Volume 694 Week 59 - Wednesday 13 November 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 694 Week 59 - Wednesday 13 November 2013[Sitting date: 13 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14613. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 13 November 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersState-owned Assets Sales—Public Support and Cost1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Will the results of the state-owned assets referendum in any way influence his Government’s policy to sell State assets; if so how?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No.Hon David Cunliffe: Why is he so arrogantly continuing the fire sale of State assets when Treasury advice is that it will barely break even and that he has already wasted $1 billion of taxpayers’ money by rushing it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I utterly reject the view that the Government has wasted any money. In fact the Government has sold the share of the companies so far into what has been actually quite a strong market. The fact that the shares are trading either approximately roughly or below actually where they are at in the market place shows you that the taxpayer has actually maximised value.Hon David Cunliffe: Why is the Prime Minister so arrogantly continuing his asset sales when the sales to date have transferred ownership of those assets from 100 percent of New Zealanders to just 2 percent; and does this not show that Kiwi mums and dads far from being at the front of the queue are not near the queue at all?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the member is wrong—51 percent of the companies is owned by all New Zealanders. Secondly my understanding is that the Superannuation Fund ACC and other major funds are shareholders of those companies and they hold those shares on behalf of all New Zealanders. There is a huge number of KiwiSaver accounts. The member may remember those. They were set up under a Labour Government. They are owned by a wide range of New Zealanders. But here is an interesting one: there have been a number of referendums in recent times. One of them for instance was in relation to smacking which was supported by 87.4 percent of New Zealanders. That was a policy pushed under a Labour Government and it “arrogantly” rejected it.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! This is a point of order. It will be heard in silence.Hon David Cunliffe: I submit that the Prime Minister did not adequately address the question. The question was framed in terms of the number of New Zealanders who held shares in the assets which advice shows has reduced from 100 percent to 2 percent on average between Mighty River Power—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: That is different—if I may finish Mr Speaker—from what the Prime Minister referred to which is the total share of the assets owned by institutions that may include some New Zealanders rather than the number—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a quite sufficient point of order.Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First I reject any idea that that was a point of order. Second of course the question that was asked of the Prime Minister was prefaced in a way that may well typify the Leader of the Opposition but it was hardly a way in which to elicit a reasonable answer to a question.Mr SPEAKER: I thank both members for their points of view which were probably in both cases not strictly points of order. But in this case the question asked by the honourable Leader of the Opposition certainly does not need to be repeated. It was quite political in its phrasing and the Prime Minister had every right to respond to it in the way he did. The member may have further supplementary questions.Hon David Cunliffe: Why does he think that seven out of 10 New Zealanders are opposed to the sale of Genesis? Does he think it is because New Zealanders are losing money or are they just resentful that shares are being snapped up by foreigners?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a start off the question actually posed by Reid Research Services on behalf of TV3 was wrong. I mean Genesis of course is not being sold; a share of Genesis is being sold.Hon Members: Ha ha!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Maybe the way to—[Interruption] Let me relive your past so that you can enjoy it because we are certainly going to enjoy it on this side. Let us put it another way. This is not the first time actually that New Zealanders have heard about the mixed-ownership programme—no. During the 2011 election campaign Phil Goff described the election as a referendum on asset sales. Russel Norman described the ownership and use of State assets as having become “the defining issue of the election”. The Mana Party said that a vote for National was a vote for asset sales. Well guess what? We campaigned on it the whole way through and we won with the largest result in National’s history under MMP and the largest result of any political party under MMP and Labour got the worst result—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did the Prime Minister see the United Future party’s television campaign at the last election paid for by the taxpayer—Hon Member: Where’s the responsibility?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who the leader is? Oh it is Mr Dunne.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon Member: Ministerial responsibility?Rt Hon Winston Peters: You are the whip so keep quiet for goodness’ sake.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Let us hear the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Righto. Did the Prime Minister see Mr Dunne and the United Future party’s television advertising on water and water rights at the last election paid for the taxpayer and was it not a clear signal to the country that he was opposed to that privatisation programme—so where is the Prime Minister’s mandate?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I did see theNew Zealand Herald today which was running yet again a picture of Winston Peters holding up a sign saying “No”.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that more people in the last election voted for parties opposed to the assets sales programme than for parties supporting it and given that over 327000 New Zealanders have signed the anti - asset sales petition does he agree that there is unease amongst New Zealanders about his asset sales programme?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I know that the member spent a lot of the 2011 campaign undermining the then leader. I mean I think that that is the reason—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Prime Minister should answer. The question was political but the Prime Minister can answer the question.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was answering the question. It was very germane to the answer.Mr SPEAKER: Keep it within the Standing Orders.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me put it another way then. The member while he was going about doing whatever he was doing while Phil Goff was getting lined up becausethe then finance spokesman was not doing his work might have missed the commercials run by the Labour Party—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given that you have already once recommended to the Prime Minister that he might actually address the question rather than whatever his personal fears might be on the day I would ask for the opportunity to repeat the question.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I am going to allow the member to repeat the question but if he makes the question as political as he did on the first attempt he can expect a reasonably political response.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that more New Zealanders at the last election voted for parties that were opposed to the Government’s assets sales programme and given that over 327000 New Zealanders signed the anti - asset sales petition does he agree that there is unease amongst New Zealanders over his policy?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The election campaign in 2011 was dominated by this issue of the mixed-ownership model. National won that election with a comprehensive majority in any terms. This Parliament has faced on numerous occasions referendums for which there has been significant public opposition and we do not even know by the way what the result of this referendum will be. But the most recent one was when 87.4 percent of New Zealanders opposed the smacking legislation. That was a policy pushed by Helen Clark the Greens and a Labour Government and all that we can say is that Labour arrogantly ignored it. So when Labour members are in Government they just ignore things and when they are in Opposition they roar like little tigers or lions or whatever else it is over there that they do.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Prime Minister’s wafer-thin majority looks like it is going to be hanging from the coat-tails of “Crazy Colin Craig” who believes in binding referendums does he propose to ignore the results of the next referendum just like he has ignored and arrogantly refused all the others?Mr SPEAKER: Again in so far as there is prime ministerial responsibility the right honourable Prime Minister.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am prepared to accept that I have got a narrow majority in Parliament relatively speaking—it is 64 votes. But that is way better than David Cunliffe who does not even have a majority in his own caucus.Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister looking forward to receiving his ballot papers in the mail next week so that he can voice his view albeit the view of a small minority in favour of asset sales in the referendum?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the member is prejudging the outcome but what I will be saying when I receive my ballot papers through the mailbox is: “What a waste of $9 million of taxpayers’ money which the Green Party could have seen spent on vulnerable kids or for a million other good reasons in the Parliament.” Secondly I will say to myself: “Man it was amazing the way that they tried to con the New Zealand public that they had signatures they did not have.” and I will say to myself: “It is just another stunt from the Greens that will not work.”Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that it is important that all New Zealanders even those like himself who are part of the small minority that supports asset sales participate in our democracy under this legislation and exercise their right to vote in the referendum?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is up to people whether they wish to participate in an electoral stunt but I will just say this to the member. This is what I want the member to do. When he is going on the radio and he is on TV and all the various things he does over the next 3 or 4 weeks I want him to say this. I want him to say: “I am voting against the asset sales referendum that has been put up.”—fair enough—“I will bevoting no.” or whatever he will be voting and I want him to say to the New Zealand public: “I deeply apologise for being so arrogant as to ignore you on smacking.” because that is what that member did. He was part of the party that drove that. When it was about smacking he said to the public—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is no way that that answer could possibly come within any Speakers’ rulings or Standing Orders because it did not address the facts of the matter. The facts were to do with the referendum. It was rather difficult to follow particularly since it was that very man himself who got his party to actually vote totally against the result of the referendum itself and vote for the smacking legislation.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. [Interruption] Order! I have heard enough from the member and on this occasion I do not agree with him. It was a very political question that was asked. It got an answer from the Prime Minister that could be justified.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification on that ruling as to why the Prime Minister’s response around the child discipline law was within his responsibility and relevant to the question. Was it the fact that he co-drafted—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. The reason that I consider the answer was satisfactory is that the member who asked the question talked about a citizens initiated referendum. The Prime Minister was referring to an earlier one.Hon David Cunliffe: What does he think is better value for money: the cost of running the anti-asset sales referendum which is $9 million or thereabouts; the $147 million that he spent on ticket clippers for the fire sale of State assets; or the $1 billion that Treasury says he and Bill English have wasted by the fire-sale rushing this sale of energy companies when the market could not absorb the shares?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well firstly the member is just plain wrong actually—Hon Members: No he’s not.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —as he was yesterday in question time even though he does not actually want anyone to go and have a look at what he said—which is about the third or fourth time that he has been wrong but do not worry we will keep an eye on that. The Government has actually maximised the return that it got from these assets. It has actually sold them into a strong market. If the member is so in favour of referendums and thinks they should be binding then he will adhere to the one that saw 81.5 percent of New Zealanders wanting the number of MPs to reduce to 99 and he will support the 87.4 percent of New Zealanders who did not want the smacking legislation. That member like the Green member cannot have it both ways. They cannot say: “I’ll ignore the public on the ones I don’t agree with them on but I want to follow them on the ones I do.”Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect I do not believe the Prime Minister addressed the right supplementary question there. It sounded like he was addressing—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. If he wishes to raise points of order I am happy to entertain them. But when it is an attempt to say he is dissatisfied with the answer the way to do that is not by points of order; the way to do that is to ask further supplementary questions.Dr Russel Norman: Has the Prime Minister seen Treasury’s Budget Policy Statement which showed that the operating balance of the Government would be worse off by about $100 million every year going forward as a result of his asset sales programme?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is based on a number of assumptions. What is also true is that the Government will not have the $5 billion worth of debt that it would otherwise have. I know that the Green Party does not care about racking up debts on New Zealanders but most New Zealanders actually do. And if the member thinks that having the Government owning assets that he believes can return above the cost of capital is such a great idea he should just go out and buy every other asset in New Zealand and fund them off the Government balance sheet. Oh hold on that is what he is proposing to do actually.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I apologise; I am sorry.Mr SPEAKER: That answer is now satisfactory.Financial Systems—Stability2.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National) to theMinister of Finance: What reports has he received on the stability of New Zealand’s financial system?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In a country with high household debt financial stability is important. The Reserve Bank today issued its 6-monthy financial stability report concluding that our system is sound. The banks are sufficiently capitalised and have strengthened their funding base while non-performing loans continue to fall. The Reserve Bank notes that all our banks are meeting comfortably new international standards for minimum capital requirements. The banks’ core funding ratios are above the required level and this makes them less dependent than they were on overseas borrowing and more likely to be sourcing their funds from New Zealand deposits. Over the past 6 months the Reserve Bank has continued to improve its prudential regulatory framework.Paul Foster-Bell: What are some of the measures the Reserve Bank has taken to manage risks around fast-rising house prices and increasing household debt?Hon BILL ENGLISH: House prices and household debt levels are the product of decisions made by New Zealand households. However the Reserve Bank has responded to the risks that this could pose in the future firstly by requiring banks to hold more capital against high loan-to-value ratio loans and secondly by requiring banks to restrict the proportion of high loan-to-value ratio housing loans. Higher capital requirements introduced in September this year were aimed at improving financial stability. The loan-to-value ratio lending restrictions introduced last month will directly limit the amount of high loan-to-value ratio lending the banks can undertake and the number of households with very high debt related to their house ownership. The Reserve Bank says in the report that it expects these measures to slow house lending and house price inflation somewhat and to reduce the potential risk to bank balance sheets.Paul Foster-Bell: What lessons can the Government take from the rise in house prices in the last decade and what steps is the Government taking to reduce the risk of a house price correction?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the report points out there are lessons for New Zealand from the experience between 2001 and 2007 during which house prices doubled. The Productivity Commission has shown that in those 6 years houses moved from costing around 3 times the disposable household income to costing 5½ times the disposable income—the worst deterioration in housing affordability in many decades. Interest rates by 2007 were over 10 percent. Households were spending significantly more than they earned. The current account deficit averaged a record 8 percent over the 4 years to 2008 and the export sector went into recession. We share the Reserve Bank’s concern that a repetition of the same set of circumstances in the housing market could be as damagingto the New Zealand economy as it was between 2001 and 2007. This is why the Government is working with councils to improve housing supply particularly in those areas that need more low-cost housing by freeing up land speeding up consenting getting better infrastructure and lowering construction costs.Phil Twyford: Is the Minister aware of comments today from the Registered Master Builders Federation suggesting that the fall in new-build inquiries is mainly from cashed-up buyers further up the sale chain which means that exempting first-home buyers as the Reserve Bank Governor has discussed from loan-to-value ratio restrictions on building new homes will have little impact on the fall in new builds?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware of the comments and I am also aware that building consent numbers continue to rise. I understand from the Reserve Bank Governor’s comments this morning that he is listening to the evidence from the building industry that the restrictions the Reserve Bank is putting on are having some effect in the short run on the supply of housing. We believe that the measures that the Government is taking to free up the supply of housing through special housing areas changes in the Resource Management Act reducing construction costs and so on will in the longer run have a much more significant effect than the Reserve Bank loan-to-value ratio restrictions.Paul Foster-Bell: What proposals has the Minister seen that are likely if implemented to increase risks to taxpayers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have learnt from the experience of the financial crisis and the earthquakes that proposals that involve the taxpayer taking on risk can lead to significant losses for people who are paying PAYE every week. Insurance is one industry that by definition deals in risk. Insurance companies are paying out around $20 billion for the Christchurch rebuild one of the largest insurance payouts ever in New Zealand’s history and at least one local insurer AMI Insurance did not survive that disaster. So the risk of another State-owned insurer in that part of the market for example is that the risk would be totally concentrated in New Zealand—not spread across international industries—and that when things go wrong it is the taxpayer who has to pay the bill. In the last few years that has amounted to billions of dollars. One would have thought that the experience of the last few years would rule out exactly the policy proposed by the Opposition which is that wage earners should take on the business of insurance companies.Phil Twyford: When he signed the memorandum of understanding with the Reserve Bank that ushered in high loan-to-value ratios did he seek any advice on the impact on the new-builds sector; if not does he accept responsibility for what the Registered Master Builders Federation is calling the “unintended consequence of a dramatic fall-off in new builds” or is it all still the Reserve Bank Governor’s fault?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The figures do not indicate what the Registered Master Builders Federation is saying—that is the consent figures do not indicate there is a fall-off at all let alone a dramatic fall-off. Of course if there is evidence to that effect then the federation can put that in front of the Reserve Bank Governor again. I am pleased to see the member has finally become interested in housing supply and we look forward to the support of the Labour Party for the Government’s programme because it is focused on more supply of housing faster.Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was asking the Minister whether he has sought advice—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I do not need any help.Phil Twyford: He did not address it.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did. He referred to the comments that you referred to—the question around comments about the Registered Master Builders Federation and the dramatic fall in—[Interruption] Order!Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I have just completed telling the member that in my opinion the Minister did address the question.Phil Twyford: He clearly did not.Mr SPEAKER: The member may well say that. I do not agree with the member. On this occasion the answer is to ask further supplementary questions if the member has them available to him not to dispute a ruling by the Speaker.Electricity National Grid—Outages3.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by all his recent statements?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes and can I congratulate the member on asking more questions in this portfolio area than the lazy member opposite—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That sort of answer is certainly not going to help the order of this House.Brendan Horan: Why did he say yesterday that he has “real confidence” in the electricity system when Transpower’s outage left between 300000 and 400000 North Island households and businesses without power in many cases causing computer damage and loss of revenue?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Because they were connecting the South Island and North Island—a massive undertaking. They were testing it. They got the power back on within 2 hours—about an hour and a half I think. But certainly I am not complacent about this and this is why the Minister for State Owned Enterprises Tony Ryall and I have asked for a comprehensive report from Transpower so we can understand in detail what happened.Brendan Horan: The Parliamentary Library has identified over 200 reports of power outages in the past 10 months; is he happy that power cuts are virtually a daily occurrence on his watch?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Of course power cuts are not desirable. The fact of the matter is we have some of the best security of supply in the world. Under the Labour plan actually we would put that in jeopardy.State-owned Energy Companies Sales—Public Support and Iwi Interests4.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he think the Government has a mandate to sell Genesis Energy when last night’s3 News Reid research poll showed 68 percent of New Zealanders say the Government should not sell Genesis Energy and given that a majority of New Zealanders voted for parties that opposed his asset sales policy at the last election?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises): Yes.Dr Russel Norman: Why is he so determined to ignore the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders who do not want the Government to sell these assets?Hon TONY RYALL: Because the Government’s share offer programme was extensively debated and discussed during the last election campaign. The Leader of the Opposition at the time described the election as a referendum on the mixed-ownership model programme. In fact the member himself said that “the ownership and use of state assets has become a defining issue of this election” so this Government is sticking to itsprogramme. It is in the best interests of New Zealand because it helps us control debt and invest in important social infrastructure.Dr Russel Norman: If indeed the last election was a kind of referendum on asset sales and the majority of voters voted for parties opposed to asset sales then will he accept the results of that referendum which is that New Zealanders do not want him to sell these assets?Hon TONY RYALL: Clearly this Government campaigned on its mixed-ownership model programme—51 percent Government ownership 49 percent on the sharemarket. Our party received the biggest vote of any party under an MMP election. But I have to say his party opposite has to answer the question about why it ignored the referendum on hard labour for serious violent offenders—it ignored that one—why it ignored the referendum to cut the number of MPs and why he himself sniffed at New Zealanders who voted against his smacking proposals.Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept that in fact a referendum is the perfect tool to decide an issue where Parliament itself is virtually evenly divided in asset sales—61 to 60—and where the people of New Zealand have clearly expressed by overwhelming majority their opposition to asset sales?Hon TONY RYALL: No.Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Why is the Minister continuing with the sale of shares in Genesis Energy before addressing the serious Crown breaches of the Tiriti o Waitangi as found in the Waitangi Tribunal’s report on the Tongariro National Park claim which stated that ngā iwi o Te Kāhui Maunga retain residual property rights and a right to development in the waterways impacted by the Tongariro power development scheme?Hon TONY RYALL: The mixed-ownership model is part of the Government’s wider economic plan to control debt and to continue investing in our New Zealand economy. I can advise the member that the Minister of Finance is in a direct discussion with the various parties to that action that he has taken and he is currently undertaking a series of discussions with iwi affected by the Genesis Energy sale. As the member will know the Supreme Court has made it quite clear that the mixed-ownership model sales process is no impediment to future Treaty settlements.Te Ururoa Flavell: Aside from his response would he concede that the sale of Genesis Energy is actually a further breach of the Treaty which could be prevented if the Government were to deal with the claims appropriately before selling shares; if not why not?Hon TONY RYALL: No I do not agree with that. Principally the reason for that is that the Supreme Court has considered those arguments and has made it quite clear that the mixed-ownership model programme and the partial sale of these assets is not an impediment to dealing with legitimate Treaty claims. Certainly this Government’s record is one that is unparalleled in the scope of work and achievements in that area led by the Hon Chris Finlayson.Health Services—Elective Surgery5.Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to theMinister of Health: Does he stand by his statements that “this Government has put an average of $500 million extra into the health budget each year” and “we are providing more services for New Zealanders faster and with better access providing the services they need”?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes. This year’s Budget appropriations show that the operational spending has risen from $11.6 billion in Labour’s last Budget to $14.1 billion this year. That is an increase of $2.5 billion over this Government’s five Budgets—an average increase of $500 million a year. District health boards areincreasing services for patients. Like the rest of the world the country’s finances are still tight and district health boards and constantly changing the mix of services and how they provide them within their increasing budgets as they look to make the best use of their available funding.Hon Annette King: If there is sufficient funding and if there are more services providing faster and better access to services that people need why after 5 years have headlines like these appeared in the media in the last 2 weeks alone: “SHDB kept lid on crisis” “Risk of deaths” “Health board apologises for poor care” and this one from thePress“Patients in agony ‘dumped off lists’ ”?Hon TONY RYALL: What I have learnt from that member and from others is not to believe every headline that you read in the newspaper because particularly in respect of that last headline the Canterbury District Health Board has confirmed that no patients have been dumped off its list. This stands in strong contrast to the previous Government which cut 1000 orthopaedic patients from the Canterbury District Health Board waiting list in 2006. We expect patients to be treated.Hon Annette King: When he made his claim in Parliament on 5 September that as of June 2013 only 20 patients were waiting longer than 6 months—nine for assessment and 11 for operations—did he receive that information from the Ministry of Health or from the district health boards themselves?Hon TONY RYALL: I am not in a position to be able to give an exact answer on that. I would say that that information would have come from the Ministry of Health. It is quite a significant achievement that we have many fewer people waiting less than 6 months. It is a really big achievement by district health boards.Hon Annette King: In light of that answer who does know the real number of New Zealanders waiting longer than 6 months for surgery: district health boards like Waikato District Health Board which said that as of June 2012 it had 376 patients waiting longer than 6 months; or MidCentral District Health Board which said that it had 161 patients waiting longer than 6 months; or the eight district health boards that said no such data is captured or collected so therefore cannot be provided to him or to me?Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to say that that member has put in hundreds of Official Information Act requests and what I have learnt is that I cannot rely on any question that she represents because my experience was that that member circulated Official Information Act responses where she had changed the numbers. I actually cannot trust what she says.Hon Annette King: So is it more than 20 is it Tony? Has he read a copy of the standard letter given to patients by district health boards which reads: “Although it is clear that you would benefit from surgery and your surgeon and GP would prefer it happens now public hospitals in New Zealand can only accept patients on to their surgical waiting list if they can provide the surgery within the next 5 months.”? How many New Zealanders have received these letters and have been sent home and according to a top orthopaedic surgeon are living in agony and remortgaging their homes to pay for the surgery privately?Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Tony Ryall—either of those two questions.Hon TONY RYALL: I am really thankful that that member has raised the issue of how many people are getting to see hospital specialists and how many people are getting operations. I can tell that member that under this Government compared with her Government’s position 40000 more people are getting to see hospital specialists—40000—and 40000 more people are getting operations. When she was Minister of Health fewer people got operations on a population basis; we are getting more.Hon Annette King: I have a number of documents I would like to table. The first one is from the Ministry of Health claiming that only 20 people are waiting longer than 6 months. Thank you Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I think we will try to put the leave all together.Hon Annette King: Yes. I then have an Official Information Act request from the MidCentral District Health Board saying that it has 161 people waiting longer than 6 months not 20. I have a letter from the Waikato District Health Board saying that it has 376 patients waiting longer than 6 months not 20.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just describe the document.Hon Annette King: Yes I am. And I have a letter from the Auckland District Health Board saying that it does not capture such data so therefore it does not collect it. Therefore the Minister has been misleading—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That last part is not in order at all. Leave is sought to table four documents: a Ministry of Health letter an Official Information Act request from the MidCentral District Health Board a letter from the Waikato District Health Board and a letter from the Auckland District Health Board. Is there any—[Interruption]Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at that comment from the Minister and I ask him to stand and apologise for it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the offence. If the Minister made an offensive comment—Hon TONY RYALL: I simply asked whether they were doctored like the one from the South Canterbury District Health Board.Hon Annette King: Point of order Mr Speaker. If we are going to play that game I can play it as well.Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is members’ time after question time that members are eating into. If the Minister had not used the word “doctored” and had used the word “altered” it certainly would have been more satisfactory. The member has taken offence. I am surprised by that. Would the Minister please stand and withdraw and apologise.Hon TONY RYALL: I withdraw and apologise.Hon Annette King: Point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please resume her seat. She has sought leave. I want to put the leave and then—Hon Annette King: I did have one more I forgot. Do you want me to seek leave for that?Mr SPEAKER: No we will put the four I have described. Leave is sought. There is objection.Hon Annette King: I have a letter from a district health board telling patients—Mr SPEAKER: Order! All we need to know is which district health board it is from.Hon Annette King: It is from the Canterbury District Health Board. Perhaps the Minister might like to see it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is now sought to table a letter from the Canterbury District Health Board. There is objection.Better Public Services Targets—Immunisation Rates6.Dr CAM CALDER (National) to theMinister of Health: What progress has the Government made on increasing immunisation rates?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I am pleased to announce that the latest Ministry of Health data shows that there is an unprecedented increase in Māori immunisation rates over the last 4 years. The end-of-financial-year data shows that 90 percent of Māori children and 95 percent of Pacific children are fully immunised bytheir second birthday. In 2007 under the previous Labour Government only 59 percent of Māori children and 63 percent of Pacific children were fully immunised. This equates to a 50 percent increase over the term of this Government.Dr Cam Calder: How have these improvements been made?Hon Dr Nick Smith: By a change of Government.Hon TONY RYALL: Well first of all by a change of Government. Secondly these outstanding results are a tribute to the hard work of general practice teams Well Child providers community outreach groups midwives district health board immunisation staff and the National Immunisation Register teams. Immunisation rates for Māori children have improved so much in the past 4 years that the Māori rates are now equal to or better than the New Zealand European rate in more than half of the nation’s district health boards. Part of this success has been scrapping the previous Labour Government’s approach which set lower immunisation targets for Māori and Pacific children compared with European children. How indefensible is that?Screen Production Industry—Performance and Government Support7.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to theMinister for Arts Culture and Heritage: When he stated “this is a golden age for the arts in New Zealand” was he including the current state of the screen production industry?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage): Yes of course. When I asked Grant Robertson to recognise the golden age I was referring to many areas where New Zealanders are excelling creatively. It includes music where a New Zealander is No. 1 on the USBillboardHot 100 chart for a 6th week and where Michael Houstoun has just finished his triumphal Beethoven tour. It includes literature where a talented New Zealander won the Man Booker Prize and where we did so well at the Frankfurt Book Fair. It includes the screen production sector whereTop of the Lake received numerous Emmy Award nominations the Edmund Hillary movie has received rave reviews andMr Pip has recently passed over $1 million in takings at the domestic box office. It includes the huge success of Sistema Aotearoa and the very strong orchestral sector. As Mrs Thatcher once said I could go on and on and on.Jacinda Ardern: Has he made any representations to the Minister for Economic Development over the need to address the crisis in the New Zealand screen industry; if so what recommendations has he made?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister for Economic Development and I are always talking about ways we can protect the film industry. So for example a few years ago that Minister in conjunction with Mr Brownlee and the Prime Minister and I looked at how we could protect New Zealand productions from Australian trade union thugs who wanted to wreckThe Hobbit and more recently I have been discussing with the Minister for Economic Development ways in which we can help the film production sector which is facing a high dollar and some very swift international movements by foreign countries in relation to the incentives they offer.Jacinda Ardern: Does he believe that the Large Budget Screen Production Grant Scheme is competitive?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: They are the very issues that I am discussing with the Minister for Economic Development at the moment. This is a very dynamic industry. Just today I received some information from California about its system and those are the sorts of issues we are looking at. But we are concerned to see that there is a strong and vital screen production sector and that it is protected from union thugs who would want to destroy it.Rt Hon John Key: What actions did the National-led Government take to ensure thatThe Hobbit movies were made in New Zealand and were they supported by all parties in Parliament?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: We undertook a number of matters including making some changes to the labour law to ensure that Simon Whipp and Helen Kelly did not get their way to destroyThe Hobbit in New Zealand. I remind Jacinda Ardern that it was Helen Kelly from the Council of Trade Unions who described Sir Peter Jackson as a “spoilt brat” and I would also observe that his local MP Annette King did not say anything about it. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Amongst the noise I think I have a point of order.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps my cousin would like to table evidence that I said nothing.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume her seat. That is not a point of order.Jacinda Ardern: Of the three issues that the screen industry raise the most consistently as having contributed to the current crisis it is experiencing which does he plan to do something about—first the exchange rate; second the uncompetitive rebate regime; or third the infrastructure issues in Auckland?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not know how one could table evidence of nothing I say to my cousin. But I would say this to Jacinda Ardern: it is not within the power of the humble Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage to alter the exchange rate—Rt Hon John Key: Oh come on!Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Oh is it? Oh right; OK. But what I am doing is looking at those issues with the Minister for Economic Development to ensure that we do have a vibrant industry.Jacinda Ardern: Is he content that he is currently presiding over the arts portfolio while the screen industry is experiencing its worst downturn in two decades but all his Government has done is undertake a review which took well over a year and produced virtually nothing in terms of solutions?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: That is a most revealing comment because it indicates to me that 4 years on Labour is still bagging Sir Peter Jackson who was the author of the review. There were a number of very good initiatives proposed. The point of the matter is that I am very proud of the way the arts and culture sector is going in New Zealand. As I have said and I will say it again to the honourable member who does not seem to have heard what I said we are working with Film New Zealand and the New Zealand Film Commission on these issues.Andrew Little: Tell that to the film industry workers looking for work.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I will say to Mr Little that his union thug mates will not be allowed to destroy the film industry.Jacinda Ardern: I seek to leave to table the review of the screen incentives regime which is what I was referring to—nothing to do with Sir Peter Jackson.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Is it something that is freely available to all members? It appears that it is so I am not putting the leave.Rt Hon John Key: Can the member confirm that over 5500 jobs were created throughTheHobbitmovies and can he confirm whether every political party supported the making ofTheHobbitmovies in New Zealand or did the parties that were elected by the unions not do that?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I can confirm that 5000 jobs were saved including in Rongotai home of Annette King the self-styled “MP for Weta Workshop”.I can also confirm regrettably that not all parties were supportive—when it came down to supporting Simon Whipp and union thugs or supporting the film industry sadly they supported the former.State Housing—Improvements8.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to theMinister of Housing: What is the Government doing to improve the health and safety of its Housing New Zealand homes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): The latest initiative to improve the quality of our social housing is the $30 million driveway safety programme. New Zealand has an appalling record of a child being hospitalised every fortnight and a child killed every 10 weeks as a result of being run over in a driveway. This year we have audited the driveway safety of every Housing New Zealand home with young children. We are now progressively installing fencing self-closing gates warning signs speed humps and convex mirrors to prevent such accidents. This new programme will upgrade these 13000 properties over the next 4 years and complemented by the Safekids education programme save young lives.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What reports has the Minister seen on this important Government child-safety initiative being undertaken through Housing New Zealand?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The initiative has been commended by the Children’s Commissioner by Safekids Aotearoa and by Starship hospital. It also won the Australasian Housing Institute award for innovation at the institute’s annual conference. It further illustrates this Government’s commitment to smarter public services that benefit families and our community.Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What reports has the Minister had on the state of the Government’s social housing stock in 2008 and what other initiatives are being undertaken to improve the quality of our social housing?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that in 2008 there was a serious deficit in the maintenance and quality of our social housing stock driven by policy focused on only the quantity rather than quality of our housing. In 2009 Phil Heatley initiated a major programme of home insulation which has resulted in 30000 warmer drier homes and by Christmas this year every State house that can physically be insulated will be insulated. Nor was our housing stock in great shape in respect of earthquake safety. We have a programme of upgrades that will see 650 buildings repaired or replaced by the end of 2014. That is on top of the 5000 homes that we are repairing in Christchurch. These programmes combined with the driveway safety initiative involve an investment of $1.7 billion in improving the quality of our social housing and will be further underpinned by the Housing Warrant of Fitness which the Government has under development.Schools Canterbury—Consultation on Proposed Closures and Mergers9.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to theMinister of Education: Does she stand by all of her decisions regarding school closures and mergers in Christchurch; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes; that is because my focus is and always has been on the children of greater Christchurch and on providing them with the best education possible in modern fit for purpose facilities. The Government is absolutely committed to rebuilding Christchurch. That is why we are investing $1 billion in restoring and renewing the education system over the next 10 years.Chris Hipkins: Did she ensure that all of the available information informing her proposal to merge Phillipstown School and Woolston School was provided to theschools when the consultation period required under the Education Act began; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.Chris Hipkins: Was she satisfied in making her decision to merge Phillipstown School and Woolston School on the Woolston site that those schools had been given all of the information they required to adequately participate in the consultation process required by law; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was a second part of the question—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Supplementary questions should have one leg. The member—[Interruption] Order! In supplementary questions if members put two legs in the Minister can choose to answer one and she did that quite satisfactorily.Chris Hipkins: Why? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: I think to assist—Chris Hipkins: There was only one leg to that question.Mr SPEAKER: It is impossible for the Minister to answer that question. The member has more ability than that.Chris Hipkins: Why was she satisfied in making her decision to merge Phillipstown School and Woolston School on the Woolston School site that those schools had been given all of the information they required to adequately participate in the consultation process required by law?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because I provided Phillipstown and Woolston—they were involved in the same process—with all of the information related to property roll growth and demographics. We also funded community facilitation. We gave the principal time off. We had teacher-only days. We doubled the normal length of time for consultation. We provided a key official to provide information that they might need more of and as soon as decisions were made we published those papers on the website. We published the interim business case and as it was updated we made that information available also. In fact the judge said in the judgment about Phillipstown that he was satisfied that the consultation had been carried out in good faith but that in respect of the property costings we should provide a simpler version.Chris Hipkins: Why has she decided to continue the consultation with Phillipstown School and Woolston School given that the High Court ruled that her decision was unlawful and that the overwhelming view from the local community is that they do not want the schools merged they have been through enough trauma in the past 3 years and they want the Government to leave the schools alone so they can get on with the job of educating and supporting kids?Hon HEKIA PARATA: In good faith and as left open for me to do so by the judge in his ruling I have decided to continue consultation. The judge said: “It is open to the Minister to continue the consultation. I deliberately use the word ‘continue’. The breach of natural justice can be corrected without requiring the consultation to start again.”Government Data—Accessibility10.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National) to theMinister of Internal Affairs: What reports has he received about global trends in improved public sector performance through transparency and shared information?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): New Zealand has been ranked an outstanding fourth in the 2013 global Open Data Barometer released in London by the World Wide Web Foundation and the Open Data Institute. This is a real coup for New Zealand. The barometer is the first survey of global trends that ranks 77countries on how they release public data and the benefits of those initiatives for citizens. New Zealand was commended for its Declaration on Open and Transparent Government for its release of open data—in particular maps land ownership data and census data—and for regular reporting. This ranking is real proof that we are lifting the performance of the public sector through transparency and shared information.Claudette Hauiti: What other work is under way to make the Government more accessible?Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: The open Government data work aligns with the Government’s Better Public Services targets where result nine measures that New Zealand businesses have a one-stop online shop for Government support and result 10 states that individuals can complete their transactions with the Government easily and in a digital environment. The Government Chief Information Officer is leading a range of initiatives through the Government ICT Strategy and Action Plan to 2017 which was launched in June of this year.Climate Change Policy—Government Position and Impact11.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to theMinister for Climate Change Issues: Does he think the Government is doing enough to tackle climate change given the statement of Yeb Sano head of the Philippines delegation to the UN climate talks that “We cannot sit and stay helpless staring at the international climate stalemate. It is now time to take action.”?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): First of all may I reiterate—I know with the support of all members of this House—our sympathy for the people of the Philippines who have not only suffered but continue to suffer the after-effects of this tragedy. In respect of the substantive question yes I believe that this Government which is managing the only emissions trading scheme in the world outside Europe which is making a number of efforts internationally to assist the struggle against anthropogenic greenhouse gas and which is responsible for 0.14 percent of global emissions is absolutely doing its fair share at least.Dr Kennedy Graham: Will the Minister confirm to this House that combined pledges mean 54 billion tonnes of global emissions in 2020 way above the target of 44 billion tonnes guaranteeing dangerous climate change such as Typhoon Haiyan whose effects have moved Mr Sano to say: “I struggle to find words to describe how I feel about the losses and damages we have suffered from this cataclysm.”?Hon TIM GROSER: The supplementary question takes us into a very different matter of whether the international community—not the New Zealand Government which was in the primary question—is doing enough. The only answer to that can be no it is not doing enough and needs to do a lot more which is why we need progress in Warsaw next week—Hon David Cunliffe: So you’re not part of the international community any more?Hon TIM GROSER: —on a comprehensive international agreement. To reply to Mr Cunliffe directly New Zealand is doing a lot more than the vast majority of members of the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change.Dr Kennedy Graham: So if New Zealand is doing its fair share to tackle climate change why have our net emissions increased since 2009 and why do the recent projections show a 50 percent increase by 2040?Hon TIM GROSER: Well first of all our international commitment in respect of the first commitment period is overwhelmingly likely to be met. Secondly the emissions intensity of this country is increasing to be more and more carbon efficient with remarkable speed about an average of 1.3 percent on a compound average growth rate. I think we are doing pretty well.Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question did not pertain to the Kyoto 1 period of 2008 to 2012. It spoke about—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the question. [Interruption] Order! I heard the question. It was not as clear as that until the member in his question phrased: “if New Zealand is doing its fair share …” etc. The Minister cottoned on to that and used that as part of his answer.Dr Kennedy Graham: If New Zealand is doing its fair share to tackle climate change why have we signed up only to a paltry 5 percent reduction pledge and why are we not doing our part to stop dangerous climate change that will result in more events like the tragedy we are witnessing in the Philippines?Hon TIM GROSER: Well first of all again the underlying premise of the question which is a fair premise is about relative contribution and since more than 100 members of the United Nations have made no statement about doing anything that is the first part of my answer. The second part of my answer is that the member continues to misrepresent this Government’s position on this minus 5 percent target. This sits underneath our conditional offer to do a darned sight more namely minus 10 to minus 20 provided we are satisfied that other countries come to the party.Dr Kennedy Graham: How can we expect other countries to take the lead and reduce their emissions when we do not do our fair share and basically we are effectively freeloading?Hon TIM GROSER: By following the lead that we have just given.Moana Mackey: How can he say that we are doing more than other countries when New Zealand’s inaction is in stark contrast to the commitments made by our Pacific Island neighbours; and why did New Zealand sign the Majuro Declaration at the Pacific Islands Forum in September a statement urging countries to set more ambitious emissions reduction targets an action that led Pacific Island leaders at the forum to believe that New Zealand would come up with tougher targets than were currently in place when we clearly had no intention of doing anything of the sort?Hon TIM GROSER: Well first of all we need to examine very carefully the statements of these Pacific Island countries in terms of the underlying numbers and assumptions that they have put forward on the table. New Zealand is doing as much as any member in my opinion of the annex 1 countries. New Zealand has spent something like $600 million—I stand to be corrected on the precise number—with fast-start financing helping predominantly Pacific countries move across to renewables and lower their emissions. I think New Zealand is doing a great deal in the Pacific pursuant to that declaration.Public Safety—Street-based Prostitution12.Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) to theMinister of Police: What reports if any has she received concerning public harassment and intimidation from street prostitutes and their clients? Talofa lava. I would also like to acknowledge Papali’itele Peter Fatialofa’s family who are farewelling him today at a funeral service in Manukau.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I have not received any specific reports about public harassment and intimidation from street prostitutes and their clients. As I advised the House when the member asked a similar question in September I have received two reports regarding the Manukau City Council (Regulation of Prostitution in Specified Places) Bill. Both of these reports contained some comment on street-based sex workers in South Auckland.Le’aufa’amuliaAsenati Lole-Taylor: Does she believe that a prostitute and their seedy client having sex in the yard of a private citizen constitutes a valid and legal business transaction; if so why?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well I have no responsibility for that but I am aware of a situation in Christchurch and I have sympathy with the house owners. I do not think that anyone wants to have that happening in their backyard. However they must not take the law into their own hands. Where they are concerned about unsavoury activities happening in their property they should ring the police immediately.Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: What does the Minister have to say given her previous answer just before to the residents of Manchester Street Christchurch who are having to shield their children from prostitutes having sex on their street in front of their homes and often on their own property?Mr SPEAKER: Again in so far as there is ministerial responsibility the Hon Anne Tolley.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: What I can say to the member is that the police are well aware of the concerns. They are working with the Prostitutes Collective and with the Christchurch City Council and they are trying to encourage those prostitutes to operate in a safer environment and a more appropriate environment. But I think it is pertinent to note that street prostitution is not illegal. I repeat again that if members of the community are feeling harassed or intimidated or this activity is impinging on their own properties then I encourage those people not to take the law into their own hands but to ring the police.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question Asenati Lole-Taylor.Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: Taylor. Sorry I did not hear my surname completely finished. I thought you did not finish—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member ask her supplementary question.Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: I am trying. Why are the police investigating a homeowner who simply defended herself whilst trying to remove a prostitute from her property?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My understanding is that a complaint was laid with the police and that the police are investigating that complaint as I would expect them to do.General DebateHon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): I moveThat the House take note of miscellaneous business. We had some discussion about referenda in question time and it is pretty important to note that the Prime Minister who obviously is not very impassioned about this topic had a couple of brain fades. The smacking referendum was held in 2009 and the result was ignored by his Government. He struck the deal with Helen Clark that resulted in the anti-smacking bill being passed and he and the entire National caucus voted for it. A march against John Key’s decision to ignore the referendum was sponsored to the tune of $450000 by guess who. “Crazy Colin Craig”—“Crazy Colin Craig”. That has become deliciously ironic because now 4 years later “Desperate and Dateless John Key” is turning back to the very same “Crazy Colin Craig”.Kris Faafoi: He’s Nigel-no-mates.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Nigel-no-mates he is. John Banks is in court Peter Dunne is in limbo Pita and Tariana are on life support and John Key will do a deal with whomever he can to hang on in power even if it is “Crazy Colin Craig” the Sarah Palin of New Zealand politics.In fact in September 2012 Colin Craig sent 20000 leaflets to Helensville residents telling them that John Key was—wait for it—“too gay” to be their MP. Why wouldJohn Key want to go into partnership shall we say with somebody who thought that that was an insult?Iain Lees-Galloway: It’s an uncivil union.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Exactly—an uncivil union. Bill English said that he did not understand what Mr Craig’s economic policy was. Well we have researched this and we can tell you that Colin Craig is a supporter of—and it is the only sensible thing he has ever said—a capital gains tax. Colin Craig wants a capital gains tax. He also wants a binding referendum. So if John Key wants to do a date with “Crazy Colin Craig” let us make the asset sales referendum binding shall we? Let us make the asset sales referendum binding.Mr Craig has some very interesting views. He has got an environmental policy all right. He thinks climate change is caused by sunspots and the circulation of the planets—sunspots and the circulation of the planets. It would be funny if it were not for his views on social policy. Here we go. Following a series of items about child poverty on current affairs shows Mr Craig said that children sent to school without lunch should go without and instead their “delinquent” parents should be charged the “cost of rectifying their bad behaviour”.Sue Moroney: That’ll work.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: That will work. He has views on social policy which is very topical. Mr Craig of course thinks that New Zealand has the most promiscuous young women in the world. So John Key has got his work cut—Hon Annette King: How does he know?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: How does he know? How does he know?Poor Peter Dunne. Imagine how Peter Dunne feels being passed over for “Crazy Colin Craig”.Sue Moroney: He’ll go away.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Exactly. Imagine how bad he feels. As if John Banks was not enough. John Banks is in court facing terrible retribution and probably being thrown out of Parliament and he is going to be reinstated by John Key but Peter Dunne is not. Strike one—strike one. Now John Key wants to go on a date with “Crazy Colin Craig”—strike two. What has Peter Dunne got to do to worm his way back into John Key’s good books? It is very very hard to imagine.Of course the result of this shambles is that Nats are jumping off the sinking ship. In fact “like Nats off a sinking ship” has become a little bit of a phrase around here. Chris Tremain—hundreds of real estate signs in Napier showcase his name but even that could not save him. We like you mate; sorry you are going. But it is a stampede. Chris Auchinvole lost the Coast now he is a list MP and now he is gone. Phil Heatley paid for the wine with his ministerial job. Paul Hutchison—one can only wonder “whay”. Cam Calder—one can only wonder who. Kate Wilkinson—apparently she is going to run in Christchurch East. Oh no that was Mr Doocey—Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): What an admission of defeat that was—the Leader of the Opposition the party on 32 percent spending his 5 minutes talking about a party that is not even in Parliament yet. The 32 percent party talking about a party on 2 percent. It may be interesting but I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would spend his time putting up Labour’s policies as an alternative to the very good policies of this Government. I was very surprised by that.It was just 5 short years ago—just 5 short years ago—that New Zealand overwhelmingly elected the John Key - led National Party to lead the next National Government with our coalition partners. We have spent those 5 years repairing rebuilding and refocusing our shattered economy—repairing rebuilding andrefocusing confidence in New Zealand and trying to build. We are succeeding now but the work continues with Better Public Services which is building and bringing in policies that matter to New Zealanders in their homes and in their families. That is not the PC nonsense that just 5 years ago so preoccupied the members opposite many of whom are still on their front bench.The National Party in the 5 years we have thus far been in Government has been constantly putting in policies to create real jobs and to create real wage growth for families in New Zealand. We must note that Labour and the Greens have voted against every single one of those policies. The National Party is the party of jobs. The National Party is the party for families. Every single one of the policies we have put in place to help their circumstances at their level has been voted against by Labour and the Greens which are forever preoccupied with their PC nonsense and all sorts of interesting things that may be of interest in the beltway or to their caucuses. It is Better Public Services that has brought in national standards in education aiming for a better educational outcome for five out of five of our New Zealand children. There are better outcomes in health with more electives than ever. There are better policies on law and order which have led to a reduction in crime particularly in violent crime.Amazingly it takes the National-led Government to bring in better policies for the environment such as freshwater standards. One would have thought that the Greens would promote that a wee bit when they were making arrangements with the Labour Government last time. National is not only the party for jobs for families; National is also the party for the environment. We do not just talk about it; we do it. We take action.We are also enabling the regions to invest in their future. We are the party for jobs in the oil and gas industry. We are the party for jobs in water storage projects such as the Ruataniwha scheme in Hawke’s Bay. I note that the Labour Party is against jobs in the oil and gas industry. The Labour Party is against the water storage project in Hawke’s Bay.Just 5 years ago Labour policies led to the decade of deficits. The best commentary I have seen in quite a while of what 9 years of Labour meant was from John Armstrong in theNew Zealand Herald. When commenting on the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update he said: “The Treasury’s pre-election economic and fiscal update bleeds so much of the red stuff that the document looks like the aftermath of Dracula running amok in the blood bank. The numbers in this horror story are truly awful.” That was commentary from a neutral observer after 9 years of the Labour Government.The worry is that as bad as that all was those policies are still unchanged in the Labour-Greens Opposition. The policies are actually unchanged. The only new one I know of is the printing money one which I have not heard about for a while but that still seems to be a policy. So the policies of the Labour Party that led to the decade of deficits the policies that led to rampant taxation lack of confidence and a ballooning public sector are still in its manifesto. It has not changed them. It may have renamed them. It may have re-skinned them.National is on track to achieve surplus next year. National is on track to achieve surplus in spite of the export recession over 5 of the years of the Labour Government in spite of the resultant recession for 1 year from 2008 in spite of the global financial crisis and in spite of the tragedy and the tragic circumstances around the Christchurch earthquake. National is on track to achieve a better brighter future. The work continues. We cannot put it all at risk.Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): On Friday I leave for Warsaw for the 19th annual meeting of the climate negotiations. I was at the Earth Summit back in 1992 where all this kicked off. I was at the 16th meeting in Copenhagen and the 18th at Dohalast year. It has been 20 years of struggle to save the planet from dangerous climate change.How have we done? The answer is not well and the truth is that we are proving to be inadequate to the task. The objective of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is the stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. That year the level of global emissions was 38 billion tonnes. Today it is 50 billion tonnes one-third higher than when we undertook to reduce it. The UN says that to stay under the 2 degree threshold of a dangerous climate we must reduce global emissions to 44 billion tonnes by 2020. Business as usual will see 56 billion tonnes of emissions. Our voluntary pledges will also keep us way above the target.The recent Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has four scenarios out to 2100. Only one scenario requiring a radical mitigation pathway will keep us below the 2 degree threshold. The other three scenarios project a mean temperature rise of 2.6 degrees 3 degrees or 4.5 degrees. Global warming to date has been a rise of 0.8 degrees Celsius. We see around us the extreme weather events associated with a 0.8 degree rise—the forest fires in Russia and Australia and the severe storms in America and the Philippines. If this is what a 0.8 degree rise does imagine what a 3 or 4.8 degree rise will do—yet a 4.5 degree rise is business as usual. Can we imagine what this will be? Why are we not factoring in the magnitude of this threat in our political discourse?Well the people who are suffering from a 0.8 degree rise are doing just that. The Philippines’ chief delegate at Warsaw had a few comments: “What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness. This climate crisis is madness. We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw. … We cannot sit and stay helpless staring at this international climate stalemate. It is time to take action. We need an emergency climate pathway.”So Warsaw next week will test whether we manage to get negotiations for a global agreement back on track following the train wreck of Copenhagen and whether we actually agree as an international community to reduce global emissions from 50 billion tonnes to 44 billion tonnes by 2020 just 6 years away. If we do not then very simply we shall be committing our children to a catastrophic future.How are we doing down here in New Zealand? Are we doing our fair share in this unprecedented and titanic task? New Zealand has the worst emissions record of all OECD countries. Our net emissions have grown from 32 million tonnes back in 1992 when we signed the convention and said we would start reducing them to 57 million tonnes today a 78 percent increase. In 2020 they will be 70 million tonnes and in 2028 they will be 96 million tonnes.Does this bother our Prime Minister? No. When queried on the projected emissions he offers a relaxed view of the future. Science he says will be “our friend” when it comes to climate change. Science could “quite possibly solve the problem of our agricultural emissions”. Besides New Zealanders he graciously observes do not wish to change: “I have never been of the view that people are going to dramatically change their lifestyle. They are not going to stop eating protein. They are not going to stop wanting New Zealand to produce that protein but science can actually help us.”It is wilful negligence of this kind that will earn us once again the fossil awards at Warsaw. This will enable Minister for Climate Changes Issues Tim Groser to jeer at the global civil society as he did in Doha on the grounds that they are unrealistic idealists who cannot perceive the real world for what it is. The truth is that the real world is what the scientists those friends of the Prime Minister are describing it to be:catastrophic climate change in the course of this century if we continue business as usual in the manner that his Government for incomprehensible reasons wishes.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs): There is a strange smell that is starting to permeate across the Chamber. It is the kind of smell one gets when you walk across the high tide mark after a big storm. It is the kind of smell you get as you walk through a forest. It is that smell of decay of rot of dead wood. Today the Leader of the Opposition got to the heart of that. He backed up the rejuvenation that is going on on this side of the House as eight to 10 of our MPs make the decision to move on to other things. We allow fresh bright ideas to come into this party. On the other side though the smell is permeating—that dead wood.What we are seeing 5 years on from the start of this Government is rejuvenation change and new policy happening on this side of the House. And on the other side? Dead wood—dead wood policies and dead wood politicians. When we come to the election in just a few months’ time towards the end of next year the public will be sitting there saying: “What is on offer here? A party that after 6 years is bright with new ideas and fresh people or one that after 6 years has not changed. It is still full of dead wood politicians.”On that note I can say I was proud to attend the policy day up at Premier House just last Friday. We walked into Premier House—a caucus full of a huge vibe of confidence and a resetting of our policies going forward. In that regard we talked long and hard about the four key objectives that we set as a party when we came into office: firstly to return the Government’s books to surplus; secondly to create a more productive and competitive economy; thirdly to build better public services; and fourthly to rebuild that beautiful city of Christchurch which I do not think anyone in the House would oppose. But in every one of those policy areas it was exciting to be able to talk about the future about new policies to add to those ones that have been implemented to date.Let us have a look at some of the results that we have achieved over the last 5 years in regard to those key policy areas. There is 3 percent annual growth. That provides our country with a huge future for children like mine aged 17 15 and 13 who are looking to get into tertiary education and to go forward. An economy now with 3 percent growth going forward is absolutely fantastic.On top of that we are also going to set a pathway to return to surplus. It is wonderful to see the Labour spokesman on finance supporting that and actually predicting that we were going to do better than we ourselves thought. I have got to say that that was actually really good—a fantastic situation. Returning to surplus getting our accounts back in order—a great thing. It is also good to see the IMF endorsement of the way we are tracking. The accounts are in a good position moving forward.Business confidence is strong consumer confidence is really high and immigration has turned round from where we saw it. Net positive migration—in September alone an additional 2700 people moved to New Zealand. More people are arriving than departing. That is positive.But what is best of all is that we are seeing the trend of unemployment continuing to fall. This time last year unemployment was 7.2 percent. It got down to 6.4 percent and just in the September quarter it was down to 6.2 percent. We have still got work to do; I accept that. But if we see that trend in economic growth continuing that 2 to 3 percent—it is one of the best economies in the Western World—then I predict that next year we will see that unemployment number go down to the 5 percent range. So that is absolutely fantastic.Put that together with the new ideas that we were creating at Premier House last Friday and put that together with the rejuvenation of our caucus strong new faces coming in with fresh positive ideas—what that presents is a party that is going into thenext election with a spring in its step. Compare that with the Opposition—a bunch of dead wood politicians with dead wood policies going nowhere and offering no future in any capacity to New Zealand. If I was the Leader of the Opposition I would be worried with the polls going nowhere north anytime soon and with a caucus full of dead wood politicians.We understand that we are in a great position heading up to that election. It is going to be a fantastic time and I cannot wait for it. Thank you.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): The previous speaker Chris Tremain is so full of ideas that he could not even fill a 5-minute slot in the general debate. He sat down before his time was up. Well he is one of the members who are deserting the National Party ship. He does not want to be a part of any potential future “coalition of the crazy” which Prime Minister John Key is currently out there negotiating.I want to quickly touch on Minister Groser’s performance in the House today. He is off to Warsaw on his international speaking tour. I am sure he will be charging a hefty appearance fee to appear at the Warsaw 19th conference of parties negotiations. He said he believes that New Zealand is doing really well. We are doing really well on climate change! This is a Minister who has gutted the emissions trading scheme has sat by while our carbon price has utterly collapsed has devastated our carbon forestry industry has made us a pariah on the international stage when it comes to climate change and has had enormous criticism from our Pacific Island neighbours about the inaction of the New Zealand Government on climate change. He thinks he is doing really really well. But we need to acknowledge that we are in the presence of a genius when Minister Groser is in the House. Of course he was involved in Closer Economic Relations and said it actually should be called “Groser Economic Relations”. No one else said that unfortunately. That is what he said.I say to this Government that it has been utterly negligent in its duties in the area of climate change. It is an embarrassment to go from being a country that was clean green and proud that was seen as a leader in that area to being seen as a pariah and getting awarded the “Fossil of the Year” award for international climate change negotiations. My concern is that when I look at where John Key is taking the National Party I do not have any confidence that we can trust the National Party to take climate change seriously at all in the future.We have got our Prime Minister who is on record as saying that he is suspicious of climate change. He then said: “Well no no I’ve always believed in climate change.” But when he was caught in a moment of honesty he said: “Well if you believe in climate change—and I am somewhat suspicious of that.” We have his new BFF and favoured political bedfellow Colin Craig who believes that climate change is caused by the circulation of the planets—the circulation of the planets. Then we have Jami-Lee Ross an up-and-coming National MP one of the young MPs in the National Party who yesterday when he was doorstopped coming out of question time refused to state on the record that climate change was real. It is a pretty simple question to be asked as a politician: do you believe climate change is real?David Bennett: No.MOANA MACKEY: Jami-Lee Ross refused to comment. I am a little bit nervous—Hon Annette King: David Bennett just said no.MOANA MACKEY: Oh David Bennett just said no. But that is David Bennett. He is not one of the young up-and-comers in the National Party to be fair. But that is interesting—we will add him to the list of the “coalition of the crazy” which does not believe that climate change is real and which is suspicious of climate change. I am very worried for the future of our planet and the future of our country if this Government is re-elected in 2014—as it will not be.Going back to crazy Colin Craig the future lead coalition partner in the “coalition of the crazy” his views on climate change are not the only interesting views he holds. He came before the select committee hearing on marriage equality and announced a new Conservative Party policy that none of us had been aware of in the past which is that the Conservative Party opposes unisex toilets—opposes unisex toilets. It is one of those hot political issues that no one else wants to touch that political parties shy away from. His logic was that it is OK to treat people differently so men’s and women’s ablutions should be separate. He thought it was absolutely appropriate that men’s and women’s ablutions should be separate so the Conservative Party opposes unisex toilets. This is a future coalition partner of the National Party if John Key has his way. That begs the obvious question: does he have separate toilets at home? Does he have men’s and women’s toilets in his own house? I think that when that is the kind of tripe that is coming out of the mouth of the preferred political bedfellow of John Key voters in this country have every right to be very concerned about what a National-led Government a “coalition of the crazy” would look like in 2014.I say that the choice is clear: a coalition on this side of the House which has sound evidence-based policies—it always cracks me up to hear the Prime Minister referring to science. He is very selective in his choice of science. He has ignored every single report the Chief Science Advisor has provided to him but when he thinks he can get out of doing something he will refer to science. You can have this side of the House which is evidence-based which respects science and research and which wants action on the environment action on climate change and action on the economy or the “coalition of the crazy” on the other side of the House which is going to ban unisex toilets.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): It is a pleasure for me to take a call in the general debate this afternoon. I want to talk about the issues that matter to my constituents in Maungakiekie as well as to the people of New Zealand. But before I do that I want to just talk about my dad. He was my hero. He was a migrant to this country. He passed away recently and I just want to acknowledge him this afternoon. He passed away playing golf last week.I also want to mention Papaliitele Peter Fatialofa—last night I also attended his funeral—and say just what a man of courage he was. He was a man who stood for values of community of service and of loyalty not only in the Samoan community but also in the communities across New Zealand and he is being buried this afternoon.Last Friday was 8 November and it was 5 years since National took office. It was also my mum’s birthday and the day we buried my dad. I just want to say that this is not going to be an overly political speech here today. It is about some of the things that we have done in the last 5 years and that the Government has delivered on. It has been a tough time not just for my family in the last week but also for our country in the last 5 years. I think that is something that we can all agree upon. The financial crisis did hit and regardless of assigning blame to whatever party or whatever person things needed to be done in this country and I am proud of some of the things that we have done to address the issues around the economy around jobs and around the education system.The recent household labour force survey for the September quarter did show that over 2270000 people are employed in this country today. That is a large number. It is a large increase on the corresponding figure for last year and on the corresponding figure for the previous quarter to 30 June. What it means is that there are over 2.27 million people who work in this country who provide for their families and who are able to better clothe their families and that is a good thing. That is a good thing regardless of your politics. It is good to have people independent of the State. It is good to have people with the ability to look after their families and it means that there are children out there and there are families out there who are being cared for.Unemployment is down. It is at 6.2 percent. That is a good thing relative to what is happening overseas—yes. Could it be lower? Of course it could. I think we as a Government are trying to address some of the things that will bring the unemployment rate down and to produce jobs in the different industries that New Zealand has competitive and comparative advantages in. Whether that is in the mineral sector whether that is in the high-tech sector whether it is in my local electorate or whether it is in high-value value-added manufacturing that is where our future jobs lie and that is where I see our economy growing. Certainly I am hugely supportive of those local businesses in Maungakiekie that contribute to jobs and contribute to our economy especially the businesses of the local families in my area.In terms of education in 5 years—and I am glad our former Minister of Education Anne Tolley is here in terms of the work that she has done in the education sector—I am very proud particularly of the amounts that are being spent in early childhood education. Yes members in this House can differ as to how that money is spent but that money is being spent on children—on children toddlers and young kids—who need an investment in education and $1.5 billion does contribute to parent-led centres. My own daughter attends a playcentre in my local electorate where there are also kindergartens and other early childhood facilities that provide a really good start for kids to grow and develop in our country. You know compared with other countries in this world New Zealand does offer one of the best education systems in the OECD and across the globe. Thank you.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): Can I say at the beginning of my contribution that I acknowledge Sam Lotu-Iiga and acknowledge the passing of his father. I say to him that he has the sympathies and condolences of members on this side of the House. I lost my mother 3 years ago. It seems incredibly unfair does it not to lose someone so close to you at such a young age and it can be challenging to come back into the House and engage in the cut and thrust of politics.Although I listened closely to what the member said and what he had to say about his Government’s record over the last 5 years I have to say that we do have a different point of view on this side of the House because we are actually out there in the streets listening to what New Zealanders have to say listening to what people think about this Government and listening to the litany of dodgy deals that this Government has engaged in. The National Party is the party of dirty deals done dirt cheap. It will do a deal with anybody especially if it is a deal that gives preference to its corporate mates and especially if it is a deal that will get it back into Government.Let us look back at the long list of dodgy deals from National over the 5 long years it has been in Government. It started off with Warner Bros the American corporation that came to New Zealand and created a phoney crisis. It created a phoney crisis and New Zealand’s Government turned round and changed its laws. National prevented workers from having the right to bargain collectively in the film industry because Warner Bros an American corporation came along and demanded it. That was a deal that John Key was ready to do.Shell another foreign corporation came to John Key and said: “We want you to get rid of protesting at sea.” National has never liked protesting at sea. Those members did not want to get rid of the nuclear submarines and they took the first opportunity they could to ban protesting at sea—a New Zealand tradition. And they did it because a foreign corporation wanted to do a deal.Then there was Skycity. National is prepared to increase the harm caused by gambling to increase the social costs that New Zealand taxpayers and consumers will have to face in order to do a deal that benefits its mates in the Australian corporation at Skycity.It was ready to pay $30 million to Rio Tinto. It was not just a deal for its mates in that foreign corporation; that was a deal to prop up its failed asset sale programme. Let us think about some of these policies that this Government is promoting: selling off our assets—assets that are profitable assets that every single New Zealander benefits from—so that just the privileged 1 percent get the benefits from those profit-making assets. And there is NZ Power a good solid Labour policy which this Government is dead against. Why? Because it would benefit the consumers the taxpayers and the workers of New Zealand and it would not benefit National’s mates—the people who have bought up those assets and bought up those electricity companies.Every deal this National Government does is in the interests of the few the interests of the 1 percent and the interests of its mates. That is what those deals are all about. But now it is about political deals and it is about political deals to build the “coalition of the crazy”. National wants to do a deal with Colin Craig the man who thinks that climate change is all down to astrology. I do not know whether it is because Mercury was in Venus or what the story was but something is changing our climate and Colin Craig does not want to face up to the fact that it is man-made climate change. It has got nothing to do with sunspots; it has got nothing to do with the alignment of the planets.Then of course there is John Banks. The Prime Minister is always ready to do a deal with John Banks. It does not matter how long he is before the courts and it does not matter how many donations he received that he did not declare the Prime Minister is ready to do a deal with John Banks. The Prime Minister is ready to do a deal with Peter Dunne the man he cannot even trust to be up front about whom he did or did not leak documents to.This is a “coalition of the crazy” and New Zealanders have a real choice. They can go for a solid Labour-led Government which is working in the interests of taxpayers and consumers and hard-working New Zealanders or they can stick with the “coalition of the crazy” which is working for John Key’s crony capitalist mates. Those members are not working for New Zealand; they are working for somebody else.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): It is interesting that the member Iain Lees-Galloway brings up the Skycity convention centre because for decades the tourism industry has been asking various Governments and itself how it can get an international convention centre in New Zealand. It is true that as part of that convention centre there will be gaming machines. The New Zealand public in some way have found comfort in the fact that the number of gaming machines throughout New Zealand has decreased substantially over the last 5 years. Across New Zealand in bars and pubs the number is gradually coming down and furthermore even though there are going to be gaming machines in the new convention centre the number of gaming machines throughout New Zealand is going to continue to decrease which is good.I am not necessarily pro-gambling but I think it is important to put into perspective that this convention centre worth about $400 million in private investment is going to be built in Auckland. It is going to attract international conventions which we have never held in New Zealand before. During the construction phase there might be up to 1000 people involved and during the operational phase many hundreds of jobs and that is what this International Convention Centre is all about. So here is a convention centre that produces jobs and the Green Party and the Labour Party are against it.Here is the common thread: they are not against just the convention centre which will produce jobs and growth; the Green Party and the Labour Party have at every turn opposed the dairy industry expanding in New Zealand. The Labour Party and the Green Party oppose oil and gas exploration. They oppose the exploration of minerals—that is more jobs and growth out the window. So the Labour Party members who are all for jobs and the workers apparently are against the convention centre. They are against oiland gas exploration which has occurred in Taranaki for 100 years with no problems. They are against mining which has occurred on the West Coast for 100 years without any problems. They are also against irrigation—for example the irrigation of land in the South Island. They are concerned about that. The Labour Party is railing against that—more jobs and growth. Marine farming aquaculture—every time some business person wants to employ people and create a business and an income for himself and his family or herself and her family every time they propose a marine farm the Green Party and the Labour Party are against it—more jobs and growth that they oppose. Of course in the film industry they railed against Warner Bros which tried to stop the unions closing down theHobbit movies in New Zealand. Gerry Brownlee and John Key stepped in in a way that was above board and made sure that theHobbit movies were actually filmed in New Zealand. The Labour Party and the Green Party were against that.What I am saying to the New Zealand public is this: where once we had a Labour Party that was all for the workers and that supported the beneficiaries there is now a Labour Party that will be only for the beneficiaries because it opposes work. At every opportunity to produce jobs—the convention centre marine farming irrigation oil and gas exploration the exploration of minerals the film industry—the Labour Party is against that. There will be no work. It will be a party for beneficiaries whereas the National Party as you know has worked over the last 5 years with New Zealanders with businesses with public trusts and with all sorts of community organisations to create jobs to circle the wagons and to work ourselves out of the recession.We have gone through quite difficult times to a point where we now see unemployment dropping and employment increasing. We are seeing interest rates being held. We are seeing the best mortgage interest rates for 50 years. We are in a position where we do not want to put it all at risk. We will not want to put the Labour Party which apparently is all for jobs but against all sorts of investment in Government. I am very proud to be part of the National Party which has managed this economy over 5 years and I cannot see why the New Zealand public would put all that at risk.HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana): Actress advocate human rights activist international icon social worker trailblazer JP a friend to many in this House the name behind two questions in world trivia and role model for the three Ps—politician prostitute and public servant; roles that she felt were often interchangeable and sometimes all played at the same time—Georgina Beyer first burst on to the scene when she won Miss Personality in a drag queen contest. Her bubbly and straight-talking persona made her an instant celebrity from which she launched a long and tempestuous career as a film and television actress—her modesty does not permit me to say when it all begin although her dazzling demeanour suggests that there is more to come—featuring on numerous television shows including a starring role inDancing with the Stars and earning a best actress nomination for her role inJewel’s Darl.But undoubtedly Georgina’s greatest influence came through her political career beginning when she rocked the pundits to become the world’s first ever openly transsexual mayor in 1995 in Carterton one of the most conservative towns in our country defying the odds and overthrowing many long-held stereotypes in the process. More important though Georgina went on to earn the trust and respect of her community with her straight-shooting and no-holds-barred approach to her job and her public profile.Always quick to latch on to a star on the rise Labour encouraged Georgina to enter national politics and on 27 November 1999 she again made history as the world’s first openly transsexual member of Parliament unseating the National candidate in a landslide and again in one of the country’s whitest and most conservative rural electorates Wairarapa. Georgina says that it was all much of a surprise uttering aphrase that was heard all around the Commonwealth: “Am I really the first transsexual MP? What about Maggie Thatcher?”. And yet despite winning one of the most conservative seats in Parliament and representing its interests well enough to waltz back in at the next election with an increased majority Georgina was also the flag-bearer for the gay lesbian bisexual and transgender community and led the House in promoting prostitution law reform and civil unions. It was a pioneering and multifaceted role which turned her into a sought-after media commentator and international keynote speaker on human rights.In 2005 Georgina considered resigning from Parliament disillusioned by the impact that Labour’s foreshore and seabed legislation would have on Māori but she stayed on to oppose what she called the homophobic rhetoric of groups like Destiny Church. She eventually resigned from the House in February 2007.In her time in this House Georgina served her many constituencies with passion and with vigour. She is a knowledgable and forthright advocate for human rights who teaches us all to be strong in our beliefs to be true to our history to never back down from a challenge and to respect all those who want to be positive contributors to our society regardless of sex race creed and gender. Georgina stared down all examinations of her competence. She rose above the interrogations about her sexuality. She handled the public perception with aplomb. She enjoyed a public profile that most MPs could only dream of. And she did it all while holding the title of best-dressed woman in Parliament for every one of her 8 years in the House.Georgina recently became unwell with kidney failure and so tomorrow we celebrate her achievements at a special tribute evening here in Wellington organised by Louisa Wall and hosted by Tariana Turia where Georgina will be surrounded by friends past and present. And for those of you who can remember Georgina’s strident and powerful opposition to the Destiny Church march on Parliament please know that Brian and HannahTāmaki’s presence at the tribute to Georgina signals just how wide and powerful has been the influence of this amazing woman.Georgina it is an honour to have you with us in Parliament today and I am sure that I speak on behalf of us all when I say thank you for your wonderful contribution to this House to this country and indeed to the whole wide world. You are truly a remarkable woman and today it is my honour to honour you on our behalf. Tēnā koe e te tuahine. Tēnātātou katoa.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I just want to acknowledge Georgina Beyer from this side of the House as well. When I first came into Parliament I remember your smile and your face around these premises. You are a friend to all sides of the House. We wish you the best. It is good to hear that things are happening tomorrow and that things have progressed well. Best wishes for that. I also acknowledge my colleague Sam Lotu-Iiga with his father passing. It is very difficult to come into our House and to express your personal circumstances at the time. I think everybody in this House can recognise and understand that. We appreciate the approach the Labour Party took and especially Iain Lees-Galloway for his comments afterwards. I am sure Sam appreciates that and we certainly do as anybody in this House would.Getting beyond the personal I guess there is the politics that this place involves and a big part of that is the nature of the battle you see between the main political parties that this room represents. Today we are in the general debate which is generally a time where we have a good fight and attack each other. But it is a bit more subdued today because of those earlier reasons.Sue Moroney: And they’ve got the B team from the National Party.DAVID BENNETT: But it is good to see Sue Moroney here my opposition from Hamilton. When we think of the last 5 years it is important to think of takingHamilton for example what this Government has achieved for the people of Hamilton. I remember that when I came into politics the big thing for Hamilton was to get the Waikato Expressway completed the road of national significance—Chris Auchinvole: Did you get it done?DAVID BENNETT: Yes we have got that through and we are getting it built.Sue Moroney: Are you just announcing it today? You’re announcing it again.DAVID BENNETT: The Ngāruawāhia section is due to be open soon. Sue Moroney is saying that we are announcing it again. Well we actually announced it we are building it and we are doing it unlike whatever Labour tried the last time it was in Government.Sue Moroney: How are the jobs atRuakura going?DAVID BENNETT: Jobs atRuakura—there will be more jobs at Ruakura as theTainuidevelopments go ahead there. That major inland port that you will see there will be a major part of the development of Hamilton East going forward. Another thing for Hamilton is that Hamilton has had a huge investment in its hospital in the development of the Waikato District Health Board’s main campus in Hamilton. Over $400 million is being spent on the Waikato District Health Board. That is big money being spent on the redevelopment of that hospital. I want to thank my colleagues from around the Waikato who have lobbied for that over the years. I know that it is in Tim Macindoe’s electorate and he is very keen to see that money spent at that institution.And then we go to education and we see the great developments at Wintec with the new buildings being built in Hamilton. We see the new schools being proposed for the north of Hamilton East and that shows a growing area that is being resourced and the infrastructure coming in from this Government.Sue Moroney: You promised that 5 years ago David. What happened?DAVID BENNETT: Sue Moroney was asking where it was 5 years ago. Well Sue Moroney the Labour Party would not do anything 5 years ago. It is only since—Sue Moroney: You promised it 5 years ago.DAVID BENNETT: Five years ago. What happened 5 years ago? The Labour Party went to a piece of land and said: “This would be a great place for a school.” It never promised any money never promised any process and never did anything. It had a photo in the paper with Sue Moroney on a piece of land saying: “Wouldn’t it be lovely to have a school here?”. And then she comes into this House and says that Labour promised it 5 years ago. What a load of rubbish. That is a load of rubbish. The reality is that the Labour Party did nothing. It deceived the people of Hamilton telling them that there would be a school there when there was never an intention to build it. [Interruption]DAVID BENNETT: Pardon? What did you say Sue Moroney?Sue Moroney: You promised it 5 years ago and it’s still not being built.DAVID BENNETT: Yeah—5 years ago she was nowhere to be seen.Broadband in Hamilton City—we are seeing broadband being put through that city. The ultra-fast fibre network being put through first in Hamilton and being delivered through that city shows a Government investing in that city. I want to introduce Hamilton today as an example to show what this Government has done in 5 years. Roads—we have built the Waikato Expressway and we are building the rest of it. The inland port is going to go ahead under National. We have got the internal ring route which is the road linking Hamilton North to the university. We have got schools coming into Hamilton North. We have got the university and Wintec having developments on their premises. We have got Waikato Hospital being redeveloped.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): First I must recognise Georgina Beyer. It is always a pleasure to see former MPs return to the House. We in this House need to keepup with the times that we actually live in and be aware of what is actually happening. People expect us to be aware of what is happening around the country and to take some action. The area of body art—tattooing for some of us—is very popular today. The Government has basically got a role to play in ensuring that everyone who has a tattoo is safe. If it does not it is very costly to the health system. Other countries are actually moving on this front and it is time that New Zealand followed their example.We have got a total lack of regulation in this area. Many of the licensed operators want action and they are contacting me to ensure that some action is actually forthcoming. What have we got now? Importation of tattoo equipment including ink with high levels of lead. Who cares? No one cares. We have got the onselling of tattoo equipment to anyone and everyone. Who cares? Again no one cares. Of course to add to this we have got unlicensed members of the public actually practising their art on unsuspecting members of the public.We have to stop these products from coming in at the border. We do not know who is importing these tattoo kits how many are coming in or who is actually buying these tattoo kits. The only way to prevent these unlicensed tattooists—often called “scratchers” around the industry—is to limit their ability to get a tattoo kit. The only agency that can make this happen is the Government and it is time that action was carried out.I have got an email here from a tattooist and he believes—and I totally agree with him—that there should be some laws about this. He said: “Resellers of skin penetration equipment and pigments should be licensed in some way as responsible resellers so they themselves are accountable. Resellers should not be allowed to onsell their equipment to unlicensed practitioners. The purchasers’ information should be required on invoice statements as well as their skin penetration licence. We do this for doctors and we do this for dentists so it is timely that we did this for tattooists. We do not want to see licensed studios that import their own equipment hindered by this law. They need to carry on as they previously were.”Does anybody in this House believe that the buyers of the kits that are advertised on TradeMe and other internet sites with a reserve price of $1 for one kit with two guns are actually going to be licensed? No definitely not. We do not know who is going to actually buy that equipment. What has happened? The internet has become a way to bootleg off these substandard products and inks to unsuspecting buyers. So what have we got? We have got unknown quantities of gear coming in and gear of an unknown quality coming in and a vast amount of ink. Ironically you cannot buy inks off TradeMe but if you buy a tattoo kit the seller will ask you “Do you want ink with that?”. And of course it is far easier to get the ink. I know of people who are going to the $2 Shop to actually buy the ink. How safe is that ink? It is not.What we have got here—allowing unlicensed people to tattoo—is actually dangerous to the population at large and of course to the industry those people who are legal who are licensed and who follow and carry out all of the requirements. I know for a fact that many licensed tattooists spend their time fixing up the botched jobs that the unlicensed tattooists have carried out. Usually the initial cost is pretty similar but the quality is shocking.What sorts of health risks have we got here? We are looking at infections we are looking at scarring we are looking at nerve damage and we are looking at hepatitis C and even HIV/AIDS. Urgent action is required by the Government.Dr JIAN YANG (National): Wo hen hao xiexie. I am very proud to be part of this National-led Government. Under John Key’s leadership and after National’s first 5 years in Government New Zealand is in a much better economic position. Five years ago National inherited an economy from Labour with a current account deficit at almost9 percent of GDP. Inflation was at 5.1 percent. Homeowners were crippled by high mortgage interest rates averaging 10.9 percent. The Labour Government’s spending was up 50 percent and the economy was going nowhere but backwards.Five years on and how things have changed. The current account deficit is now 4.3 percent of GDP and inflation is now only 1.4 percent. Mortgage interest rates now average 5.9 percent so homeowners have been able to pay off their debt earlier. We have reduced Government spending despite the global financial crisis and the devastating Canterbury earthquakes.Five years ago the economy was shrinking under a Labour Government. In the past year our economy grew by about 2.5 percent which is one of the highest growth rates in the OECD and we are on track to return to surplus by 2014-15. Business and consumer confidence is at its highest levels. Over the past 2 years more than 65000 jobs have been created and unemployment is lower than in most developed countries. Our economic programme over the past 5 years is clearly delivering for New Zealand.The National-led Government has achieved this positive economic momentum by responsible fiscal management. We have not had to make major public sector cuts as seen overseas and we have actually increased our spending in key areas such as health and education. We have put in place plans that have made steady progress in delivering more jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders and we have a busy agenda to ensure that this progress continues as our good work is not done.Five years ago our trade with our second-largest trading partner China stood at about $8.2 billion. We have worked hard at continuing that relationship. Now our trade volume with China has reached $17 billion. China is now our largest trading partner. More important New Zealand’s exports with China have more than trebled in 5 years from just $2.2 billion to over $8 billion. The National-led Government has also worked hard to grow New Zealand’s tourism which contributes almost 9 percent of our GDP. The number of visitors from China has almost doubled in 5 years from over 120000 in 2008 to about 230000.As I am speaking Minister Steven Joyce is visiting China to boost New Zealand’s education profile. Currently Chinese students account for 27 percent of our international students and inject about $800 million into our economy. Education is now our third-largest export to China after dairy and wood.Needless to say I am very proud of what our National-led Government has achieved in its first 5 years and I am confident that we will achieve more in the coming years. You may be aware that last week the Prime Minister launched the New Zealand Story project to help firms leverage off a strong narrative about New Zealand’s uniqueness. This will further enhance our brand in the world.Before I conclude I would like to say that as a Chinese National MP I am very proud of our Government’s continued support for New Zealand’s ethnic communities. We recognise that New Zealand is increasingly diverse and we want to build a strong and inclusive country where hard work is rewarded. We also want to ensure that our migrants and their families have access to information that would enable them to integrate more easily get ahead and help them have better lives in New Zealand. That is why we have—The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.VotingCorrection—Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) BillThe ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Yesterday when the House was in Committee and it was considering the Members of Parliament (Remunerationand Services) Bill the result of the vote on Brendan Horan’s amendments to Part 2 was incorrectly announced as Ayes 15 Noes 105. In fact what it should have been was Ayes 16 Noes 104. The record will be amended accordingly.Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) BillSecond ReadingMIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I moveThat the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill be now read a second time. Can I firstly just acknowledge all members of the Local Government and Environment Committee from across this House—in particular the chair of the select committee Nicky Wagner—for the diligent work that has been done the very considered work that has been done on a matter that is very complex. It is wide and varied in terms of the nature and consequence of the matters that the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill contains. It has been the subject of much concern and comment from across the district. So I want first to acknowledge everyone on the committee for the way they have got their heads round that.No one is a fan of retrospective legislation least of all of course the MP who is required or is asked to sponsor that legislation. Having to retrospectively address failures of a council to follow proper process and meet the requirements of the Local Government Act is something no one in this House takes any pleasure from or takes lightly. It is something that rightly gets an intense degree of scrutiny—all that is available to this House in fact.Let me make it quite clear from the outset that legislation of this nature is a last resort and reflective of significant failures by those who are entrusted by ratepayers. One of the questions that I want to see answered on behalf of ratepayers in accepting that the council got it wrong—and the council does accept that it got it wrong—is whether it is also the case that its overseers Audit New Zealand also failed in not identifying the failures of that council. I want to come back to that point a little later.Ratepayers should be able to have confidence in their elected councillors to carry out their core functions but in this case they have been woefully let down. Rightly they are upset angry and frustrated and have been for some time. But they also need the matters to be resolved in order to bring certainty and a sound platform to rebuild the district and to have confidence in returning the district to democratic elections and all that they bring. This local bill we are dealing with is one part of a number of processes that are under way to help bring about this eventuality.Since 2012—in fact not long after I was elected—a number of interventions investigations and actions have actually got under way. I want to run through just a couple of those: the implementation of a Government-appointed review team and the subsequent report that saw the resignation of the sitting councillors at the time; the appointment of a team of commissioners; the review adjustment and adoption of a new long-term plan; and an independent inquiry into the council’s auditor at the time Audit New Zealand. There have been inquiries from both the police and the Serious Fraud Office with a view to establishing whether there was prima facie evidence of any criminal activity. To date there has been insufficient evidence to warrant this but none the less efforts continue. There have been inquiries by the commissioners into all other matters surrounding the failures of this council including those of the former chief executive officer Jack McKerchar. And of course there is this local bill which the commissioners asked me as the local member of Parliament to sponsor.This bill has become something of a lightning rod and rightly so. Many of the plethora of issues that the commissioners and the council have been confronted with dohave a foundation back in this bill. However I will say that what we must do in looking at this bill is look at it through a lens—in terms of the whole picture—and understand that fundamentally what this bill is doing is far less controversial and of less consequence than many of the other activities that are going on. Notwithstanding that it is a very important part of the process.The questions the commissioners were confronted with in dealing with the multitude of failures by the previous council were how they could best be addressed and what the best mechanism was to move to deal with these issues and to be able to move the district forward with the least amount of cost and the greatest amount of certainty. As we have seen with the Tasman District Council and other councils recently and with some still to come unfortunately there are times when this House must deal with retrospective legislation of this nature. It is not a desirable thing it is not palatable—in fact it is quite repugnant in many respects—but it is necessary. In this case the decision was made that this course of action was the most appropriate in all the circumstances. Although the bill is important in order to resolve the errors and failures of the council I want to assure this House and all ratepayers of this district that accountability is just as important as any one of the other processes that are under way.As a former police detective I can assure the House that seeking justice runs through my veins. As such I insisted that a clause be included in the bill that clearly stipulates that no one is absolved of responsibility or accountability as a result of this legislation. Clause 14 states that “nothing in this Act affects the right of the Council or any other person to bring any proceedings against any person arising out of or in connection with any actions or omissions associated with matters validated by this Act.” In layman’s terms this is not a “get out of jail free” card for those who have stuffed up and got it wrong. I give my absolute and sincere commitment to all the ratepayers to members of this House and to constituents of my electorate that I will leave no stone unturned in seeking the accountability that they rightfully deserve. Where that can be sheeted home I will ensure that I do everything I can to see that occur. This bill does not in any way alter my determination to do that. Some have suggested that once the bill is passed all will be forgotten. I can give everyone an assurance at least on my part that that is certainly not the case. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not someone who gives his word lightly.The matters contained within the bill I am going to leave to members of the committee to specifically address. I want to cover off just a couple more things in my contribution. It is important to point out that this bill does not validate the $30 million decision to expand the sewerage scheme so that is an aside from the matters that are being dealt with here. The select committee has made some very minor alterations to the bill. Most significant it has made it clear to the commissioners that some of the penalties should be relieved. There have been some very constructive conversations occurring along these lines. The bill validates the penalties on the rates that this bill validates. Sorry—this bill validates the penalties on the rates that this bill validates. What I am trying to say here—Rt Hon Winston Peters: It validates a fraud.MIKE SABIN: Well I will come to that Mr Peters—I will come to that Mr Peters. Come up north with me and we will have a discussion about it. It is nice that you are bringing yourself into the conversation now. The select committee in its deliberations believed that some of the penalties should be relieved and I can see and concur with the views that have been shared in this respect. I have worked with the commissioners very closely to ensure that they can accommodate the requests of the select committee to address those views and I am pleased to report that the commissioners have in factdone that and have provided assurances to the committee as to how they will go about it.In terms of the further penalties—sorry I am not going to have time; I am not going to cover that off. Other members will no doubt cover it off. In addition to the further penalties that have been applied in 2013—which the commissioners will seek to forgive—there are penalties over and above those which would commence as at 1 January 2014 on the balance of other outstanding rates. These will also be forgiven. If people pay their rates by 30 June 2014 they will be forgiven those penalties. The commissioners will work through this process with them.I want to turn now to the auditor. It is wrong for me to prejudge the outcome of the Auditor-General’s report or the report on the auditor but can I say that if it is shown that the auditor has failed in its responsibilities as the overseer for these councillors then that responsibility should be sheeted home. If that responsibility is there then that is a responsibility that the auditor owes the ratepayers of Kaipara District to pay. So I say in this House that if that failure is proven I will ask that the Auditor-General seek to meet with the commissioners to ensure that the cost of that failure is met. It is not a cost that should be borne by the ratepayers of the district. How can a scheme go from $11 million to $62 million without the auditor raising those concerns and without the auditor responding to the many issues that were brought to it by many—many—across the district over a long period of time? Those questions will be answered in the days and weeks to come as the report becomes evident.I want to support my constituents by ensuring that this bill passes before Christmas. The implications of it not doing so are significant. Although I accept that many have been angry and upset about it it is a necessary part of the recovery of this district. I commend to all members that they support this bill and support the ratepayers of the Kaipara.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): Labour is supporting the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill. As the previous speaker Mike Sabin commented this has been a difficult and challenging situation I think for all concerned. No one likes validating legislation for good reason.In this case wrongs have certainly been done. In the years since 2006 the Kaipara District Council has repeatedly breached the Local Government Act and the Local Government (Rating) Act in a long list of instances that revolve round the setting of rates and in a series of failures in relation to adopting annual reports long-term plans and carrying out special consultative procedures under the Local Government Act. The borrowing for the ill-fated Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme blew out as the previous member stated from $11 million to $62 million. The effect of that scheme and its financing has placed a massive financial burden on a small number of ratepayers particularly those ratepayers in Mangawhai.So what is the situation we have got? We have got years of sub-par governance in the Kaipara District a massive debt blowout allegations of impropriety a rates strike by the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association and as a result of that the council’s finances grinding to a halt. So what should happen from the point of view of the Government? Well Mike Sabin brought a bill to this House on behalf of the Kaipara District Council and the Government-installed commissioners that seeks to validate a series of unlawful acts by that council in the setting of rates.The commissioners want those unlawful acts validated retrospectively so that the rates demands of the last few years are legalised and so that the rates strike being held by the ratepayers of Mangawhai is brought to an end so that the commissioners can sort out the finances. That is what they want. The aggrieved ratepayers of Mangawhai have bitterly opposed this bill and their argument—which has some merit in my view—isthat once the unlawful actions have been validated the rates legalised and the rates strike brought to an end their leverage to try to achieve a broad legitimate and fair solution will be greatly reduced. I have a great deal of sympathy with that argument. The wider issues here which are outside the scope of this bill do need to be addressed—the basis on which the waste-water scheme was commissioned and financed and the decision to expand the scheme and increase the borrowings and the levels of debt incurred.On the other hand the Kaipara District does need to move forward. I have concluded on the basis of the submissions and the discussions that we had at the Local Government and Environment Committee that there are three key elements that have to be part of a settlement of this issue. The first is that if negligence or corruption is found to have been involved in the governance of Kaipara District Council and if the report of the Auditor-General does uncover culpability of that nature then the wrongdoers must be held accountable. I take some assurance from the unanimous cross-party agreement at the select committee which is included in the commentary on this bill that we expect the Government to hold those people accountable if the Auditor-General’s reports finds wrongdoing of that nature.The second is that the Mangawhai ratepayers group must not be punished for blowing the whistle. There were wrongdoings committed here. The financial cost to the residents is significant and they must not be punished for blowing the whistle. That is why I am pleased to see a commitment being made by the commissioners to the select committee that there would be an amnesty for the rates penalties incurred by those people withholding their rates in protest at this situation. On the basis of those two elements I believe then that there is a basis for passing this bill so that all of the ratepayers and the people of Kaipara District can move forward.I want to read into the record the critical paragraphs that are included in the commentary that accompanies this bill which was agreed and negotiated at the select committee. It states: “We recognise that elements of the governance of the Kaipara District Council were unsatisfactory over a period of time and led to the problems that this bill addresses. We hope this bill while limited in scope will contribute to a resolution of the issues so the council and its ratepayers can move forward.”It states: “We have given considerable thought to the question of penalties being waived that relate to rates withheld as parts of the ‘rates strike’. Notwithstanding the legal requirement for ratepayers to pay their rates we acknowledge that the strike came about after many people from across the district had raised concerns about the activities of the council which do not seem to have been actioned. Section 85 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 stipulates that a local authority may remit rates in accordance with its rates remission policy. This approach was followed by the Kaipara District Council Commissioners for the 2011/12 rates. We are pleased that the commissioners have undertaken to extend this to include the 1 January 2013 and 1 July 2013 rates. We support this course of action and feel that it in conjunction with the withheld rates being paid would go some considerable way to resolving the situation so that the people of the Kaipara District as a whole may move on.”It continues: “We note that the Controller and Auditor-General is soon to release a report on these issues. The report was not available [to the select committee] at the time of deliberation but we were assured [by the Auditor-General’s office] that the bill contains nothing that interferes with or compromises the pending Controller and Auditor-General’s report or actions that might eventuate from it. In the interests of securing a fair and legitimate settlement of the matter of the Mangawhai Community Wastewater Scheme we trust that if the Controller and Auditor-General finds parties culpable then the Government and the council will ensure that those parties are heldaccountable. For the same reason we welcome the agreement by the Kaipara District Council to implement an amnesty by way of relief of rates penalties levied on ratepayers in relation to the Mangawhai Community Wastewater Scheme from July 2012 to 1 January 2014.”And that is the basis I think of the consensus hammered out by the select committee in good faith in a genuine effort to try to find a resolution albeit imperfect to what has been a very difficult and challenging situation in the Kaipara District. I am sure that the passage of this bill and the agreement that I have just read out will not satisfy many people particularly the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association but it is the job of this Parliament to make a judgment about what is in the best interests of the rule of law of all of the people in the Kaipara District including those Mangawhai ratepayers who are so aggrieved.I believe that if the Government meets its part of the bargain that if the commissioners at the Kaipara District Council stand by their commitment to hold accountable anybody whom the Auditor-General finds to be culpable through negligence or corruption or other forms of wrongdoing that led to the decisions that were made around the waste-water scheme then justice will be done in this case. In the meantime the people of the Kaipara District have to move forward. There is still going to be a significant financial burden as a legacy of the waste-water scheme a burden that will lie on the shoulders of the residents both of Mangawhai and the broader district. I know that many of those ratepayers will feel aggrieved about that.I believe that the committee has worked hard to try to make sense of this issue and to try to strike a balanced solution that does its best to meet the interests of all the parties involved. I want to recognise the work of Mike Sabin the local member who I think brought the bill to the House with the best intentions of trying to find a solution. I want to acknowledge the chairpersonship of Nicky Wagner and the work of all of the members of the committee in getting us to this point.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central): I too want to support this Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill. You have heard already in the House today that politicians do not like these types of bills. We take quite a lot of convincing to support this type of legislation but we will bite the bullet if we are convinced that when validating legislation it is the best maybe of a bad set of options but the best of a bad set and in this case that is correct.This bill is the culmination of many many years of debate many years of argument and many years of bitter divisions in the community—many years of concern and anger that was all fuelled by poor decision-making careless governance and unsatisfactory behaviour with predictable results. It was all brought to a head by the stalling of the property market in the face of the global economic crisis. So despite our distaste for validating legislation the Local Government and Environment Committee has unanimously supported this bill—unanimously—because we believe it is an essential part of a sensible and reasonable plan towards rectifying the very messy very difficult financial situation that Kaipara residents and the Kaipara District Council have found themselves in.I too want to thank Mike Sabin the sponsor of the bill for all his work on it. I want to thank all members of the select committee and the officials. All of us have worked extremely hard and extremely conscientiously on this bill not only to understand the circumstances which was a challenge in itself but also to find a creative way to manage our way through the process and to get a workable solution for the council itself and for all the ratepayers of Kaipara.In recognition of the concern of some ratepayers with regard to their rates strike and their passionate challenging of the council’s long-term behaviour we have negotiatedan amnesty on penalties if ratepayers remit their arrears in the next few weeks. I think that is an extremely important part of this legislation. It was something that we agonised over. It was a very difficult thing to manage through the legislative process and I think that coming to an agreement with the commissioners outside the legislation while including that in our commentary was a good pragmatic sensible way of dealing with it.After wading through all the information reading all the submissions and listening to submitters both in Wellington and up in the Northland-Kaipara area the committee was enormously aware of the complexity of the situation and the stress and anxiety of the people of Kaipara. So our job was to unravel the detail and to make sure that any rate demand any decision any action or any omission that we were asked to validate could have been struck correctly and that it was invalid only because of a technical breach. So we went through every clause with a fine-tooth comb. We looked at every irregularity we held it up to the light and tested it and we have only validated anything that could have been struck correctly if they got the language right. No ratepayer will pay more than they were historically invoiced for.The validation bill really stops the financial bleeding of the Kaipara District Council and it provides certainty for everyone involved in the situation. But more important it provides a platform to build a solution going forward. The committee was very aware of both the social and the financial toll that the situation was taking on the Kaipara because without this legislation the arguments the debates the anxiety and the uncertainty would have continued for the ratepayers of Kaipara. Without this legislation the Kaipara District Council was struggling under increased costs across the board new planning requirements interest rate risk and the danger of losing Government roading subsidies. All in all when we teased out those liabilities we saw that inaction could have added at least an estimated $400000 a year extra to the ratepayers’ bill and that compelled us to take action.I also want to discuss what this bill does not do. It does not limit the ability to hold any person any organisation or any group to account for negligence or for bad or even corrupt behaviour. Regardless of this bill any person or any organisation including the Kaipara District Council can bring legal proceedings against anybody who deserves that.This bill is not the end of the story but it does close the door on uncertainty and out-of-control costs for the ratepayers. We believe that it is the most cost-effective way to move the council and the community forward. We are convinced that any other options—and again we held them all up to the light—would have added more cost to ratepayers and we did not want to do that.Of course we are still awaiting the inquiry of the Auditor-General and we would have liked to have been able to analyse that report before we passed the bill. But as we have said the costs were spiralling out of control and we wanted to complete this legislation before Christmas to avoid another 6 months in limbo and another 6 months of extra costs for ratepayers. So we talked to the Auditor-General and we were comforted by her assurance that the bill contains nothing that interferes with or compromises the results of the Auditor-General’s report or any actions from that inquiry that might eventuate.The bill really has shone the light on a very difficult and messy financial situation in Kaipara. It is really hard to believe that things could have got so badly out of control. We the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee are really looking forward to seeing the Auditor-General’s report so that we can perhaps understand how all this happened and so we can hold to account anybody who deserves that.I commend this bill in its second reading. It is the right thing to do for Kaipara. It will stop the bleeding of costs for ratepayers and will provide a platform for the whole community to move forward. Thank you.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call in the second reading of the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill. I have been a bit of a bit player in this whole sorry saga but obviously I have spent quite a bit of time with the people who are most affected by the provisions of this bill and they are the ratepayers of Kaipara. Not all of them of course but some of them have been to see me along with the commissioner and others. I have been along with my colleagues part of many meetings where we listened and tried to unravel and understand a very difficult situation as the former speaker Nicky Wagner just described.I have come to the conclusion that the Local Government and Environment Committee having read the report and having listened to the members speaking has done the best it could possibly do in a really really difficult messy longstanding and bitter situation. I think it is probably one of the worst bills that any member in my time in the House has had to bring to and justify at the first reading. To that end I want to acknowledge Mike Sabin. He did what he had to do. As I said I think that the committee has worked very hard to come up with a solution but it will not please everybody. There will still be a lot of bitterness and anger about this but what else do you do? You have to try to find a compromise so I support the bill for that reason.The bill validates a number of illegal acts carried out when the Kaipara District Council set rates under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 in relation to the council’s long-term plan and the use of the special consultative procedure. What that means is that any rates purportedly set out under the rating Act can be validated and that any penalties payable on outstanding rates can also be validated. That is what it means. The validation relates to the setting and assessing of rates in the financial years 2006-07 to 2011-12 the 2010-11 annual report of the council a number of irregularities relating to its 2009-19 and 2012-22 long-term plans and the use of the special consultative procedure regarding the 2012-22 long-term plan.Other people have talked about the background to this bill and I intend to do that as well because I think it is important that it is on the record for people to see and for those who are directly affected by this here. The background to this bill is that the Kaipara District Council entered into loans to pay for a waste-water treatment plant at Mangawhai that was worth a lot less than what was paid for it. In doing so the council not only made some really bad decisions but incurred an $80 million debt. That debt has now been saddled on the ratepayers of Kaipara District Council and particularly on the ratepayers of Mangawhai who are now paying up to three times as much a year for their rates.You can understand why they are angry. They are right to be so. The council has created a horrible mess through incompetence mismanagement and illegal actions. I think that citizens deserve better than that from their elected councils. I completely understand and concur with the organisation that they have put together to try to find solutions to this which does not mean bringing a bill like this to validate the poor decision-making of the council. The Kaipara ratepayers especially those of Mangawhai are being asked to repay the loans which were improperly entered into and which were much larger than what was consulted on. They are being asked to pay substantially increased rates because of that. The Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association has vigorously opposed that. It has challenged the council it has challenged the illegal and unlawful actions it has organised and it opposes this bill as well. It is the one that has entered into a rates strike. At the same time—Mike Sabin: But they do concede that it would be necessary.DARIEN FENTON: What was that?Mike Sabin: They do concede that it would be necessary at some time.DARIEN FENTON: Yes. But then there are many other ratepayers in Kaipara who continue to pay their rates to the council and the council with all its problems in the past is now delivering services that one should expect of a council.Commissioners were appointed in September 2012 after increasing pressure from the community and questions about finances. I have to say that it seemed to take a long time for those commissioners to be appointed and perhaps we could have headed off some of these problems a bit earlier. Anyway the commissioners remain in place today and they have sought the help of this House so they can do the job that they have been appointed to do by the Government.I do not envy the select committee or the local member Mike Sabin in dealing with this bill. I do want to repeat that I believe that all members who have been involved in this at all stages and on the select committee have acted with integrity and good intent to do the best they can for Kaipara District and the ratepayers. I know that they have taken this matter seriously. The members from the Labour Party on the select committee have reported back to our caucus on numerous occasions. We have had long discussions about this bill. There has been a lot of concern in our caucus about this and about how we will resolve this problem.I think we are all clear that none of us wants to see retrospective legislation. I think it is abhorrent that this Parliament is being asked to make illegalities legal especially considering that they arise from the incompetence and possibly gross mismanagement of this particular council. I want to repeat the message that I think came from other members in so far as that councils around New Zealand should be on notice that this process is not an easy “get out of jail free” clause to get their stuff-ups rectified. Parliament’s tolerance for validation of this kind is extremely limited. But this is “between a rock and a hard place” stuff. Of course the problem that you are faced with is who is going to pay this debt. If it is not the ratepayers of the Kaipara District Council then it is the taxpayers of New Zealand. Neither is at fault but how do you resolve it?Turning to the report of the select committee that select committee has reported back unanimously and it did hear a number of submissions and travel to Maungatūroto. It has unanimously recommended that the bill be passed with amendments. It has also commented on some of the wider issues surrounding the bill and the need for it and I think it is good that that is in the report and that it is written into the record of the debate on this bill. I share the select committee’s hope that this bill will contribute to a resolution of the issues—these longstanding issues—so the council and its ratepayers can move forward.I also appreciate that there is an additional clause in the bill which Mike Sabin referred to—clause 14—so that any person may bring proceedings against any person arising out of or in connection with any actions or omissions associated with matters validated by this legislation. I think that is very very important and will be of comfort to some who want to see those persons held to account.I am also pleased that there is going to be an amnesty. There was an agreement with the Kaipara District Council. As I say a lot of people will still not be happy but it is progress.I also think that the message from the select committee is that if the Controller and Auditor-General finds parties culpable in her report then we—this Parliament Labour and all the members of this House—expect the Government and the council to ensure that those parties are held accountable.Finally I want to acknowledge the residents and ratepayers of Kaipara District particularly the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association which has been very outspoken. I know they have tried to find constructive solutions and it has been very very difficult for them. I believe that the ratepayers of Kaipara have been through an undeservedly frustrating and difficult few years dealing with this problem. They deserve a council that does better by them than the one that they have had and I hope that this bill is the basis for moving forward so that they can get the kind of support they deserve through their local council.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am not pleased like other colleagues that Parliament is having to consider retrospective legislation but I am pleased to take a call on the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill. New Zealand’s 78 councils manage around $98 million worth of public assets most of these being infrastructure assets that enable the provision of essential public services like stormwater waste water and drinking water. For the most part councils do this work well on behalf of their communities but Kaipara is a horrendous example of what happens when it goes wrong. The community is being landed with a very expensive waste-water scheme which costs $62 million instead of the $17 million that was originally estimated. The former council made a series of disastrous decisions and a series of rating resolutions that failed to comply with the Local Government Act. This bill seeks to validate those resolutions and the $17.3 million of rates that were improperly set.It is very disappointing that we are debating this bill before receiving the report of the Auditor-General and the inquiry into the waste-water scheme. That report has been delayed until early December. But as others have said the Auditor-General has reviewed the bill and advised the Local Government and Environment Committee that the bill contains nothing that interferes with or compromises its pending report or any actions that might eventuate from it. If the report does identify shortcomings in the work of Audit New Zealand in relation to the council’s financial statements then some compensation from Audit New Zealand may well be in order. Similarly with the contracts that were signed by the council the commissioners need to apply the same assiduous look that they applied to the council’s tangled finances to the contracts and the opportunities for penalties being paid by contractors for cost overruns and budget blowouts in the scheme. If the Auditor-General’s report indicates that legal action should be taken against past decision makers at the council or key advisers at the council then the Government agencies need to take that action and pursue those proceedings with a lot of energy and effort.We are very pleased that the select committee decided to amend clause 14 of the bill which makes it very clear that the bill does not remove the right of anyone—originally it was only the right of the council—to bring proceedings against anyone connected with any acts or omissions associated with the matters validated by the bill. That is one of the amendments made by the select committee. We acknowledge the work of the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association and its advocacy because that saw the clause being included in the bill in the first place.The Green Party is reluctantly supporting this bill because it appears to be the only way that Kaipara’s financial problems can be resolved and that the council can be put on a sound footing for the future. The Local Government and Environment Committee has sweated blood over the bill. I pay tribute to the work of Mike Sabin and the committee chair Nicky Wagner. I pay tribute to all members of the committee the commissioners for the advice that they provided and the 150 people who made submissions and those who presented to the committee. The hearing day in the Maungatūroto Country Club was one of the more memorable hearing days. Even thoughpeople will not be satisfied with the report-back version of the bill we have considered those submissions and the issues they raised very very carefully.One of the reasons the Green Party is supporting the bill is the evidence that not passing it would significantly increase the cost to the wider Kaipara community. It has a very small rating base of 14000 properties. The evidence that the commissioners provided was that the longer the bill takes to become law the larger the amount of rates that are being withheld and the larger the council’s deficit funding problem. At the end of June this year the amount of rates being withheld totalled $3.85 million or about 12.5 percent of the rates set. That has created a significant funding shortfall which has meant that some capital expenditure has had to be deferred. If it continues there will likely be cuts to services. The commissioners estimated that not passing the bill means that the cost of delay would total about $530000 a month and that that is likely to lead to cuts in services because of the cost of refinancing the debt and also amending the long-term plan.What we are debating today will not be popular but I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association because it blew the whistle on what was happening at Kaipara. It did that over many years and it was not until relatively recently that Government agencies started to listen. We heard repeatedly from submitters that people who were withholding their rates were law-abiding citizens and that they normally took payment of rates very seriously but the fact that they were so frustrated by the failure of authorities to act on the recognised problems at Kaipara led to their frustration and led to the withholding of rates. So the agreement that the select committee negotiated through Mike Sabin with the commissioners—that they would agree to waiving the penalties—is just a small consolation I guess and a token acknowledgment of the work of the whistleblowers and it acknowledges that they should not have to pay penalties because of their withholding of rates to draw attention to the problem. But also the fact that people need to pay rates recognises that they are getting their services as Darien Fenton noted and that the council has continued to provide those services to everyone in the community.We also support the bill because of the evidence that the council stood to lose its share of funding from Transit New Zealand for the maintenance of local roads. Again if the problem continues then there is a wider cost that the whole community bears. So it has been a pragmatic decision that if we want to get Kaipara District Council’s financial problems on a much sounder footing then the issue needs to be resolved and the bill by validating those improper resolutions in the past is a way to do that.Opposition parties certainly made the case that the Government should provide some assistance to Kaipara to reduce the impact on ratepayers of having to repay that debt. That was rejected on the basis that the Government did not want to set a precedent for other local authorities but we call on the Government to reconsider it once the Auditor-General’s report is out and to consider whether some assistance could be in the form of a suspensory loan to the council.The Green Party also really seriously considered the submissions that proposed that rather than ratepayers and the local community bearing the full cost of the council’s malfeasance the banks should take a bit of a haircut because they failed to do due diligence in their lending to the Kaipara District Council. The response here was that this would mean that interest rates for council borrowing across New Zealand would increase significantly if banks regarded local authorities as a less than secure lending proposition. What may result in a fairer solution in Kaipara would potentially cause inequity over a larger area. But it still rankles that the burden of repaying this debt falls on the community of Kaipara which was not responsible for incurring the debt when the council did not abide by the provisions in the Local Government Act. We arereluctantly supporting the bill because it does seem to be the only way forward to put the Kaipara District Council on a sounder financial footing.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I too rise in support of the second reading of the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill. The bill is sponsored by Northland MP and my colleague and neighbour Mike Sabin. Members will be aware that his electorate is north of me west of me and south of me and my back is to the sea. I am a little like Israel when it comes to Mike Sabin. [Interruption] He is nothing like Palestine. He is an excellent Northland member of Parliament. In presenting this bill to the House he took very very seriously the matters occurring in Kaipara and the spending by the district council over recent years the concerns not only of ratepayers in Mangawhai but also of ratepayers right throughout that district many of whom—not just those from Mangawhai—worked hard on the resolution that you see in this legislation.I do know that Mike Sabin before agreeing to support this particular piece of work said that he would not support this bill if it sought to validate matters that could not have been done within the law in the first place or if it would impose further costs on those who had in good faith paid their rates over the years. He was concerned about that. He also said at that time and has repeated it that he would not have validated any matter that was born of any criminal actions. Mike Sabin was clear about that. I do know that my colleague also made it clear to the commissioners to ratepayers and to this House that this bill does not absolve those responsible for the failures that have led to the need for this bill. “I would not support it if it did.” Mike Sabin said. He has responsibly brought this bill to the House and it has gone to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we have got support from across the House from all members of Parliament—Rt Hon Winston Peters: No you haven’t.Hon PHIL HEATLEY: —who matter; from all members of Parliament who matter.The bill will support 124000 citizens in Kaipara. It will bring certainty and closure to a number of irregularities over the past 7 years. The district council acknowledges that a number of irregularities occurred in the way that it set the rates. Certainly the select committee members noted that and this bill is about fixing those very irregularities. The bill will mean that ratepayers will be liable for the rates that they were invoiced for and no one will pay more rates than they were historically invoiced for. So it is a good solution.The select committee did make some changes. The bill authorises that both rates and penalties added to the rates be recovered as is normal for local government validation legislation. The select committee recommends amending clause 6 to ensure that penalties can be charged only if they would have been added to the rates validated under the bill. Some committee members felt that some of the penalties should be remitted. The commissioners appointed at the request of the council in 2012 have agreed to take a proposal to council in which certain penalties will be forgiven when the bill is enacted this calendar year. It is very important to acknowledge the work of those commissioners in supporting the select committee keeping us informed and being flexible enough to change their views where they could see that a compromise imperfect as it was needed to be made. Penalties applied in the 2013 calendar year as well as penalties due to be applied on 1 January 2014 will be remitted now under that proposal. We thank the commissioners for that and ultimately of course thank the ratepayers in going with this.In the provisions in more detail it is worth noting that in terms of the rates the bill validates the following: it validates specified rates set either inconsistently with the council’s funding impact statement or not allowed for under the Local Government(Rating) Act it treats all money received by the council in payment of the specified rates or penalties added to those rates as having been lawfully paid and it authorises the council to recover any part of the unspecified rates and any penalties added to those rates that remain unpaid. In terms of the issue of the penalties we have worked hard with the chair of the commissioners to find a way to accommodate those concerns. I know that Mike Sabin is pleased as we all are to report that we secured the commissioners’ commitment to take to council a proposal to forgive specified penalties that had already been applied in rates notices when this bill is enacted in that year. Under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 a local authority is able to apply further penalties on prior years’ arrears that are outstanding on 1 July and 1 January each year. That is well not common practice but normal practice in many situations. It is these further penalties that are being applied in the 2013 calendar year that the commissioners will seek to forgive.In addition to this there is a further penalty due to be applied on 1 January 2014 on balances outstanding against rates accounts. Should the bill be enacted into law this calendar year the commissioners intend to change council policy to enable the remittance of this penalty on the condition that rates accounts are brought up to date by 30 June 2014. I believe that rates strikers long ago made their point I know that Mike Sabin believes that rates strikers long ago made their point and certainly the committee accepted the point of rates strikers. It has been very hard on fellow ratepayers though that the rates strikers have continued to withhold their rates while having use of the services that others right across the district have been paying for. So although other ratepayers throughout the district have paid their rates the rates strikers have not but have enjoyed the services paid for by others. Relieving these rates must be seen in this light and I commend the ratepayers who have continued to pay their rates despite their concerns and lack of faith in their council over the years. I want to thank them for that and I know that Mike Sabin wants to thank them for that. A compromise has been found and I want to commend the commissioners for finding a way to meet the concerns of the select committee on these penalties.It is true that the Kaipara District Council has had a few difficult years. As well as the rating irregularities the council presided over the controversial Mangawhai sewerage scheme and a considerable increase in debt. This bill has not stopped the proper scrutiny of these decisions; nor does it absolve anyone of responsibility and culpability. It also should be noted that the Office of the Auditor-General has an inquiry into the Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme. It is an independent inquiry of the Auditor-General and the commissioners’ inquiry into matters aside from that including the actions of the former chief executive is also ongoing. As a select committee we were aware of these other inquiries by other jurisdictions which were independent of both us and the council. We appreciate their cooperation in keeping us informed on their progress and on what they felt might come out of their investigations. This bill does not impinge on any of those inquiries under way.The bill is about fixing some of the irregularities so that the council can continue to function and so that services can continue to be provided for the ratepayers of the Kaipara District. Without validating legislation the council would need to refund all the rates that were set incorrectly and set new rates to recover the money work its way through a complex process of resetting rates for each year since 2006 or leave the status of the rates uncertain and open to legal challenge. That is something that would be unacceptable for the majority of those in the Kaipara District who want to move on. Each of these options is unworkable and would leave the council in an untenable financial position. That is why I support this legislation. Members of this House and onthe committee support this legislation because they see that although imperfect it is a pragmatic and practical way through.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First on the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill. Communities all around New Zealand and in particular on our coastline have been experiencing over the last decade or so increasing demands for the treatment of waste water and stormwater. Communities are up for significant amounts of money to cover the costs of upgrading to reduce the spillage into our waterways and into our harbours. As a result the Mangawhai scheme is an example of that. The Kaipara District Council was required in conjunction with the Northland Regional Council to address how it would curtail the problems from runoff from septic tank systems and small communal systems in the Mangawhai area.During the late 1990s and early 2000s a scheme was proposed for Mangawhai to put in a central waste-water scheme. During that period it was developed so that it would provide for 21 kilometres of sewers 18 kilometres of property drains 15 pumping stations 6 kilometres of rising mains a new waste-water treatment plant and a 110000 cubic metre storage dam—a sizable scheme. It was designed to cope with a population of 3000 and in the summer a peak of up to 8200 people who move up on to that Northland coast. During that period in the mid-2000s the people of Mangawhai and the ratepayers of the Kaipara District were consulted with on the basis of that scheme to the point of a $31 million project.As a result of that consultation the council determined in August of 2005 that it would proceed with the project and it negotiated a facility with ABN AMRO Bank to the tune of $31 million. In October of that year it appointed a company by the name of Earthtech Contractors to design construct and operate the EcoCare facilities and in so doing it commenced to draw down the loans. In May of 2006 some 9 months later Kaipara District Council appointed Beca Group to manage the implementation of EcoCare. Beca Group is a well-known consulting firm based in Auckland which provides to local authorities all over New Zealand. It was there to oversee the implementation because the company Earthtech Contractors was Melbourne-based and it was seen by the council to be preferable to have a sizable local consultancy firm to oversee it.This is where it starts getting a bit hazy. Within 1 year in December 2007 the project deed was amended and the ABN AMRO Bank loan facility was increased to $53 million. The people had been consulted on a loan of up to $31 million and suddenly the council took out a facility with ABN AMRO Bank for $53 million. Subsequent to that the council then actually borrowed $58 million to fund the project. During that whole period of time there was no consultation with the people of Mangawhai or the people of the Kaipara District but that council took on huge increased debts to cover it. This was a sign of extremely poor governance by the council by the mayor by the deputy mayor and by the management—in particular by the chief executive officer of the Kaipara District Council who had been a chief executive officer there for some 18 years.It was concerning. During the Local Government and Environment Committee hearings I questioned some of the attendees and I asked a councillor from the Kaipara District who attended and said that surely in the quarterly financial reviews that councils are provided with and councillors should be provided with it would have shown a rocketing amount of funding going into the scheme and borrowing going into the scheme. I was appalled to be told that the councillors of the Kaipara District Council were not provided with such quarterly financial reviews and in fact the councillor had been denied that information by the chief executive officer and by the council.I give an example. When the North Shore City Council built a $110 million outfall pipe on the North Shore while I was the Mayor of North Shore it was originally budgeted at just over $110 million. When we came to the commencement of construction it was signed off at being $116 million. When it was finally completed it came in at just close to $120 million. This was a massive 6 kilometre 2.8 metre diameter pipe—a huge project—but we managed to contain it. During that whole project our council our councillors and the management received regular reviews on how that project was going and how the costings were going. In this case with Kaipara that did not happen and it ballooned out. During that same period the Audit Office gave its annual audit of the Kaipara District Council. I am also appalled that the Audit Office during that whole period of time with its annual reviews did not pick up that this was an absolutely ballooning disaster waiting to happen.During that period of time the ratepayers themselves started sounding the alarm. I give full credit to all those ratepayers who did so including the Mangawhai Residents and Ratepayers Association. They started raising the alarm bells and it fell on deaf ears. They were told to go away. They were ignored and yet they were on to something.During that period of time ABN AMRO Bank was taken over by the Royal Bank of Scotland which in turn went under and was sold to Lloyds Bank. Lloyds Bank then passed on the loans to National Bank and National Bank was subsequently merged with ANZ. I am advised that those book value loans today are nothing like the book value loans that were taken originally by ABN AMRO Bank and in fact ANZ is now sitting on those loans at a considerably written-down value. In that respect therefore the ratepayers of Mangawhai and the Kaipara District are still being required to repay those sizable loans at the full book value rate. However it would appear that the New Zealand bankers are making a healthy margin out of this. In that respect we are calling on the Government to intervene and have proper talks with ANZ to get this back on track and to see how much it can discount these loans by in order to ensure that the ratepayers themselves are not left out of pocket by paying for something that ANZ actually did not end up taking up.At the same time there needs to be a review in terms of some of the people involved—the likes of the contractors the likes of Earthtech Contractors the likes of Beca Group the likes of the chief executive officer for 18 years of the Kaipara District Council and the likes of the mayor and the deputy mayor who had a big involvement in this whole thing. It all needs to be investigated and they need to be held to account. We are very pleased that as part of this bill there is an allowance for people to go after them and to sue those who have been found to be negligent and in fact to ascertain whether there have been any unlawful actions on the parts of some of those people. I was most concerned that one clause in the bill clause 3(g)—which I requested be removed—said that this would also “validate any other actions or omissions of the Council relating to the financial years 2006/2007 to 2012/2013 (inclusive).” That basically gave carte blanche validation to this whole thing in terms of any other omissions that the Kaipara District Council had undertaken. I was pleased that that was removed from the bill.In closing I would just like to say: all credit to the ratepayers. A legal opinion has come through to me that said: “The illegalities in entering the loans … are not mere technicalities or formalities. It goes to the heart of local government’s obligation to consult ratepayers before entering into large financial commitments and whether rates can be set to cover illegal loans. … The wider solution should involve Government providing leadership to broker a deal with the [Kaipara District Council] … and the lender banks to fill the financial gap faced by the [Kaipara District Council.] … The bill retrospectively validates illegally set rates …”—and is not right.I do commend the work of the commissioners who have worked hard on this. They are in an invidious situation in being basically given a hospital pass to try to sort this out. However despite their work to try to do this it cannot belie the fact that people have acted in an appalling manner in terms of the governance of this council in terms of the management of this council and in terms of those contracted to this council.New Zealand First and the New Zealand First caucus cannot support this bill. We wish that Parliament would ensure that those who are culpable in this matter are brought to account.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I am disappointed that New Zealand First members cannot find themselves being able to support this Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill because the select committee has worked extremely hard as has the member representing New Zealand First in trying to find a way through a deplorable situation in Kaipara. I am disappointed that New Zealand First members have taken this view because the question then becomes: “Well if they can’t support this solution what solution can they support?”. What needs to happen—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well how about asking the banks whether they did due diligence?JACQUI DEAN: And Winston Peters who does not know a thing about the bill who has not read the bill who does not understand the issues and who clearly has not been briefed by the New Zealand First MP who does sit on the committee is going back to his normal fall-back position of seeing a conspiracy under a rock somewhere. Well that might be politically convenient and politically expedient but actually his member Andrew Little—Maggie Barry: Andrew Williams.JACQUI DEAN: —Andrew Williams thank you colleague—gave Andrew Williams—Hon Member: Practically twins.JACQUI DEAN: Yes they are practically twins but unlike the Labour member Andrew Williams does not seem to have been able to convince his leader that if the House does not support this bill then what? I would like Winston Peters to get to his feet in this debate and explain to the House just why it is that although his colleague has sat diligently—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the member is going to throw out that challenge I am asking her to yield now and I will give her my answer.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No no—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh she does not want an answer then?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No I am ruling.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Give her a chance.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The member will sit. I am calling Jacqui Dean to continue her speech.JACQUI DEAN: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The problem is that Winston Peters can retreat to his fall-back position which is to see a great conspiracy somewhere to find demons that he think will advantage him in the sad ending of his political career—and it is the demise of New Zealand First—but sitting directly behind him is a member a former mayor who has in fact worked very hard on this bill with the Local Government and Environment Committee to the benefit of the people of Kaipara.This bill is not here to benefit Winston Peters. The bill that we are discussing today is to get over a problem that the ratepayers of the Kaipara District Council are facing. That is fine. We can demonise and we can blame the chief executive and the decision-making process of the elected members and of the chief executive and anyone else who isinvolved. We can do that but does it actually fix the problem? His member can see that. Winston Peters’ own colleague who is sitting right behind him Andrew Williams can see that and no doubt tried to brief his leader but it has clearly fallen upon the ears of somebody who has not even read the bill who has absolutely no liking for the processes of local government and so who is now taking this position against the interests of the ratepayers and the older folk.Just remember who those ratepayers are. They are the older folk the older residents of the Kaipara District who are living on a fixed income who are no doubt SuperGold cardholders and who are looking to this Parliament for direction. They can look everywhere else around this House but they cannot look at New Zealand First. So those very constituents whom Winston Peters seeks to please are the very ones who would be suffering because that party cannot find it in their hearts—well it clearly does not understand the bill but Winston Peters cannot find it in his heart—to look past his own political self-interest and to understand that this validation bill brought to the House by Mike Sabin is not about Winston Peters and politics; actually it is about validating some pretty poor decision-making on behalf of the Kaipara District Council.I want to commend Mike Sabin who was put in the invidious position of being asked to sponsor this bill because it is a bill with no clear remedy at first. There are a number of aspects to the situation in Kaipara and yes there was a rates revolt by a number of ratepayers. I have to acknowledge that the rates revolt came about through the sheer frustration of the ratepayers of Kaipara who were unable to get their point across to their local authority. I think there is a lesson in there as well for the future health of the Kaipara District Council and indeed all district councils going forward and that is to listen to its ratepayers. It might not like hearing what it is being told and in this case no it should not have liked what it was being told but the rates strikers if nothing else have raised attention so that the local member Mike Sabin has brought this matter to the House for the House’s consideration.I also want to congratulate and pay tribute to the 13000 ratepayers who continued to pay their rates. I want to commend them for the support of the commissioners because just over the fence perhaps was a neighbour who was a rates striker and who was still receiving services provided by the local authority through these difficult times but they were not paying their contribution. Part of this validation will remedy that and I think that is a good provision in the bill. There is a lot of upset there is a lot of anger and there is a lot of frustration around this bill on behalf of the ratepayers because they have not been well served by their elected members and the chief executives.The local bill that we are dealing with in the House will pass before Christmas which is to be commended and I want to thank the House for its cooperation in this. It is only part of a number of processes that are under way to help achieve putting right—and it is putting right—bad mistakes that were made in Kaipara.Since 2012 there has been quite a significant range of interventions. There have been investigations and actions have been initiated so I am just going to run through those. There was the implementation of a Government-appointed review team and it was its subsequent report that led to the resignation of the previous council. That is no small event in the life of a local authority and as you can imagine that is the kind of event that is going to take many years and much hard work to overcome. Then there followed the appointment of a team of commissioners and again I want to commend the commissioners for their work. Again I want to commend those ratepayers who have worked with the commissioners and who supported them through an incredibly divisive process.There then was an investigation led by the Office of the Auditor-General into the Mangawhai EcoCare Wastewater Treatment Scheme and all matters related to that.There was also an independent inquiry into the council auditor at the time Audit New Zealand. There were also inquiries from both the police and also the Serious Fraud Office with a view to establishing criminal investigations if applicable. We do not know if that is applicable just yet. Those investigations are under way but to date there has been insufficient evidence identified to warrant investigations. There have also been inquiries by the commissioners into actions within the council including those of the former chief executive officer.In the third reading speech I will go into some more detail about what is contained in the bill but I just want to finish my contribution today by again condemning New Zealand First members for not being able to see past the politics—the shabby politics—that they see as being what matters under this bill. I utterly condemn—and why should we be surprised though—Winston Peters taking this position when directly behind him sits a good member of Parliament a former mayor who understands completely—Hon Member: He quite likes that.JACQUI DEAN: Well OK I am saying “good”. He understands completely that proper processes are absolutely critical in local authorities. This bill is putting right those. It is about the ratepayers of the Kaipara District. It is not about the shabby politics the populist politics of New Zealand First. Thank you.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): You see what happened there was that a rubber-stamp expert from the National Party got up made a challenge and when asked to yield would not do so. There is the member from Waitaki who has been in Parliament for 5 minutes and knows nothing about the legal circumstances behind this legislation the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill; knows nothing about the transactions that belie the truth in this matter; knows nothing about the people who put together the scheme; knows nothing about the engineers; and knows nothing about who jacked it all up. She needs to explain to the people of Kaipara—all the people—and of Dargaville the far north and Whangarei because if there is to be a unitary authority sooner or later this massive debt will visit them and they will not be able to cauterise it in the way that this new young backbench member sponsoring the bill Mike Sabin says. Those members do not know what they are talking about.Can I ask the member this—can I ask the member this. When the Bank of Scotland went down—Jacqui Dean: What are you going to do?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Listen. When the Bank of Scotland went down—I am going to ask this expert member from Timaru—what was the size of the encumbrance? She does not know. See? There she is. I asked her. She was on the Local Government and Environment Committee apparently. I asked her: when the Bank of Scotland went belly up what was its encumbrance? She does not know. She cannot explain it. I know what it is now. It is heading past $82 million. She cannot explain that. What for example was the rebate that the ANZ bank—Mike Sabin: Why doesn’t the member explain that if he cares so much about Northland he could have taken 1 minute to come and talk to me?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No Mr Sabin you had countless opportunities to explain to the country what the bill is all about. Mr Sabin had countless—Jacqui Dean: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member who has got to his feet does not seem to understand that this bill is called the Kaipara District Council bill.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No that is not a point of order. That is a debating point.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Unfortunately for that naive member I have lived in Northland. My roots go back a thousand years not just a few decades. They go back athousand years and it is arrogance of the worst sort that up she jumps from Waitaki—she never even made the first European boat—and she challenges my background in the north.Mike Sabin: Why not give the sponsoring member 1 minute to talk about it if he goes back a thousand years?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Mr Sabin of course is so excited that he is not prepared to hear any debate at all. Mr Sabin is in charge of this bill. He knows that he has lumbered his people with an absolute lemon—a total lemon. Mr Sabin what do you know about business?Mike Sabin: Explain why that is.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Explain to me why the ANZ bank—Mike Sabin: Explain why it’s an absolute lemon.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No listen—just answer some questions. I have got the answers for you if you will but shut up and listen. If you want to learn something just keep quiet. Mr Sabin is hallucinating here and frothing up and lathering up because he knows how embarrassing this is up north.Let me ask you this. The ANZ bank heard from the receivers of the Bank of Scotland that it had this encumbrance and the receivers were prepared to sell it. Did the ANZ bank do any due diligence? The ANZ bank having got this encumbrance for a 40 percent discount still has the same debt but discounted by 40 percent. That is massive. You would think it would have done its due diligence would you not? And you would think also that the BNZ which helped share this debt also did its due diligence.Mike Sabin: Talk to the House about protected transactions.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I do not have to talk to turkeys like you to understand business. I am the man who disclosed the wine box. I am the man who exposed the BNZ. I am the man who exposed the BNZ the wine box—I know how business works. What is your record?Mike Sabin: How do protected transactions work?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: See? There he goes.Denis O’Rourke: He hasn’t got a record.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: He has got no record at all. Apart from getting the odd hoon in downtown Dargaville as a policeman he has got no record at all. I am talking about serious business transactions that are required to be explained to the people of Kaipara. You know here was an operation to be built for the good citizens of Mangawhai. You know I have never seen anything anywhere in the world like what the council put up to be paid for by the people of Mangawhai and Kaipara. This is a B-O-O-T which took only 6 years from start to finish.Hon Michael Woodhouse: A what?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is a build—oh do you know what he said the smart man from Dunedin? The man is a new Minister and he does not know what a BOOT is. Well shortly next year he will get the boot and he will find out what its other ramifications are. BOOT is abuild-own-operate-transfer. Oh they built it but they never got to own it properly and they never got to operate it properly but what they did manage to do—[Interruption]—I say for the screaming lunatic from Kaipara was to transfer it to the ratepayers of Kaipara District Council.SeeI know when someone is nervous. I know when someone is nervous. Me thinks he doth protest too much. He doth protest too ignorantly. He doth protest far too ignorantly because if he was confident and relaxed about his colleagues’ views he would not get so hysterical. But today he is hearing some facts he did not know. Unlike him my job is not to organise a conspiracy against the ratepayers or the taxpayers. My job is to uncover it and we have and we will. I want to know why you are lumbering allthe citizens of the north—because if there is a unified council they will all wear it in time. You can forget the idea of a unified council because Whangarei is never going to wear the far north the mid-north and anything else and pay for it—not now. Let me tell you Mr Sabin what your job is. Your job is not to flash around town. Your job is not to flash around the north as a one-trick pony.Mike Sabin: One person I won’t listen to about how to do my job is that person there—Winston Peters.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do not mind interjections. You know me; I can handle them. But I do think two speeches at the same time should not be allowed. Could you tell him—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No.Tim Macindoe: Point of order—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No the member will sit. I am listening very closely. It is a robust debate. There are some interjections across the floor. I am listening very carefully. As long as I can hear the member that is fine.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well that is by far the most important thing. I can tell you that only by our gracious providence is the rest of the country hearing what I have got to say because Mr Sabin has gone off his head today. He is so embarrassed to be walking in here and sponsoring a bill that when you look at it with close examination and having been properly briefed and seriously briefed as I have been by far better minds than his—Tim Macindoe: The member doesn’t know what’s in the bill.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and far better brains than that man who used to teach at St Peter’s ever had. All he might know about is the seventh form; he knows nothing about business. That is why he lines up like the rubber-stamp merchants they all are—all these backbenchers—and whenever the Minister says something they say “Yes sir. Yes sir. Three bags full. Yes sir.”Maggie Barry: Oh and your lot don’t? “Jump how high Winston?”.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Here comes the No. 1 rubber-stamp merchant with the most uncultured voice I have ever heard. She will never be a Minister.Maggie Barry: “Yap yap!”Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No “Yap yap!” is your speciality.Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This rant has been nothing but abusive. It is totally irrelevant and I ask you to bring the member to relevance to the bill which I do not think he has read. He certainly does not understand it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I hear what the member is saying. I just ask that the member be very mindful about personal attacks on people. A member can take objection to what is being said so keep it seemly. It is a robust debate. I am listening very carefully to the content. We have got 2 minutes remaining.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: You are precisely right. You see the last member who got up and spoke spent all her time abusing a member of Parliament—namely me—and now she is getting a reply based on facts and substance and she cannot handle it and nor can her colleagues. [Interruption] Can you answer me this question. Why for 5 years were the accounts never tagged—why for 5 years were the accounts never tagged? Why do we need a full-scale inquiry about that? For goodness’ sake! You are a select committee. Get the auditors in and ask them: “How do you possibly explain yourselves? Because frankly if you can’t you wear part of this debt.”The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I am not part of this debate.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well I—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No you brought me in.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Your experience Mr Assistant Speaker has been in business evaluations. You would never make this appalling mistake.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No don’t bring me into the debate—don’t bring me into the debate.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I do not want to bring you into it Mr Assistant Speaker but then again you came here with experience. They did not. They are naive in the extreme.Here is my point. The second question I want to ask the banks is: tell me just how long and thorough your due diligence process was. Because if it was not long and thorough why on earth am I passing legislation to save your financial skin?I am sick and tired of this going on. These banks rip people off. They make massive profits. The ANZ and BNZ have in times of 1 percent growth made 50 percent in annualised profits each a year and—Hon Michael Woodhouse: Don’t become a profit hater.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh of course you cannot mention the banks because that is where the money comes from for the National Party’s campaign. You see what I mean? Everything is conflicted.The last thing I want to say to Mr Sabin is that you owe the people of Kaipara more than this. You owe the people of Mangawhai more than this. You owe the people of Mangawhai a full-scale exposure of what happened here. I think—Mike Sabin: If the member had taken just—Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No no there is no use shouting out to me because I am going to get on the road to Dargaville I am going to go to Kaiwaka I am going to go to Mangawhai and I am going to go to every little town and tell them what their local member will not do for them. Then I will tell them what a great party will do—that is expose this sort of underhand financial dealing that ends up costing the good citizens of Kaipara a pretty packet—and no sewerage as well.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call will be a split call. Moana Mackey—5 minutes.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I think that speech by Winston Peters probably highlights the fact that the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill is actually a very difficult bill. Despite the fact that peace had pretty much broken out across the House in terms of accepting that we had to do something we should not be under any illusion that this is a pleasant bill to pass that the issues that we are dealing with are not serious or that the issues we are dealing with are not very concerning. A number of members have said that it is the right thing to do. I think I would probably describe it more as the least bad thing to do. Of a number of very unpalatable options it is the least unpalatable of all of them.Retrospective legislation is not good practice especially not when dealing with the kind of situation we have seen up in Kaipara—the complete mismanagement and mishandling of the implementation of a waste-water scheme and the loans and debt that went alongside that. I think it is fair to say that when the Local Government and Environment Committee travelled up to Maungatūroto and heard submissions we were deeply deeply concerned. There was a bit of pressure on the select committee to report back promptly to try to get this issue sorted. But we spent a lot of time working on this bill trying to ensure as much as we could that what we were doing was in the best interests of the ratepayers of Kaipara and that we could find a pathway forward.Our big concern was that the Auditor-General was looking into this issue. Clearly there had been audit failures. The fact that it took ratepayers throughout the Kaipara District and particularly in Mangawhai many many years to get any action on what was happening there and to shine a light on what was happening within their councilwas deeply concerning. The Auditor-General is looking into that. That process has dragged on and on and on. There are serious natural justice implications in terms of the Auditor-General’s report.We had hoped that the select committee would get to see that report before we deliberated. We held the bill back at the select committee on the understanding that the report would be coming out at the beginning of November because there is a difference between retrospectively legalising or validating a simple mistake versus validating gross incompetence versus validating corruption. So there could have been a number of reasons why we got into this situation. Those are kind of the reasons we could have got there and obviously the select committee was very keen to get some confirmation from the Auditor-General through that report that we were not going to be retrospectively validating corruption. I want to thank the Office of the Auditor-General officials actually for coming into a closed session and providing us with information. They were not able to tell us what was in the report but they provided some peace of mind that nothing in the report that they were going to produce ran up against this piece of legislation because that was a major issue for all members of the committee.The other interesting thing about when we went up to Maungatūroto and heard the submissions was that it is not clear-cut who is opposed to this and who supports it. There were ratepayers in Mangawhai who supported the bill. There were ratepayers in the rest of the Kaipara District who did not support the bill. Then of course there were obviously the ratepayers in Mangawhai who were very much opposed to it just as there were ratepayers in the Kaipara District who were very much in favour of it. You know the ratepayers in Mangawhai have often been typified as being just wealthy people who do not live there. Actually that is no reason to say that they should have fewer legal rights or any less protection of their legal rights. It does not matter whether they are wealthy or whether they might live on the North Shore; the fact is that if they have been wronged then that needs to be rectified. In fact what we also learnt was that there are a number of people living in Mangawhai who are now faced with massive rates increases who are actually on very low incomes.This is not a black and white issue. This is not a rich versus poor issue. This is not even a Mangawhai versus the rest of the Kaipara District issue. It is far more complex than that and the select committee worked incredibly hard to try to find a way through this. None of us thinks that this is great legislation. None of us thinks that this is a perfect solution. But the reality is that there is significant impost being put on the rest of the ratepayers in Kaipara in terms of the services that can be provided and in terms of their access to New Zealand Transport Agency funding for their regional roads which they cannot get until this is fixed. We did manage to negotiate an agreement to have an amnesty on the penalties which I think is really important to recognise that if they were illegally struck then to penalise people for not paying them—it is a goodwill gesture of the commissioners to say: “OK well we will have an amnesty on that and we will not put those penalties in place.”I look forward to New Zealand First’s Supplementary Order Papers in the Committee stage in terms of its solutions as to what would be a better way through than this bill. We will seriously look at those Supplementary Order Papers to see if it can come up with a better way through that is fairer for everyone. This legislation was the one solution that was of the least cost to the Kaipara District ratepayers.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak in the second reading of the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill which is sponsored by Northland MP Mike Sabin. This is a bill with a very narrow purpose. It validates specified rates set between the 2006-07 and 20011-12 financial years. That is it. This bill is the best solution to fix some of the irregularities so that the council cancontinue to function. Under the commissioners who have been in place for the past year that is just what this council is doing.The Local Government and Environment Committee heard a lot of submissions as other speakers today have alluded to. There were 133 submitters who were opposed to the bill. We received 157 written submissions. But when you analyse them in more detail 24 submissions were in support of the bill and one of them was representing 88 additional people. So we are very aware that 112 people who submitted to us were very much in support of this member’s bill by Mike Sabin. I think that needs to be kept in mind because everybody agonised over this bill. It was so far from ideal it just was not funny.I think that those of use who were at Maungatūroto and who have been at the hearings in Wellington also are very well aware of how much angst and misery has gone on over this particular situation for so long. In fact Graeme Ramsey who was the former mayor of the district of Kaipara for 6 years up until 2004 which was well before these difficulties began actually outlined to us that there was some 30 years of controversy surrounding building a community waste-water system. There had been problems with a fast-growing community and there were issues with water quality in the harbour. Nobody had any accord or any agreement. Against that background a deeply divided community came up with a solution and elected a council that did them wrong and that did the wrong thing. Whether it was incompetent or whether it actually had corrupt practices those are the measures that will be determined by other findings by other reviews.I have to reaffirm this: this particular piece of legislation which is the best that could be done under the circumstances does not impinge on any of the other inquiries under way. The Office of the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the EcoCare sewerage scheme—the independent inquiry of the Auditor-General—and the commissioners’ inquiry into matters aside from the above including the actions of the former chief executive officer will all continue and this piece of legislation does not impinge on those. What it does allow people to do is to get on with life.We have heard from the commissioners. The chair of the commissioners John Robertson appeared before us on several occasions. He is somebody who has worked very hard to ensure that they are putting in place mechanisms that will help and they have done so already. Much has been achieved. Finances and risk management and financial reporting processes are now in place to monitor performance.I am going through these because I know very well from people who have come to speak to me at my clinics on the North Shore and from hearing and listening carefully to the submitters that there are a lot of people who feel that things are going to be in a very bad and dreadful state. I want to take this time to reassure them that much has been done. When this piece of legislation goes through before Christmas they will then be able to get back on track.On rates the commissioners have achieved a balanced budget. Their forecasts indicate small rate increases through to 2022 which will pretty much essentially cover inflation. Significant council resources have of course been applied to this. This is why I think apart from one exception there has been a real unanimity of purpose around this. We did not like to think that all of the people in the Kaipara District—not just those in Mangawhai with the sewerage scheme but everybody—are paying for this. Everybody is having to dig deep over a series of problems and irregularities. It is very important that we have hope for the future and that hope has been given.I would like to end what is unfortunately a short call on this—and I will speak further on this in the third reading—with some of the things that have been said to us by some of our submitters. They said that there can be no solution going forward and theycannot have justice in this district by withholding revenue from the council. Clause 14 as others have said will enable everybody who wants to to have their day in court and to hold people accountable.I agree with the sponsoring member Mike Sabin that the auditors and others probably have a case to answer and this is not a “get out of jail free” card at all. Of the people who have submitted to us I will end with Graeme Ramsey who commends this legislation because “Passing it does not excuse past mistakes nor absolve decision makers and advisors from responsibility. Rather it provides a basis on which we can move forward.” and rebuild the trust and mend the broken relationships. Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. I call the Hon Maryan Street.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It does not give me a great deal of pleasure to rise to speak to this bill the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill. I have spoken vehemently about it in the past. I was on the Local Government and Environment Committee for most of the consideration of this bill although I have not been most latterly as my portfolio responsibilities have altered and I am no longer on this committee. However I was there as I said for the consideration of this bill. I was there at Maungatūroto for the hearing of submissions.This has been a hornets’ nest quite frankly where every time something was addressed or another submission was heard another layer of less than stellar behaviour was revealed. I do not think that there is anybody who comes out of the consideration of this bill with everything they want. First of all I wish to add my objections to those of others about passing retrospective legislation. It is a truism to say that we do not like to do it in this House but it seems that we have had a number of these bills to deal with in recent times. I hope that the resolution of this issue although not pleasing everybody will in the course of its being heard have raised a number of red flags to those involved in local government around the country. It is not good enough to make mistakes apologise for them and then get Parliament to address them. That is not good enough.In addition to that my colleague Moana Mackey referred to various degrees of dissatisfaction ranging from genuine errors through to potential corruption. I hope that there has been enough exposure of the behaviour of a range of parties here to ensure that those engaged in local government—and I do not mean just elected officials though always elected officials but also those appointed to positions—are working to the highest ethical standards that a community would expect their local council to adhere to.I want to deviate a little because it is important and it is relevant to this as of yesterday. I am very hopeful that this is the end of this matter—albeit to many people’s dissatisfaction—in Kaipara. I hope that they are looking forward from here because just yesterday there was a joint statement from Northland authorities commending the Local Government Commission for its recommendation for one super-council in the north. So a joint statement on behalf of the Far North District Council Kaipara District Council Whangarei District Council and Northland Regional Council said that they were prepared to work together to put issues of the past behind them and to make sure that the new legislation which would be introduced to Parliament soon could work. I hope that is the case for the people in the Kaipara District.This would be a really significant move forward if this piece of legislation can be the end of this unpleasant episode. It is not about rich versus poor not about inhabitants versus visitors and not about those who pay and those who use. We can look forward to one large council working with one mayor and a range of geographically spread boards to represent the issues. I hope that will be a more permanent fix for the people of Kaipara than this bill will be. Thank you.DAVID CLENDON (Green): In keeping with the general theme of this debate this evening I stand to restate the Greens’ very reluctant support for this bill the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill. We take no pleasure in it. Our very capable and experienced colleague Eugenie Sage sat on the Local Government and Environment Committee and came back to the caucus recommending that we do support this bill—previously we had agreed to support only its referral to the select committee—through its further stages. We accepted that recommendation basically because we felt that any other course of action would actually worsen the situation of the people in Kaipara and particularly the people of Mangawhai. It is not a happy situation but the financial and social situation could only get worse if we do not do something in this Parliament to resolve the shambles the mess that has been created.The commentary of the bill refers to “a number of irregularities” that must be validated. That is very genteel language which is entirely appropriate I suppose in a written piece of legislation. But it actually understates the scale of the sheer incompetence the illegal activity and the unlawful activity that was occurring over a number of years and it is very unfortunate. One can get a sense of the scale of it by looking at the bill. It is an odd bill in the sense that the substance of the bill is in a dozen or so—14—clauses over five or six pages. The other 20-odd pages of the bill are the preamble where the shortcomings the failures of the Kaipara District Council are documented. The words “the Council failed to comply” or variations on that phrase appear no fewer than 45 times. It is a litany of errors. It is a disgrace to those people who were on the council and it must be said that some of the disgrace must be shared by some of the entities whose task it was to have an eye on what was actually going on in that situation over a number of years.I would have to say that the committee has brought back a much better bill. There have been some significant changes made that I think have tipped the balance for us in terms of enabling us to support it. Of course key to those would be in clause 3 “Purposes” the deletion of paragraph (g). The purposes clause outlines a sort of veil of legality that is going to be drawn over the illegal acts and the incompetence of the council over time. The original drafting of the bill sought to include a catch-all provision—a genuine “get out of jail free” card as it was called earlier. The language was something along the lines of validating “any other actions or omissions”. Not only would that be unreasonable in the context of this bill but it could have set a fairly dangerous precedent—an expectation that all would be forgiven. A great deal is being forgiven in this bill but it is important that we do retain the right—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.DAVID CLENDON: Just before the break I was making the point that the select committee has brought back a better bill than the one it received up front. It is still not a lovely piece of legislation but the committee has done some good work.One of those things is to ensure that those who have withheld their rates will not be penalised and that any penalty payments that were added to rates of those people who were for principled reasons withholding payment will be waived. That is as it should be. The point has been made that it was referred to as almost a token return because the people of Mangawhai particularly are facing very large bills but I think it goes beyond that. We know that yes there are some quite wealthy people living in that area but equally there are quite large numbers of people who may be asset-rich but who are on fixed or low incomes. For them the extra penalty payments would have been quite a significant burden to bear.The last point I would make is that I think the point about the banks—or rather Local Government New Zealand suggested that the idea of the banks bearing some responsibility could lead to higher interest rates for other local bodies. I think that if the banks have loaned this money carelessly or without due diligence or thought then there is a case to be made that they ought to bear some of this responsibility. If they are getting too comfortable—too much in the comfort zone; thinking that they could never go wrong by lending to local authorities—and if they are just not doing good business practice and risk profiling then perhaps they should stand up and accept some of the responsibility as well.We will have more to say at later stages but for the moment thank you.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): We had a number of quite rowdy speeches before the dinner break on this bill the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill. I am referring to a very senior politician the leader of New Zealand First. I do want to get back to the serious nature of this debate. There is no question that the Local Government and Environment Committee which I sit on has had a very lengthy consideration of this bill. It has been on the committee’s agenda for a long time and the committee members wrestled very hard with this legislation because nobody was very enthusiastic about retrospective legislation.We were presented with no real good options. Every option was painful to some degree. We heard with great concern the stories and real concerns of the ratepayers particularly in Mangawhai who felt that very inappropriate things had happened on the Kaipara District Council and that spending had ballooned out of control. They were concerned that this legislation might in some way validate acts that were illegal or inappropriate. So there was a long painful process of teasing out what indeed the reality was that we faced and the narrow nature of this bill.I do want to make special mention of my colleague Mike Sabin the MP for Northland who shepherded this bill through the House in a manner that was forthright and straight up and down as we would expect from a straight shooter from Northland. There has been no doubt that he has indefatigably defended the interests of all the ratepayers and people in the Kaipara area and tried to navigate his way through what has been a very difficult issue.The first option that we had was to weed out and differentiate acts of omission on the part of the council which were legal acts of rating that were done where the i’s and the t’s had not been dotted and crossed properly and the legislation had not been dealt with and separate those from anything that was more broadly an issue of concern. Then we were faced with the other option which was to do nothing—not pass the bill—and then perpetuate a problem where a wider set of ratepayers in the region were left carrying the can while a smaller group went on strike largely on a point of principle.It seemed to us that when we drilled down into the issue the longer we delayed this legislation the more costs were being piled on to the local council and effectively on to the wider set of ratepayers and that was becoming intolerable. So after much agonising we agreed nearly unanimously—although it appears that New Zealand First has drifted off in another direction—that this bill made sense.So if we could just go through some of the details the bill authorises both the rates and the penalties added to rates to be recovered as is normal for local government validation legislation. We have before the House at the moment not just this piece of legislation but also a bill for the Tasman area. Nobody is enthusiastic about this legislation. It does raise the broader issue of just how effective councils are being in navigating their way through what are very complicated requirements in legislation.If anything comes out of this whole episode I think it is that we do need to think carefully about how we put many sets of hurdles in front of relatively small localcouncils and then expect them to do everything perfectly. There are two sides of the equation. One is that you expect councillors and councils to do an effective job at raising rates which is one of the most important functions that they have but also we do not want to have legislation that is overly complex and makes it difficult to achieve perfection.The select committee when we heard all the submissions from various parties both in Mangawhai and in Auckland recommended amending clause 6 to ensure that penalties can be charged only if they would have been added to rates validated under this bill. There was widespread concern that some of the penalties were on the heavy side for people who had been caught up in this. There was a long argument about that but I think the collective wisdom—again guided by the practical pragmatic no-nonsense approach of Mike Sabin—brought us to a situation that I think has the best chance of getting a sustainable outcome for this community and the wider region.If I move on some committee members felt that some more of the penalties should have been remitted and again we thought about that carefully. The commissioners—appointed at the request of the council in 2012—have agreed to take a proposal to the council in which certain penalties would be forgiven if the bill is enacted in this calendar year. The importance of enacting this bill in this calendar year is that as we were told by the commissioners with each passing month and each passing 2 or 3 months more and more cost is being put at the feet of ratepayers particularly if it means that they are unable to successfully claim some of the regional roading subsidies that are available. So penalties applied in the 2013 calendar year as well as penalties due to be applied on 1 January 2014 will be remitted under this proposal.When I drill down further into the specifics the bill validates the following. It validates specified rates set either inconsistently with the council’s funding impact statement and/or not allowed for under the Local Government (Rating) Act. Clause 3(b) states it will “treat all money received by the Council in payment of the specified rates or penalties added to those rates as having been lawfully paid …”. Clause 3(c) states it will “authorise the Council to recover any part of the specified rates and any penalties added to those rates that remain unpaid …”. Clause 3(e) also states it will “validate the information contained in the rates assessments for the financial years relating to 2006/2007 to 2012/2013 (inclusive);”.When we look at the long-term plan and annual report this bill will also “validate other actions or omissions of the Council relating to—the continuation of its 2006 development contributions [levy] … the late adoption of its annual report for the 2011/12 financial year and its long-term plan for 2012-2022; and (iii) its conduct of the special consultative procedure for its long-term plan for 2012-2022;”. None of these things were handled particularly well by the council but again the committee was left with that series of difficult choices and we plumped for correcting those inadequacies.Finally for the absence of doubt in terms of accountability clause 14 was amended to make it clear that any person not only the Kaipara District Council has the right to bring proceedings. A number of submitters were concerned that if we passed this legislation they would be left with no ability to hold people to account for wider acts of omission—particularly the quality of the spending on the waste-water plant—or the lack of quality of that spending. We were very concerned to hear from the Auditor-General as a result of her work but also of the wider investigation of the quality of that decision making so that we did not by this legislation make it impossible for people to hold those people to account for those actions.There is no question that the Kaipara District Council has had a difficult few years. As well as the rating irregularities the council presided over what has proved to be a very controversial Mangawhai sewerage scheme and a considerable increase in debt.This bill does not stop as I said the proper scrutiny of those decisions. Nor does it absolve anyone of responsibility or culpability. If we go back we note that the commissioners were appointed by the Minister of Local Government at the request of the council in September 2012. This bill does not impinge in any way on several inquiries under way particularly the inquiry by the Office of the Auditor-General into the Mangawhai sewerage scheme.So all in all this bill has been a difficult one for the select committee. We wrestled with it. We do congratulate the MP for Northland Mike Sabin who was left to carry this burden and did it with good grace. I commend this bill to the House.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes112New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes8New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Bill read a second time.Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment BillFirst ReadingDebate resumed from 23 October.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to this Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill which is a small bill but could be extremely effective. I want to commend my colleague Sue Moroney for having spotted the gap in the Privacy Commissioner’s ability to do things about complaints. When the Law Commission made a recommendation to the Government in its review of the Privacy Act 1993 which was published in 2011 it said: “At the moment enforcement of the Privacy Act is complaints-driven. People can complain to the Privacy Commissioner about breaches of their privacy rights under the Act. But the Commissioner has only limited powers to take action about breaches of the Act on her own initiative. Such a system is often not well suited to addressing underlying systemic problems.”The bill does two things. It inserts a new section and a new subsection into the Privacy Act. One simply alters the functions of the commissioner and it says that the commissioner will be able “to conduct audits of an agency’s practices and systems for handling personal information and the personal information maintained by that agency for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the information is maintained according to the information privacy principles.” That gives the Privacy Commissioner an ability they do not have at the moment to audit an agency’s practices in respect of privacy principles. Secondly it gives the commissioner the right to “issue a notice to an agency that is found to be in breach of this Act requiring that agency to take action” to repair the breach and to get their practices in order.As usual these things do not come out of a vacuum. These things come out of the fact that we have seen a string of major privacy breaches by Government agencies over the last few months. If I could just list them for a moment—I have got only 5 minutes so I will be as quick as I can. There is the Earthquake Commission and ACC. Paula Bennett herself as a Minister saw fit to disclose private information regardingbeneficiaries with no regard to the fact that she had all of the power of the State behind her and they had very little behind them. The Ministry of Social Development Work and Income Novopay the Inland Revenue Department Immigration New Zealand the Department of Corrections the Ministry of Education Housing New Zealand the Ministry of Justice—in all of these pieces of the apparatus of the State we have seen privacy breaches. It is hardly surprising then that this has emerged as something on the radar for ordinary citizens. It is that concern that my colleague Sue Moroney is reflecting in this bill tonight.The bill does two things and that is all. It would be really good if Government members could see their way clear to supporting this simply by giving the Privacy Commissioner the power to conduct audits and then giving the Privacy Commissioner the ability to note breaches and to require remedial action where there have been breaches. This is not rocket science. This actually reflects something that many people consider to be really important. So many thousands of New Zealanders have had their privacy breached that the Government apparatus is becoming a laughing stock. This is a piece of legislation that could remedy that. The Government does not have to do much in order to remedy that and this is the way it could fix it. Thank you.ALFRED NGARO (National): Just taking on the comments of the previous speaker Maryan Street about rocket science I say that the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill is a rocket that has no science. It has no fizz. It is a bill that we will not be supporting and here are the reasons why. I do understand the intent of the member in charge of the bill Sue Moroney which is to try to address issues. We are absolutely clear that there have been privacy breaches. We can talk about ACC and the Ministry of Social Development. Those things are actually out there. We have to own them. We know they are out there.Last year in front of the Justice and Electoral Committee the Privacy Commissioner Mrs Shroff said—and these are the comments that she made witnessed by the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Andrew Little—when questioned about the privacy breaches that there is actually nothing new. Privacy breaches have been happening for an absolutely long time long before us. It has been going on for some time. However what is new—these are her words—is the attention of the public on and the concern of the media for our addressing these issues. So we do realise that they are absolutely important.The Government agrees with the Law Commission’s recommendation to replace the Privacy Act with a new Act. That is currently in play and we are looking at that. National wants legislation that balances individuals’ rights to and need for privacy with the need for particular Government agencies to continue to be able to share information that is out there. That is important to meeting the needs of our members and our community as well. We need to improve the way personal information is collected stored and used by people.In order to prevent breaches of this magnitude it is important that the Privacy Commissioner is able to undertake investigations and identify gaps. The main provisions of this bill as mentioned by the previous member Maryan Street are twofold. Yes those provisions are to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner has the power to issue a compliance notice—a notice to an agency that is found to be in breach of the Act—and to require the agency to comply with the Act. But here is the second part and this probably is where we have a contention: the bill would also give the Privacy Commissioner an audit power to demand information-handling audits across the public sector. The Government cannot support the bill in its current form and particularly in that second part. Although we agree with the Law Commission’s recommendation in its review of the Privacy Act that the Privacy Commissioner should be able to issue compliance notices we do not support an audit power being given to thecommissioner. Here are the reasons why. National wants to strengthen the Privacy Commissioner’s power to investigate of their own motion so yes it will agree to that. But the Privacy Act is currently under review so we are undertaking what we think is important.You see the thing is that this bill—and hence the reason why I refer to it as a rocket with no fizz and no science—addresses only one part of the Law Commission’s recommendations. What the Government is doing however is actually taking a broader approach. It is actually tackling a variety of different issues in this legislation. We want the legislation to be balanced regarding the rights and the needs of privacy of individuals. So here is some more about what we are doing. The Minister herself expects to take a paper to Cabinet later this year. It will cover the issues raised in this bill and the remainder of the Law Commission’s recommendations.The other thing too is that the Privacy Commissioner is out there consulting. There has been a lot of concern about the lack of consultation—a lack of consultation. We have been out there and the Privacy Commissioner has been out there consulting with all relevant stakeholders to ensure that we get these issues addressed clearly. All the recommendations of the Law Commission must be considered in combination with the privacy breach issues that have arisen from the Privacy Commissioner’s report.We know that there are also issues with regard to technology. Technology has changed. Because of that change I suppose that in this sense it is not just a simple issue of: “Well we’ve got to issue these compliance notices and that will solve the issue.” We do not believe that. There is a broader set of things that we need in order to be able to do this and hence the reason why we are not supporting the bill.One of the things that did come out from the Law Commission was about the language. Refreshing the language in order to clarify the provisions inside the Act will help users better understand its purpose in our modern environment.We should also consider the international approaches to privacy as well. Although I do applaud the intent the effort and the energy of the member in putting together this Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill—a bit of a mouthful there—I have to say on behalf of the Government that we will not support this bill. We do not think that it actually reaches all the key concerns that are there in the recommendations. I will not be supporting this bill in the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Can I first of all start by acknowledging and thanking all of those parties who have seen fit to support this bill the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill in the House because I think the parties that have supported this bill show that they take New Zealanders’ concerns about privacy breaches very seriously and are prepared to act. That is certainly the reason why I put this bill forward into the ballot and was fortunate enough to have it pulled out. But I am sorry to say that it is all too often that we are in this House and we hear the Government dragging its heels. The sound is very audible in the debating chamber as the Government drags its heels yet again on an issue that is important to New Zealanders.This Government has been guilty of breaching New Zealanders’ privacy. From ACC to EQC or the Earthquake Commission and every acronym in between it has been breaching New Zealanders’ privacy. It actually started right at the top because it was the Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett who was the first to start this trend. She deliberately breached the privacy of two sole parents when they dared to question her cutting of the training incentive allowance. That is where it all started from. So the crocodile tears from the members opposite simply do not work because New Zealanders saw one of their own Ministers deliberately breaching privacy for her own ends.That gave the cue to all of those public entities that New Zealanders’ privacy was not paramount. Of course what followed was all of these privacy breaches. The Ministry of Social Development—well of course they were going to breach people’s privacy. Their own Minister had shown them that that was the proper thing to do. So these constant privacy breaches are endemic they have been systemic and they have been led from the Government benches. That is why this bill is important.The previous speaker Alfred Ngaro said that it was a rocket without the science. Well I would like him to actually say that to the Law Commission because this was the recommendation of the Law Commission. Alfred Ngaro is promising that at some time between now 13 November and the end of the year—not that far away—the Minister is going to be taking a paper to Cabinet. Well here is news for that member: his Minister got on her feet in front of a couple of hundred people in May last year and promised that she would be introducing that bill in the first half of 2013—the first half of 2013. Yet here he is admitting to us that she has not even taken the paper to Cabinet. It is 13 November and the paper has not even gone to Cabinet.The sound of the Government dragging its heels on addressing these very serous privacy concerns is deafening and is audible in this debating chamber and it came from the members opposite. So I am now going to let the voting do the talking because we will then learn which parties in this Parliament take the privacy of New Zealanders seriously and which parties do not. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Privacy (Giving Privacy Commissioner Necessary Tools) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2)First ReadingRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I moveThat the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time. I nominate the Finance and Expenditure Committee to consider the bill.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is the member going to speak?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I most certainly am. I was just making sure that you had the time to write down my proposal. This is a critical piece of legislation. Indeed no other single economic policy initiative could deliver so much in terms of benefits to the New Zealand economy. In fact there is no more important piece of legislation that would benefit the rank and file provincial voters who hitherto have been voting for the National Party. That will surely wipe the smiles off those members’ faces tonight.The intention of the bill is clear and compelling. The bill’s purpose is to give the Reserve Bank the flexibility it needs to promote growth exports and employment as well as price stability. The reasons why an amended Act is urgently needed are straightforward. As we predicted the NZ$1 is now nudging upwards again way above US80c and New Zealand is not paying its way. No amount of flimflam written by theNational Party’s research unit and given out every Wednesday afternoon for National members to repeat will alter these fundamental facts.In 2013 the fundamental economic problem we face is a deep current account deficit. For the year ended June 2013 the current account deficit totalled $9 billion—equivalent to 4.3 percent of GDP. As at 30 June 2013 New Zealand’s international liability position was—listen to this—$151.3 billion. That is a whopping 71.1 percent of GDP. Those figures used to frighten the PIGS of Europe—that is Portugal Italy Greece and Spain—and they should be frightening us. As a nation we are simply not earning enough and not saving enough. Instead we are getting deeper and deeper into debt and again resorting to selling assets to foreigners because of a persistent current account deficit. We are persistently pursuing policies that will not work and shortly there is a bill coming up after this bill that seeks to change industrial legislation in this country. My message to all those exporters out there in New Zealand who are watching tonight’s speech—because they will be watching it to see whether there is some glimmer of hope of getting the National Party backbencher’s member’s bill up—if they are a farmer and a dairy farmer at that they will know that they will be possibly losing $125000 to $130000 a year because of a massively overvalued dollar. My message to those people in “Export New Zealand” is when will they ever learn that the very people whom they are voting for and giving praise to are their worst economic enemies.There was a time when the National Party would never have contemplated this. In the time of Hamilton Holland Holyoake Marshall and people like that they would never have contemplated these sorts of measures—that is playing up to the financial markets of downtown Queen Street and the bankers and internationalists and forgetting the people who generate the real wealth of this country. So tonight’s speech is to them as well for it is time for them to wake up.The main factor underlying the current account deficit is a grossly overvalued dollar. We are getting deeper and deeper into debt and again resorting to selling assets to foreigners as some sort of panacea for our problems because of a persistent current account deficit. It is causing serious and deep harm to our export base. Many exporters are going out of business because they cannot compete internationally. Look at the rural towns around New Zealand and now the small rural cities the provincial cities and see how many shops are closed and how much there is a lack of action. National members say in this House: “Oh but we’ve got growth.” Well we had growth for a hundred years but the question is what is the quality of the growth and what is happening to the people who could save this country.Within recent weeks we have seen the closure of the Shannon fellmongery and a Rotorua sawmill with large job losses—more and more closures all the time. Virtually every week a business goes under because of a chronically overvalued dollar. Just recently Independent Fisheries confirmed that it will close its Christchurch processing plant resulting in 200 job losses. This is a colossal loss. No—what does the Government do? It prefers that overseas fishermen catch New Zealand fish take it off overseas and can it and sell it in New Zealand supermarkets. And the Government calls this sound economics!Denis O’Rourke: It’s a tragedy.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: It is a tragedy—an absolute tragedy. The former National Party which used to believe in great conservative principles would never have contemplated it. But this crowd today are just obsessed with one thing: power at all costs. And whoever gets the money to finance the National Party’s campaign the party is on that person’s side. It is high time that provincial “Export New Zealand” simply woke up to where their real friends in this Parliament lie.A sensible rational authentic exchange rate—and I say “authentic exchange rate” because everybody says that the current exchange rate is too high but this Government will not do a thing about it. An authentic exchange rate would have given those businesses a real chance of survival. The result of an overvalued dollar is persistent economic malaise characterised by low growth and high unemployment. Therefore the primary objective for the Reserve Bank bill that we have the Reserve Bank bill that we propose and the Reserve Bank operations that we support should be to put in place policy decisions that will increase export earnings improve our international competitiveness and give us a chance to go back up the world’s competitive record list and not head down to the bottom where we have constantly been going particularly under the National Government.The flow-on impact will be more jobs and a more productive economy. It will give the Reserve Bank the responsibility to frame its monetary policy settings so that the New Zealand dollar can be restored to a competitive level. The Government says that nothing can be done. You know that is just utter humbug and all sorts of economists would tell you that. I just read a recent commentary out of Australia about its problems with the high dollar as well. This commentator said: “The high dollar cannot last forever. But there is a limit to how long companies can go on losing money while waiting for the dollar to fall. We are allowing a temporary over-valuation to shut down economic capacity permanently.”—it will shut down and never open up again—“This is not how the successful Asian economies operate.” And boy how much that man is right. That is not how the successful Asian economies operate.We need to ensure that the Government does something that it stops saying that it cannot do a thing. It is all in the lap of the powerful markets it says. It has its head firmly stuck in the sand. We have got money called international commodity. Europe Japan the UK the United States—under 1 percent home mortgage rates. What are you paying—sorry what are your colleagues paying? What are the constituents paying? Well they are paying 5.5 percent and it is going upwards as I speak. So if it is an international commodity why are we not being charged international prices? [Bell rung] How many more minutes to go Mr Deputy Speaker? Two? Excellent. Even in that short time I should be able to get some sense through to certain members over there particularly the one who competed in Ōhariu last time and pulled all the hoardings down—unbelievable actually. I cannot believe that these people are in the House.The economic consequences of an overvalued exchange rate are being felt by businesses throughout New Zealand. Export businesses lose markets and profitability. Employees pay with their jobs which is why trade unions like the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union and exporter groups like New Zealand manufacturing and export associations are supporting amending this Act. All I am asking the National members over there tonight is what is wrong with letting the bill go to a select committee. What is wrong with letting it go to a select committee and letting the exporters and dare I say it Federated Farmers have an epiphany for a change and come along to support what helps their members? What is wrong with having a debate before the select committee rather than just shutting things down so that no light of day occurs in this case?One last message to the National Party is this. A number of you are on your way out of Parliament. And when you are out on that night when you feel dismal and miserable because you thought you might have been able to stay—Dr Paul Hutchison: Ha ha!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: No not Mr Hutchison. Mr Hutchison knows that the game is up. He is jumping out of the ship. He is swimming to shore right now. He is a smart man Mr Hutchison. He should be the Minister of Health. He was the onlyqualified guy there but no no they gave it to somebody who was a bank teller. So I am saying to the rest of them that the day of reckoning is coming and it is very soon. When that night happens and you have lost and you know you should not have think back to nights like this when you ignored common sense and fairness and transparency. But do not ever say that a former National Party person who has been around for a longer time than you and knows a bit about the game did not try to enlighten you and warn you of your terrible fate because of your ignorance stubbornness and taciturn non-political brains. Thank you.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National): It is always a pleasure to follow the member who used to be the member for Tauranga Mr Peters. We do need to remember that he came into Parliament in the 1970s. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with that. Parliament should have experienced people. He is the same age as my father. I am very fond of my father and I listen to him and I receive his wisdom and that is quite right. But it is interesting to note that Bata Bullets are making a comeback at the moment—the Bata Bullets are making a comeback. Mr Peters is from the same era but of course he never went away. He has been here the whole time so he cannot make a comeback. But it is interesting that he is still promoting policies from that era from the 1970s when monetary policy was run by the Minister of Finance his good friend Mr Muldoon. They would sit around in their crimplene suits they would work on their typewriters they would drink their gin and tonics at 3 o’clock in the afternoon and they would figure out what to do with monetary policies. It was all essentially about—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be very obvious to you what was against parliamentary rules and Speakers’ rulings. I shall tell you what it is.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have got the member’s point of order. [Interruption] Order! The member was casting a slur upon members with implications of imbibing. I would ask the member to withdraw that comment and continue.PAUL GOLDSMITH: I withdraw that comment.In essence it was all about a little bit more inflation and so when the economy was struggling the Minister of Finance would turn the monetary taps on and the result would be more inflation down the line. The consequences of all that policy that Mr Peters is now supposing we should return to was that the savings of the hard-working people of this country were destroyed by inflation. The savings of a generation were destroyed. They would work hard all their lives they put their money in the Post Office Savings Bank at 3 percent interest locked away for 10 years and then they found that that money was worth nothing compared with what it had been because of inflation because of these sorts of policies. This political control of monetary policy fuelled the industrial relations nightmares that we had in the 1970s. It fuelled the speculation in asset prices around housing and eventually it led to high interest rates. We reaped the whirlwind of those polices in the 1980s when people who were trying to buy houses had to pay interest rates of up to 22 percent in Auckland. Just imagine how you could have survived. [Interruption] It was under the Labour Party which had to deal with the pent-up inflation that had been built up over generations built up over the decades of high inflation policies that now Mr Peters espouses.The strategy of the 1970s which we are dealing with here again today was to steadily lower the value of the dollar. We started off at the start of the decade where US$1 bought about NZ$1.25 so we had a stronger currency than the US dollar and over the decade we were lower and lower and lower. I have never quite understood the logic of what Mr Peters is saying that somehow the road to prosperity for New Zealand is to have a lower dollar so we can get rich by making our currency weaker. That is a very strange policy. What you need is an economy that can sustain a strong currency. Itis true that overall people argue that the New Zealand dollar may be a little bit overvalued and it swings through circumstances. But you do not go around getting prosperity by lowering your currency in the long term. Did exporters do so well back then when we supposedly had this high-inflation policy and a lower dollar? Well all the exporters relied on supplementary minimum prices for their sheep and subsidies for their exports. Fletcher Building which I wrote a history of in 15 years never paid any income tax because of the export subsidies that it enjoyed. So how was that good?Now we have got a strong export economy. Let us look back over the past 5 years or at least let us just take a broader issue. The idea that has been supposed by Mr Peters is that something is drastically wrong with the New Zealand economy. Well let us just look over what we have achieved in the past 5 years. Since 2008 when this Government was brought in it was guided by two goals. One was to give New Zealanders a sense of security in difficult times and the second was to set the economy on a growth path. When we looked around we would tackle the issues that were holding New Zealand back before the global financial crisis began. So under this Prime Minister’s strong and decisive leadership we have seen good progress and we are heading in the right direction finally. The economy grew by 2.5 percent in the past year and the forecasts are for growth around that level and perhaps a bit higher over the next couple of years. That sounds modest by historical standards but it would leave us amongst the world’s strongest developed economies.Businesses are more confident than they have been for a while and that is important for rebuilding investment intentions. Last week we saw unemployment coming down further against a background of increasing participation in the workforce which is pleasing. However unemployment is still higher than we would like. We believe that families and households have shown considerable resilience over recent years and the indications are that confidence is picking up. They are enjoying low interest rates—still the lowest in 50 years—relatively low costs of living and moderate wage increases and this is starting to show through in growing consumption. The Government is getting its own books in order. We are on track for surplus in 2014-15 and we will have choices once we get to surplus about repaying debts and other priorities. New Zealanders are getting better public services with improving results in difficult areas like educational achievement and in welfare dependency where this Government in the past 5 years has done more than anything that Mr Peters has achieved in 30 years in Parliament for vulnerable children and law and order. When we look at the ledger of what has been achieved in welfare reform in the past 5 years it is magnificent.We are now in a position where over the next 2 or 3 years we have the opportunity to test how much more we can improve on those indicators of a healthy community. How many more young people we can get across the line for National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 how many more vulnerable children we can put into early childhood education how many more vulnerable families we can keep out of welfare and get into work and—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the first reading of a very important bill and if you examine that speech particularly this part now this member has never addressed one part of the bill at all.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is a debating point. It is not a point of order.PAUL GOLDSMITH: I cannot expect a person of his seniority to understand the complex argument that I am building here. The complex argument I am building is that ultimately there is no foundation for this Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) which is being put forward. The fundamental idea of this bill is that there is a major problem to be fixed. What I am trying to outline to the member and I appreciate that I have to be a bit careful and slowin my articulation is that this Government is doing an exceptionally good job in the economy in difficult times. If you have got that situation why would you then leap off into this wild area of speculation and return to the policies of the 1970s?Let us just see what this bill proposes. This bill proposes that—[Interruption] It chokes me up just to think of it. The bill proposes that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 should be amended to ensure that the primary function of the Reserve Bank is broadened to include other critical macroeconomic factors such as the rate of growth export growth the value of the dollar and employment as well as price stability. I can tell you what that means. What that means in code is let us just have a little bit more inflation and somehow that is going to fix all our problems. Somehow if we just allow a little bit more inflation everything will be solved. As we saw in the 1970s that does not work.Can I just outline some of the risks that were highlighted to the New Zealand economy today by the Reserve Bank in theFinancial Stability Report. Although this Government has made good progress in difficult times it would not be a good idea at this moment when as the Reserve Bank has articulated today we have an imbalance in the housing market which is a risk to financial stability. We have high levels of external debt particularly in the dairying sector. There is external indebtedness. There are risks of a downside in the global economy. We have only to look at whether or not the Chinese economy will continue to be as robust and as strong it has been. There is further financial stress in Europe. There is a sharp increase in long-term interest rates and a transition to a higher tighter global monetary policy. There is also the risk of political intransigence in the US surrounding the public debt ceiling negotiations. So would this be in any logical outline a good time to change course on what we are doing at the moment and leap off into some retro Bata Bullets - style policies of the 1970s as has been proposed by Winston Peters? I do not think so.I think that is why drawing to a conclusion where we have got to in this speech the National Party does not support this legislation and does not support what Mr Peters is trying to do. We do encourage him in the strongest possible terms to read his history and to look back over the experience of New Zealand in the past and realise that it is one thing to live it and it is another thing to understand it to realise what went on in New Zealand and to rethink this bill and in fact to withdraw it. We will not be supporting it. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We move to 5-minute calls.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour): I suppose the most notable thing about that speech from Mr Goldsmith was that he said the currency is a little bit overvalued—a little bit overvalued. Last year this country had the worst current account deficit in the developed world according to the IMF. This year and for the next 3 years to the end of the projection period it will have the worst in the developed world according to the IMF. According to the OECD it is the second-worst in the world because they include Turkey—the OECD includes Turkey.Mr Goldsmith the problem with some historians is that they can never look forward; they can only ever look back. That speech was such an edited view of the past. He pretended that the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) took us back to the 1970s a time when we did not have an independent Reserve Bank and when we did not have a floating currency. Mr Peters’ bill leaves us with an independent Reserve Bank leaves us with a floating currency but also tries to address this fundamental hollowing-out of the New Zealand economy caused by our prolonged current account deficit a contributor to which is our overvalued currency.Paul Goldsmith: You’re going to support this?Hon DAVID PARKER: We are supporting this bill. We are supporting this bill. After 25 years of the current Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act it is time to have a look at it again. There are some wording changes I would make. I would prefer to look at an external balance objective rather than an exchange rate objective but we should be talking about this.Last year I did a study tour of various notables on monetary policy. I believe that Winston Peters is right that we have got a problem. I saw amongst other people Jeffrey Frankel at Harvard University. He said two things that stuck in my mind. He said firstly that no one system of monetary policy is right for every country in the world. There is no universal principle there. Secondly he said no one system of monetary policy is right for any one country all of the time.After 25 years of this current iteration of monetary policy it is time to look at it again. It is not sacrosanct. It is not writ by Moses on some ancient stone tablet as Mr Goldsmith would have us believe. It is an area of policy that the Government should take responsibility for. He says that in the old days we used to have house price inflation. Well actually we had house price inflation that ran at roughly the same rate as general inflation. Now we have got house price inflation that runs way ahead of general inflation. We have got unaffordable house prices in Auckland to such an extent that the Reserve Bank is worried about the financial stability of the financial sector and the Government has effectively delegated housing policy to the Reserve Bank. After the abject failure of its own policy the Reserve Bank has been forced into a corner and has introduced loan-to-value ratios which hurt most first-home buyers. We in Labour say that is an indication of how poor this Government’s policy is.There is no doubt that New Zealand needs to broaden our export base. We need to get the investment going into the right place through a capital gains tax. We need to increase the depth of our capital markets by having a universal KiwiSaver scheme so that we have got more capital to invest in our own businesses. But we also need to look at whether we are hobbling our exporters and our import substituters by inappropriate monetary policy that drives the exchange rate and holds the exchange rate higher than it should be.Who warned New Zealand that under current monetary policy we would end up with structurally higher interest rates than the rest of the world? No one. But we have done—but we have. We have got higher interest rates which mean that when a New Zealand company hits a bump it is more economic for an overseas buyer to buy that company than a New Zealand company.We should be looking at this issue. It is an important issue. I am surprised that the National Party is so narrow-minded so defensive that despite a decrease in exports outside of the primary sector it will not consider helping our export sector by introducing a broader objective and more tools for the Reserve Bank. It does need more tools. It is not giving up on the inflation objective but it needs to do more than just say it can look only at inflation not the exchange rate. The Government then says it can do nothing about the exchange rate because it is all delegated to the Reserve Bank and no one takes responsibility for the developed world’s largest current account deficit and the rising debt and foreign ownership that accrues from it.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I rise to speak to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2). The member’s bill is in the name of New Zealand First leader Winston Peters and it is set down for its first reading.Well guess what? I am a fan of recycling but the member takes it too far—too far. Once again it is his old hobby horse. We have seen it emerge years ago. Let us just get the Reserve Bank turn it on its ear add on a whole lot of extra tasks have someone elseto blame and have a lot of Trojan horses around it—again the New Zealand public as they have many times before are not about to be taken in by these show pony antics.This economy under the careful stewardship of our Minister of Finance Bill English is in safe hands. To even acknowledge that there are any points of value in this bill would be to negate the great work that is being done at the moment. We have under this administration wages growing. Cost of living increases have been modest. Interest rates are at 50-year highs. These are not to be denied even by the great detractor himself. Getting on with the job and building a stronger economy is where New Zealand needs to be. We need to have safe stewardship and sensible ideas and notions.This is all stuff and nonsense. There is not too much stuff in the bill actually because it lacks substance much like the member who proposes it. When I look at what I have here it takes us back 20 or 30 years. The member who spoke earlier is entirely right. These are failed old policies of the past. They will not work and cannot be countenanced.New Zealand is doing better than so many other countries. This is the kind of divisive measure and foolishness really—I mean we had the Reserve Bank Governor in this morning. We were talking at the Finance and Expenditure Committee about what is going on with the economy and the Reserve Bank talked to us about the things that it feels are going well. To broaden out its mandate in the way that this bill is seeking to do is abject foolishness. It will not work it cannot work it has not worked in the past and it will not work again.This member has been bellowing at others over the course of the last few hours saying that they do not get to the point and do not address it. Of course we saw a stunning example of that in the member’s own call on the Kaipara District Council legislation which had nothing whatsoever to do with the bill. I will take my leave from that member briefly and concentrate on the good things that we are doing with this economy.We are taking New Zealand forward by building a more competitive economy based on higher savings less debt and much healthier Government finances. We are not about the borrow-and-boom bust the nonsense and the failed measures of Labour—9 long years. Where is the parrot? Where is he? No he is not there at the moment. Nine long years of a Labour Government and where did it get us? A very bad financial situation.The borrowing the nonsense and the failed policies of Labour have come together perfectly actually under this bill. I am not surprised that Labour supports it because it is the same nonsense. Next we will have the Greens standing up and talking about printing money because that is actually what they would rather be doing rather than having strong fiscal management and having to be disciplined and restrained around spending. Frankly what is it—$8 billion minimum that Treasury has been trying to cost out? Some of the bribes—oh I mean the arrangements—that Labour would have to come to if it got into bed with the Greens such as the ridiculous notion that it is going to stop Transmission Gully. One of those members over there wants to get on her bike and stop everybody travelling out of Wellington in a safe and timely fashion—Rt Hon Winston Peters: Ah Mr Deputy Speaker?Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sorry is this a point of order?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes. It is to do with the rules—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Points of order will be heard in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Precisely. Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a requirement that the issue of debate be relevant and there is no way that this last little diatribe remotely refers to the bill. We have heard about the Greens—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Order! That is not a point of order. The member was debating. The member who raised the point of order may not be happy but the member should not interrupt a speaker.Louise Upston: Point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have already ruled on it. The point of order was out of order. Maggie Barry you have just over a minute.MAGGIE BARRY: When we look at what is happening with the federal bank in Australia—let us look at how we compare internationally. The Reserve Bank monetary policy frameworks around the world amount to inflation targeting. This is what our Reserve Bank needs to concentrate on. This is what needs to happen if we are to continue to succeed as a nation.I would not commend this bill to the House in any way shape or form. No word or policy in it is new workable or viable. It is doomed to fail. It is absolutely an abject piece of nonsense. It is with great pleasure that I have spoken to kick it into touch because that is what it deserves. It is arrant nonsense to quote someone from the other side of the benches. I think that much like the member itself its time has not come it is not relevant and it will not add anything at all to our country. That is why I do not commend it or recommend it in any way shape or form to the House. Thank you.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I rise to speak on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2). The Green Party does think that this bill is a worthwhile bill and we welcome its introduction into the House and its first reading because the reality is that despite what the previous speaker Maggie Barry was saying New Zealand is a in a pretty delicate situation. Our current account deficit is the worst in the developed world. Our current Minister of Finance Bill English used to talk about rebalancing the economy. In 2010 he said that one of the factors that was the biggest threat to the New Zealand economy in the medium and long term was our external imbalances. We no longer hear National talk about the external imbalances; it has completely given up on that. Our current account deficit is forecast to increase to 6.5 percent over the next few years which is going to leave us extremely vulnerable.It is a problem that has persisted in New Zealand because we are a small country but it is one that ultimately is leading to a hollowing out of our economy. We get into a downward spiral where our exchange rate is overvalued which leads to it being more difficult for our exporters to compete. We have heard from manufacturers and exporters that the currency is hurting them. At the same time we are importing more because our currency is too high and what ends up happening is that we actually become more and more indebted to the rest of the world. That is the situation that we are in even though the National Party would like to pretend that it is not. It is actually leading us down an unsustainable track so the Green Party does support this bill.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour Party will be supporting the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2). In fact it is a policy that Labour announced 4 years ago. I want to quote Winston Peters. I heard him say earlier this week that imitation is the highest form of flattery so I thank New Zealand First for that flattery—and the man has just come in.I am one of the few members who were in this House in 1984 when we inherited an economy left by 9 years of a National Government. It was the Muldoon economy. The problem with Sir Robert Muldoon was that he applied ideas that he gained in the 1940s to the 1980s when they were no longer applicable. Although the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act which Labour passed in 1989 was a splendid piece of legislation for its time—it did succeed in bringing 8 or 9 years of double-digit inflation back to low inflation—the ideas of the 1980s are no longer applicable in the 21st century and in2013. We know that inflation is now not the problem that it was. We have got very low inflation; it is at the lower end of the Reserve Bank target.What we do have are other severe problems. We have got the problem of unemployment which has persisted above 6 percent when John Key said 5 years ago that it was on its way down rapidly. It was not; it has persisted at a high level. We have got a current account deficit that the International Monetary Fund says is the highest in the developed world—the highest. It says that our dollar is overvalued by 15 percent. We see the price of that. We see the price of our manufacturing industry in decline. We see the price of our film industry suffering the biggest downturn in two decades. We see international education a $2.6 billion industry actually in decline. We see declines in our tourist industry which is also an important source of employment. These things are aggravated by applying the wrong economic mechanisms to the problems of the 21st century.We cannot go on spending more money as we have for four decades than we earn from our exports. But the high dollar at 15 percent over what it should be is killing our exports. We are borrowing to pay the difference and we are selling off our country because we owe that debt to the people we are borrowing from overseas. That is a serious problem. It will not be resolved by applying the solutions of the 1980s. It will be resolved by adopting the policy that is standard across the developed world of ensuring that our exchange rate does not kill our productive industries. That is why Labour is supporting the bill and I commend it to the House.JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa): The people of New Zealand need to understand that if any person on that side of the House promotes this policy of interfering in the Reserve Bank process then we are going to send this country back to where Mr Peters and Mr Muldoon had it—straight up against a wall broke kaput. Having listened to Mr Goff talk about the state of the economy that he left this country in 5 years ago can I just remind him that at that time the current account deficit was almost 9 percent of GDP. Today it is 4.3 percent. Net external debt had blown out to 84 percent of GDP. Net external debt now is 71 percent. Inflation was running at 5.1 percent under Mr Goff and Ms Clark. Now it is down to 1.4 percent. Food prices had gone up 11 percent in Labour’s last year of 2008. Food prices have gone up only 1.2 percent in the past year. The economy had been going backwards for four quarters when we came to take power in this country. In the last year it has grown 2.5 percent and as the Governor of the Reserve Bank said this morning it is likely to go at 3 percent for the next year.I would like to remind members across the House that in 2000 when they were all in this Parliament Professor Lars Svensson who did a review of our monetary policy concluded that “monetary policy in New Zealand is currently entirely consistent with the best international practice of flexible inflation targeting with a medium-term inflation target that avoids unnecessary variability in output”—Dr Rajen Prasad: Who said that?JOHN HAYES: —“interest rates and the exchange rate.” I know that you will not understand what that means but I can also then draw you to a similar study done by one Charles Chauvel. Some of you in the Labour Party across the House might remember who Mr Charles Chauvel was. He undertook a review when he was chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee and his review endorsed the current system. It found that “New Zealand’s monetary policy approach is now standard among small open developed economies and is regarded”—by our advisers the committee’s advisers—“‘as world’s best practice’”.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Where was the dollar then?JOHN HAYES: You were a part of the Government Mr Peters—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member will be careful about the pronouns he uses.JOHN HAYES: We were advised that more than 20 countries are now using a similar approach to monetary policy.There is absolutely no need for this bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2). While Labour the Greens and New Zealand First keep trying to talk our economy down and promote more taxes and spending this Government is getting on with the job of responsibly managing the country’s finances and helping to build a more competitive and productive economy. And we are seeing results as I have outlined. Our economy is one of the strongest growing of the advanced economies. Interest rates are low and inflation is under control. New jobs are being created and our public finances are improving with a deficit halved for the second year in a row and a surplus now within reach for next year 2014. This bill would put all of these gains at risk. It would send inflation soaring and interest rates soaring. We do not want this outcome.This bill came before the House a year ago and it was kicked for touch then. Winston Peters has recycled his hobby horse and it should be kicked out for touch once more. New Zealand First the Labour guys and the Greens just do not get it. I will not be supporting this bill to be passed on for review by a select committee. It is an absolute nonsense. Thank you.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 is now a quarter of a century old. It came into being in a generation prior to the internet prior to email prior to ATMs and prior to all the electronic functions that we now have such as mobile phones and all sorts of other electronic things that we are now accustomed to. And you would think that after 25 years such a fundamental Act as the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act should be subject to at least some form of review to see whether that same Act that suited the 1980s is still applicable in the year 2013 heading to the year 2014.For any Government of this country regardless of your political persuasion to put up an argument and say that after 25 years there is no justification at all to review one of the fundamental cornerstones of our economy then quite frankly that Government is not acting in the best interests of the people of New Zealand. That Government is not acting in the best interests of the people of New Zealand; that Government is acting in the best political interests of its own self-serving financial fundamentals.In that respect I have been in export for the last 35 years and I can assure you that there are exporters out there absolutely hurting in the meat industry in the fishing industry in the forestry industry in manufacturing and in all sorts of industries because they say that our dollar is well and truly overvalued. They say that it is time that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act is reviewed and that it is time that this Government woke up took some responsibility and became a mature responsible Government on behalf of its people. It is time it actually said: “Let’s send this Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) to a select committee let’s give it the light of day let’s let the businesses of New Zealand and the people of New Zealand have some say in this and let’s hear what the people of New Zealand have to say about an Act that is a quarter of a century old and that has such a huge impact on the daily lives of the people of this country.”And the politicians—the 59 of you in the National Party—next year in 12 months’ time at the election need to stand on the hustings and you need to justify to the voters of New Zealand and say: “We weren’t prepared to at least review it to at least see how there could be some fundamentals changed to see how we could assist export growth in this country to see how our economy could perhaps thrive and move at a faster ratethan would otherwise be the case under the current situation.” This is an appalling situation. This should not be a political situation; this should be a situation where you are all New Zealanders. You are all New Zealanders. Wake up and be New Zealanders for a change and realise that New Zealanders out there of all political persuasions are at least saying that we should review this Act see whether the Reserve Bank is working for the best interests of New Zealand and let us do what is best for the country.RAYMOND HUO (Labour): I rise to take a short call to support this bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2).Rt Hon Winston Peters: Take a long one.RAYMOND HUO: Indeed Mr Peters—certainly. Coincidentally theNew Zealand Heraldis today celebrating its 150-year anniversary. As its Asian affairs reporter in the early 1990s the celebration in itself has certainly brought a sense of reminiscence to me to some extent. The then editor Mr Gavin Ellis was my very first employer in New Zealand and theNew Zealand Heraldwas owned by the Wilson and Horton families—proud Kiwi families. How time flies and times have changed. This is very relevant to this current bill because times have changed. It was 1989 when the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act was enacted and the global financial crisis has changed the rules of the game. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act will have to be updated for the 21st century. I commend this bill to the House.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Tonight is something that many politicians would look at as the luckiest day of their lives. To have the turkey shoot of the whole New Zealand First Party sitting in this House with a dumb stupid bill the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) that we can just take and take to them is the best thing that any politician could ever want to have. Five minutes of taking New Zealand First and Winston Peters down a peg or two is what we love to see. This is the turkey shoot we have been waiting for. Look at them sitting there. Who have we got? We have got the leader himself but we will come back to him—we will come back to Winston. Asenati—Asenati does not know the difference between macro and microeconomics. Do you Asenati? What is the difference? She does not know. She will not know the difference between macro and microeconomics. The difference is that macro is what Richard Prosser says in your caucus; micro is what—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In this House as we well know—I know that some members may have been here for only 5 minutes but they have learnt one thing even on the day of induction here which is that every member is an honourable member and you cannot go shouting out all sorts of epithets and calling members by their first names. It is just unthinkable. Look I know there has been a lowering of the standards in the last 5 years but I am asking that you make sure that this member behaves himself uses the Standing Orders properly refers to members properly and does not make a speech that is even worse than his tie.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you Mr Peters. He made a good point.DAVID BENNETT: For all those people listening Winston Peters the old member of Parliament always makes an interruption when he is losing a debate. When he loses a debate he raises a point of order. He will raise another couple of points of order during my speech because he knows he is going to get done over like a dog in this debate. OK Asenati the difference between macro and micro is that macro—Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.DAVID BENNETT: Oh here we go. They are all learning off their boss now are they not? Follow the leader—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! There is a point of order on the floor.Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: I understand that everyone should be referred to by their full name in this House and to be called “Asenati” not once or twice but four times tonight is unacceptable after the Rt Hon Winston Peters has spoken about it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. The member is quite right. Can I just say to the member that I know he is really hyped up. I understand that. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The member will be seated. The member will use a member’s full name. It is respectful and it is a courtesy towards others.DAVID BENNETT: OK. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. The next one is Denis O’Rourke. Denis O’Rourke represents the youth wing of the New Zealand First Party. Denis O’Rourke does not understand that this bill is about the dollar. He still thinks we are talking about pounds and shillings do you not Denis? What is the difference Denis between the dollar and pounds and shillings?The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! The member has done it again.DAVID BENNETT: Mr O’Rourke yes. Behind him we have Richard Prosser. When Richard Prosser heard that Winston Peters was bringing in a Reserve Bank bill he thought it was to do with the army. He thought there was going to be compulsory conscription of all people between the ages of 55 and 65. All the New Zealand First members would have to come and serve in the military—that is what Richard Prosser thought when he heard about this bill.Then there is Barbara Stewart. I call her Barbs and there is no offence. I am not going to say anything about Barbs that is negative—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member is now trifling with the Chair. [Interruption] There will be order when I am on feet or someone will walk. The member is trifling with the Chair. He has been told once already that he must use the full name of members. If he does it again he is out.DAVID BENNETT: Barbara Stewart is a very very solid member of New Zealand First. I have a lot of time for Barbara Stewart and I will not say anything other than that.But the real leader of New Zealand First is not here. Where is Brendan Horan when you need him? Where is Brendan Horan—the man who understands what Winston Peters means to the New Zealand First Party the man who stared him in the eye and won? All the other members of New Zealand First are sitting there loyal diligent and supporting. I did not talk about Andrew Williams. Andrew Williams does not actually want to vote for this bill. Andrew Williams is so hacked off that Tracey Martin got the deputy leadership that he does not actually want to vote for this bill do you Andrew Williams? You want to come to this side. I know. It is OK. It is all right.The New Zealand First Party—this is the party that will keep New Zealand honest. Those people over there are the kinds of people who will keep New Zealand honest and they are quiet as lambs—quiet as lambs on their boss’s big day out. Is it not so so good to see the New Zealand First Party members where they should be: sitting there quietly waiting for their leader’s next move? The leader does not know what to do—[Bell rung] But the leader—Hon Members: No!DAVID BENNETT: I will keep going. I will keep going.Hon Members: Point of order.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Order! I know that the member sat down but no one else took the call.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is that the member took his seat and he should not be able to continue his call.Hon Todd McClay: It is clear that the member did not sit down; he dropped his notes.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No no—now the member is trifling with the Chair. [Interruption] Order! We are going to move on.David Bennett: Oh Mr Assistant Speaker! I have got 1 minute left.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): No the member has already had his call and he has resumed his seat. His time has run out anyway.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well Mr Speaker—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member has not called yet.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters in reply.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I have got 5 minutes—this is 5 minutes is it not?Barbara Stewart: Yes.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I will just take a brief time in my 5 minutes to point out that the National Party was so bereft of an argument that it put up a whole lot of lightweights and one heavyweight. First of all National put up the man from Epsom a man called Goldsmith whose most famous act in politics—David Bennett: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member should use the member’s full name. I know that member has been here 5 minutes but—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! [Interruption] Order! I know it is Wednesday night I know it is members’ night and I also know that we have a debate on the floor. I would ask members to show some courtesy to members speaking. Remember courtesy is contagious.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: National put up Paul Goldsmith and right then we realised that the National Party had no defence to one of the soundest bills ever presented in this House in the last 20 years. The next person National put up although they did not speak strictly in this order was someone who used to specialise in weeds and how to grow flowers in wintertime on Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand—Le’aufa’amulia Asenati Lole-Taylor: And pot mixes.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and pot mixes—and what not to do most of the time when the sun is not shining.Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at what was said about me.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Sorry I did not hear what was said about you Ms Barry.Maggie Barry: Well I did and I found it offensive and I was hurt by it.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well can I just remind members that—[Interruption] Order!Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Speaking to the point of order I find it very hard to believe that someone could be hurt by someone rising in the House and saying that when they were doing this job which was befitting their talents they did a brilliant job doing it. I cannot see how you could possibly be offended by that.Tim Macindoe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The right honourable member is now trifling with the Chair. When a member takes offence at a comment irrespective of what that particular speaker might think that member has a right to lodge heroffence and the usual thing is for it to be responded to appropriately by the speaker not to be dismissed in that way by the person whose call was interrupted.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Can I just ask members to relax and when you are relaxed relax even more all right? The reality is that contributions in the House will be made with respect for the traditions of the House as enshrined in the Standing Orders. I ask members and I crave your understanding for that. An offence has been taken. I ask the member to withdraw.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: I withdraw. We are very very sensitive tonight clearly.Maggie Barry got up and told us everything she did not know about economics. It was a through-the-looking-glass speech—everything she said was a mirror image of how she behaves. Everything she talked about was a mirror image of what she believes.But the plain blunt fact is that the only one who was making any sense but only in a vicarious unusual way was Mr Hayes. The member for Wairarapa got up and he spoke with the least amount of conviction I have ever seen him speak because he knows that internationally speaking what he said was ridiculous and that is why he focused on the year 2000 and the year 1984.But here is the fact: the last one who came up from Hamilton of course—his speech was so devastating that he collapsed before his argument did. He personally collapsed into his chair before his argument did. He had an epiphany and thought he could rise again for the closing 45 seconds.I have got to tell the National Party this one thing: if those members think that in 2014 as the people go to an early election—for there will be one—they are not going to feel sorry about tonight’s debate they are so wrong. There has been a huge sea change in New Zealand and it has affected a lot of conversations and a lot of meetings around this country. One of the principal things that I am picking up and I do travel this country extensively to places where those members would never go and what most of the people in the business world are saying—David Bennett: Like the races yesterday.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yeah I know—the Rivertons the Kūmaras and a whole lot of country towns like Dargaville which those members have never seen or heard about. But the people are saying about the National Party: “These guys don’t do anything.” That is their principal complaint. “The National Party promised a brighter future. For whom?” they are asking.National will not do anything and when a thing like a grossly overvalued currency which the IMF says is overvalued by 20-plus percent—it is not a little bit overvalued as Mr Goldsmith said. When the IMF says it is overvalued by 20 percent and when somebody comes down as the head of the Reserve Bank and like some Haitian witch doctor pores it over in his mind and does not know what to do next—“Oh maybe I’ll put the loan-to-value ratios in Kaitāia and Invercargill and that’ll stop house price inflation in Auckland.”—and when you see people of great training desperate to be let out of the constrictions that the National Government has got them in you know it is time to change the law.Make no bones about it. I have seen in the past parties sitting there like that cocky as anything but this is its fifth year in office and now there is creeping doubt. I will give those members some advice: do not believe what the cabal in Cabinet are telling you because those members do not care.Maggie Barry: Not from us there’s not—we’re doing fine. Worry about your own tribe.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They will not care about that member’s destiny they will not care about the backbenchers’ destiny; they will be concerned only about their own destiny. And when that happens it will all be sadly—Maggie Barry: Much like yourself.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Maggie Barry it will all be sadly too late even for you on the North Shore. Look at the parade of people who have been through that seat lately. What will save her?The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) is a very sound bill. I thank the Labour Party and the Green Party for backing it because one day this bill and its intention—it might be modified as Mr Parker says—to have a realistic authentic export-sympathetic dollar for an export-dependent nation will become a reality.A party vote was called for on the question that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am on my feet. Can I just remind members that when votes are being taken they are supposed to be taken in silence because any comment can be taken as intimidation and it can actually lead to a breach of privilege if someone should wish to lodge one. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a first time.Ayes59New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment BillFirst ReadingJAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): I moveThat the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill.Before I talk about this bill I just want to take an opportunity to acknowledge the contribution made by the Rt Hon Winston Peters during that last debate. I did not get an opportunity to participate in the fun. My colleagues will probably frown at me over this but whatever you want to say about Winston Peters he at least knows what he believes in he knows what he stands for and he comes here to the House and defends it. So good on him. My colleagues will probably frown at me for that comment but I did not get the opportunity to participate in the fun earlier in the night.On this bill the National Party has a strong tradition of supporting employment relations policies that bring greater fairness freedom and flexibility to the employment relations framework. [Interruption] You can hear the union lackeys across the road shouting and screaming because that is all they are here for. But this is what the National Party believes in. It is in exactly that same vein that I give this speech and support this bill here in the House today. A flexible and fair labour market is critical for building a stronger and more competitive economy and creating jobs. If the Opposition actually cared about workers and cared about jobs then it would be supporting this billbecause it is absolutely pro-worker. A fair and flexible labour market helps to increase wages and encourage innovation. It does not matter how much the Opposition shouts about it; that is the absolute truth.This bill is very simple. It has only one substantive clause. Clause 4 repeals the current section 97 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. Section 97 as it stands is a heavy-handed piece of law which creates an imbalance by providing unions with a significant legislative advantage during negotiations. If this bill successfully navigates its way through the parliamentary process it will bring a better balance to employment relations law in New Zealand. It will bring a better balance to ensure that those who wish to work are actually able to do that. Those who wish to offer their labour in the employ of an organisation—simply trying to make ends meet and make a business work—would be able to do so. There are some very real—Andrew Little: What about those who want to get wages and want to negotiate?JAMI-LEE ROSS: Andrew Little over there failed so many times to win a seat. All he is good for is coming here to yell and scream on behalf of the Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union which he was here to represent. He did not do a particularly good job when he was the union’s president so he comes here to yell and scream.There are some real reasons why section 97 of the Employment Relations Act is a bad piece of law. Section 97 removed the right for employers to bring in outside labour including volunteers during strikes or lockouts to maintain business continuity. It allowed unions to hold employers to ransom by being able to make unreasonable demands knowing that if they strike an employer would struggle to keep their operations running. This particularly affects the primary production industry because reduced or no production in a factory could mean millions of dollars a day in lost or wasted products. The restrictions of section 97 can lead to considerable lost productivity an increased risk of protracted disputes and considerable impact on the financial position of a business and its employees. It also removed the right for employers to test the market to determine whether a union’s demands are even fair or reasonable. Ultimately though section 97 moved the balance too far in favour of unions and employees. It introduced a law that even competitors in other countries do not have to comply with.Removing the current restrictions placed on employers preventing them from engaging temporary employees will allow an organisation to maintain business continuity and avoid costly drawn-out industrial action. But more important if a willing worker wants to work during a strike this removal of section 97 would give them the freedom to choose to do that if they wanted to. It is a freedom that this House should be supporting. I realise that it might be a foreign concept to our friends in the Labour Party but if a willing worker and a willing employer want to enter into an agreement—an employment relationship—they should be able to do so. At the moment section 97 restricts an employee and an employer from doing that during a strike. The current law does not allow someone to choose to work during a strike unless they were employed prior to the strike commencing.This is not a new concept. This is not something that was dreamed up recently—you know a couple of days ago—or anything like that. Actually allowing people who want to work during a strike was always an option under New Zealand law except for the past 12 years. Although New Zealanders have had industrial relations legislation for over 100 years there has never been an equivalent to section 97 including laws passed by the first the second the third and the fourth Labour Governments. Those four Labour Governments never saw fit to pass such a heavy-handed law. It was not until the fifth Labour Government—heavily influenced by the unions heavily influenced bypeople shouting and screaming like Andrew Little—that such a heavy-handed piece of legislation was passed. It was a substantial change to New Zealand’s labour laws. It was very much a change that was ideological and union-driven. Until 2000 employers always had the right to engage temporary replacement labour during strikes. [Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!JAMI-LEE ROSS: They do not like hearing the truth Mr Assistant Speaker but that is the fact of the situation. I am sure that Labour will try to spin it a certain way but the reality is that the people most affected by section 97 are those who want to work those who want to offer their services during a strike. They are the ones who should be given the flexibility to choose to work if they want to. Low-paid employees are the people who are the most in need of regular earnings. If a small change to the Employment Relations Act means that the likelihood of strike action or long-drawn-out strikes is reduced then we are doing a huge amount to help those people the lowest-paid workers because they will be able to keep working if they want to.I also think it is worth remembering that the number of union members in this country who benefit from the protections of section 97 is very low. Union membership in the private sector currently sits at about 8 to 9 percent. They are the only workers who benefit from section 97. Given that only a union may negotiate a collective agreement and only during the negotiations for a collective agreement can a strike take place the protections of section 97 are there for only a small minority. The other 90 percent of workers in the private sector who are not union members are restricted and have their rights taken away from them if they want to work during a strike.Andrew Little: Their wages are going down.JAMI-LEE ROSS: That is the problem Opposition members. The problem is that section 97 which you were defending so heavily actually restricts the ability for people who want to work to be able to take that option to do so.Dr Rajen Prasad: That’s a very simple argument.JAMI-LEE ROSS: The arguments put forward by Labour and the left in the lead-up to this debate have been very inaccurate and bordering on scaremongering. Calling it anti-worker calling it the “Scab Bill” as has been the case is just demeaning of hard-working New Zealanders. It does nothing but paint the Opposition as ideological and unreasonable. What is unreasonable about allowing people to choose to work if they want to? Nothing is unreasonable about it.During the debate on the Employment Relations Bill in 2000 a number of members highlighted the problems that they saw would be created by this provision. I think Peter Brown of New Zealand First actually summed it up the best when he said that section 97 “has the potential for a few employees to in some circumstances hold the employer the industry and sometimes the country to ransom until their demands are met.” I think Mr Brown put it so very well when he was debating the legislation. There are real examples of this happening across the country—real examples where workers are not able to work if they want to. I do not want to go into individual disputes because that means we just end up debating the merits of the different negotiations.Andrew Little: Because you haven’t got any examples.JAMI-LEE ROSS: But there are real examples where an employee and an employer want to have people working but simply are not able to do that. There are real examples where negotiations have led to a situation where long-drawn-out strikes have led to a huge amount of lost productivity a huge amount of inaction in a business and that affects thousands and thousands of people. It is not just the people who are on strike. It is not just the shareholders of an organisation who are affected. Anyone who has any sort of relationship with an organisation—whether it be family members or whether itbe other people who get their goods and services through a business—they are all impacted by a long-drawn-out strike. If we can have a change to the legislation that reduces the likelihood of long-drawn-out strikes that means people can work if they want to and that means that businesses can continue to be productive and keep their businesses going if they want to then that can only be good for New Zealand and can only be good for workers. If the Opposition cared about jobs if it cared about the economy it would be supporting this bill.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): That was the voice of the dumb and the stupid. That was the voice of the fascist National Party which is just getting worse and worse. Just at a time when the rest of us thought in our more objective moments that National was modernising refreshing and beginning to look like a party of the 21st century even though Chris Auchinvole is going now it trots out Jami-Lee Ross who is now the modern face the modern look of William Massey of Sid Holland and of Bill Birch. National members cannot let their history go. They cannot shake their heritage off them and they trot out a silly bill like this the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill.You know to look at the explanatory note of this bill and to hear Jami-Lee Ross you would think that the Employment Relations Act had nothing to say about employers. The truth about section 97 is that it applies as much to employers as it does to workers who belong to unions. It applies to employers and to workers and their unions. It does not apply just to strikes; it applies to the employers’ weapon of choice when it comes to industrial action—the lockout. Any employer dealing with a union that does not want to continue or that thinks it has reached an impasse can lock those workers out. Without section 97 an employer can not only lock those workers out stop paying them and starve them into submission but also employ a replacement workforce. Without section 97 the Employment Relations Act would be so imbalanced so unfair that the Government would have to trot off to Geneva to defend itself to the International Labour Organization. But most important it would cause egregious harm to working New Zealanders.Jami-Lee Ross does not care about that. The National Party does not care about working New Zealanders—never has; never will. National members look back 100 years ago and lament the good old days of William Massey and Massey’s Cossacks and the horses trotting down Featherston Street—the old farmers and the naval reservists with batons in their hands ready to beat the workers into a pulp. That is the National Party that Jami-Lee Ross now represents. That is the National Party of the future and Simon Bridges is not far behind. That is what National wants. National members have never cared about workers. Most important they do not care about workers’ rights.Here is the thing about this: the right to belong to a union is an inherent and fundamental right. The right to withdraw your labour as part of collective action is an inherent right. It does not have to be justified on commercial or business grounds. That is the nature of workers’ rights and of human rights. Human rights do not have to be justified on the grounds that they add flexibility or they add profit. They stand on their own and they do not have to be defended. The right to belong to a union does not have to be defended for any other reason than it is the free choice of workers. The right to withdraw your labour along with your workmates does not have to be defended on any other basis than it is your inherent right to do so. This bill is about making it harder if not impossible.Let me tell this to that member who is barely out of shorts because he has not been around long enough to understand the real life of working people. Let me tell him and the House this: when workers do choose to take strike action they do not take that decision in any cavalier fashion. It is a very considered very cautious decision becauseyou know what? When you go on strike you lose pay as well. It does not just inflict economic harm on the employer; it puts real pressure on workers and their families.That party the National Party is the party of condescending patronising attitudes towards working New Zealanders. National members have nothing to say about lifting wages and incomes in this country. Their heads all go down because they know that this country is getting poorer. They know that working New Zealanders are getting poorer by the day because National has got nothing for them. National has got nothing to add—Tim Macindoe: That’s not what the stats tell us.ANDREW LITTLE: Tim Macindoe is the worst. He has nothing to say to Hamilton workers about how to lift their wages or how to make their lives better. He has nothing to say to Hamilton workers about how to make working life pleasant more productive and better for both workers and the employer. He has nothing to say at all.National is about owning workers. National is about possessing workers. National is about traducing their rights because National has no respect. This bill is just another mark to reflect this trashy dodgy nasty ugly National Government and the sooner it is gone the better.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I just want to apologise to the members of the public who were listening to that last speech. Andrew Little is actually a very fine member of our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and he is somebody who does work well.Jami-Lee Ross: He’s not.DAVID BENNETT: No no Jami-Lee Ross; he is a good man and I think he got a bit too passionate in his speech and said a lot of things there that just were not the case. It was just sad. The next speaker from the Labour Party I am sure will have a more moderate approach to it I would imagine.This bill the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill was put forward by Mr Jami-Lee Ross who is a fine member of Parliament who represents a great area of New Zealand. He has done a great job in his seat. This bill is part of the vision he sees for New Zealand. It is a vision in which he sees all New Zealanders having rights and responsibilities where there are those choices for people and where people are not being restricted and told what to do. It is that freedom of choice that underlies this bill that is really what Jami-Lee Ross is trying to promote tonight—that freedom of choice to work that freedom of choice as an employer to keep the business going and that freedom of choice of parties to come to a sensible arrangement and to work together for the best interests of each and every party in an employment relationship.An employment relationship is a give and take matter. There is a lot of give and take required on both sides and I think that in a lot of cases we undervalue the role the unions play and the important role that they play in actually working towards making that relationship a very strong one. But although we say that there is also the need for some choice and some freedoms and for the ability for employers to work towards keeping their businesses going.I think that in a situation where there is a business that is very difficult in the sense that you cannot stop or start it a business that relies on say something that may be perishable or that needs to be distributed in a very short period of time there could be a context where the employment relationship has broken down but there is also a product that still needs to be delivered a product that still needs to be manufactured and jobs that still need to be done. I guess that this bill is an attempt to give that balance so that that production that process can still be maintained and can go through at the sametime as the parties try to work out their disagreement around their employment relationship.I think that everybody in this room would accept that situation and would want that to be the case. They would not want the productive heart of New Zealand for example—or something that is very much needed for personal survival or health or something like that—to fall down because there was a breach in the employment relationship. So I think that that is a big part of this bill and where this bill can actually help in providing a more sustained economic environment in New Zealand.We have had comments made by the Opposition that National members do not care and that we are against the rights of unions and workers. That simply is not the case and those comments are made out of context and are an attempt to cloud this bill. They are not done in a genuine way. It is very sad that the Opposition has resorted to that kind of politics in regard to this bill. [Bell rung] I will not sit down this time; I will keep going just for your benefit. [Interruption] Yes I have been here for 5 minutes.But speaking of 5 minutes—members over there are smiling away—Winston Peters was not so chipper about 5 minutes ago when his bill got slammed was he? And now his whole party has left him. [Interruption] Oh no I will say something nice about him because you know there will be a situation where New Zealand First will want this bill. The day when Brendan Horan runs out and Andrew Williams goes with him New Zealand First will need this bill so it is in Winston Peters’ self-interest to vote for this bill. That is enough for him to vote for it generally so we would expect him to vote for it. I would like to commend Jami-Lee Ross for bringing this bill forward to the House and for doing a great job. Thank you.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am going to take a brief call on this Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill because it is a bill that no one wants. It is not needed. It is not justified. Even that icon of left-wing business management the Employers and Manufacturers Association of Auckland what did it say? It said that it is a bridge too far. This bill could be divisive. Simon Bridges the Minister of Labour was very dodgy about it. When he was asked about it he did not want to say that he supported it and nor did John Key actually. In the end John Key was kind of embarrassed into saying “Oh well maybe we will support it to select committee.”Everybody knows that this bill is not needed or justified. The rate of strikes in New Zealand is the lowest it has ever been. This Government is already attacking workers’ rights to strike. That Minister of Labour’s Employment Relations Amendment Bill has a whole lot of attacks on strikes which is going to make it so much harder for workers. This is a stupid and silly bill. It is a waste of time. I am disappointed that the young member for Botany could not come up with something a little bit more worthwhile and productive in his first member’s bill. Thank you.DENISE ROCHE (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. We will be opposing this Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill. It is draconian basically. It plays into the Government’s hysterical anti-worker and anti-union agenda. We saw an example of that this afternoon with Minister Finlayson referring to Actors Equity representatives as union thugs. He referred to Jennifer Ward-Lealand and Robyn Malcolm as union thugs. That is the type of attitude that is purveyed by this type of bill.This bill breaks international treaties and it is part of the ongoing attacks on workers that this Government is perpetrating. It is designed to overturn the Employment Court’s ruling during the Ports of Auckland dispute where the union won in court when the Ports of Auckland management basically tried to contract out the Maritime Union workers’ jobs while they were locked out during an industrial dispute. It is another go attrying to change the law once a law case has been won. This Government is incorrigible in the way it is treating workers.This bill sets us back to Dickensian times where workers are supposed to be grateful for a job for anything they can get and to be kept in heel at all times. It sets up an environment that actively encourages employers to be hostile and negative towards their employees. This bill is unnecessary. There have been very few industrial disputes over the last couple of years so this bill wants to crack a nut with a sledgehammer. It is ridiculous. We will be opposing it.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): We have to say at the very outset in New Zealand First that we have great sympathy for Jami-Lee Ross and for some of the people who are behind this legislation the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill outside of the House. By that we mean that we wish to raise a very serious question which is does the National Party actually support this piece of legislation?Hon Members: Yes.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They do?Hon Simon Bridges: Yes yes we do.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Well if that is the case why is the bill being put up by—and there is no disrespect to Jami-Lee Ross who has got my deep sympathy—one of the most recent members to the Government benches in this country?Mike Sabin: Because he’s an outstanding member and came up with a great member’s bill.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: And he may be an outstanding member contrary to the one who is opening his mouth at the moment. He may have a brilliant future unlike the one who is opening his mouth at the moment. But the question that is sort of at the back of our minds starting to ask itself is why if this is a great piece of legislation—[Interruption] You see that is Mr Sabin’s problem. He thinks noise means quality. He thinks volume means talent. That is the kind of thing you might hire to be a drover’s dog down at the saleyard but it does not work here.I want to know the answer to the real question: does the National Party honestly support this legislation? Out there are businessmen and businesswomen watching tonight’s debate and my challenge to them having been told that tonight the National Party has got this great bill to help them the question I am asking them is do they really think the National Party supports this bill? Because if it does why is it not sponsoring the bill in its own name?That is a fair question for me to ask on behalf of my colleagues because unlike many in this House we have always been reasonable and prepared to hear alternative arguments or to hear the other side. When it comes to industrial relations our view has always been that great Governments take the role of an independent arbiter that does not take sides. If you have law like that then laws can last decade after decade after decade. If you do not out goes one side and the law changes and in comes the other side and the law changes back. You have the yo-yo uncertainty in effect in industrial affairs at the workplace and it is bad for everybody boss and worker alike.So my question is does the National Party support this bill? If it does why has it left Jami-Lee Ross all by himself valiantly holding the can?Mike Sabin: Wait till you hear the party vote.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Valiantly holding the can. Oh no do not tell me “Wait till you hear the party vote.” because this is a dog whistle to some people out there who think the National Party has got a stand. If it was not a dog whistle it would have it in its own name. It is a dog whistle though. National thinks this sort of poll-driven survey politics will get it home but it will not.My question to the perishable industries out there that think—like fishing and the milk industry and they have got a very valid point. I know as a former union delegate that this legislation the National Party is seeking to overset tonight is of use to less than 1 percent of the industrial workforce. That is a fact. The rest do not get these benefits because they are not in the perishable business where a lockout hurts the boss more than the worker. These are the facts. If you are going to be fair in industrial relations join neither side. In the interests of the international economy have a fair lasting regime.In the next three speeches made by the National Party and in Jami-Lee Ross’ conclusion I want an answer. New Zealand First is going to decide what we are going to do on this basis. We want to know does the Government really support this legislation and if that is true why is it not in its name? Anything short of a proper debate on that sees this bill fail.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I will address the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ comments. He should cast his mind back to many decades ago when he was in Government—a Government that he was not trying to take down; I should qualify that—and think about what it is to be a Government backbencher. Was he ever one of those? I think he was. When the Government has a constructive policy objective when it has a hard-working and constructive executive what it also has is a bunch of backbenchers who need to make sure that they can find high quality policy work to put forward into the policy agenda. The reason the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill is a member’s bill speaks volumes of this Government. It speaks volumes of this executive that this bill this quality bill brought forward by a very quality member Jami-Lee Ross finds its way into the House by virtue of a member’s bill.Were it the case that it was a flotsam and jetsam arrangement as we saw under the previous 9 years of Government with Labour propped up by its friends in the Greens—who now are actually front row players and are pulling the strings for the Labour Party—then of course something like this would have been grabbed at and put through as a Government bill because the Labour Government would have struggled so much for its own ideas. But in a well-organised well-constructed team—that is “team” with a “t” an “e” an “a” and an “m”—the member Winston Peters has to understand that this is the appropriate path for a bill of this nature. It is appropriate for the member Jami-Lee Ross who has done a lot of work in this space and has a lot of credibility in this space to advance it. In discussion with caucus the bill made its way on to the members’ ballot agenda and the member has been fortunate enough to have it drawn.I know that it brings some consternation and some concern and some sort of waxing lyrical and hand-wringing from the chardonnay socialists in this place and from the people from the Green Party who are aligned to communist ideals but the reality is that the words “flexible” “fair” and “removing restrictions” are hardly things that the modern New Zealand working environment should be or is afraid of. This idea that those in the Labour Party and in the union movement are the only ones who know how to organise a working relationship and are the only ones who can have the lever the prescriptive ideas and the mechanisms within the employment relationship is a nonsense. The most successful examples in the New Zealand workforce are ones where there is flexibility fairness and removing the sorts of restrictions that can hamstring businesses see them compromised and ultimately affect productivity which one would think is not in the best interests of the worker in the first place. This bill is about dealing with those matters. It is about enhancing the New Zealand employment relationship. It is about getting the appropriate balance.I know that the member Winston Peters loves to lob a few grenades at me across the electorate. I have been spending the last 2 years picking up the cigar butts that he hasleft discarded around the Northland electorate when he has wandered up there to remember how it was for him back in the day. Oh here is a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect you can if you know nothing speak for a little while about a bill but you have really got to try to reference it. You cannot make allegations that are simply not true as the member knows. He is accusing me—MIKE SABIN: This is not a point of order.Rt Hon Winston Peters: No he is accusing me of vandalising the community in a way that is totally false. He knows I have never done that and he cannot get away with the allegation that somebody is an environmental vandal. I take offence at that and I want an apology.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I understand—MIKE SABIN: Speaking to the point of order—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well I understand where Mr Peters is coming from. He has taken offence. I just ask the member to withdraw.MIKE SABIN: I withdraw but—Dr Rajen Prasad: Apologise.MIKE SABIN: No I withdraw; I will not apologise on that particular matter. Picking that up it is a shame that the member finds Northland to be something so special in his heart that he should attack this member of Parliament at every opportunity and that he cares so much that he is not even prepared to stand a candidate in the electorate of Northland. I look forward very much to seeing whether the Rt Hon Winston Peters wants to stand as a candidate in Northland so that we can continue this discussion about our interests in Northland on the hustings because I would welcome that opportunity. I would welcome that opportunity.I commend Jami-Lee Ross for the work he does in this place. I commend him for the work he does in policy development. This is a man who cares deeply about this nation but he is also a man who turns his words into some productive policy ideas. I wholeheartedly commend the bill to the House.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): This bill the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill from Jami-Lee Ross is an ugly bill. It is about the ugly National Party which hates workers which hates unions which brought in the Employment Contracts Act and which has a long history prior to that. But more than that it is an unnecessary bill. There is no need for it. We have low levels of strikes. Actually probably nobody wants it except possibly one company. Even the Employers and Manufacturers Association does not want it. This is a bill that is driven by a hatred of unions and will be added to the stable of attacks by this Government on workers’ rights driving down wages and conditions. I am sickened in this House by hearing the constant attacks on unions by that side of the House. The anti-union rhetoric really just gets up my nose. This is a low-road bill. It is a race to the bottom. It has nothing about driving successful collaborative workplaces.What does it do? It just basically makes it impossible for workers to use strike action if they need to to get a collective agreement settled—a very rare event nowadays. Why? Well Jami-Lee Ross seems to think it has got something to do with the Ports of Auckland. That company seems to be part of the reason for this bill. I will not go into the details of his long opinion piece on the matter. Suffice it to say this is another bit of legislation driven by the desires and needs of a particular company.The context is a whole raft of other anti-worker legislation including the current Employment Relations Act amendments that we are dealing with. This is a Government that does not focus on jobs. This is a Government that is focused on driving down wages. I look forward to voting against this bill.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to inquire as to whether I may seek to divide my 5 minutes with the Minister of Trade the purpose being that we have been called upon to answer a question from New Zealand First.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member is perfectly entitled to put his call for 2½ minutes each if he wants to.Chris Auchinvole: Thank you.Hon Tim Groser: This will be a split call.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a split call yes.Chris Auchinvole: Thank you. I will invite—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The member will receive the bell with half a minute to go.Chris Auchinvole: Thank you.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Sorry I took it that this member was going to speak first.Chris Auchinvole: Well I will speak first if you wish.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Because you are already on your feet—so I have called you. The member will commence.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): Thank you. Section 97 of the Employment Relations Act created an imbalance for workers in an industrial dispute and took away the freedom of workers to choose and that is in fact what we are talking about. I guess the noise from the other side of the House especially in the initial speeches is something we should get used to over the next year as the union influence in running the Labour Party political wing bites in cuts deep and demands paybacks. I was shocked to hear this bill the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill being described as a scab bill. Is the level of industrial relationship still at that level? And yet what for goodness’ sake has this come to?Andrew Little speaks of workers being locked out and starved to death. I was stunned to hear Andrew Little give such a diatribe of basic resentment dislike and prejudice. I concur with my friend David Bennett chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that Andrew Little is a man who is educated eloquent and cultured. He is a very pleasant man to work with at the select committee. So to whom was he speaking this evening? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. I think we know that he was speaking to his union audience and this is as I said earlier more of what we have to get used to.So where is the freedom of choice in anything he said? Where is the recognition of the very good level of industrial relationships over the last decade or so in New Zealand which the workers and employers have been justifiably proud of? I speak as someone who used to export pretty much right through the 1970s 1980s and 1990s and I can remember when industrial relationships really did present problems. The only good thing was that Australia was slightly worse off than we were. I waited with bated breath for Darien Fenton to give her speech and I think Darien gave an appropriately mild and short speech falling short of actually supporting the bill—I will admit that—but she did not have much to say that was critical about it. I commend this bill to the House.Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): I simply suggested to my honourable colleague Chris Auchinvole that I might split the call with him just to give a very simple reply to the Rt Hon Winston Peters on his very important and legitimate question which was—if I may paraphrase it without doing any violence to the reality of what the right honourable member said—why if this is such a good bill is the NationalGovernment not putting it forward in its own name instead of allowing it to become a member’s bill? Well I think the answer to the member’s question is very obvious—Chris Auchinvole: The right honourable.Hon TIM GROSER: And the right honourable member knows this better than any other member in this House given his experience which is that we operate by a ballot. We are so sick of listening to halfwitted ill-considered members’ bills that we thought it was better to put forward a very sensible proposition to lower the probability of having to put down yet another idiotic proposition from the Opposition. Thank you.Chris Auchinvole: Keep going—keep going.Hon TIM GROSER: Well if we are talking about unions perhaps I could reflect given the discussion this afternoon on my one experience as a trade unionist.Chris Auchinvole: When was this?Hon TIM GROSER: This was when I was a member of Actors Equity. I was a member of Actors Equity for a number of years as a professional actor and I had the great misfortune I have to say to attend a meeting in the Auckland Art Gallery not so many years ago in which New Zealand Actors Equity a union to which not only I had belonged but also my father and my mother had belonged and listen to the takeover of New Zealand Actors Equity by Actors Equity Australia. Having strongly supported New Zealand professional actors in having a reasonable workplace knowing the sheer naivety of the New Zealand union in allowing itself to be taken over by an anti-employer - oriented workforce that was trying to price New Zealand professional actors out of the market—I could not believe the naivety of the people at that conference. So those are the sorts of considerations that have led me to want to take the floor for a brief minute to express my viewpoint on this excellent bill the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill which I commend to the House.JAN LOGIE (Green): The Green Party is proud to once again stand alongside workers seeking decent pay and conditions. We know that the most significant improvements in these conditions have happened through strong collective action. Therefore we will with pride be opposing this Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Those of us who live outside of Wellington take a plane flight up and down the country every week and we sit next to a whole range of people. A few months ago I had the opportunity to sit next to Winston Peters on the plane. You know we have a lot of heckling back and forth and we throw some barbs his way because he is on the Opposition side of the House but I have to say that that plane flight was probably one of the most interesting 45 minutes I have had on a plane because with 33 years’ experience in this House—or 33 years’ experience prior to my entering Parliament—he has a lot of experience and I did learn a lot as a new member. I appreciate the kind words he said. The reality is though that we have 25 Ministers in our caucus but they do not have a monopoly on good ideas. They have a lot of good ideas and I believe that this Government is doing a lot of good things for the country but the caucus does allow backbench MPs to put members’ bills into the ballot. The reason we do that is that we make up half of the Parliament and on members’ days we do not want to be talking just about the things that the Opposition wants to be talking about.When the member asked whether the National Government supported the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill the Minister of Labour said yes. The members behind me all said yes. This has been through the National caucus. The National caucus does support this bill. So although in a perfect world everything would be done by the Government there are backbench MPs like me whowant to push things through and I was fortunate enough to have this idea approved by my caucus.I want to touch on just a couple of other points. Winston Peters talked about the low number of people who would be affected by section 97 of the Employment Relations Act. He is absolutely right. About 8 to 9 percent of the private sector workforce is unionised. They are the only people who benefit from the protections of section 97 but everybody who wants to work during a strike is restricted by section 97 from being able to do that. That is why I say that this bill is actually pro-worker because it allows people who wish to work during a strike the ability to do that.I believe in freedom. I believe in flexibility. I believe in people being able to choose their own destiny where they can and that is why I support repealing section 97 and why I support this bill. I do note that when this was last debated in Parliament—in the year 2000 some 13 years ago—the position of New Zealand First was that it opposed section 97. I have been throughHansard and I have been through the press releases. Peter Brown the deputy leader of New Zealand First at the time did a lot of heavy lifting on that bill and New Zealand First’s position was to firmly oppose section 97. So my plea to the New Zealand First Party tonight is give New Zealanders an opportunity through a select committee to submit on this bill. If it is difficult to vote yes or no on it there is a third option potentially but I am not going to tell the right honourable gentleman how he should vote—but that is a third option as well. New Zealand First took a very principled position on this particular issue 13 years ago and I would ask that it consider that position again.The number of strikes and lockouts in New Zealand is also an issue that has been raised and yes at the moment during an economic downturn the number of strikes is relatively low. But in 2000 the number of strikes and lockouts was at 21. Within a few years of the Employment Relations Act 2000 being passed the number of workplace disputes the number of workplace stoppages actually tripled. My fear is that once the economy really starts to pick up again we will see a larger number of workplace stoppages coming about. With workplace stoppages come employees who are not working. Under section 97 workplace stoppages mean that people who wish to work during that workplace stoppage are restricted by a piece of legislation that stops them from doing that. It is a law that never existed in New Zealand for over 100 years. It is only in the last 12 to 13 years that this law has existed. The first second third and fourth Labour Governments did not see fit to have such a restriction. The fifth Labour Government did. I say that it is time to repeal that section of the Employment Relations Act. Let people work during a strike or lockout if they want to. It will benefit workers in the long run.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Employment Relations (Continuity of Labour) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.Ayes60New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes60New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Motion not agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 60 Noes 61.Sittings of the HouseRt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): As you know the House is the master of its own destiny. The next piece of legislation is rather seriously important. I think most members think that. I think it should commence at a time of the day when the public of this country can hear it rather than having some important issues—and these issues tonight have been important—being discussed almost in the dead of night. So I seek leave for the House to rise and consider the bill the next time we have such a sitting day.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Well the House is a master of its own destiny. The member has sought leave for the House to adjourn for the evening given the nature of the next piece of legislation. Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.The House adjourned at 9.48 p.m.