: So now what we are seeing amongst tradespeople is that in order to avoid exorbitant fees which have now accumulated to $600000 they will not relicense. They will carry their registration but out of protest at this fee they will not relicense however much we choose to make it legal. That defeats the purpose that this fee was collected for in my view. If we have unlicensed tradespeople who are now going to be hounded by the board because their lack of licence makes them unlawfulbecause they do not have the same qualifications and tickets that they ought to have to practise then the Plumbers Gasfitters and Drainlayers Board has only itself to blame.I consider that the passing of this legislation will compound the injustice to plumbers gasfitters and drainlayers. That is a travesty. There are other ways around this and the Minister should have set his mind to more imaginative solutions than simply this one of validation which the Labour Party cannot support. This has been a longstanding problem. This is not the way to solve it.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.