Volume 704 Week 11 - Thursday 19 March 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 704 Week 11 - Thursday 19 March 2015[Sitting date: 19 March 2015. Volume:704;Page:2425. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 19 March 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 24 March the Government will look to progress the Taxation (KiwiSaver HomeStart and Remedial Matters) Bill the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Amendment Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper.Points of OrderPrivilege—Comments Made by Dr Shane RetiPITA PARAONE (NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to ask your assistance on whether this may be a privilege matter or may fall under Speaker’s ruling 52/1 in respect of the intimidatory comments made by Dr Shane Reti towards Northland dairy farmer Alex Wright. This is an old ruling—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No I do not need further assistance. If the member feels there is a matter of privilege there is a very appropriate way by which that member needs to raise that with the Speaker at the earliest time possible. It is not a matter that is then aired publicly in this House at this stage.Questions to MinistersRoading Northland—Bridges Upgrade and Unsealed Roads1.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Transport: Did Cabinet consider a proposal for sealing roads in the Pipiwai area as claimed by Dr Shane Reti; if so why has no funding for this work been announced?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery)on behalf of theMinister of Transport: I would expect the Opposition transport spokesman to know that Cabinet does not make decisions on funding for specific local road projects. It is however I would have thought reasonable for him to know that up to 60 percent of local road funding does come from the Government through the National Land Transport Fund which includes a number of roads as lobbied for by MPs from all sides of the House.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Phil Twyford: Supplementary—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I apologise to Mr Twyford. I have a point of order.Ron Mark: And I apologise too but I do really want to hear the questions. You might have noticed that the sound system was completely different when both members spoke. I had trouble hearing Mr Twyford. Could you have a look at that or have someone look at that please.Mr SPEAKER: We will certainly have a look. I did not notice anything wrong with the sound system. We will certainly have technicians look at it now the point has been raised by the member.Phil Twyford: As transport Minister is he concerned that his parliamentary colleague told the people of Pipiwai that he had taken a proposal to Cabinet for the sealing of their roads and has thus misled the public on his transport policy?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Can I say that many MPs in this House approach Ministers of Transport lobbying them for roads in their particular districts and then write letters to their constituents or in the case of one person I could name goes to the newspaper to say what a wonderful job they have done convincing Cabinet to support their particular road. That is what local MPs do and that is why we expect Mark Osborne to be a very effective MP in the north.Phil Twyford: When he allocated $70 million to 10 Northland bridges recently did he consider alternatives like sealing roads in places like Pipiwai given that the Whangarei District Council says that dusty roads are linked with increased mortality and lung cancer?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would first point out to my friend over there that in fact this is National Party policy that we will eventually see put into place because that is what Governments are able to do. Suggestions that he makes otherwise are wrong. When it comes to the sealing of roads there is a $16 million project currently set up for Northland over the next 3 years in accordance with the local roading programme sponsored by the regional roading committee and I think that is where you are going to see significant amounts of seal on what are currently dusty roads.Phil Twyford: Is he aware that the 700 kilometres of unsealed road in the Whangarei District Council area has decreased by less than 1 percent over the last 6 years and does he think that bullying locals to stop criticising the Government will work given that they have already had next to nothing from this Government?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee—either of those two supplementary questions.Hon Gerry Brownlee: Northland has had 40 percent more funding from this Government than it got from the last Government. What is more when it comes to these dusty local roads the priority that is put on them is put on by the regional council through the regional transport programme and the draft land transport plan which Cabinet does consider.Pita Paraone: Can the Minister please confirm whether Dr Reti has contracted foot-in-mouth disease by his use of bully-boy tactics against hard-working Northland—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. That question is completely out of order.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No more—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I have not yet called the member. [Interruption] Mr Brownlee will sit down when I rise to my feet. That behaviour creates disorder. There was a point of order raised by Mr Brownlee. I have not heard it because I was asking him to resume his seat but members on this side need to be aware that when a point of order is called it will be heard in silence. Does the member have a legitimate point of order?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No I will let it go.Mr SPEAKER: He does not.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respect that ruling but there was silence at the beginning of Mr Brownlee’s point of order. It was when it was very clear that it was just a straight out political attack that noise started—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No there was noise throughout the point of order to the extent that I could not hear any part of the point of order. But I was on my feet asking Mr Brownlee to resume his seat.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Points of order are heard in silence.Ron Mark: Could you explain why you have ruled that question out of order.Mr SPEAKER: Because there is no ministerial responsibility for a member of Parliament and a member who has been here before as Ron Mark has should be well aware of that and not have to raise it as a point of order.Pita Paraone: Will the Minister now pledge to help the Far North District Council seal the 70 percent of its local roads that are unsealed along with the 1100 kilometres plus those in Kaipara district that are similarly unsealed; if not why not?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The record of this Government is to have increased funding for the far north by 40 percent over the last terms of our Government. What is more the member should know that the local roads are the responsibility of the local council and regional council that they set the priorities for the funding which has an up-to 60 percent subsidy provided by the Government. That subsidy will continue and the priority will continue to be set by the far north. And I tell you what it will not matter how much someone called “Winnie in a Bago” goes around promising the earth it will not happen unless the funding is available.Phil Twyford: Does the Minister agree with Shane Reti in relation to the communication of his transport policies that during the by-election the people of Northland should keep quiet even if they have strong concerns about his transport policy and if they do not they will get nothing and does he consider this stance a vote-winner?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee—either of those two supplementary questions.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What I consider a vote-winner is a continuation of the increases in funding for local roads provided by this Government over the past 7 years—and looking forward to doing more in the future.Pita Paraone: Given that this all started with his “bridges over troubled waters” comment will the Minister at least pledge to help the Far North District Council and Kaipara District Council to double-lane the 778 bridges classed as local roads; if not why not?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I said before what has to happen in the far north is to continue the funding stream that this Government has increased and that will enable those local councils in their regional priorities to make those decisions. That is their responsibility.Phil Twyford: As Minister is he concerned that the communications of his transport policies in Northland over recent weeks are being characterised locally and in the media as bribery blackmail and now lying?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have no responsibility whatsoever for the public utterances of candidates like Winston Peters or the forgotten Labour candidate who constantly make these scurrilous allegations.Pita Paraone: What fate will befall Northland’s iconic “Darby and Joan” kauri trees given the Minister for Economic Development yesterday listed for double-laning the “Darby and Joan”Kauri Bridge—the double-laning of the bridge named “Darby and Joan”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This would be the first time that the “Darby and Joan Party” has asked not to do something for Darby and Joan. They are either for the bridge being double-laned or they are not. Do not ask me to start backtracking on a policy that we have made as a priority in this election and will do our best if we are seeing Mr Osborne on this side of the House to deliver on.Pita Paraone: I seek leave to table a spreadsheet provided to New Zealand First’s research unit by Kaipara District Council detailing the exact locations of the 454 stretches of roads that are unsealed.Mr SPEAKER: On the basis that it is information prepared by the Kaipara District Council I will put the leave and the House can decide its relevance. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Pita Paraone: I seek leave to also table the infrastructure committee of Far North District Council’s transport strategy an advocacy plan—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described. It will be on a website and available to members I assume?Pita Paraone: No not that I am aware of. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The member will resume his—[Interruption] Sit down. It is very important that members who are seeking leave to table documentation actually take the time to find those questions out because I am going to be asking them and I do not want to see a member in a situation when he has not done that research. Leave will not be put.Pita Paraone: Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a further tabling of—is this the last one?Pita Paraone: I seek leave to table a spreadsheet provided to New Zealand First’s research unit by Kaipara District Council detailing the exact locations of the 244—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The document has been described. Before I put the leave is there any other document from the Kaipara District Council the member intends to seek leave to table?Pita Paraone: No sir.Mr SPEAKER: Then I will put the leave and it will be over to the House. It is now a spreadsheet detailing information on the bridges under the control of Kaipara District Council. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Inflation—Income Tax2.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Finance: In light of his statement in the House on 11 March that low inflation “makes it more challenging for the Government because higher inflation pushes up the tax base and enables us to collect more tax in a growing economy” does he agree that this phenomenon of fiscal drag is just another description for an increase in effective tax rates?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: As the Minister said at the time New Zealand is in the unusual situation of having solid economic growth but also historically low levels of inflation. This is of course good for households because it means their cost of living is increasing at a very low rate but it is a challenge for Government revenue.Hon David Parker: This is just a speech which doesn’t address the question.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Just take your time Mr Parker.Hon David Parker: Unless the country goes bankrupt.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Shh take a breath David. Low inflation—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Listen. The constant barrage coming from my left is not acceptable—Hon David Parker: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. If the member wants to take the opportunity to ask a supplementary question he will have his chance. But to engage with the Minister while he is attempting to answer the question is distracting certainly to me and to the House and in itself it is disorderly.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would ask you to enforce the Standing Orders and to expect Ministers to address questions rather than—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. He will be having a very early departure from the House if he carries on like that. The answer was being given. It was being interjected on from the member so that was—[Interruption] Order! If there is one more outburst from the Hon David Parker he will be leaving the Chamber this question time. If there is constant interjection coming from the left of the House and the Minister is responding to that that is not helpful but the initial cause of the problem is the interjections from the Hon David Parker. Steven Joyce if he could complete his answer.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you Mr Speaker. As I was saying low inflation reduces Government revenue in part because of less fiscal drag as the member knows. In times of high inflation—for example as recently as 2008—fiscal drag was very significantly important and was an effective tax increase. In times of very low inflation as we are experiencing at the moment there is in fact a lack of fiscal drag that is noted. Despite pressures on its revenues this Government’s management of expenditure remains disciplined and we are on track to surplus.David Seymour: Is a time of low inflation when fiscal drag provides little additional revenue as the Minister has noted not the perfect time to introduce greater transparency into the nation’s tax system by indexing tax thresholds for income to inflation?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In regard to income tax and indexation reducing tax rates we have been very clear that that was something we would consider from 1 April 2017 if economic and fiscal conditions allowed. Any tax reduction would be modest and focused on low and middle income earners. We do have the concern that the member outlines which is if wages are rising people can be taxed more. So we are interested in doing that. Would we do it in terms of an indexation? That is something that we would address at the time once we were confident we had the room to do so.David Seymour: Given the Minister’s ambivalence about indexation is he aware that since 2010 the lack of indexation of income tax thresholds to inflation has cost the average earning household $1036?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not have those exact figures to hand but of course there are a number of other considerations in terms of household incomes. For example we have had very significant ACC reductions over the period. The income tax reductions in 2010 reduced income tax revenue by around $600 million over 3 years and that broadly offset the estimated fiscal drag effects. On top of that of course households benefit because inflation is lower and that of course means that their costs of living increases are lower which means that most households will be better off under the fiscal arrangements that this Government is progressing than we have seen from previous Governments.David Seymour: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library for the ACT Party detailing the cost to households from the lack of—Mr SPEAKER: It has been described. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Economic Growth—Reports3.ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on New Zealand’s economic growth?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: Perhaps for the benefit of that member “Mr Parrot” opposite earlier today Statistics New Zealand released gross domestic product data for December 2014. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It confirms the economy grew by 0.8 percent in the December quarter and by 3.5 percent in the year to December. This is the highest growth rate since before the global financial crisis—in fact since September 2007. Economic growth was reasonably broad-based with 13 out of 16 industry sectors growing. Growth was led by retail trade accommodation property services and manufacturing which means of course that the manufacturing crisis—Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. During the early part of the Minister’s answer he referred to a member opposite using an unparliamentary term. You clearly did not hear it because you did not sit him down and ask him to apologise. That was the cause of the disorder which you did notice and I draw that to your attention now and ask that you ask the Minister to withdraw and apologise for the unparliamentary comment.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let us be clear as to why the noise arose. The noise arose because of an interjection from my left which is a very—[Interruption] Order! It is a very regular interjection that I hear from the member and it was a response to that. If the member is offended by the term that was used then the member should rise to his feet and state that he has been offended and then I can act. But otherwise it is not for another member to be offended on behalf of the member who could have been offended by the term. [Interruption] I will hear from the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon Ruth Dyson: The point of order I raised was not that I was offended by the term; it was that it was an unparliamentary term.Mr SPEAKER: No I am—no. The use of that word is not in my opinion deemed to be unparliamentary—[Interruption] Order!—on the assumption that we are talking about the same term but be aware—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Be aware that the reason for the disruption was an interjection that came from my left. It is a regular interjection and it does not help the order of this House.Dr David Clark: Speaking to the point of order if it helps—Mr SPEAKER: No it does not help to speak but if the member wants to raise a point of order he is perfectly able to.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to make it clear that as the person I think it was directed to I am not offended. I believe—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then that is—[Interruption] Order! Resume your seat. Again the member is very lucky that he is remaining. That is not a point of order. Does the Minister the Hon Steven Joyce wish to complete his answer? No he does not.Alfred Ngaro: How does current growth in the New Zealand economy compare with growth in other OECD countries?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Earlier today New Zealand’s 3.5 percent growth rate in the year to December was noted and it is among the strongest performing economies in the OECD so it is sort of all trousers I think on this occasion. It compares with growth of 2.4 percent in the United States for the December year 2.5 percent in Australia for the December year 2.6 percent in Canada for the December year and 2.7 percent in the United Kingdom. So that is New Zealand’s 3.5 percent compared with those. Growth in the euro area was 0.9 percent and in Japan growth was actually minus 0.7 percent. So under any comparisons New Zealand is doing reasonably well but of course there is much work to do as we seek to sustain this growth rate over a much longer period of time.Alfred Ngaro: How is the growing economy delivering higher wages and more jobs helping New Zealanders and their families to get ahead?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The outlook over the next 2 to 3 years is for ongoing growth that delivers income and job growth for New Zealand families. Alongside the growth of 3.5 percent in the last year 80000 jobs were created over the same period and Treasury’s current forecast shows that an additional 153000 people are expected to be in work by mid-2019. The average wage is expected to increase from $56000 currently to $62200 in the third quarter of 2018. The Government is playing its role by maintaining a track to surplus and debt repayment alongside an ongoing microeconomic reform programme that is encouraging more investment more jobs and higher wages.Grant Robertson: In light of those answers has he seen the report from Moody’s Analytics that describes the export sector as weak and has he taken the Minister for Economic Development to task for his appalling performance in creating such a weak export sector?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen the particular report the member refers to which he describes a little floridly. The reality is that Moody’s has a very strong and positive view of the New Zealand economy. It confirmed New Zealand’s triple A rating just in the last couple of weeks. It says: “New Zealand’s economy is growing strongly. Moody’s expects New Zealand’s real GDP to remain robust through to 2016. Compared to similarly rated countries New Zealand has a track record of faster and more stable growth. New Zealand’s strong economic profile is reinforcing Government finances.” If the member wants to quote Moody’s I am happy to do it all day.Alfred Ngaro: What reports has he received on the outlook for continuing growth in the New Zealand economy over the next 2 years?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Earlier this week the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research released its consensus forecast. Growth for the year to March 2015 which will of course be announced in June is expected to be around 3.3 percent. The institute expects growth to moderate somewhat to just under 3 percent in 2016 and 2.8 percent in 2017. This is in line with other forecasts and is consistent with the Government’s goal of steady and ongoing growth in the New Zealand economy. Job growth is expected to continue even though net migration continues to be strong.Roast Busters Case—Independent Police Conduct Authority Report4.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister of Police: Does he have concerns with the Police’s handling of the alleged offending in the “Roast Busters” case given the release of the report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority today; if so what are those concerns?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): Yes I do. The report of the Independent Police Conduct Authority on the police’s handling of the alleged offending by Roast Busters makes for grim reading. The report highlights a failure by police to adequately investigate and a failure to uphold the level of policing that the New Zealand public expects. I sought and received an assurance that Commissioner Bush is taking this report and its findings very seriously.Jacinda Ardern: Is he concerned that the authority found that the child protection team involved in the Roast Busters case did not “properly evaluate all available offences when determining the outcome of their respective investigations.” or that quite simply there were options to prosecute that were not explored let alone discussed with victims?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Yes I am. Any decision to prosecute is an operational matter for the police to make but I do note that Operation Clover the very comprehensive police investigation that was set up in the wake of the Roast Busters revelations turned over every stone in respect of potential prosecution. It got the best advice from the Solicitor-General and the decisions were made on that advice.Jacinda Ardern: Does he consider that the authority’s report directly contradicts the findings of Operation Clover?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I do not believe that to be the case.Jacinda Ardern: Does he agree that there would have been a better outcome for the victims in the case had the child protection teams properly pursued the lines of inquiry accurately recorded and cross-checked information about the alleged offenders properly evaluated all available options to prosecute considered alternative action in dealing with the young men involved and their families or even just communicated with each other properly as summarised in the report?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: It is very difficult to answer that question because it relies on rewinding and replaying events in a different way but I do accept that a more comprehensive inquiry in particular in respect of the authority’s main criticism that those investigating individual cases did not draw the dots and see the pattern of behaviour may have actually prevented subsequent incidents from taking place. I do accept that. I think that that is a fair finding to make but it is very difficult to say now whether or not there would have been a different outcome in a prosecutorial sense.Jacinda Ardern: What changes will he require of the police to address such a litany of individual failings as those contained in this report?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: As the member knows there have been a number of changes already made by police both in the wake of the commission of inquiry—the Bazley report—and in respect of the learnings from the Roast Busters case including much better information gathering a higher level of training by police and more seniority given to the child protection teams in Waitematā. I do note that the latest Office of the Auditor-General report into progress on the Bazley report notes that “The Police are focusing more on the needs of people who have reported a sexual assault. Some of the victim support organisations we spoke to observed that the Police were more empathetic … They felt that the Police showed greater respect for victims and were focusing on what is right for the victim.”Sue Moroney: Given that the Minister himself informed me by way of answers to written questions as early as November last year of what the authority’s report confirmed today—that is that police do not require a complaint in order to lay charges in sexual assault cases and that consent does not exist for the sexual activity of a person who is affected by alcohol—what has he subsequently done to ensure that police implement the law and their own policies and procedures in the teenage sexual assault case investigated by today’s report?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Again I preface my answer by reminding the House that decisions to prosecute are made by police and that it is not appropriate for there to be any interference in that decision but the making of a complaint is one variable in a number of variables that go into a decision to lay a prosecution. I also note that the outcome of Operation Clover and the decisions made there were made on the very best of advice including from the Solicitor-General.Sue Moroney: Will the Minister be the person who will actually stand up for these victims then? Will he now expect police to reconsider laying charges in these teenage sexual assault cases; if not what measure will he offer the victims whom the police now admit they failed through the inadequacy of their investigations?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Again that is a matter for police but I do note that Commissioner Bush in his comments today has reminded us that there is no time limit on the laying of a complaint of sexual assault that it is still possible that police would welcome any complaint being laid by any existing or other victims and that they would take those complaints extremely seriously.Local Government—Regional and Unitary Councils5.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he propose to implement the Environment Canterbury model in other regional and unitary councils by replacing nearly half the elected councillors with ministerial appointees?Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister of Local Government) on behalf of theMinister for the Environment: No. In 2010 Environment Canterbury was a dysfunctional council that had failed in 19 years to get a regional water plan in place despite being responsible for two-thirds of the land for irrigation in New Zealand. Canterbury had faced some special challenges and the member will be pleased to know that the Minister and the Associate Minister of Local Government have carefully considered a range of options that respond to these issues. These will also provide for Environment Canterbury’s future governance arrangements after October 2016.Eugenie Sage: Given that the Minister said that a fully elected regional council in Canterbury carries too many risks does he propose to implement the Environment Canterbury model in other risky democratic institutions—central government perhaps?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: No. The considerations that are in the proposal for Environment Canterbury consider the important balance of issues like strong leadership sustainable development of economic growth and jobs strong environmental stewardship especially for freshwater management and accountability and value for money for Canterbury ratepayers.Eugenie Sage: Why has the Minister reneged on a promise he made in 2010 to the people of Canterbury that by 2013 “Environment Canterbury will be ready to return to an elected council status.”?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The proposal that is out for consultation with the public is a sensible step for Environment Canterbury. It is really important that we maintain the progress that the Environment Canterbury commissioners have achieved in the important areas including freshwater management and the very important earthquake recovery. It provides important elected community representation balancing the skills and expertise required but also giving Canterbury a voice.Eugenie Sage: Why have the people of Kaipara been promised a fully elected council this year after 3 years’ governance by commissioners when Cantabrians still do not have—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Quite apart from the length of that question the primary question relates to Environment Canterbury not Kaipara.Eugenie Sage: Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I will hear from Eugenie Sage.Eugenie Sage: The question compares the situation in Kaipara with that in Canterbury. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any assistance. I think strictly the Hon Gerry Brownlee is right but the member then asked in supplementary questions whether the model in Canterbury could be replicated elsewhere. The Minister has answered that. I think in this case I am going to allow the member to re-ask the question. I think the Minister will be quite capable of answering it.Eugenie Sage: Why have the people of Kaipara been promised a fully elected council this year after 3 years’ governance by commissioners when Cantabrians still do not know when a fully democratic council will be returned to them 5 years after National removed it?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I am answering on behalf of the Minister for the Environment who has responsibility jointly with the Associate Minister of Local Government for Environment Canterbury. If you have further questions I suggest you put those to the Minister of Local Government.Eugenie Sage: When the Minister said yesterday that a fully elected regional council carried too many risks did he forget that it was elected councillors who developed the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and that it is elected councillors in Christchurch Selwyn and Waimakariri who are leading earthquake recovery in their communities?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: The issues that led to the Government needing to intervene in Environment Canterbury in 2010 are clearly documented. I do not intend to go over those again. The extension was put in place in 2012 because of the fragile requirements around the Canterbury rebuild. The issues and complexities associated with freshwater management are not a short-term issue for Canterbury and that is why it is important in this balanced model that is proposed and is out for public consultation that a mixed model is suggested.Eugenie Sage: What is the risk for the Minister in committing to a date on which democracy and a fully elected regional council will be restored in Canterbury?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: This proposal which is out for public consultation is a requirement from the 2012 Act for the Environment Canterbury commissioners. The suggested model that is out for public consultation has a mixed model that includes elected representatives from the community in Canterbury but also the very important balance of skills and the expertise to navigate the very complex and long-term issues that the people of Canterbury face.Eugenie Sage: Does not the fact that the Minister will not commit to the restoration of democracy and a fully elected council show that the Government’s hand-picked commissioners have failed to progress the issues they were supposed to in the last 5 years?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I think the fact that Environment Canterbury in its time under the commissioners has achieved significantly—if you look at the one example of the processing of resource consents over 70 percent of them were outside the statutory time frames; that is now down to about 5 percent—shows the high performance that has been brought to the people of Canterbury while the commissioners have been in place. We recognise the importance of the community’s voice and that is why a mixed model is proposed and I welcome the members of the public and their submissions which close on 1 May.Dr Megan Woods: Which specific aspects of democracy does he find too risky?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: I think I have answered this quite fully in respect of the challenges that the people of Canterbury face: the fact that we want to move away from the commissioners that we have in place now to give the people of Canterbury a say in their regional council but the importance of actually making sure that these very complex issues are addressed and that the people of Canterbury have confidence in the strong relationships that are currently in place with the mayors across the district across the 10 districts in Canterbury. This is why a mixed model is proposed.Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very direct—Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is going to raise an issue about whether the question has been addressed I invite the member to have a look at the answer. There is no doubt in my mind—[Interruption] Order!Mental Health Services Youth—Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Project6.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Health: What steps is the Government taking to improve mental health services for New Zealand families?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): As part of the Prime Minister’s Youth Mental Health Project the Government is focused on expanding the availability of youth mental health services delivered by GPs and primary health care providers. By last July all district health boards had expanded primary health care services provided to 12 to 19-year-olds which has meant an additional 3071 young people have been seen by primary health care providers and a further 1328 have received alcohol intervention.Jacqui Dean: What specific services are being provided?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Government’s $62 million investment over the last 4 years has delivered extended access to GPs and practice nurse consultants. Young people can access expanded counselling group therapy and addiction services. District health boards have also developed youth drop-in services and specific support for Māori and Pasifika youth. This expansion of services for young people comes on top of investments in mental health care for all New Zealanders and has seen significant decreases in waiting times and improvements in patient satisfaction.Cyclone Pam—Assistance for Affected Countries7.RON MARK (NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to Cyclone Pam “We will continue to do all we can to help our Pacific neighbours”?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Defence)on behalf of thePrime Minister: Yes.Ron Mark: Why is Garden City Helicopters installing extra fuel tanks to fly from Christchurch to Vanuatu when multi-role vessel HMNZS Canterbury capable of embarking two NH90 helicopters and which has hospital facilities is currently alongside in Devonport?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This afternoon the Minister of Defence and the Minister of Foreign Affairs have announced that the HMNZS Canterbury is being deployed to Vanuatu. It will be carrying Seasprite helicopters; HN90s purchased by a previous Government are unsuitable for the work required in Vanuatu. HMNZS Canterburywill have quite a considerable amount of facilities on it that will be useful. I point out to the House that we are working with the Vanuatu Government and responding to its requests. This will not be something that is over in a short period of time. There will be ongoing requirements for us to help it.Ron Mark: Why given that this is only the second category 5 cyclone to make landfall in modern times has our urban search and rescue team which received international accreditation with distinction last week not been deployed?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We of course are responding to the requirements or the requests of the Vanuatu Government. The Minister of Defence spoke in fact to the President of Vanuatu last Saturday and assured him that we would be there to help them indicated the cash sums that the Government was making available and invited him to make requests of us which we are answering as they are made.Ron Mark: Does he believe we are organised and equipped well enough to respond swiftly to natural disasters here and abroad when 40 percent of our tactical airlifters suffered equipment failures when our new NH90 helicopters are not equipped with automated folding blades when the Canterbury is still tied up in Devonport and when urban search and rescue teams are still awaiting an order to deploy having been sat on standby for days now?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We are working with the Vanuatu Government and responding to the requests that it makes. The mere fact that we have those facilities and capabilities on standby indicates our willingness to participate. Vanuatu is a sovereign Government and has every right to make the call on us in its own time. What I would say with regard to the military equipment is yes I do have concerns about the state of the air transport capability but I notice there is only one standout party in Parliament that is opposed to us even looking at replacements at the present time.Schools Canterbury—Greater Christchurch Education Renewal Programme8.NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about progress on the Government’s $1.137 billion Greater Christchurch Education Renewal Plan?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): On Thursday I was delighted to announce together with Associate Minister of Education Nikki Kaye that $138 million is to be spent on the next wave of schools to be repaired and rebuilt in Christchurch as part of our 10-year $1.137 billion commitment. Five schools in the Christchurch area will benefit in this wave: Hornby High School Kaiapoi High School Banks Avenue School Linwood College and Cashmere High School.Nuk Korako: When will work begin on rebuilding and repairing schools?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Work at Hornby High School will begin in September and the remaining work will begin on the other four schools early next year. In particular this is great news for Cashmere High School which was originally scheduled to enter the programme in 2018 but has been included in this wave because of a number of severe issues like leaky buildings. This decision will be more cost-effective and reduce disruption to the school over the long term. This work is of course in addition to the already considerable work that is under way on 20 major rebuilds of Christchurch schools.Regional Economic Development—Northland9.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with Moody’s Analytics that “New Zealand has a ‘two-speed’ economy as strong domestic demand cushions a weaker export sector”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): No I do not agree that New Zealand has a two-speed economy. The latest growth figures out this morning confirm that economic growth is broad-based across a range of sectors. However as I said earlier this afternoon I do agree with the comments from Moody’s when it confirmed New Zealand’s top Aaa rating in the past 2 weeks: “New Zealand’s economy is growing strongly … Moody’s expects New Zealand’s real GDP … to remain robust through 2016 … [and] compared to similarly rated [countries] … New Zealand has a track record of faster and more stable growth” in recent years.Dr David Clark: Noting the effects of a two-speed economy does he agree with Radio Live’s Duncan Garner that 150 real forestry jobs lost in Northland with the collapse of HarvestPro is big news or is this just more good news for the booming Northland economy under National?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: What we do know about the Northland regional economy is that there was an increase of 7500 jobs last year of which 6600 were full-time jobs. But the member raises a question in regard to forestry and actually it is important to look at the forestry sector as a whole. Earlier this week I happened to be visiting two companies a forestry mill just outside the Bay of Islands and a forestry rural contracting service just outside Kaitāia. Both of those were growing and hiring people as the forestry sector in Northland continues to expand.Dr David Clark: Does he agree with Jacob Kajavala of Tūhoe and Ngāti Kahungunu who says: “HarvestPro is a very large firm but there are a number of smaller contracting firms that hire up to a dozen people that are sailing very close to the wind and this is a very large example of that failure.”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Of course in every industry there is a range of firms and some of them are successful some of them are moderately successful and some of them struggle. I think the member needs to understand that actually just taking one firm’s situation and making it apply to the whole forestry sector is a little simplistic. The actual situation with the forestry sector is that it has had a very strong run and there is some consolidation occurring at the moment but we are seeing continued investment and continued job growth in the sector.Dr David Clark: Given that answer and given that the facts say that exports of manufactured wood products have fallen by 3 percent under his Government although exports of raw logs have tripled is he surprised that the wood industry is increasingly vulnerable to downturns in demand for logs and that the industry has lost nearly 4000 jobs net since 2008 as a result?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would have to check the veracity of the member’s statements but the reality of the New Zealand forestry sector is it has had significant growth. There is significant investment going on in the sector around New Zealand. I appreciate that the member likes to talk down different sectors of the economy. Perhaps he should declare a forestry crisis because that worked for manufacturing it worked for exports and it worked for housing.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. At what point do the ad hominem attacks replacing an actual argument constitute an irrelevant answer because that is exactly what we keep hearing from the Minister.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just invite the member when he returns to his office to have a very careful look at his question which was a lengthy question. It talked about various parts of the forestry industry declining some failing and a company sailing close to the wind. That gave the Minister a lot of latitude in his answer. The Minister took the latitude that was given.Dr David Clark: If the Minister does not agree with Moody’s market commentators does not agree with Duncan Garner and the media does not agree with industry representatives and disputes the relevance of Statistics New Zealand data and the veracity thereof does the Minister still believe he is the only person driving in the right direction on the motorway?Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister I will say that is exactly the type of question that is asked that gives a lot of latitude to a Minister.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure that even Duncan Garner would speak of himself in the same breath as Moody’s but perhaps he would; I do not know. I am also not quite sure what the member means about leaping from forestry to motorways but can I tell the member this: the New Zealand economy is growing strongly. I know the member does not like it. There has been 3.5 percent growth in the last year which is better than most of the countries in the OECD. That is not to say everything is always perfect but I think most people in the developed world would like the New Zealand economic numbers rather than the numbers in their own country. Actually the member should stop trying to talk down the New Zealand economy when actually New Zealand businesses are performing very well.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table data showing 4000 jobs have gone out of the forestry sector since 2008—Mr SPEAKER: Order! All I need is the source of the document.Dr David Clark: Statistics New Zealand.Mr SPEAKER: That is available to all members.Small Businesses—Online Tools10.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland) to the Minister for Small Business: What online tools has the Government provided to help small businesses make informed decisions?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): There are a number of online tools to assist small businesses to make informed decisions. Business.govt.nz is a website dedicated to small and medium enterprises bringing together information and resources from across the Government making it easier for businesses to find and understand their obligations and possible opportunities for assistance. In addition Business.govt.nz has several other channels including a monthly e-newsletter that goes out to about 50000 small businesses with current updates and information on legislative changes and other topics of interest to business. These examples all contribute to making New Zealand one of the best places in the world to be in business.Kris Faafoi: More!Todd Barclay: What are some of the online tools available for small businesses through Business.govt.nz?Hon CRAIG FOSS: They called for more; I am about to give them more. Business.govt.nz the site for small businesses has a range of tools. It draws together information from across the Government—resources such as feasibility assessments cash-flow forecasting business structures and intellectual property and business plan templates. There is also an employee cost calculator giving businesses an accurate understanding of the cost of employing new staff and to give small to medium sized enterprises certainty as they choose to hire more Kiwis.Todd Barclay: What are some of the inputs into the employee cost calculator?Hon CRAIG FOSS: Small businesses using the employee cost calculator can input and calculate the cost of wages for their employees. For example a small business with 10 full-time employees on the minimum wage can calculate that if the minimum wage was to increase to $16.25 it would cost that business an additional $45000 per annum to what it is now. Additional costs such as that are costs that small businesses cannot bear and would suffer under Labour.Tertiary Institutions—University Governance11.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: Does he believe students and staff at every university should have the right to participate in the election of university councils?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): I believe that universities are large complex organisations full of intelligent people who are more than capable of determining their governance arrangements within reasonable guidelines. I am confident that they will make the best decisions to represent their stakeholders and direct their universities.Hon David Cunliffe: In light of that answer why is there no consistent approach to democratic university council representation around New Zealand; and what has he got against democratically elected university staff and students?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have nothing against the latter.Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree that the three core functions of any university are teaching research and a contribution as critic and conscience of society; if so how are those three purposes served by the removal of representation on university councils?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am just trying to think whether those three things which I agree are very important are determined by the nature of the governance arrangements of an institution. In fact they are very important to institutions but I think Mr Cunliffe takes a rather amazing leap in logic to suggest that they are definitely linked.Tim Macindoe: Harvard.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: But of course perhaps in Harvard that is the situation.Hon David Cunliffe: Instead of stifling democracy why will he not seek a proper funding increase for the tertiary sector rather than telling universities they should raise fees to the maximum and then make up the shortfall by lifting overseas student numbers?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have missed this hyperbole. The simple reality of the situation is that this Government has dramatically actually—in the context of the global financial crisis—increased the investment in the university sector. And in fact if the member goes and has a look there have been—over the period that I have been the Minister—significant double-digit increases in funding. But also there are of course limits to that funding. And I know that the member does not appreciate this but actually the Government is also very keen to get back into surplus and to ensure that the tertiary education system is well funded—but the Government also is responsible in its allocation of finances.Housing Market—Auckland12.KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “There is not a housing crisis” in New Zealand?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: I thank the member for his question and note for his benefit that the GDP figure was 3.5 percent—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just answer the question.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do agree with the Prime Minister. There is certainly a shortage of housing supply in one part of New Zealand which of course is Auckland which is why we are agreeing a range of things with Auckland and encouraging the increase in consenting of houses and apartments and so on over 3 years. But I point out to the member that for the rest of New Zealand taken as a whole there has actually been no increase in the median house price over the last year and in addition mortgage interest rates are very low. So we have a localised challenge in Auckland around house and land supply. For the rest of the country actually there is not a housing crisis at all and to describe New Zealanders being in housing crisis for Auckland is I think a little hyperbolical.Kevin Hague: Does the Minister accept that an average median house sale price in Auckland last year of $621800 and an average median household income for Aucklanders aged 20 to 34 of just $48600 mean that it is almost impossible for most young Aucklanders to buy a house now and will be even more so in the future given the way house prices are rising?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not think it is a fair comparison to compare the price of houses for the whole of a city and then look at a small subset of the buying population and suggest that those two are directly comparable. But nevertheless we know there are challenges in the housing market in Auckland. But I can report to the member the good news which is that there has been a very significant increase in consents granted and construction commenced in Auckland. I myself was flying over Auckland just the other day. I look at projects like Millwater which is being built for 10000 people. I look at the big apartment complexes being built in Albany and in the central city. I look at the Whenuapai and Hobsonville projects. I look at what is happening in Tāmaki. Actually there is very very big investment and that is only one part of Auckland and its growth.Kevin Hague: When will he tell the 82.8 percent of Aucklanders aged 20 to 34 who did not own their own homes at the last census that it is unlikely that they ever will?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: With the greatest respect I do not know that you can actually suggest that would happen at all. Somebody who is at the age of 20 is not necessarily as likely as someone who is significantly older to own their own home. And the key about actually increasing homeownership in Auckland is to provide more options for people to start out in their first homes. I have mentioned some for the member: Millwater Hobsonville Whenuapai Albany Long Bay Grafton Māngere Tāmaki Weymouth. There is a lot of investment being made—Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister is repeating the same speech he gave in answer to the previous supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: That is for me as the Speaker to decide when the Minister has—Kevin Hague: That is my point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Well the response to that I am saying to the member—I will determine when I have decided the answer has gone on for too long. It is not the prerogative of the member.Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: A further point of order or are we relitigating?Kevin Hague: Requesting clarification of your ruling. Are you ruling that in fact members may not raise a point of order to point out that a Minister is in fact giving a speech?Mr SPEAKER: I am suggesting to the member that such a point of order will lead to disorder. It is my job to adjudicate the question time in this House. I will determine when an answer is going on for too long. Towards the end of that answer we were listing a whole lot of suburbs that had been listed. That is a fair point. But the first part of the answer I thought was a genuine attempt by the Minister to address the question that was asked by the member.Kevin Hague: If in his opinion there is not a housing crisis despite the lowest homeownership rates nationally since 1951 and plummeting house affordability in our largest city what specific signs should New Zealanders look for to know that we might be in a housing crisis in the future?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: For better or worse we have had declining homeownership in New Zealand as the member points out for a very very very long time which suggests that there is actually a change in the approach that some people are taking to house—Hon Members: How long?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Something like 60 years. And there are definitely opportunities and definitely challenges in Auckland in housing. But to suddenly call it a crisis when you have seen something happening over 65 years—or thereabouts—sounds at the least politically convenient. The real challenge in Auckland is to boost supply of new housing in that city and as I have said a number of times for the member this afternoon—and I would be happy to list them again but I suspect the Speaker does not need to hear them again—there are significant developments right across Auckland and very high and growing levels of consents and construction.Question No. 4 to Minister—Amended AnswerHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): I seek leave to make a personal explanation correcting an answer I gave to a supplementary question in oral question No. 4 today.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is not.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: In answer to a supplementary question I indicated that police decisions around the laying of charges as a consequence of Operation Clover were taken following advice from the Solicitor-General. I should have said that that advice had come from the Crown solicitor.Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.Urgent DebatesRoast Busters Case—Independent Police Conduct Authority ReportMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Carmel Sepuloni seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the release of the report by the Independent Police Conduct Authority regarding the so-called Roast Busters case. In order for an urgent debate to be held there must be a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The report was released this afternoon. It finds a number of significant deficiencies in the original police investigation into the alleged offending.This matter has been the subject of two earlier applications. Those related to the decision not to prosecute for which there is no ministerial responsibility. However at the time I indicated that if the Independent Police Conduct Authority report was to reveal a significant development the matter may warrant the setting aside of the business of the House.The authority has found that the victims were let down by the failure of the police to identify connections between the cases and work with other agencies to develop strategies to reduce reoccurrence of what was clearly unacceptable and in some cases alleged criminal behaviour. Having again considered the matter and having read the report today I have determined that the House should debate this matter. It is of critical importance that the public have confidence in the ability of the police to investigate. I call on Carmel Sepuloni to move that the House take note of a matter of urgent public business.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour)on behalf of Carmel Sepuloni (Labour—Kelston): I move That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. It is devastating to say that there is only one way to describe the report that was released by the Independent Police Conduct Authority at midday today and that word is damning. One year on from a thorough investigation that started under the Independent Police Conduct Authority in November 2013 we have a report that clearly demonstrates a failure to follow through adequately on the complaints that were raised not by one not by two but by several young women which documented abhorrent behaviour against them. It shows that there was a failure to consider all of the options around prosecution which directly contradicts some of the later police investigation. It shows a failure even to record properly the personal information of the alleged offenders. It shows a failure to consider alternative options—if indeed prosecution was not one of those options—by the police in terms of holding those alleged offenders to account. And it shows a failure even to communicate adequately and properly among the number of different police officers who were involved in this case.This report shows that these young women were absolutely the subject of a failed process—there is no question of that. We should all be absolutely alarmed and concerned that that has been the case. I think it would be helpful to go back to the beginning just to cover off what has led to the situation where the House is conducting an urgent debate today. I will then go on to cover some of the specific and most concerning elements of this report.At the end of 2013 there was a series of disturbing stories that became public in the media which related to what can only be described as abhorrent behaviour by a group of young men towards a group of vulnerable young women and girls. I want to highlight that some of these young women were merely children at the time that some of these events took place. We were all disturbed by what we heard and saw in the media and of course we expected that there would be an opportunity for a swift response and action by the police—that was the public expectation. We know that there are always layers to these issues so of course it was incumbent on the police to share with us as much as they could—to share with the public—about what they had done to work alongside those victims.The police response was to state that there had been no formal complaints and therefore that they did not have sufficient evidence to pursue an investigation. I want to reiterate that with a quote from the police that went into the public domain. They issued a statement that stated: “… in the absence of significant evidence such as formal statements there is not enough evidence to prosecute the alleged offenders at this time.” The public of course was severely disappointed that there was not therefore from the police’s perspective the ability to pursue what we all agreed was abhorrent behaviour. The Minister even came out publicly and implored those who were involved in this case—the victims in this case—to be brave. That was the statement that the Minister used in the public domain—that they be brave.Putting aside the fact that it should not have to be incumbent on any victim to have to be brave to go through a criminal justice process to have justice done—that should not take bravery—our young women in particular should have been well enough supported that it would not take courage to endure our system and yet those were the words used by the Minister. So that in itself raised some significant and concerning questions. But leaving that aside we then within a few days had a report by TV3 that included another victim coming forward and stating that it was her belief that she had in fact laid a formal complaint and had given a statement and that nothing had been done. Of course we were all alarmed to hear that additional information.Labour was swift to make a complaint to the Independent Police Conduct Authority because questions were raised in our minds as to how it was that the police did not know that a formal complaint had been made let alone thoroughly investigated given the nature of the offending that was alleged to have happened. I want to quote from the complaint that Labour made in my name to the Independent Police Conduct Authority at that time. We stated: “While all these issues need to be reviewed there is a wider question of the adequacy of the investigation itself and the decision that there is insufficient evidence to lay charges. In particular what efforts were made to corroborate the complaints laid by the victims? Was there a full investigation including the execution of search warrants and potentially electronic surveillance”—remembering how much of this awful situation did occur online—“and what advice was received before making the decision not to lay charges? Given the current constraints experienced by the police in terms of resourcing we would also urge that the authority look at whether this impacted on the child protection team over the 24 months that this investigation has taken place.” And finally we stated: “The actions of the local police to protect potential victims while this investigation was under way is also worthy of assessment. The information available in the public domain certainly suggests that intervention via schools and social networks was needed to protect other young women who may have been subject to alleged predatory behaviour.”I feel absolutely justified in the fact that Labour made that complaint and unfortunately this report vindicates it. I do acknowledge that the Minister of Police laid a similar complaint at the time. But this was not the first report. The first report released by the Independent Police Conduct Authority looked into the way the police interacted with the media and the release of information relating to this complaint. I will not dwell on that report but what it did flag was that there was a complete breakdown in communication between the police officers involved in that complaint—a complete breakdown. You can see in reading that report that one of the concerns was certainly that the police were absolutely stretched. There were clearly resourcing issues. Although that does not excuse individual failings towards victims it does raise massive red flags which I hope the Minister of Police will pay heed to. Again it continues to be a concern for us that we have a police force operating with a $40 million budget cut. That does absolutely eventually have consequences and I fear that it has had consequences here. But as I say none of that can be an excuse for the way individuals are treated within a process as serious as this.I want to go through the key elements of the report where there are the most significant concerns—and I would like to hear a response from the Minister of Police on these. The first is the complete and utter lack of coordination. It is highlighted from the very first paragraphs of this report—indeed when the Independent Police Conduct Authority outlines how many cases it was tasked with looking at it says right up front: “At the start of the Authority’s investigation in November 2013 it was informed by Police that they had received reports of concern about four separate incidents …” They go on to say: “During its investigation into the … handling of [the] complaints … the Authority identified that Police also responded to three other reports of concern involving young women and this [same] group of young men.”The Independent Police Conduct Authority itself identified that we were not talking about four incidents; we were talking about seven occurrences where the police had an opportunity to join the dots between a systemic problem—between abhorrent behaviour on multiple occasions involving multiple victims—and it was not picked up. Of course regardless of whether it had happened multiple times each of those individual victims should have got an individual response that should have given them faith in the system. It should not have taken seven cases to build a case against these young men. But the fact that even that was not identified is a massive massive problem and was one of the key problems identified by the Independent Police Conduct Authority.Issue No. 2—and this goes to the most basic of principles obviously for the police—is whether or not the lines of inquiry were thoroughly followed up; whether or not these complaints were thoroughly investigated. This is highlighted again by the Independent Police Conduct Authority which found that—I want to highlight this one point—“… all of the Police officers involved in these matters treated the young women and their families with courtesy and compassion…”. We acknowledge that. However the report goes on to state: “… in several of the cases because officers concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed without the cooperation of the young women they decided that no further action was required.” This is an uncomfortable truth. Yes a few of the young women did not feel comfortable continuing with their complaint and we need to spend a lot more time debating why that is and what we can do to remedy that.That aside the Independent Police Conduct Authorityfound that the police should have kept going anyway. They should have continued with their investigation and lines of inquiry—and why? Because these were children. In fact the Police’s own policy states: “All reports of child abuse must be thoroughly investigated even if the child or young person recants or parents and caregivers are reluctant to continue.” That is a quote from the Police’s own policy on these issues. So although the police thought that they were doing the will of the victim their policy actually required them to take responsibility and to continue to investigate and they did not.What was also inadequate about the way this investigation took place was that they did not even identify that it was the same young men who were involved; they did not record properly the information about those young men. They did not do other inquiries or police checks to see that other complaints had been made about them. And this is a key point. The Independent Police Conduct Authorityfound that if the police had done that then surely they would have thought about engaging in alternative ways of dealing with this case. If the police had decided that the threshold for prosecution had not been met why did they not simply engage in some good old-fashioned policing and go to the homes of those alleged offenders and hold them and their families to account? How is it that complaints like this were being made about these young men and the first time the police engaged with them was for an inadequate ill-prepared ill-considered interview—and that was it.I might be old-fashioned but I would wager that I am not alone in the public in saying that the police should have knocked on the doors of those young men. Regardless of whether they were there to put handcuffs on them they should have questioned them on their behaviour. They should have told their families about what was going on. They should have done everything in their power to stop further victims from being put through the situation that these seven young women were simply by confronting their behaviour. That did not happenProbably one of the most significant other findings of the report is the question of whether everything was considered in terms of the ability to prosecute these offenders. I want to read from the report because this is particularly important. It considered whether or not sexual conduct with a young person under 16 which is section 134 of the Crimes Act was properly considered by the police as an option for prosecution. It states: “Under section 134 of the Crimes Act 1961 everyone who has a sexual connection with or does an indecent act on a young person … has committed an offence. … There is no question that these young men were aware that the young women involved in the six cases … were under 16 years.”—there is no question—“The Authority recognises that it is uncommon for Police to prosecute a young person under section 134 for sexual connection with a person of the same or a similar age. … It is clear that this general thinking underpinned the approach taken by the officers in these cases. … The Authority does not accept the validity of this reasoning as there were a number of aggravating features in these cases that should have prompted consideration of such a prosecution. … In our view the fact that the parties are close together in age while a relevant factor is not determinative. … The reality is that a prosecution under section 134 says nothing about the presence or absence of consent because it is simply irrelevant to the facts that need to be proved.”What needs to be proved is age and as the report points out the young men involved in this case absolutely knew these young women were under age. The report finds that the police should have at least discussed this option with the victims. It is clear that the failings noted in this report are significant. The police have a lot to do if they want to give security to victims in the future that they will handle these complaints adequately.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Police): On matters that generally require an urgent debate there is perhaps a history of contradiction across the House in defence and counter-thrust when we have these sorts of debates. I find myself in the unusual position as the first responder on behalf of the Government to agree with just about everything that the Labour spokesperson on justice has articulated in her intervention—not all and I will go into a couple of those details. It really is difficult to candy coat the findings of the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s investigation into complaints regarding Roast Busters.I just want to contextualise the events that led to the setting up of Operation Clover in the authority’s review of police’s behaviour because Ms Ardern did talk about the role in this of the former Minister of Police Anne Tolley and the fact that there was perhaps some defence of the police’s actions by the then Minister of Police in respect of the investigations and the knowledge the police had and indeed there was. But it is why I wanted to contextualise it. The same information deficit led Mrs Tolley quite rightly to act on the information provided to her by the police and the police let her down by failing to provide that information to her. They had not collected the information in the manner and by the means that would have enabled them to respond quickly when the Roast Busters case became public. I think that is symptomatic of the failures that the Independent Police Conduct Authority report has highlighted.As I say there is simply no candy coating it. Ms Ardern has outlined a reasonably accurate time line of the events that led to where we are today and I want to note firstly that those general duties officers who first responded to complaints in the earlier investigations that are described in the authority’s report acted properly and promptly. They referred those cases to the very team that had been set up in the Waitematā district to deal with just these sorts of cases and it was the child protection team officers who for a number of reasons I will elaborate on dropped the ball—big time. The authority’s summary in paragraph 116 I think sums up the essence of the failures: “Indeed the issues were such that it is unlikely they could ever have been dealt with meaningfully and effectively solely by Police. Regrettably Police had numerous opportunities to ‘connect the dots’ earlier to generate a more organised expansive and cohesive response and to work in collaboration with CYF the schools and the parents of these young men to prevent their behaviour from continuing.” That to me is at the heart of this failure.What is most disappointing to me as the Minister of Police is that that revelation is against the backdrop of what I think has actually been really really good progress by police through their Prevention First and their Policing Excellence programmes which were set up by Minister Tolley when she was police Minister. That has led to really really good outcomes and improvements—reductions in crime reductions in repeat offending—and increases in reporting in terms of family and sexual violence which is really hard to be very sure about. But I am pretty confident that actually what that is about is a greater level of confidence and support for young women to speak up over this offending. I hope that is the case. I do not think we are seeing a greater incidence of offending and as we know the rate of speaking up is still unacceptably low. We need to make sure firstly that we prevent these offences from occurring and encourage young women to speak up when they do confident that they will be treated with respect listened to and believed.What worries me about this and this report is that it has the potential to set us back which I noted in my questioning of the New Zealand Police through Police Commissioner Bush and his team. Naturally anybody receiving a report like this will accept its findings and work hard to ensure that the actions need to be put in place. But there is a deeper requirement going on here. I need to be sure of whether this is a systemic issue and a failure of the system or a disappointing exception to a general trend of increasing support for victims of these crimes and one that needs to be remedied and is being remedied already. It was with that in mind that I took the findings of the authority’s report and worked with police to understand three things.Firstly what confidence can the New Zealand public have that should similar complaints be laid tomorrow they would be treated differently and taken seriously? Secondly does this reflect a culture of ambivalence within the police towards sexual assault complaints? Thirdly what can we do as a community? It is a community problem requiring a community and Government response to provide our young people with better guidance skills and support around appropriate sexual conduct. That last point I think is probably for me as a father of three daughters the most important thing that can come out of this—that we recheck that we are doing all we can to be very clear that this kind of behaviour is not only criminal but just bad for the young people. It is corrosive and it speaks to corrosion within some in our young. I have a high regard for the vast majority of our young who know how to behave properly and respectfully. But that is a very concerning outcome of this and I think that those three things need to be addressed. That is what I as Minister of Police working with my ministerial colleagues will be doing.So to that first question—“What confidence can we have that the complaint or complaints will be taken seriously?”—well members do not need and should not take my word for the fact that I have that confidence. Even before this report was released the police and other social agencies had worked very hard to ensure that there will not be a repeat of this. I hope that that is the case. As members know there was a very important Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct in 2007 the Bazley report which looked into the culture and conduct of police in respect of a number of things including investigation of adult sexual assault. I received a quarterly report from the Office of the Auditor-General on the progress of what is a 10-year plan to improve the culture the performance and the professionalism of police around these sorts of matters. The most recent report tabled in this House in February makes what I think are quite reassuring comments: “The Police are focusing more on the needs of people who have reported a sexual assault. Some of the victim support organisations”—those are the people who are dealing with the victims of sexual crime every day—“[that the Office of the Auditor-General] spoke to observed that the Police were more empathetic than previously. They felt that the Police showed greater respect for victims and were focusing on what was right for the victim.”Furthermore in respect of the police monitoring sexual assault—I am going to come to that in the context of the second question—a senior manager in the police told us that with these types of information: “We know our business [the] best we have ever known it. We agree that the Police now have better reporting systems to provide a good view of their activities. The information indicates that the Police’s performance in investigating adult sexual assaults has improved.” That is very important to me—both the quality of the investigations and more important the joining of the dots. I think what the report has revealed is that had the child protection team officers investigated in a different way and recorded the findings of their investigations in the National Intelligence Application database the police database it would have joined those dots earlier. We cannot be sure whether or not that would have resulted in a prosecution where one has not occurred but what I am sure about is this: had that occurred a brighter light could have been shone on the activities of these young men sooner and that could have resulted in prevention of further incidents.That is actually what police have been focusing on for the last 4 or 5 years: prevention first. The best way to address the offending is to prevent it from happening in the first place. They have worked very hard through things like the neighbourhood policing teams better patrolling and contact with a number of organisations to ensure that they act early and professionally. What is disappointing about this is that that did not happen. So it is incumbent on me as Minister of Police the commissioner his team and every single member of the New Zealand Police to reflect on those findings and to make sure that we take every single action we can to treat complaints seriously to treat victims with empathy and support and to record in a way that ensures that patterns of behaviour that start to emerge can be noticed quickly. I am encouraged to note that police tell me that they now work on the adult sexual assault database—part of the National Intelligence Application database—to check that sort of pattern of offending. So I do hope and expect—in answer to the first question—that if the same behaviour were to occur now it would be investigated in a much better way.Is there ambivalence a culture of ambivalence within the police? Well the Independent Police Conduct Authority did not find that nor did the Auditor-General in its most recent quarterly reports—in fact quite the opposite. Very often when we hear about these sorts of failures they are systemic failures. In fact it is said by the authority these were effectively human failures by officers who should have done a better job frankly. So I am confident hopeful and optimistic that this does not reveal a culture of ambivalence towards the complainants. Again I will be monitoring that very closely.Lastly what can we do as a community to provide our young people with better guidance better skills and better manners frankly as young men around appropriate sexual behaviour? There are no easy answers to that but the Ministry of Education and our schools do have a number of tools available. Members will be aware of Sophie Elliott’s mum Lesley who has the Loves-Me-Not programme which she is working on around our secondary schools in New Zealand. There are a number of other programmes like that that are all geared towards changing behaviours and attitudes. There is a ministerial group that is set up to develop strategies for family violence and sexual violence and it cajoles all of the Government agencies in that space to work together to get better information to improve our performance in family violence and sexual violence. I know it is working. I am encouraged by what I have seen in my 4 months as a member of that group.Lastly I want to challenge Jacinda Ardern and Police Association head Greg O’Connor on what I think are actually quite inappropriate comments today around police resourcing. I think it is very inappropriate to say that but for police resourcing this would not have happened. That is unfortunate. I reject it and I refute it—in fact quite the opposite. Do you know how much resource has gone into these investigations which with better reporting and better investigating at the start would have prevented a heck of a lot of downstream resourcing being invested in this? I do think it is inappropriate to refer to that. The police reject it. The Independent Police Conduct Authority did not say that that was a problem and the commitment of resources into these types of complaints has not in any way led to the failures that are identified in the authority’s report.Sue Moroney: How can you be sure?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Because I asked them every day. Trust me if they were they would be very forthcoming in telling me. They have said quite the opposite and I reject the claims by Ms Ardern and Mr O’Connor that resources had anything to do with this. This is a very disappointing exception to what I think is a trend of better policing in adult sexual assault and I hope that that standard will be maintained again in the future and we never have another Roast Busters.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. I read this report in the last 2 hours and I felt sick absolutely sick to my stomach because things are not changing fast enough. When the Minister of Police who gave a very sincere speech talks about whether there is an ambivalent attitude in the police towards sexual assault I would have to say that at 61 I have experienced an ambivalent attitude towards sexual assault everywhere in our society. We cannot label just the police. It is throughout our society and it has not changed. The kind of date rape and assault that I and others experienced as young women is still going on. What we can talk about here is the role of the people in this House. Otherwise if we do not change our leadership on this issue the message to young women today is heartbreaking. The message will break their hearts.The Green Party is calling on the Minister of Police to make change. Eight years after the Bazley review of police culture after the Louise Nicholas case a woman still cannot walk into a police station and claim she has been abused and have confidence that she will be believed. That has got to change. Something is not right in the police force. Three separate reviews now have found the same thing. The police do not always treat complaints by victims of sexual and child abuse seriously. This means the victims are not getting justice and perpetrators are still free to hurt others and I think that a huge focus of the report is on those whom we do not even know about as a result of the failure to interview the young men in these cases.The Green Party is calling on the Minister of Police today to immediately establish an independent task force to implement and enforce change in police culture which is needed to give justice to victims and to prevent further harm. That is the very least that should happen. No more reviews. We have had enough reviews. We need action and we need a task force to implement the changes.We agree with the Independent Police Conduct Authority that it is disturbing that these same themes keep coming up about the police culture and their handling of sexual violence concerning young people and adults. We do not need more reviews. We know that the police know what the issues are and the Independent Police Conduct Authority knows. We all know what the issues are but we need a task force to lead real change. The report of the Independent Police Conduct Authority shows that the police failed to take the complaints of the victims seriously or to take actions to prevent other young women and girls from being abused. There was no responsibility for what could happen. They did not even talk to those young men or to some of them let alone to their parents in a bid to warn them or to encourage them to stop.It is almost inconceivable to us in the Greens that these conversations were not held. It is sickening to think how many other girls and women were abused because police did not do that. I was really shocked to read that the police did not even properly write down the names of these young men and in some cases did not ask for names when a young woman claimed that a boy had abused her. If the police had written down those names they might have noticed a pattern—that this young woman had complained. It is basic policing—check previous police records check other complaints—but the police did not even do that. The subtext of this is that boys will be boys—and look at the result. And still the police blame the young women for not being brave enough to come forward or provide the evidence they needed to conduct a proper investigation.According to the report a basic investigation of complaints did not happen or was woefully inadequate. There are pages and pages of examples here of failed practice. It is very hard to support the view of the Minister of Police that things are getting better when there could be such systemic failure. It is not about individuals; it is about system failure. Records were not kept. Child Youth and Family was not involved. Supervision was insufficient. These were the same things that were brought up in 2010 by the Independent Police Conduct Authority and by Margaret Bazley in 2007—the same issues.What more evidence do we need that the police are not up to the task of fixing the problem themselves? Dealing with the problem in-house is not working. That is why we believe an independent task force of the police should establish a clear work programme and implement practical changes in the force. The task force must have authority to do this. It should be able to review the implementation and change that occurs and have members who have expertise in sexual violence prevention. This is so basic. I thought we had won this when Louise Nicholas was allowed to work with the police. What is going on? It is not good enough for the police Minister or the police force to say they have changes in hand. Most clearly they do not. Every day that goes by victims of sexual violence risk facing this kind of inexcusable treatment. Urgent action is required.What is really disturbing is that there are suggestions in the report that the victims of the Roast Busters gang were treated with compassion and courtesy by the police. These women did not need courtesy and compassion in the form of niceness; they needed justice. They did not need a cup of tea a hug or a bunch of flowers. They came for justice and they were failed—courteously failed no doubt; compassionately failed. But that is not compassion. It is barely courtesy and it certainly is not justice. The police claim that they did not have enough evidence to prosecute these men cannot be taken seriously when the report shows they did not even consider what was involved. They did not even look at the range of available offences. It is all outlined in this report. They did not even look at investigating some of the claims of these young women.The report showed that the police failed to take complaints seriously at all in some cases. It is incredibly disturbing. Is it any wonder that some young women do not want to press charges. I have to look at the other women in this House and ask: would we? Would we at 14? Would we at 13? Would we feel that it was worth it after hearing this terrible story? Would we encourage our daughters or our sons to seek justice through the justice system at a young age when this is how they are treated? As my colleague Jan Logie said today it is hard to conceive how the police could now do right by the complainants but the least the police Minister can do is ensure that failures like this never happen again.The victims of abuse in this country should be confident they can walk into any police station anywhere in the country make a complaint and be taken seriously. Not only that they should know that the weight of the justice system will fall in behind them and ensure that they get the justice they deserve. It is really horrifying reading in this report. I urge members to read it. We are responsible for the organs of this State the institutions of this State. We cannot hand this back to the police and say: “Yes you’ve got a 10-year plan. Yes it seems like you’re trying hard. That’s enough.” It is not enough. We have had three reviews—three reports—now and we have a society where some in the media colluded with the police failure over the Roast Busters case where some people made comments that deterred young women. So I would not isolate just the police force. I would say we have a society where there are still people who will rationalise justify minimise and ignore attacks on young women who will accept sexual assault as part of growing up and as somehow normal and acceptable.It is very disturbing to read the comments of the police officer who said that he did not talk to the parents about the young men’s behaviour because he got side-tracked. It is extremely disturbing to think that the culture could exist where he felt he could get away with that within his own professional organisation. So that is why it is not about an individual bad policeman; it is about the fact that the supervision was inadequate. If you read this report you will see how the supervision of the front-line police was inadequate as well. So the problem goes up the chain. It goes out of the organisation and into a society where young women are not treated with sufficient respect and so when they experience or even allege this kind of abuse they cannot get the State to support them enough to even investigate the situation.It is a damning report but it is worse than that. It is a situation where some people may give up hope. We cannot afford to give up hope that justice can be done in this country for victims of sexual abuse and assault especially for young ones. If I was a young woman and if I saw this report now I would be wondering whether it is worth telling anybody what happened to me. If I was a young man—what is the message to the young men? What is the message to those young men who were involved and who got away with this scot-free and whose parents did not even get consulted because the officer got side-tracked? What is the message? That it is OK? That you can get away with it? That actually society does not care enough? That the police force does not care enough to even ask you to be accountable for your behaviour? This is a dark day and we must have an independent task force to make genuine change so that we do not have our young women giving up hope. Kia ora.TRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. It is a sad day actually. It is a very sad day. This is a sad topic and I am sure that all of us would prefer not to be here discussing it. I first of all want to acknowledge the Minister of Police for his contribution. It was a sincere contribution and I believe he meant every word he said. I believe that he is as moved by these circumstances and this case as everybody else in New Zealand has been. But what are we going to do about it? I also want to acknowledge that the police officers in the New Zealand Police are fathers are mothers are aunts and are uncles and they can in the first person place this inside the possibility that it could happen to a family member of theirs. So none of us are happy about it but what are we going to do about it?This report has quite clearly shown us that we have severe failings inside the police force. I would go further to suggest that we actually have failings inside the whole of that system and inside legislation. Roast Busters this particular case that the report is focused on broke out into news. It became a major focus for the country. However in my own area the exact same circumstances have occurred to young women—young women who then took a case forward to try to find justice through the court system. After a year of walking forward telling her story again and again and again with her parents walking alongside her and school counsellors walking alongside them it ended up with “He-said she-said. Go home.” What are we going to do about it?It is not a National Party problem. It is not an Opposition problem. It is our problem. So what are we in this House going to do about it? What cross-party accord what cross-party work will we do to make whatever legislative change we need to make to have women believed in the first instance no matter what their age? So when they walk in and say this was done to me it will be believed in the first instance. Everything must have balance. We have legislation in place. We have laws in place. If a person makes a false accusation they can be held accountable for that. So how will we make this shift? How will we as a society send out the message that you cannot do this to people whether they be young men or young women—that you cannot in a moment of vulnerability take advantage of them and because it becomes he-said she-said you will be fairly free and clear?We pick up on the Green Party member’s call for an independent task force. We would like to talk about it. We would like Parliament to talk about it. We cannot allow this report to then lie there for us to wail and beat our breast and then leave it alone. This has gone on for years. Young women feel guilt and they do not report when something happens to them. Many young women find themselves in a situation where have gone out at the weekend they may have had a drink too many and something has happened to them that they have not been able to give their consent for. It then takes them days to find enough courage to come forward to report it. By that time the evidence has gone. What will we do to create a situation where young women do not feel ashamed in the first instance when they know that someone has taken advantage of them?The Minister mentioned Lesley Elliott’s programme Loves-Me-Not. It is a brilliant programme and I am not going to play politics with it around who should fund it or who should not fund it. I am not going to go there. Let us not go there. Let us just say it is a brilliant programme and we need it to be in place. Let us go just there—that we need it to be in place. But let us also look at other things like the Healthy Relationships programme which again balances for both genders so that young men and young women at year 9 and year 10 know what a healthy relationship looks like. They also get the knowledge and the information that if this happens to you you tell somebody straight away. Let us not pussyfoot around. Let us give our young people the knowledge and the skills to actually step forward to the school counsellors and then the school counsellors go forward to the police. We need to have confidence that although the police might empathise and might feel terrible—I believe they feel terrible for these young women—they also feel empowered to take the case forward.I cannot go into the minds of the police officers who did not go and speak to the young men or the young men’s families. I cannot go into their minds and figure out why it was—whether they were overloaded or whatever that story was. But possibly do they feel empowered enough? Do they feel that if they had taken those cases forward they would have been supported? Have we asked them? Why? I would love to know the motivation why the records were not kept why the records were not well reported and why we did not just take notes around that. So yes the Minister can say that we hope that this is a personal failure or an individual failure by certain police officers but it is not just this case and that is half of the problem. This is actually across New Zealand. We have such a wide issue here. We need to do something about it.I want to pick up on Jacinda Ardern’s comments around sexual connection for those under the age of 16—section 134 of the Crimes Act—and that it is an offence. The report acknowledges that in certain circumstances here both the victim and the offender were under the age of 16. So what is the answer to that? If these young men had been spoken to if their families had been spoken to if the report had been taken seriously—these are now two juveniles. These are now two children who are engaging in a sexual relationship—sorry I take that back; I beg your pardon. They are not engaging in a sexual relationship; a sexual act has taken place. They are not engaged at all. The young woman was not engaged. Surely that is a situation that borders on the lines of abuse or neglect. Where were the Child Youth and Family workers then? Where is the confidence on behalf of the police when they come up against a case like that again of how they will treat it in the future? How can we make sure the understanding is widespread that if you run up against a case where both parties are under the age of 16 it will be treated in a different way but treated seriously so at least the young woman and her family see and the young man gets the message that this is a serious issue and this is unacceptable behaviour?New Zealand First joins with the other parties of the House. This is one of the most disturbing cases we have had in recent years. Unfortunately it is high profile but it is not isolated. This is happening in small numbers everywhere across New Zealand. Young women are coming forward after an incident has happened in the weekend—sometimes days after sometimes weeks after—and reporting to school counsellors across the country behaviour that they now feel unable to deal with. We in this House have got to figure out a way to deal with this on a much better level and on a much bigger scale. We need to support it financially. We need to support it emotionally. We need to support it. It has been too long. We all believe that it is not appropriate. We all believe that this is not the way we want our world to work. We do not want young women to say: “That is just how it is.” So I would hope that we might have a cross-party conversation about the independent task force and I hope that the Government might participate in cross-party talks to sort something out.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): I was the Minister of Police who asked the Independent Police Conduct Authority to investigate this case.Sue Moroney: No Jacinda put a complaint in.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I did that because politicians cannot interfere with police investigations. I have to say I was the first Minister of Police to ever refer the police to the authority. I was the person who referred the police to the Independent Police Conduct Authority because I knew as this report shows that the authority can reach into the individual investigations to have a look and report on how those investigations were conducted which no politician can ever do.When I look at what I said at the time I said publicly that the commissioner had assured me that the inquiry had been thorough but I was not convinced—and in fact I was made aware—that the full facts had not been made available to him as commissioner let alone to me as Minister.Sue Moroney: That’s not what you said first off.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is what I said. It is exactly what I said at the time because what had happened was we had had a number of changing confusing stories given to us—both the commissioner and myself—from the police on the ground that showed as I say confusion. So I could not be sure that the commissioner had fully at his fingertips the facts of the inquiry and in fact that proved to be the case.I think the things that worried me were first those stories were changing. I was also really worried about the age of all of the participants and that is something I will come back to. There were 13 and 14-year-old girls with 16 and 17-year-old boys. I know that does not seem as an adult to be a big difference but we all know in those teenage years that there is a world apart between a 13-year-old girl and a 17-year-old boy or even a 16-year-old boy. They are worlds apart. I was really concerned about the ages of the youngsters involved and I was also worried—and it is not just the police; it is widespread in our community—that when you have a young girl who is involved with sex and alcohol and those of us who have been parents of young girls have often had experience with this to actually talk about them as being able to make informed consent I think is dangerous and to accept that their participation in those events was consented I think is dangerous.So those were the concerns that I had when I referred the police to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. As the Minister of Police that is not something you do lightly. The report that the Independent Police Conduct Authority released today makes me pleased that I made that decision because all of those concerns that I had have been validated in this report. I have to say like everyone in this House we find the Independent Police Conduct Authority’s findings really disappointing because we have high expectations of our police and rightly so. I have always said they are the best police in the world. We are very fortunate with the calibre of people who go into our police and so we have high expectations of them and we should have high expectations and they have let us down. What is more they have let down young people—young vulnerable people in our community.I am also pleased because from today’s report the girls now have the full story and so they understand what happened to them and their experiences and why things did not happen the way that they perhaps expected them to. But I do want to sound a note of caution. The Independent Police Conduct Authority report released today found individual failures. It did not find systemic failures.It found individual failures and we should be making sure that we focus on those. The police Minister has already indicated that he will ensure that they are individual failures and that they are remedied by better systems.The police have made enormous changes since the Dame Margaret Bazley report which was a 10-year process. It was not just about changing policies; it was about implementing those policies. The audit report on that shows that they are making progress but they have still got a way to go. Of course I am absolutely delighted that they have someone like Louise Nicholas working with them with all the experience that she brings.The police today have accepted that there was poor practice by their teams. There was poor supervision. There was poor communication. We had different police stations involved and I have to say we had different Child Youth and Family officers involved and they did not talk to one another. It meant they did not connect the dots and therefore they were not able to protect those young women. The recurring theme through it was yes they did treat those young women well and the Independent Police Conduct Authority makes that comment but that recurring theme of their reluctance to go further because the young women were reluctant to take it further overrode their responsibility to protect the wider group of vulnerable young people in the community. I think that is very important.The Independent Police Conduct Authority report actually says that because officers concluded that there was insufficient evidence to proceed without the cooperation of the young women they decided that no further action was required. They therefore overlooked the importance of holding the young men accountable for their behaviour and preventing its recurrence. The police’s whole focus on prevention was let down because they did not focus on that part of the issue rather than on the wishes of the young women. And we all understand why young girls of 13 and 14 do not want to go through that process.However there is another dimension that I just want to bring forth today and it is that I as social development Minister believe that Child Youth and Family should have done better in this process because it is clear that it was involved in all of this and its processes were not good enough either. That comes out through the Independent Police Conduct Authority report where on a number of occasions it refers to the fact that something had been discussed with Child Youth and Family and follow-up action was not taken and records were not kept and so again those dots were not joined up early enough along.So I have agreed today that an independent review by the Chief Social Worker Paul Nixon based here in Wellington will be put in place to go over this—the complete practice of Child Youth and Family in those offices concerned. I hope from that we will then be able to match that with the very thorough review that the Independent Police Conduct Authority has done and ensure that what we have learnt from this means that the processes are changed and that policies are put into place to prevent this from happening to any group of young vulnerable New Zealanders again. And of course the workings of those combined teams the child protection teams who are specialists in dealing with young people and sexual issues—it is absolutely critical that they are working together cohesively.But more important I think the thing that worries me the most with my current Child Youth and Family Minister hat on is who is responsible at the end of the day for the well-being of those young vulnerable people if a prosecution cannot take place because there is not sufficient evidence. I pick up the point that it is he-said she-said. That is the justice system. People are innocent until they are proven guilty and we change that at our peril but in the meantime there are young vulnerable New Zealanders both girls and boys who are involved in really dangerous activity. Someone somewhere has to take responsibility for dealing with that and for protecting them and working with their families to keep them safe. And if there is one thing that we all learn out of this from the police perspective from the Child Youth and Family perspective and from us as politicians it is that we have to give credence to that thought that someone has to take responsibility even if a prosecution cannot take place. Thank you.SUE MORONEY (Labour): I want to pick up where the Minister who just resumed her seat Minister Tolley has left off because the reason we are debating the Independent Police Conduct Authority report into the teenage rape case released today in the House at all today is that the Speaker has deemed that there is ministerial responsibility for what has occurred. And you would never know it listening to the speeches from the National Party members that actually there is ministerial responsibility on this issue. They need to take it an awful lot more seriously because so far their contributions have all been about what the police should have done and the police this and the police that and Child Youth and Family this and Child Youth and Family that. Ministers take some responsibility because until that happens we will not crack this one. We will not crack this one.This was the case that shocked the nation. Why did it shock the nation? Actually sadly not because people did not believe it was happening. People know that in their communities this type of thing is happening. It shocked the nation because people thought: “How could this have happened? How could this group of young men have been subjecting a large group of young women to sexual abuse to rape had been so confident about their right to do that that they gloated on social media about it and the young women had sought justice from the police and nothing happened—nothing happened. For 2 years this went on and nothing happened. How could that be?”. That is what shocked the nation sadly. Sadly the nation was shocked about that rather than about the fact that it happened at all. Why is that? Because what this case exposed was an underbelly of sexism that we all know in our hearts exists in this country and we have not addressed it. We have not addressed it because we want to blame someone else. We want to blame the police; or Ministers want to talk about what Child Youth and Family did wrong. Yes those agencies did let those young women down but there is ministerial responsibility. How could it be that at the height of the Bazley review after everything that was exposed in the Louise Nicholas case and how her issues were ignored by police and the implementation of that review it happens all over again?I want to stand up on behalf of New Zealand women and say that we have had enough. We have had enough of our issues not being taken seriously. We have had enough of the duck-shoving that goes on around this. No more. We must address it now. The Minister who just resumed her seat has done a little bit of rewriting of history and I think that is a great shame. I think it is a great shame that that has occurred in this debate because one of the fundamental things at the base of this case is what the law says about sexual assault. What the law says and what the police policies uphold is that the police actually do not need a complaint in order to prosecute for sexual assault. And yet there have been two Ministers already on their feet today in this House making the same mistake all over again. The Minister of Police at question time said that the only way these victims could get their issue addressed is to raise yet another complaint or to add some more detail to their complaints that have already been placed before the police. But that is wrong because the policy policies say that they can pursue a prosecution for sexual assault without a complaint having actually been lodged. So it seems that the Ministers have not learnt a thing through this exercise. They have not learnt a thing. We had the Minister who has just resumed her seat Anne Tolley who was the Minister of Police at the time saying the day the issue I guess exploded on to the media that the police had done a full investigation and she said that the reason they could not prosecute or they had not prosecuted those young men involved was that they had had no formal complaint. Well it turns out that she had been advised wrongly but imagine for a minute that that was the case. Even if that was the case that there had been no formal complaint the police’s own policies say that they did not need a complaint in order to pursue those charges of rape or what these days the law calls sexual assault. That should have happened.I really want the House to understand that even the Ministers’ responses today after all of the reviews and decisions and all of the debate and discussion are still not understanding what is required to happen here. I will not feel that we have done our job until these issues are addressed. Because yes I want to make sure it never happens again. But I also want to make sure that what has already occurred gets addressed that justice is done for these young women because these young women have already been subjected to enough. Do they really Minister need to make yet another complaint in order to have their issues addressed? Because that is not what the law says and it is not what the police policy says and it is not in fact what the Minister of Police himself told me in answers to written questions in November last year. That is why I was asking the Minister questions today. In November last year you gave me answers to questions that clearly outlined that the police had not done their homework investigated this properly and pursued all the options. Why has he sat on his hands and done nothing and waited and waited and waited for many more months until today’s report came out? And even then he says that the young women have to do something more still to get their issues addressed. Minister stand up for victims stand up for the women in New Zealand because we really have had enough.In the Minister’s response in this debate he talked about the Loves-Me-Not programme which is being rolled out by Lesley Elliot. It is a fantastic programme. I think we all agree on that. And I am not going to shy away—I am not going to shy away—from saying: “Where is the funding to support this programme?” because if we cannot ask that question in this debate then what on earth are we doing having this discussion at all? I am going to ask about the funding because we need to—by our actions by the prioritisation that we give to funding by everything that we do—denounce what has happened in this case. I want to say again that there is something in our society that made these young men feel so confident about their right to abuse those young women in that way. They did not feel guilty about it. They did not feel upset about it. They did not feel any contrition about it. They gloated about it. They gloated about it and that is the sort of thing that we have got to stop.I do not think that anything that occurred in the 2 years before the media had to expose this case—I by the way will not dignify it with the name that it has become known by because that is the name that those young men chose to make themselves feel heroic and to denigrate once again the young women whom they were abusing. I refuse to actually dignify it by giving it that name. This was teenage rape that was occurring. That is what we should call it. I am not going to use that other phrase to refer to it. I do not feel any comfort from anything that I have heard from the Government today on this issue. I do not believe it has learnt a thing and I want to see a much stronger response.Hon LOUISE UPSTON (Minister for Women): Unlike the member Sue Moroney who has just spoken I actually do not think there is too much disagreement in this House this afternoon. The fact is that we are standing here discussing an issue when there is a group of girls who deserved better than they got. But they deserved better than they got from a wide range of people and organisations. And I do agree with the member who just resumed her seat that it was the boys who actually took these actions in the first place who deserve the greatest criticism. I have not heard that enough in this House. Every New Zealand girl deserves to be safe. The fact that we have boys who think that that kind of behaviour is acceptable is exactly what we as a Parliament as a country as a society and as families need to deal with first.This debate today however is about the report that the Independent Police Conduct Authority has delivered. There is no disagreement in this House that that report is tragic reading because those girls were failed. There is no disputing that. But I do dispute the fact that actually for the first time in this Parliament’s history it was the Minister of Police who requested that the Independent Police Conduct Authority investigate. I think that says it all. And the comments in the House from the former Minister of Police and the current Minister of Police I think say it all in terms of how frustrating and how disappointing it is to read a report like we have today.But I think in the wider context of this it is important that we do not go so far with this as to leave the New Zealand public with a view that the New Zealand Police are failing us because I do not believe that that is the case. There have been some significant findings in this case that absolutely must be addressed. There have also been some learnings that have already started to be addressed by this Government.As the person who stood out in the forecourt here in Parliament to receive the petition that Jessie Hume had organised with over 110000 signaturesI can say that actually the behaviour of those boys and their view that they could get away with it was why there was that level of outrage and disgust from one end of the country to the other. That is what we as a Parliament have to address. I am not going to speak specifically about the actions that will come out of this for the police to address but I have absolutely no doubt that the commissioner is very clear about the views of how important that is.The previous speaker said that this Government has done nothing. Well that is absolute rot. That is absolute rot and I want to take a minute to go through some of the things that we have actually done as a result because I do not want that misstatement to be left in this space.Sue Moroney: Who said that? Whoever said that?Hon LOUISE UPSTON: You did. The previous speaker Sue Moroney did say that we had not taken action. There has been additional funding into rape prevention. The Minister for Social Development put $10.4 million into specialist sexual violence services. ACC launched their Mates and Dates programme. A New Zealand sexual violence primary prevention strategy is being developed. The Minister of Justice has pressed the button to make the Law Commission’s work on proposals to improve the victims’ court experiencea high priority. There are specialist restorative justice services for sexual violence cases. There is an endless list of work that has taken place because of the concerns around making sure we protect victims of sexual violence. It is unacceptable. It is unacceptable for girls in this country to be valued any less than anyone else. The fact that this action has taken place has demonstrated some of that and it is intolerable.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): What do victims need to obtain justice in the New Zealand police system? What do victims need? They need timeliness they need compassion they need to feel like they have been heard they need not to be revictimised and once they have told their story to the police they need the police to take action on their behalf. Did the victims in this case receive justice?The police received reports of concern about four separate incidents of the alleged sexual conduct involving the group between late 2011 and 2013. The police were aware of the group at least 2 years before the media attention broke. Later in November of 2013 the police and Child Youth and Family commissioned a joint investigation project Operation Clover and the initial analysis of the various social media comments showed that there were at least 30 girls suspected to have been involved with this group and that seven of them had made formal complaints. How is that timely? In December 2013 the Independent Police Conduct Authority was notified by the police of the complaint made by a young woman regarding the police handling of a sexual assault complaint that she had already made to the police back in November 2011—and the authority was already aware of the incident. Where was the compassion in that? In late October 2014 the police conducted Operation Clover. None of the police investigations resulted in criminal charges being laid by police against members of the group. Did the victims feel that they had been heard?The victims of this were children—they were children. Every time the media shows a story or replays any of the action it is evident that the police were handling this badly. Does that mean that the victims were heard? Does that mean that the police took action as they were required to do? Some of the victims did not feel comfortable with continuing with the investigation. Again I reiterate that these were children and it was not a requirement of the police to investigate—it was not a requirement. Why did they not actually adhere to police policy and investigate even when the victims said they did not want to continue? Let us face it when you are a victim of sexual abuse it takes you a long time to have the courage to go to the police and the expectation you have is that they will act and they will give you justice.I was involved in some research conducted in the family violence sector that showed categorically that up to 85 percent of victims of family violence are also victims of sexual violence—85 percent. If we look at the number of victims of family violence in this country it is an epidemic beyond proportion. If 85 percent of those victims have also been sexually violated we have an epidemic on our hands. The Minister stood in this Chamber tonight and challenged Jacinda Ardern’s claim that the situation indicated a lack of police resource. Well I say to you that Jacinda was being generous because if it is not a lack of resource then it is about attitude and culture—an attitude that sexual predation is OK and an attitude that the police do not care and a culture of indifference—and I for one will not stand for that. Thank you and I wish not to have to speak on this ever again.Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): The report into Operation Clover and the subsequent report today of the Independent Police Conduct Authority are undoubtedly sober reading for us all. As the Minister of Police and others have said it is extremely disappointing to hear from the authority of these serious inadequacies in the police investigation. I think it is quite right that this House would be concerned about that and would want to take the time out of its schedule to register in the strongest terms its concern.It is fundamental to our system of law and order that the police have the respect of all New Zealand and that New Zealanders see them as being above reproach and always operating to the highest standards of ethics and good practice. Although I have absolutely no doubt that for most of the time for most police officers that would be true the reality is that it takes the actions of only one or two officers in one or two cases to seriously damage that trust and reputation. Although it is an incredibly tough and high standard to hold our police to I think we can and must hold them to that standard.Sexual violence in New Zealand as it is in other countries is a matter of shame for this country. It is not a problem that is unique to New Zealand but it is a problem that New Zealand absolutely can and must face up to. In my view the incredibly high incidence of sexual violence—and actually even more concerning the extent to which some women expect to be treated in that way or accept that they will be treated in that way and do not feel that it is their place to stand up—is an absolute criticism of our country. The attitude that prevails amongst some is one of hostility and aggression towards women and that cannot be allowed to carry on.We have a situation—and we saw it actually in this Roast Busters case when we read the report into Operation Clover—where the young women concerned were very reluctant to come forward and very reluctant in many cases to make a complaint. It was very interesting to read the reports as to why that was. The women gave three reasons in the main. The first—and what is noted overwhelmingly as the biggest concern for them—was actually the ramifications and the fallout that they would have had from their peers and their families. They feared that they would be looked down on in the eyes of their families and that they would face criticism from their peers. If we have a culture where a woman feels reluctant to come forward because of how society will treat her then we have an issue not just in the police in this instance but across our society.The other really concerning aspect that the report mentions—well there are two more but the first of those—was that the women themselves felt somehow culpable. That really upset me—that they felt that somehow because of the way they were dressed the way they were acting the fact that they had had a few drinks they might have been flirting they had lost the right to complain about what subsequently happened to them. I am horrified to think that young women in New Zealand are being led to believe—and I do not think it is necessarily a sort of formal training; but the way they are growing up is encouraging them to believe—that somehow if you wear a certain type of clothes or act in a certain way or have a few drinks then you get what is coming to you. You absolutely do not. A woman can wear what she likes she can say what she likes and she can act as she will—she never ever can be held responsible for sexual violence that happens to her.Hon Ruth Dyson: Well said Amy—well said.Hon AMY ADAMS: Thank you. I do not know what more we need to do to teach our young women this but as a mother as an aunt and as a member of our society and I am sure every woman in this House would agree I say we have to do better in teaching our young women that they do not have to feel that they are responsible.The final reason that the women gave—and I certainly do not want to shy away from this—was that they were concerned about what coming forward would mean for them in terms of having to go through the system. This is an area that is absolutely on my plate and I am happy to reflect that this is an area in which I have to take leadership and I am happy to try to do that.We know that coming forward and going through the court system can be incredibly destroying for victims. Many of them describe it as a process of revictimisation. Again that cannot be a way forward. We cannot hope to make a difference if victims are being told: “I wouldn’t come forward if I were you because the process is so awful.” Although I understand the rationale for people to make those comments we simply cannot send the message not to come forward. We have to support the women who come forward—those who have the courage to stand up in the face of all of those issues and doubts and concerns that I have mentioned—and we have to support them through a system that is more supportive.My own view is that I do not think that it will ever be easy and we should not kid ourselves that we can design a court system where it is easy for victims to have to go forward retell their story and go through a process of questioning. But what we absolutely can do is make it better than it is. That is why I have committed to doing a number of things in my time as Minister of Justice. Let me say first off that I am absolutely open to working with anyone in this House who has suggestions as to how we can make it better. I do not believe this is a political issue. I do not believe that there is any party in this House that would not recognise that we need to make it better. Anyone who wants to step forward with good ideas and good advice I certainly want to hear from.The House will know that I have asked the Law Commission to urgently recommence its work on pre-trial and trial practices in sexual violence cases for this very reason. There is a lot of good work in its initial issues paper and I think we can make some changes. Let me just say though that change is always difficult. I get a lot of feedback that people are excited to hear that we are looking at it but when you actually come to make the change it is incredible how often you then get all these reasons why you should not possibly do it. So I will need the support of this House when it comes time to say that if we want different outcomes we have to do things differently.I am also in the process of creating the role of chief victims advisers to Ministers in order to make sure right across Government and across all ministries we ensure that we have independent and contestable advice coming to us about the impact on victims.There is one other thing that I did really want to spend a bit of time on in this last contribution in this urgent debate and that is the absolutely abhorrent attitude of these young men. Any perpetrator of sexual violence is obviously the lowest of the low but the particular attitude of the young men involved in this case was gobsmackingly appalling. Not only did they demean assault and invade these young women they laughed about it they demeaned it and they publicised it through social media because they wanted to make themselves look like the big guys and one-up themselves.We have to recognise that in the modern digital world—and I apologise to the House in advance for my language—the behaviour commonly known as “slut shaming” or “revenge porn” has become increasingly prevalent and it is a serious threat to our young women and young people. We have to understand that in a digital world the ability to revictimise and re-traumatise these victims is real and can often be more damaging in some events than the original case.In front of the House is the Harmful Digital Communications Bill which is making an effort to at least allow us to stop these women being revictimised through explosive viral fast-disseminated means and I hope we will have the support of this entire House so that should a situation like this ever arise again not only do we absolutely expect a better standard of performance from our police but we absolutely should expect that as a society—we might not have been able to prevent the initial attack but we absolutely can prevent these women from being revictimised through social media.The last speaker before me in the debate Ms Williams spoke about the link between sexual violence and domestic violence and I want to reiterate that. There is a very clear link often between the dramatically high rates of family violence and sexual violence and in many of the issues we face particularly in designing a system response the investigation the handling of the cases many of the same issues arise.In New Zealand we have one domestic violence notification every 6 minutes. Half of all our homicides are related to domestic violence. We lose on average 14 women seven men and eight children a year. I know that the particular case in front of us is not a domestic violence situation but actually some of the underlying attitudes approaches and outlook the intergenerational normalisation of this behaviour is underlying both of them. This cannot ever be allowed to be repeated.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) BillSecond ReadingHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections) on behalf of theMinister of Finance: I move That the Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time.A party votewas called for on the question That the Appropriation (2013/14 Confirmation and Validation) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 54New Zealand Labour 29; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 11.Bill read a second time.Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)In CommitteePart 1 Animal Welfare Act 1999Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I would like to ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Maggie Barry to comment on why she thinks that Part 12 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) which deals with amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998 and the amendment in respect of the laws relating to the Land Transport Management Amendment Act in Part 13 which deals with land transport management obviously—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Order! Please be seated. I am sorry to interrupt the member. We are discussing Part 1.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I seek leave for all of the questions in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) to be debated as one debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is not.Parts 1 to 33 and clauses 1 and 2Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I will start again.Hon Maurice Williamson: This time make it relevant.Hon DAVID PARKER: I will make it relevant. We know that a statutes amendment bill is meant to consider issues that are non-controversial. We have heard from the Government time and again in the last 2 weeks that it justifies the Northland election bribe in respect of bridge funding. The reason that was done outside the normal process for the National Land Transport Plan outside of normal Cabinet processes and outside of normal parliamentary processes was that it was uncontentious. Well if it was uncontentious would it meet the requirements of a statutes amendment bill? I would ask the Minister in the chair to elucidate the principle that underlies why the amendments in Parts 12 and 13 to land transport policy are suitable for the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) but the decisions that have been made in respect of $70 million of funding for bridges in the area of the Northland by-election are so non-controversial that they do not need to come to Parliament in any way. We have seen considerable opprobrium cast upon that decision by the newspapers the fourth estate trying to hold the Government to account as is its role and by Opposition parties and yet we have Ministers standing up in this House and saying that nothing untoward happened.Well I want to know the point of principle that says that the minor amendments in Part 13 and Part 12—and I will show you how minor they are—come before Parliament. The amendment in Part 13 to the Land Transport Management Act changes a date as a consequence of the establishment of the New Zealand Transport Agency. The New Zealand Transport Agency is the funding body that is responsible for spending the hundreds of millions of dollars that are collected from New Zealanders through excise duties petrol excise duties road-user charges and tolls where they are collected. The Government has thought that it is uncontentious and therefore appropriate to include in this bill the change to section 47 of the Land Transport Management Act 2008 which replaces the date 1 July 2008 with 1 August 2008 as a consequence of the establishment of the New Zealand Transport Agency.I can understand that that is not too contentious and that is why the Labour Party has agreed to that inclusion in the Land Transport Management Act. But I would like the Minister to stand and justify why if that sort of amendment requires the time of this Committee spending $70 million of taxpayers’ money in an election bribe using the power of the State to levy taxes for the advantage of a political party overriding the provisions of plans made by the New Zealand Transport Agency in conjunction with the regional council in the Northland area and that sort of overruling to spend $70 million of taxpayers’ money does not need some legislative authority. I await the Minister’s response.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I regret that the Minister the Hon Maggie Barry was not able to beat me to take the call but I am sure that she is keen to do that and answer the questions that my colleague the Hon David Parker has posed in his contribution.Just to briefly recap before I start talking about the technical issues involved in some of the parts of this—and can I express my disappointment at the motion that the senior whip from Labour moved in that we are now debating these parts all in one debate. I would have much preferred to have had 34 separate debates on the specific provisions! I am also gobsmacked to see that the senior Labour whip is so committed to the principles of Parliament operating at a smooth and appropriate pace that he is doing the work of the Government whips who forgot to move that motion—but good on you Mr Hipkins.Chris Hipkins: I’m from the Opposition; I’m here to help.Hon RUTH DYSON: You are from the Opposition and here to help.I will just briefly recap on the point of a statutes amendment bill because there is some debate around it. Again it would be interesting to hear the Minister’s contribution to this in regard to the mandate of Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). You will notice that in the Committee stage of this debate there are fewer provisions than were originally included in the bill when it was referred to the Government Administration Committee. That is because the select committee determined that the number of changes to a specific Act proposed in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) actually ruled some of those proposals out of order and unable to be included in the statutes amendments. It was not any specific one of the measures proposed but rather the number of measures proposed that ruled some out. So that is the first point.The second one is that of course the statutes amendment proposals should be non-controversial. They should not be altering specific policy unheralded previously but they can correct an error in drafting. If there is a drafting provision that has been made in previous legislation that has gone through being debated by the House and an error has been put into legislation then it is within the mandate of a statutes amendmentbill to have a correction—basically to rectify the error. So it may look like a policy contribution.The member who took the call immediately prior to me the Hon David Parker talked about how ironic it was to have this debate taking up the time of Parliament when these are technical issues when they are non-controversial issues. He referred specifically to Part 12 of the bill which has amendments to the Land Transport Act 1998. It talks about procedures for dealing with blood specimens search warrants in relation to specific offences the Search and Surveillance Act traffic offences and infringement notices—mostly changing words without changing the meaning of the primary legislation or updating existing legislation. The Land Transport Act which the member was referring to in relation to Part 12 of the bill is a piece of legislation that was originally passed by the House in 1998 so a lot of other Acts have been introduced and passed since then that may have consequential amendments for the Land Transport Act. But the point that the Hon David Parker was making was how ironic it is that we are debating this matter which literally makes not a blind bit of difference to any member of the public and really does not require a lot of attention from Parliament. I am just beating you to the button?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No it is the silent button. I’ve got a conversation on.Hon RUTH DYSON: Oh it is so we cannot hear the conversation. That is very considerate of you. Thank you Mr Chairman.How ironic it is that we are debating this legislation using the time of Parliament when we have a significant announcement under the exact same legislation that is covered in Part 12: the Land Transport Act. It is a significant announcement in Northland to coincide with the by-election which is now spelt “buy-election” rather than using any normal spelling of the word because the National Party by using the provisions of the Land Transport Act 1998 spent $70 million—$70 million—on 10 bridges in Northland. It is an absolute coincidence that those bridges are being funded and announced—not through any normal process but with the candidate and very fortuitously a big round black pig standing under a hoarding board for the National Party. That is my contribution on Part 12of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) which covers alterations to the Land Transport Act.There is another specific part that I want to refer to and I think it is Part 23. It is—Part 23. This is a much more substantial series of amendments than the one that I referred to under the Land Transport Act. These provisions change the Official Information Act 1982. Members will see from the alterations to the original bill that substantial debate was had on this at the select committee and I want to ensure as we go through the Committee of the whole House that the Committee has the same sort of opportunity to consider amendments. I have heard a few speeches from the National Party particularly from backbenchers over the last 24 hours. I am feeling bold enough having heard the contributions on members’ bills last night to suggest with 100 percent confidence that not a single one of them has read any of the legislation that is being debated. They just stand up and read the research notes.Todd Barclay: We just don’t agree with it—we’ve read it.Hon RUTH DYSON: Actually the opportunity for rigour in considering legislation is during this very stage. Mr Barclay you should take the advice of the Hon Maurice Williamson who has paid more attention to detail in the Committee stages of debates than just about anyone I know. I think it was maritime reform of some description and the rigour that was applied to specific provisions of that legislation with the Hon Maurice Williamson in the chair is the sort of rigour we should be applying to this.Hon Maurice Williamson: That was rigor mortis.Hon RUTH DYSON: It was rigor mortis quite often actually.This proposal in Part 23 is to replace section 28(4) of the Official Information Act and that deals with a very interesting topic: Ministers of the Crown answering requests made under the Official Information Act on time. It is actually a very important point of principle. It sounds like it could almost be veering into the policy area but it is not. But the reason it is important—to draw it to the attention of the Committee—is that we have had considerable abuse of this very provision that we are now changing. In fact the Prime Minister recently commented in public that Official Information Act requests were either escalated and responded to very rapidly or were deliberately delayed because of political considerations. This alteration under Part 23 should strengthen Parliament’s understanding that that sort of political abuse of the Official Information Act either giving certain people the information early—for example Cameron Slater made a request and got the answer within 24 hours. But people in Canterbury who have made requests about their earthquake claims have been told not quietly but publicly online that they have to wait 6 months for their requests to be granted by the Earthquake Commission despite the specific provisions of the Official Information Act which are altered in Part 23 of this bill giving a rigorous time line. So that sort of manipulation of the Official Information Act is not acceptable to this House. It is certainly not acceptable to the public.I hope that the alterations we are making in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) despite not altering any of the fundamental policy of the Official Information Act give a bit more rigour a bit more clarity and I suppose in the end stop Ministers—including the Prime Minister—manipulating what has been a very important part of our transparency as a Parliament. Ministers are held to account in this House at select committee and through requests like Official Information Act requests. We must make sure that the principles of that Act are maintained and I hope that these alterations do that.There is just one other provision that I want to allude to and that is the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act of 1994. Again it is really interesting that we have got measures within this legislation to better protect Antarctica but as we saw in the recent episode in west Auckland Ministers who were able to use provisions of protection would not even do that with two threatened kauri trees. So we have again quite ironic situations where Ministers who have a legal opportunity to act in the best interests of our citizens—or in this case for the protection of kauri trees—step back but at the same time are prepared to offer better environmental protection in Antarctica. I cannot think of a better cause actually. It is one that probably most members of this House—SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the Committee stage of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). I know Mr Chair that you have a personal interest in omnibus bills and I agree with you. I think that they are an important vehicle—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Don’t bring me into this.Hon Ruth Dyson: You’re not allowed to bring him into the debate.SARAH DOWIE: My apologies. I believe that these omnibus bills play an important part in our legislative programme. They are a vehicle for expediency. As the member opposite has alluded to they make non-controversial changes to a raft of Acts—in this case 34 Acts. They update them. They make the reading clearer and bring the Acts into the form of being able to be read more easily in plain simple English. I am very supportive of these bills as a vehicle to expedite the process.I just want to pick up on a point raised by the member opposite saying that we as backbenchers have not read the legislation. In the first reading I certainly used examples of the Official Information Act and when I had used those provisions at the Department of Conservation. So certainly I have read the legislation. I have used the legislation. I believe that these changes although they are not policy changes are still making a difference to the workability of the Act.In particular I would like to refer to section 52 of the bill—Hon Ruth Dyson: It’s in parts and there’s no 52. And you tell me you’ve read it?SARAH DOWIE: —which enables a change to that Act. It allows—Hon Ruth Dyson: It finishes at Part 31.Hon Member: Ignore her.SARAH DOWIE: OK then. Basically clause 52 allows a change to be made to the Act whereby oral applications can be made for information. I think that is a pragmatic change and one that certainly should be applauded.There are a number of other changes that are made. I just want to touch on some of those in respect of the Marine Mammals Protection Act and also the Trade in Endangered Species Act 1989. They make the same change but it is in respect of clarifying that a warrant may be issued to more than one officer. The difference is that the amendments make it more transparent. So you are basically naming those officers without having to go back to the courts to again list one by one those officers who will go in and enforce the provisions of those Acts. Again that is about expediency and from our perspective it is about delivering better public services: being more transparent more accountable and delivering on those Acts in a better way.I think these vehicles are a fantastic way to move forward in our legislative programme. I know that the previous Government Administration Committee had considered the bill well. We always have robust debates in that committee. I am supportive of this programme to shepherd it through the Committee and bring it through to fruition. With that I commend this bill to the House.GARETH HUGHES (Green): Kia ora Mr Chair. Ngā mihi nui ki a koutou katoa. Kia ora. I saw all the other members in the Chamber were having such fun debating the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that I could not help but rise and make a contribution. It is like Christmas time for geeks in this debating chamber today.What I want to do is touch on Part 6 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) which deals with the Copyright Act 1994. As other members have stated this legislation is for technical amendments. I have a series of questions for the Minister. I have got to admit that I had not actually seen this in earlier discussions around the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) so I would very much like some straight answers. Part 6 simply deals with a minor amendment to reduce the membership of the Copyright Tribunal. Previously section 206 of the Copyright Act as amended by the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Regulations established this Copyright Tribunal to deal with the copyright-infringing file-sharing provisions and it had a membership of five. The amendment in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) replaces the five with at least two but no more than five other persons. So we could plausibly see a Copyright Tribunal with two members.My question to the Minister is: are they reducing the membership because the Copyright Tribunal has been an absolute dismal failure? Is this the reason why we are doing it? Because what we have seen is a failure in real terms. It is an expensive failure both for internet service providers and the Government and it is not even achieving its stated aims which is to try to reduce infringing file-sharing—what other members may call copyright infringement. So my question is: is this because of the failure? Is the Government trying to save some money on this expensive Copyright Tribunal by reducing the members? If you look at its workload—this legislation passed in 2011; it took 2 years to finally get the system up and running. There were 18 decisions from the tribunal in 2013. Last year there were four decisions by this tribunal with five members and according to its website there has been a single decisionthis year. I remember that side of the House when the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Regulations now more commonly known as the Skynet legislation passed. They were literally banging the tables with their fists on the scourge of piracy and how we were destroying the movie industry and how musicians were begging on the streets. Yet what we have seen is a single case this year and four cases last year from this tribunal. When we talk about the membership of the Copyright Tribunal—Brett Hudson: That’s not the important part.GARETH HUGHES: I would like to remind Brett Hudson about the costs for industry the cost of this legislation and the cost of this five-person tribunal because “ISPs” in 2011—internet service providers Mr Hudson—some of the hard-working Kiwi businesses said that your law had cost $919000 in the first year alone in compliance costs. So when you hear the Government rail on about the costs of red tape the bureaucratic cost of the Government remember who the ones who are applying it are. What we have seen is legislation that is not working and my question to the Minister is whether that is the reason why we are reducing this in Part 6 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). What we have seen of course is that the tribunal does not have a great deal of work to do.The Motion Picture Distributors Association of New Zealand has not put a single complaint through our three-strikes copyright legislation the supposed first-line response to support artists and intellectual property. Not a single notice came from the Motion Picture Distributors Association. Yet what we have seen is the industry particularly the music industry put in incomplete notices. The tribunal had to throw other notices out. I think the Government members have got to ask themselves why they rushedthrough under urgency such ill-conceived legislation when it is clearly not working.When you look at the official reports on the legislation there was a review by Rebecca Giblin from Monash University. What she said is that National’s legislation is not working. What we have seen is peer-to-peer file-sharing which is what the original legislation that we are now amending again tried to deal with—it was peer-to-peer file-sharing alone. What we have seen of course—and this is an entirely rational response from people who do want to download or share infringing material—is that people are shifting platforms. So my question is: when the Government is reducing the membership of the Copyright Tribunal is it because it is a failure? Is it because perhaps I dare to say it I was right all along? Is it that the experts the Green Party were right all along when we urged to this House that the most effective way to support intellectual property and Kiwi artists is to provide legal online alternatives?We have seen that in the last 2 years with the likes of Quickflix Netflix Spotify—that is the service I love the most. I listen to Spotify on my way to work every day. The fact is that for all the millions of dollars wasted the members on the Copyright Tribunal could have put that effort into encouraging the likes of Netflix down to New Zealand. I remember asking Simon Power in this Chamber what he was doing in the wake of international evidence that the most effective way to reduce piracy was to provide legal alternatives. I asked him what he was doing to bring Netflix to New Zealand and he simply said: “What is that?”. It is a huge missed opportunity. The opportunity cost is that maybe we could have actually had these five people dedicated and working for legal alternatives and ultimately that is the best way to support artists intellectual property and to save the taxpayers and businesses money. Kia ora.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I have been looking forward to my opportunity to speak on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). Given that we are in the Committee stage I hope that the Chair will indulge me while I delve in a little more detail into some of the specific amendments that we are making in the Committee today. You will forgive me that of the 32 parts that we are debating I have decided—Hon David Parker: 33.JACINDA ARDERN: Thirty-three; excuse me. I have decided to skip over the first the Animal Welfare Act amendment around search warrants. But I would like because it took my attention to delve a little more into Part 2 “Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act 1994” mostly because of what some might call my obsessive—others would just be fair and call it keen—interest in Antarctica and Antarctic exploration. So this caught my eye. I wanted to talk a little bit about the changes that we are making to the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act. Of course the premise of a statutes amendment bill is that everything you do tends to be non-controversial. That does not mean that it is not interesting. So I want to go to section 28 of the Act because that is where the amendment is that we are making.Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Really?JACINDA ARDERN: Yes really—follow along Minister. You might learn something. You of course will already know this as the Minister has taken an intense interest. Under section 28 of the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Act there is a provision in there—and I will read it quickly—that sets out what you are not allowed to take into the protected areas and for good reason. So it states: “No person shall—(a) enter or carry out any activity in an Antarctic Specially Protected Area; or (b) take or attempt to take any native bird or native mammal in Antarctica;”. You see that it is actually quite a reasonably narrow range. You cannot take or attempt to take any native bird or native mammal. What about the native invertebrates—what about the native invertebrates? So rightly so the Statutes Amendment—Hon David Parker: What about the albatross?JACINDA ARDERN: The albatross? Well you cannot attempt to take out an albatross at the moment. So thankfully there has been the good foresight by—I am assuming Antarctica New Zealand probably put this proposal forward. Perhaps the Minister can tell me who proposed it. Thankfully anything that has no backbone or spinal column—because of course that is the definition of a native invertebrate—will no longer be able to be removed from Antarctica. There are so many things I could say about that. I will act in a restrained manner and not make jokes about not removing National Party members from Antarctica any more. But that is one of the things that for instance the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is doing. We are making sure that there are certain native species now that cannot be removed from Antarctica.That does raise a question though. Going down to clause 6(2) the bill is also adding a little bit of a disclaimer clause. Any politician will know that when you are not sure that you have covered everything you add in something like “including but not limited to”. That is what we are doing in clause 6(2) where it says you cannot “(e) introduce onto land or ice shelves or sea ice or into water in Antarctica any living organism (including but not limited to any species of animal plant or micro-organism) not native to that area;”.Hon David Parker: What about Shackleton’s ponies?JACINDA ARDERN: Shackleton’s ponies—you cannot take them back in. So we have added a disclaimer there I imagine just to make sure we have got a cover-all. My question is and I hope that the Minister will respond to this: why we have not done that for the amendment that we have then made underneath that? In clause 6(3) it says: “After section 28(1)(e) insert—(ea)”. I will read what we have currently got now. Again it is just simply limiting what we are unable to take in. They have listed again living birds for instance as one of the listed things. But why should we not put again that disclaimer statement in there of “but not limited to” to make sure that we do not have to come back again and add another thing to the list? Basically what we are saying is do not take anything in and do not take anything out. So why would we not consistently draft through that provision to make sure we have got that cover-all I guess in there?Finally we have got an amendment to section 28(3) of the Act. At the moment it says: “No person shall import into Antarctica any dressed poultry knowing that an inspection in accordance with the Protocol revealed evidence of any disease …”. We are replacing that “dressed poultry” with “poultry or avian products”. I actually do not know what the difference is with “dressed poultry”. I do not know whether anyone in the Chamber would care to enlighten me—perhaps the Minister. [Bell rung] Oh there is more Mr Chairperson. I would be interested to see what the difference is there. But we are now removing an entire appendix that sets out the diseases that you cannot knowingly bring in a bird with. We are removing that; we are just covering ourselves with “poultry or avian products”. Just a nice—Tim Macindoe: I can’t believe you’re talking about this Jacinda.JACINDA ARDERN: This is interesting stuff Tim. So we are just doing a cover-all provision. I am just demonstrating that I have done my homework and read what we are actually doing in this Committee today.Hon David Parker: What impact would this have had on historical exploration?JACINDA ARDERN: If we had this at the time of historical exploration we certainly probably would have had a lot more of them perishing much sooner—a good point you raise Mr Parker.I know everyone is waiting with bated breath until I get to Part 3 “Biosecurity Act 1993”. I have got a few questions there as well. We are amending the zones that these provisions relate to. At the moment the meaning of “craft risk management standard” applies only to territory. We are now inserting the exclusive economic zone. That is the right thing to do—a simple amendment.But I have a few more questions though around the amendments to section 110 of the Biosecurity Act which I will pull up now. In section 110(1) of the principal Act which is what we are amending at the moment it states that when getting a warrant to inspect a dwelling house or marae “An issuing officer (within the meaning of section 3 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012)”—again we are fixing up some quite recent legislation—“may on an application made in the manner provided by subpart 3 … of that Act by an inspector or authorised person issue a warrant authorising the inspector or authorised person to enter and inspect the dwellinghouse marae or building associated with a marae specified in the application.” So basically it is handing down the delegation for issuing a warrant. At the moment we are referring to authorising “the inspector or authorised person”. Obviously there has been a problem with the way that has been drafted because now in our statutes amendment legislation we are replacing “authorising the inspector or authorised person” with “authorising every inspector and authorised person”.My question to the Minister is this: have there been occurrences where the warrants undertaken by these inspectors or authorised persons have been deemed null and void because of the way this has been drafted? Because we are now doing a cover-all provision that says every inspector will be covered when before it used the word “the”. Have we actually had a situation that has been brought to the attention of the Minister by biosecurity enforcers where they have either had their warrant questioned or subsequent to engaging that warrant whatever they have found has been for instance ruled null and void because of the way this has been drafted? I think it is a reasonable question because the changes that were made as part of the Search and Surveillance Act were reasonable. There was an extension of powers there and this raises the question as to whether or not those officers acted in an authorised way according to the legislation when they exercised those powers based on what we are doing here today.Then I move on to section 142A. This section of the Act basically sets out how the Director-General can establish a biosecurity database and where they are able to get their information from when they establish a database. Currently information in the public domain can be used to form that database. The Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) is changing the phrase “public domain” to information that is “publicly available”—interesting. I would be interested to hear the legal difference in definition between “public domain” and “publicly available”. You never know; it may affect our Standing Orders and the ability to table documents. If the Minister could speak to that question I would be very interested indeed. I will leave to my next colleague the privilege of speaking to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act because I have no doubt they will find just as many interesting matters to comment on as we progress through the Committee stage of this debate.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a shame and I did not want to interrupt the member because I was having a really entertaining time listening to the fascinating segments of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that she was choosing to canvass. It was great. I particularly enjoyed the aspects around Antarctica. I did not realise that you could not reintroduce Shetland ponies into Antarctica once you had removed them. I did not realise they even existed there in the first place actually but you never know. I have never been there. I am close to Antarctica.Tim Macindoe: You must be the member for Antarctica.TODD BARCLAY: No—well I am pretty close. Actually Sarah Dowie might be. Who is the MP? Do we have an MP for Antarctica?I just wanted to talk a little bit about something not quite as exciting as ponies in Antarctica but about the Official Information Act and about some of the clauses that have been included in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) with regard to not only the Official Information Act 1982 but also the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act. Having had a little bit of experience in Ministers’ offices working on Official Information Act requests it is interesting to see it from the other side around how sometimes the requests can change a number of times and a slight change in an Official Information Act request can change the scope completely and can also create a whole lot more work than may be initially foreseeable. With some of the more conjoint work streams that the Government is implementing across the social sector as well if you put in an Official Information Act request regarding vulnerable children to the office of the Minister for Social Development you might be getting information collected across a wide range of various Ministers which includes a lot of time and also includes a lot of resource. All that information does not necessarily have to come from head office either. There are a number of regional offices around the country that have information sought from them as well.So that is specifically regarding clause 74 of the bill. This Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) clarifies that if a request for official information is amended after consultation with the requester the revised request is to be treated as a new request for the purposes of the 20-day limit. It also states that the revised request also replaces the original request for that purpose provided that an agency will not receive the benefit from this provision unless it has made a demonstrable effort to clarify the request within 7 working days. I think that is a reasonable request given particularly the administrative tasks that take place upon the receipt of an Official Information Act request. They are usually done within the first couple of days purely from a logging and allocating perspective anyway.So I think making that clearer for the Official Information Act will certainly help all parties involved and will also bring that in line for the local government side of things. I think it is becoming increasingly more important given the nature of activities that local government bodies are undertaking that are being filtered down by central government and it helps to enable them to be more aligned and have a more consistent approach to treating Official Information Act requests.Tim Macindoe: It’s an important consideration.TODD BARCLAY: It was quite an important consideration—it was indeed I say to the senior whip. Thank you for pointing that out. It was fascinating.I also just wanted to touch on another positive aspect of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) with regard to the Official Information Act and that is clause 73 of the bill where we are clarifying that a partial transfer of an Official Information Act request is permitted. I suppose that is general practice already in a lot of cases and it probably has been treated that way for quite some time but it always helps to tidy up the legislation to ensure that it is up to date and of relevance.I suppose it goes back to the purpose of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) and statutes amendment bills in general which provide an opportunity for the Government to tidy up smaller pieces of legislation across a wide range of pieces of legislation to bring them up to date and to make them more efficient. The previous member—or it might have been a Green member maybe—was talking about the huge amount of legislation that has been implemented over the last few years and I think that is a sign of a hard-working effective Government. I have to say there was a lot of legislation that needed amending after the 9 previous years of Labour so it has been a busy Government implementing a lot of legislation.Hon Ruth Dyson: Name two bills—name two.TODD BARCLAY: There are a number of pieces of legislation. There are a number of pieces of legislation that are happening particularly in the space where the member actually worked as a Minister. We were talking about the Antarctica Act. We are talking about conservation. It was great during the campaign actually. We hosted you down in Balclutha. It was a very positive influence on the farmers down there.Hon Ruth Dyson: Name one bill that corrected a Labour mistake.TODD BARCLAY: It is all right we will just carry on. Moving on to the Official Information Act which we were talking about before. It is quite fascinating. We need to clarify—ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru): I would like to speak to Part 22 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4)—namely the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Act 2012—which corrects the legislation by deleting the words “or a Crown body” with reference to right of first refusal land.Before I speak to that I do have a couple of questions for the Minister in the chair Minister Lotu-Iiga but I think it is important to have on record the importance of right of first refusal land to settle iwi. This is land that is within the agreed area of interest for that particular iwi. It is Crown land that is owned by the Crown and under the current legislation also by Crown bodies. This removes the words “or a Crown body” because in the deed of settlement it refers just to the Crown. The important thing to note I think is that for the settled iwi this is really important because it gives the opportunity to buy back land that they once owned and is now alienated. I think it is important to recognise that in this discussion on this part of the bill.The question I have—and to quote an interjection from Brett Hudson “Why create law when none is needed?”—is along those lines in support of what he is saying actually and is whether the Government considered asking Ngāti Manuhiri to change the deed of settlement. The second part of the question related to that is whether Ngāti Manuhiri is better off or worse off by this amendment. I think that is a fair question to ask because the nature of these settlements is about giving redress to the iwi that has suffered the breaches and omissions by the Crown in their rohe in their district where they are from. So I think that is an important consideration and a fair question to ask of the Minister because as my colleague across the way there said why create law when none is needed? If it was a simple matter of changing the deed of settlement we would not have to have this within the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).I think also with reference to right of first refusal land within the settlement Acts there is a variety of time frames in the respective settlement Acts. In this particular case Ngāti Manuhiri has that right for 169 years which is a very long time. Others that have been settled previously to this one have rights of refusal for 50 years and that begs another question around relativity in these settlement Acts. I think it is important also to note that as part of this debate.I think also that the right of first refusal land is a huge opportunity for iwi that have settled to grow the asset they have received as part of their redress. I mention that mainly because it is redress; it is not compensation. It is the opportunity to grow the asset within their tribal areas. These kinds of sentiments are listed within the various settlement Acts—and indeed in this one—and that is why I ask again whether the Minister considered changing the deed of settlement rather than changing the legislation. And if the Government did consider that and decided not to was it because this would then set a precedent which would have to be applied to a number of other settlements and future settlements? I do not know how many Crown—BRETT HUDSON (National): I appreciate that this is the first time that Chairman Borrows has presided over this debate on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) but other presiding officers have heard a number of times people saying the same thing about it. So I resolved that I would not repeat that this is an omnibus bill that makes minor technical changes that have unanimous support across the House. Mr Chair one could tire very quickly of every member saying such a thing.But I did want to take a call to speak on the changes to the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act 1995 because I think the current provisions there have the potential to be quite troubling in their effects. In fact it is clause 15 of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) that replaces within that principal Act section 21A(2) which is around the proof of identity. There is actually quite a great deal to it. I will not read out the full detail but what it does amount to is that someone seeking to change their name must now under the new provisions actually provide satisfactory evidence that they themselves are the person who is seeking the name change or the legal guardian or authority to make that change.It is very troubling that the way the law stands today could potentially allow a person to change the name of someone else or in fact to change their name to someone else’s because that proof of identity is not required to the extent that this change will require. Hypothetically just as an illustration to help show the magnitude of this troubling provision a person a Ms Willow-Jean Prime could choose to change her name to Mark Osborne and she would not have to prove that she is actually Mark Osborne and has a right to that name. You might wonder why someone would do that. Well if Ms Prime changed her name to Mark Osborne at least she would have her party’s support in the by-election. So you can understand why she might try to do that very thing. Fortunately this very sound pragmatic action we are taking in the Statutes Amendment Bill (No. 4) will prevent such things ever occurring in the future. It is most important because quite frankly the only way she would get any support in this by-election is if she were to do that.I would also like though to comment on another Act that is amended in this Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) and that is the Local Government Act 1974. Clause 43 of this bill amends schedule 10 of that Act by replacing “Ministry of Transport” with “New Zealand Transport Agency”. Although one could imagine that local body employees could indulge in friendly intercourse with employees of the Ministry of Transport such is likely to be more fruitful and productive if they held it with the employees of the responsible agency. In this case in respect of consulting on temporary road closures it is in fact the New Zealand Transport Agency they should be talking to not the Ministry of Transport. So yet again it is another simple technical change that helps to make sure that our law actually operates as intended.Finally I would also like to comment on the National Animal Identification and Tracing Act 2012. Clause 63 of the bill inserts into that principal Act new subsection10(3A) after subsection 10(3). That new subsection reads: “When contracting out compliance and enforcement functions under subsection 3(b) the NAIT organisation remains responsible and accountable for the performance of those functions.” That is an extremely good measure and extremely sound. What it allows of course is for National Animal Identification and Tracing (NAIT) to contract out certain functions to people who might be in a better place to discharge them. They may have more competency more resources or more practical skill in the matter but most important NAIT remains accountable for what that subsidiary may do. It remains responsible for the obligations under that Act.Those are just a small number of examples of the very good work that this omnibus bill does and I look forward to it progressing to the end of this debate and hopefully into a successful third reading. Thank you.Parts 1 to 33 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill (No 2) the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Amendment Bill the Biosecurity Amendment Bill the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill the Commodity Levies Amendment Bill the Copyright Amendment Bill the Forests Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill the Governor-General Amendment Bill the Heavy Engineering Research Levy Amendment Bill the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Amendment Bill the Land Transport Amendment Bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Act 2008 Amendment Bill the Local Electoral Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Bill the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill the Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Bill the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Bill the Marine Mammals Protection Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 Amendment Bill the National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Bill the National Parks Amendment Bill the Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Amendment Bill the Official Information Amendment Bill the Ombudsmen Amendment Bill the Pork Industry Board Amendment Bill the Reserves Amendment Bill the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Amendment Bill the Sentencing Amendment Bill the Summary Proceedings Amendment Bill the Tariff Amendment Bill the Tokelau (Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone) Amendment Bill the Trade in Endangered Species Amendment Bill and the Wildlife Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper55.Bill reported without amendment.Report adopted.Third ReadingsHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections)on behalf of theAssociate Minister of Justice: I move That the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill (No 2) the Antarctica (Environmental Protection) Amendment Bill the Biosecurity Amendment Bill the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Amendment Bill the Commodity Levies Amendment Bill the Copyright Amendment Bill the Forests Amendment Bill the Friendly Societies and Credit Unions Amendment Bill the Governor-General Amendment Billthe Heavy Engineering Research Levy Amendment Billthe Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel Amendment Billthe Land Transport Amendment Billthe Land Transport Management Amendment Act 2008 Amendment Billthe Local Electoral Amendment Billthe Local Government Act 1974 Amendment Billthe Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Billthe Local Government (Auckland Council) Amendment Billthe Local Government Official Information and Meetings Amendment Billthe Marine Mammals Protection Amendment Billthe Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act 1978 Amendment Billthe National Animal Identification and Tracing Amendment Billthe National Parks Amendment Billthe Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Amendment Billthe Official Information Amendment Billthe Ombudsmen Amendment Billthe Pork Industry Board Amendment Billthe Reserves Amendment Billthe Sale and Supply of Alcohol Amendment Billthe Sentencing Amendment Billthe Summary Proceedings Amendment Billthe Tariff Amendment Billthe Tokelau (Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic Zone) Amendment Billthe Trade in Endangered Species Amendment Billthe Wildlife Amendment Billthebe now read a third time.By their nature statutes amendment bills do not address significant policy matters as you have heard. The amendments proposed must be technical short and non-controversial. Crucially though it means it must have the support of all members of this House. However statutes amendment bills are an important part of the Government’s legislative programme. They make amendments that individually would not receive the priority needed to be progressed but they allow us to keep law up to date accurate and fair.As has already been stated this afternoon the legislation does amend 34 Acts administered by eight different Government agencies. Some of the objectives achieved by the amendments in this legislation include firstly clarifying that the request for official information may be communicated in any form. Secondly it gives Auckland Transport the functions and powers of an enforcement authority in relation to prosecuting infringement offences for public transport fare evasion putting Auckland Transport on the same footing as other regional councils. It also allows every properly authorised enforcement officer to execute a search warrant under several regulatory regimes such as the Animal Welfare Act and the Biosecurity Act. It also extends the protection of Antarctic flora and fauna thereby allowing New Zealand to fully implement its international obligations under the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. We also heard earlier today how the legislation allows the Judicial Conduct Commissioner to refer a complaint to their deputy for investigation to allow for more efficient processing of those complaints. It also clarifies when an infringement reminder notice is deemed to be served on a defendant as you will know. One of the other things this legislation does is it allows the Ombudsman to refuse to formally investigate a complaint if preliminary inquiries show it is unnecessary to allow for a more timely and efficient complaints resolution.A number of people have been instrumental in the passage of the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) and I want to thank members—all members across this House—of the Government Administration Committee as well as the Ministry of Justice officials who assisted them in progressing this legislation through the House. May I also thank those who submitted on the legislation for their useful and well-thought-out considered submissions. Finally I want to thank all parliamentary parties for their backing of the amendments contained in this legislation. I commend all these bills to this House.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): Can I thank the Minister of Corrections on behalf of the Associate Minister of Justice for his comments and say that I endorse them. I would like to begin my contribution by responding to something that was said during the Committee stage by one of the National Party members who expressed support for omnibus bills. I too support omnibus bills but only in very narrow circumstances such as these. Until 1984 omnibus bills were abused in New Zealand. Actually it was one of the many abuses in my opinion from the then National Government which was running the economy with scant recourse to Parliament. Members will recall if they are as old as me that we had a price and rent freeze in New Zealand that had been promulgated by statutory regulation. Imagine freezing all prices across the whole of the economy for year after year without Parliament being asked whether that was a wise thing to do. That was done through regulation-making powers that were terribly broad under the Economic Stabilisation Act of the time.The subsequent Labour Government came into power with a reform agenda on constitutional matters that was driven by the Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer. Amongst the changes to our way in which we conduct legislation in this House and the way in which we hold the executive to account were a number of things. For a start the Economic Stabilisation Act’s regulation-making powers were just repealed which meant that important things that should not be done by regulation effectively had to come to Parliament through Acts of Parliament to be authorised around which there are a lot more protections.If you bring everything back to Parliament through Acts of Parliament there is the opportunity for more scrutiny but Sir Geoffrey Palmer and the Parliament of the day recognised that if you could have omnibus bills into which you could throw everything you could actually pretty much whack a lot of improper things through in one piece of legislation. So not only did they repeal the Economic Stabilisation Act’s regulation-making powers but the Standing Orders were changed in this Parliament to limit the breadth of omnibus legislation and to say that there were only very limited occasions on which omnibus bills could be used. That is why the Standing Orders now come up quite often when we are considering individual pieces of legislation when amendments are proposed by submitters or when amendments might be proposed by parties from both sides of the House that go beyond the scope of the bill and are ruled out by the clerks of our select committees because they infringe the rule about trying to limit the scope of bills so that we in this Parliament do not throw too much into an individual bill that goes beyond the scope of what people think might rightly be within it.Why is that important? We do not have many constitutional provisions in New Zealand against the change of legislation. We have only one House of Parliament. We do not have all of our constitutional rules written down in one place in a written constitution and we do not give the courts the power under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act to strike down parliamentary legislation. Actually I agree with those settings. I do not think we should give the courts the power to strike down legislation. But what it does mean is that we have to take great care that we do not misuse the very broad powers that we have in this Parliament to change the laws quite quickly. There are some good reasons for us having those powers. We do not get stymied like they find themselves to be in the United States now where they have got a deadlock against meaningful change. It means that if we as a country want to move on things like climate change actually this Parliament can do it. It is very hard for them to do that in the United States. It is good that we can make those changes but it does mean that we have got to be careful that we do not go too far and have one piece of legislation that effectively gives a big change over great big swaths of the economy or society as happened under the old Economic Stabilisation Act where regulation-making powers were effectively conferred upon the Government for just about everything.The Standing Orders now say that omnibus bills that change legislation in a lot of spheres are not generally allowed. So if the Government wants to change something relating to tax laws it has to bring forward a tax bill. If it wants to change something around the criminal code it has to bring forward a criminal piece of legislation and if it wants to do something about the environment it needs an environmental bill. Where there is cross-over between the environment and the economy it can touch on those things in the same bill as it ought to and often does not.We should not be changing the Local Government Act and the Land Transport Act and the Births Deaths Marriages and Relationships Registration Act in the same bill unless the things that are being done are of minor effect. That is the one exception that we have to omnibus bills in this House so this is that exception the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4) or as we now have the list of bills that are before us now it has been split into separate bills following the Committee stage—and I could take the rest of my 10 minutes of time up by just listing the various Acts that we are now considering in this bill. This is the one exception it is a proper exception and we agree it is all non-contentious.I will just mention two final things in closing that I think stand to be emphasised. I do find it ironic that we are improving in a minor way the operation of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act and the Official Information Act itself when in such a wholesale way we have the Government abusing both of those pieces of legislation. The worst offenders were the Hon Judith Collins—and I say that name as a matter of parliamentary principle rather than as a matter of honour—through her dealings with Whale Oil; the Prime Minister’s own office in respect of Jason Ede’s antics using the Official Information Act; and the Donghua Liu affair to attack the Labour Party and David Cunliffe who I think is justifiably aggrieved at the injustice that he suffered at the hands of the abuse by this Government of those pieces of legislation.The other point I would make is in respect of the more current abuse of power which is that here we have amendments to land transport legislation coming before this House even though they are minor and yet we are not seeing any legislation to authorise the use of $70 million of money collected from New Zealanders by the Government taken through excise duties and road-user charges and being used as a political slush fund by the National Party in Northland. Again that is not coming before Parliament.Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at that reference and I also believe it is absolutely out of order for the member to make such an accusation of the Government.Hon DAVID PARKER: Speaking to that point of order the Government might not like being accused of being improper but I can do that. I have rights of free speech in this House and when the Government acts in an inappropriate way—indeed I have been in Parliament when the prior Labour Government was accused of being party to corruption in respect of the Taito Phillip Field affair and we had to put up with those allegations day after day. We did not like them but the Opposition’s right to free speech meant that those matters were properly raised.Tim Macindoe: I am not questioning the member’s right to free speech. Of course I would defend that as would all members of this House. It is the unparliamentary nature of the specific allegation that the member made that is beyond the Standing Orders.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: All right well—I think I am ready to rule on this. The member has taken part in the debate on the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). He has used a clause to illustrate a point that he has made. Some offence has been taken. I do not hold that the member speaking has abused that right or used unparliamentary language. It is a robust place and of course he may well find that subsequent speeches from members on the other side of the House will be just as robust. However the member must confine himself to the matter that is being debated at the moment which is the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4).Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I do thank you for that ruling because I think it is a proper ruling. No doubt the Government members will get up and try to say that prior wrongs by other parliaments mean that their current wrong is right. But of course that logically does not follow; two wrongs never make a right. Indeed I have been here for 12 years and I have never seen a wrong like this one. That is one of the reasons why the fourth estate is holding the Government to account as well as the Opposition. What is happening currently in Northland is an abuse of power by an increasingly arrogant third-term Government.Hon Maggie Barry: What about Willow-Jean thrown under Winston’s bus? How much of an abuse is that?Hon DAVID PARKER: It is actually none of an abuse. I will address that comment that Maggie Barry has just made.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Please be seated. The point was made by me in ruling on the point of order and granting the latitude that the member was seeking that he must confine himself to the bill. I would prefer him to—in fact the member will come back to the bill.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I take it then that if issues in terms of Willow-Jean Prime’s role in the Northland campaign are raised by the Government members they will be ruled out of order. I would like the opportunity to respond to Maggie Barry’s comments but you have ruled that out of order so presumably those comments are out of order too which is unfortunate because there are proper answers to those.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Back to the bill.Hon DAVID PARKER: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. I will return to the more general proposition that this is actually an instance where—whilst there are political barbs that will always go back and forth across this House as we try to keep democracy clean and free from corruption in New Zealand—this is a good bill. I support it. It is a justifiable and wise use of an omnibus bill which for the reasons I previously addressed is something that we must use judiciously in this House. On that basis I record that the Labour Party will be casting its vote in favour of the final readings of this bill.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak again on the legislation arising from the Statutes Amendment Bill (No 4). It seems like only yesterday that we were enjoying the musings of the second reading. We have just come out of the Committee stage and now we get to debate the legislation arising from the original bill. Picking up again from my colleague Mr Hudson’s statement that he was going to refrain from talking about the positives and the benefits of having omnibus bills I say that I cannot help it either. They are a fantastic vehicle for expediting the legislative programme and I am fully in support of these bills.Quite often I am teased by my colleagues for the wide-ranging bills and matters that the Government Administration Committee hears but I am thrilled to sit on that committee. The very nature of it being wide-ranging in issues makes it fascinating and I believe that the people who sit on that committee definitely have skills that enable them to look at a wide range of Acts in particular in respect of this bill and understand those issues and move legislation forward—shepherd legislation—through the House effectively. So I appreciate sitting on the Government Administration Committee. I appreciate its breadth of topics and I appreciate being able to talk about and debate this bill. It is important to update the various legislation that needs updating and to put it into plain simple English so that all of the public understand the laws by which they are governed.I think the select committee process which shepherded this bill through is extremely important. I was not fortunate enough to sit on the committee when it heard the submissions but I understand that there were a whole four submitters. We should not take that as an indication that this bill is not significant. Those four submitters showed an interest in this bill and the importance of it. They were very good submissions. In fact I understand that there was one submitter Law for Change Otago which is a group of students and young professionals interested in public law. They actually gave a detailed 15-page submission that highlighted the potential for semantic misunderstandings in the bill. I am pleased that this Parliament and this process can give an opportunity to our young law students to involve themselves in law-making. I am sure that they have enjoyed that process and have moved on to fruitful careers in the law and that this process has enabled them to widen their knowledge on public law and omnibus bills.Moving on to some of the provisions in the bill I would like to talk about the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act 2012 and the amendments that this bill makes to it. Clause 88 of the bill clarifies that the period for appealing against elements of a provisional local alcohol policy runs from the notification of that provisional policy and not from the notification of the original draft policy. Of course this change relates to natural justice. You are giving a period for people to comment on and submit on the version of the alcohol policy that is most likely to be passed and that is only fair. The mind boggles really that those changes needed to be brought into effect but sometimes these technical difficulties follow through into Acts and we need to update them so they are more meaningful in real-life terms.Clause 89 of the bill replaces an incorrect reference to a draft policy with a reference to a provisional policy. That simply takes into account transitional processes and it simply makes sense. Clause 90 of the bill in respect of the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act clarifies that objections to the granting of licences are limited to the suitability of the applicant in the case of an application for a licence that is of the same kind and is subject to the same conditions as the current licence for the premises. That is fair enough. When no terms of that licence are changing and they have been thoroughly considered in the first place but the licensee is changing that provision expedites the process and it is a fair enough consideration to consider only the suitability of the applicant.Clause 91 of the bill clarifies that a licensing authority as well as a licensing committee has to state a date for the expiry of a licence if its renewal is refused. Again that sets clear parameters. It reverts back to natural justice premises and sets a clear expectation as to what is expected of that licensee and when they are to cease operations. Clause 92 amends the heading to provide a fuller indication of the contents of the section which is simply fair enough. Finally clause 93 of this omnibus bill with respect to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act clarifies that electors of trustees of community trusts must reside in the trust district and that is absolutely fair enough. It is the electors within the district who know about their community. They are focused on their community’s needs and therefore they are in the best position to elect those trustees.And of course it would not be cricket if I did not bring that back to my electorate to Invercargill and talk about the Community Trust of Southland which is an absolutely fantastic organisation that supports our community so wonderfully. To end with I would like to simply highlight some of the projects it is involved in. If it was not for the Community Trust of Southland we would not have the velodrome a world-class facility to encourage young cyclists to enjoy the sport of cycling. Thank you.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): I am sure this has got to be peak viewing time. Can I begin by saying how unfortunate it is that the member who just resumed her seat Sarah Dowie did not continue along that line. I thought as I was listening what a nice way it was to end Parliament for the week.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.