Volume 693 Week 54 - Tuesday 17 September 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 693 Week 54 - Tuesday 17 September 2013[Sitting date: 17 September 2013. Volume:693;Page:13365. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 17 September 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersTelecommunications Infrastructure Pricing—Commerce Commission Determination1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he still think that Chorus “will go broke” if his Government does not intervene to change the pricing for access to the old copper-based broadband network as proposed by the Commerce Commission; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I stand by my original statement which is basically that the Commerce Commission ruling states there is a chance Chorus will go broke. I stand by my view for a number of reasons not the least of which being Chorus’s own statement from last year in which it indicated that the impact of the Commerce Commission’s draft determination could require Chorus to fundamentally rethink its business model and capital structure. Chorus also said that under the draft determination of the Commerce Commission it could lose up to $160 million of annual earnings. To put this in some context Chorus’s net profit for the 2013 financial year was a touch above that; $171 million. Given the flow-on effects that a reduction on earnings has on borrowings and Chorus’s investment grade this would have significant impacts for any public company.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that answer was his advice based on any information not already in the public domain; if not did he assess the risks of his observance of the Securities Act when making his forecast of Chorus’s profitability?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Advice was provided to Cabinet by officials based on commercial-in-confidence discussions between Chorus and Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment officials. Unlike a Government that he was a member of under Helen Clark we actually observe the laws—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: Was any of that “commercial-in-confidence information” conveyed in the phone call that he received from the chair of Chorus shortly after the commission’s decision was announced in December 2012?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Probably yes; I mean the chairman gave me an indication of her thinking about the impact that would take place and that gave me some understanding of the issues that it would face. In the end the Government chose to take the action of having a discussion document because it believes that fundamentally the determination for copper pricing should be reached by considering all of the factors that the Government put into the 2011 legislation and that includes section 18(2A) which the commission itself said it did not actually take into consideration because it was not sure how to interpret it.Hon David Cunliffe: Why following the call from the chair of caucus—Chorus—did he see it fit—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I invite the member to start his question again.Hon David Cunliffe: Why following the call from the chair of caucus did he see fit—[Interruption] Why do we not take that a third time?Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have called for a supplementary question from the Hon David Cunliffe.Hon David Cunliffe: Why following his call from the chair of Chorus—Hon Members:Yay!Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Cunliffe: —we will see whether the National backbench will be as happy with the second half of the question—did he see fit to override the lawful regulatory process employed by the Commerce Commission which requires them to issue a draft then consult and then issue a final recommendation before that is considered by Cabinet?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are two things. One thing is true: I do get a phone call from my caucus but they all voted for me.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can only imagine what the phone call from Trevor is like in San Francisco at the moment.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: I have point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption] Order! This is a point of order; it will be heard in silence.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Prime Minister on the first supplementary answer offended and now he has started out with the offence before he even gets to answer any question—not just once; he has done it twice—and he was not stopped.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I thank the right honourable member for his advice.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Points of order are to be heard in silence if members want to stay to hear.Grant Robertson: In two straightforward questions today the Prime Minister has taken political slaps. You in the past have said that that is unacceptable and I would ask that you hold the Prime Minister to the standard that you have previously set.Mr SPEAKER: I also thank the member for his advice. This is a robust debating chamber and although the comments from the Prime Minister were not helpful to the order of the House as soon as he embarked on that particular line of answering I stood and called him to order.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Do you want me to answer?Grant Robertson: Yes we do want you to answer so get on with it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! It would be helpful—[Interruption]. Order! I now invite the Prime Minister to complete his answer.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: And the Labour Party members did get on with it and they said they did not want you Grant.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will simply rise and answer the question without adding any political connotations at the start of his answer.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is not overruling the Commerce Commission. The Government has put out a discussion document because it believes that it is important to understand at least the possible thinking on what could take place during this build period. In saying that it is worth remembering this point: there was a submission—I think received today or in the last few days—from the former Telecommunications Commissioner Dr Ross Patterson who I might add was appointed by the then communications Minister David Cunliffe. I quote Mr Patterson when he said: “The Government has made it clear that it does not intend to provide a demand side subsidy to incentivise migration to fibre. Under those circumstances the only practical option is to adjust copper pricing along the lines proposed in the Discussion Document.”Hon David Cunliffe: Speaking of submissions does the Prime Minister agree with Vodafone that the unbundledbitstream access (UBA) pricing proposal delivers “unnecessary corporate welfare to Chorus at the expense of all consumers who will pay more for telecommunications services”; if not why not?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No; because under every scenario consumers will pay less.Te Ururoa Flavell:Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia oratātou. Is he concerned that artificially increasing the price of copper will increase the digital divide between the haves and the have-nots and will make even cheap and slow internet access completely unaffordable for many Māori and ruralwhānau?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly no there is no increase in copper pricing. I say again: under every scenario proposed by the Government copper pricing will be reduced. The question is the size of that and whether all of the factors that the Government intended for the commission to take into consideration should be and are taken into consideration. It is the view of the Government and actually the Commerce Commission that section 18(2A) of the Act has not been taken into consideration. The Rural Broadband Initiative is about creating competition which will drive down prices over time as you get competition between new technologies.Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Prime Minister say that it would be cheaper than under every scenario when relative to the scenario proposed by the regulator Kiwi consumers will be paying up to $150 a year more per household?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Under every scenario proposed in the discussion document there will be—Hon Members: Oh!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well that is what we are talking about. Under every scenario proposed in the discussion document there will be a reduction in price to consumers. That will have an impact on Chorus of somewhere over the 5-year period between $100 million and $500 million. But it is worth remembering what the price is at the moment. It is $44.98. I go back to 2007 when the total copper price was $47.28 and I do not remember the Labour Government back then demanding—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a sufficient answer.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was a very straight question and it was about comparing it with the Commerce Commission proposal not with the Government’s proposal and the Prime Minister has refused to address the question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That was not the question as I understood it. The question asked why the Prime Minister is saying it is cheaper under every scenario and the Prime Minister sought to answer that.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that it was his Government that negotiated and signed the ultra-fast broadband contract with Chorus and that he now says that under that contract Chorus will go broke why did his Minister Steven Joyce get the ultra-fast broadband contract so wrong? The Government cannot have it both ways.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Under no scenario is the Government saying it got the contract wrong with Chorus. What the Government is saying is that the Commerce Commission should have taken into consideration in our view all parts of the determination or the indication that we gave. That included benchmarks with other alternatives which is the standard practice and Sweden and Denmark were the only two benchmarks that in fact actually the Commerce Commission believed it could get a similar view from. The Commerce Commission itself said that under section 18(2A) it was not sure how to interpret it so it ignored it. Actually section 18(2A) spells out very clearly the expectations of what the Government thought pricing should be.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Prime Minister’s actions have overridden both the contract entered into by his Minister Steven Joyce and the regulatory process of the independent regulator to provide a $600 million subsidy to one of New Zealand’s most powerful corporates would he agree that this smells and tastes of crony capitalism?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: On so many fronts the member is wrong; it is not funny. Firstly the Government is not unhappy with the contract between Chorus and Crown Fibre Holdings and nor is it actually seeking to make any adjustments there. Secondly the Government has not overridden the Commerce Commission; it has put out a discussion document. Thirdly under every scenario consumers will pay less.Hon Amy Adams: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports analysing the claims of the imposition of a so-called $600 million copper tax?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Funnily enough I have. I have seen the reports issued byCovec and let me run through a few of the interesting points in that. Firstly the methodology is fundamentally flawed.Covec attributes $126 million transfer to Chorus in 2014 as a result of the Government’s proposal. Actually it is a material error because the current pricing prevails until the end of December 2014.Covec speculates what the final UBA price will be from the commission. None of us actually knows that so how could we actually adopt that?Covec does not accept fibre as the modern equivalent asset for copper which is completely out of step with the European Commission and others who have made statements on this matter. TheCovec report misrepresents the proposal as a tax when in fact—Hon Annette King: It’s a long answer.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well it is actually a very thorough answer to the best question I have had today to be perfectly honest.Hon David Cunliffe: Given his reliance upon reports what reliance is he placing on media reports that this $600 million botch-up is the end of Minister Adams’ chances of succeeding him as Prime Minister?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I need to be honest. I really do not think our caucus is looking for a new leader right at the moment but after question time today the Labour Party—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is sufficient.Hawke’s Bay Water Management—Department of Conservation Submission on Plan Change Proposal2.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Conservation: Did he discuss the Tukituki Catchment Proposal with any Department of Conservation senior management in the two months prior to 2 August 2013; if so with whom?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): This proposal from the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council has been applied for because it believes it will benefit its community by increasing minimum river flows improving water quality and increasing the prosperity from irrigation in that region. Of course I discussed this proposal with officials because I had important decisions to make with the Minister for the Environment and Cabinet papers on whether it was a nationally significant proposal and on the appointment of a board of inquiry. These discussions were with the Director-General of Conservation and senior Department of Conservation staff. Frankly I would have been negligent in my role as Minister if I had not discussed those important statutory decisions with my senior staff.Dr Russel Norman: Did he give any indication to the Department of Conservation on the direction or content of its submission on the plan change proposal; if so what was that direction?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The decision about the submission that was made to the board of inquiry by the Department of Conservation was made by the deputy director-general. I was informed of the debate that was going on within the department about thenature of its submission but it was a decision for the department. The important real issue is that the board of inquiry has a broad range of views and technical expertise to make a good decision for Hawke’s Bay about what is best for its water management. I am perfectly confident that that board with over 300 submissions with a range of views will make a good decision.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very simple—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I agree with the point that the member is going to raise. Can I invite the member to ask that question again.Dr Russel Norman: Did he give any indication to the Department of Conservation on the direction or content of its submission on the plan change proposal; if so what was that indication?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I said the department kept me informed of the debate that was going on within the department about the nature of its submission but the decision about the submission was made by the deputy director-general.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister gave pretty much the same answer to pretty much the same question. The question was about what indication the Minister gave to the department not about what the department said to the Minister. The Minister has not addressed that question at all.Mr SPEAKER: And I agree. I am going to invite the member to ask the question for the third time.Dr Russel Norman: Did he give any indication to the Department of Conservation on the direction or content of its submission on the plan change proposal; if so what was that indication?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I say again that I was informed by the Department of Conservation about the internal debate that was going on within the department. The department then made its decision.Dr David Clark: Answer the question.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have—I have. The member is asking whether I made the decision. No I did not. Did I give an indication? No I did not. Did the department inform me of the range of views? Yes it did.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Minister saying that he gave no indication whatsoever to the Department of Conservation on his views on the direction or content of its submission on the plan change proposal?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The decision about the submission that was made by the Department of Conservation was made by the deputy director-general. I did not give the department an indication of what that submission would be.Dr Russel Norman: In any of his meetings with the Department of Conservation around its submission on the plan change proposal did he make any mention of his and the Government’s objective of facilitating water storage outlined in his 2010 speech “Better Water Management”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My best recollection—because I meet with the department staff every week—is that there were five meetings in which the issue of my role in the board of inquiry was raised. In four of those the only issue that was discussed was whether the matter met a national significance test and secondly who should be on the board of inquiry. There was only one meeting and it was simply a matter of the department informing me of its submission.Dr Russel Norman: So is the Minister now saying that he had knowledge of the Department of Conservation’s submission but he made no comment whatsoever as to his views on that submission?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I meet with my department staff every single week. At those meetings we typically cover 20 issues. At one of those meetings I was informed of the department’s approach in its submission on the irrigation proposal. No I did not at any stage say to the department officials “Hey look this Government thinks that irrigation needs to be expanded.” as much as I said to the department—and in my discussions with the Minister for the Environment—that we need to make sure that the board of inquiry process was robust to ensure that the right decision will be made for the community of Hawke’s Bay.Dr Russel Norman: In his discussion with officials around the board of inquiry process did he tell them that he did not expect them to make a submission that would put him in a difficult position—as the final decision-maker—after the board of inquiry process and hence they should make a submission that did not take strong views one way or the other?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make clear that earlier in the year when I first became Minister of Conservation I did have a very direct conversation with the director-general about boards of inquiry and in that discussion I said that it put the Minister in a very difficult position if when appointing a board of inquiry it was then making recommendations to you as the final decision-maker—for instance in the King Salmon case—but at the same time you were making decisions advocating a particular view. And I said to the director-general that in those circumstances the department needed to be very cautious about its submissions.Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept that the effect of that conversation is that the Department of Conservation is unable to do its statutory job which is to advocate for the environment because its Minister is telling it not to make submissions that take a strong stand to protect the rivers of this country—something that he is supposed to be protecting?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly the member is confused. Primary responsibility for water quality rests with my colleague the Minister for the Environment and that member will remember many occasions when I held that portfolio when questions on water quality were directed in that way. In respect of the department’s responsibilities they are for public conservation land they are for fresh water and they are for New Zealand’s special species. It is not the department’s role—and nor is the best expertise in Government on freshwater quality within the Department of Conservation.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the 32-page suppressed submission that the Minister prevented the department from submitting.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am going to object because the document was not suppressed; it is a draft—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! Then the way forward is that I will put the leave and any member can so object.Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is not the point. The point is that the member has asked to release a document that has a certain description on it that is inaccurate. It might be up to the House to say “No you can’t release it.” but no such document exists and therefore it puts us in a position of looking like we are blocking something.Grant Robertson: How do you know that?Hon Gerry Brownlee: Because this is a departmental draft Grant not a suppressed document.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Every member of this House has a right to seek leave to table a document. Clearly Dr Norman does not believe it is in the public domain. Having these speeches from the Government does not help the order of the House.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any more help from the honourable member. Every member has a right to seek leave to table a document. It is absolutely paramount that the member who seeks that leave describes the document with absolute accuracy. I am inviting the member Dr Russel Norman to stand to describe it accurately and then I will determine whether to put leave to the House.Dr Russel Norman: I am seeking leave. This is a two-part document: the departmental submission document dated 31 July 2013 which went to the Minister and the document that goes with it calledAttachment to Plan Change 6: Hawke’s Bay Regional Plan Reasons for Submission which is the draft that was not submitted even though it was written by his department.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think both documents have been adequately explained. Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is none. They can be so tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the final submission made by the Department of Conservation on the plan change which is one paragraph repeated twice submitted with the permission no doubt of—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that. That is all that is—Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave to table the full submission that the Department of Conservation made which is a lot more than what the previous member referred to—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is so sought for the Minister to table the full submission. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Economy—Monetary Policy Statement September 20133.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri) to theMinister of Finance: What recent reports has he received about the outlook for the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): The Reserve Bank last week issued its Monetary Policy Statement for September. In that statement the Reserve Bank Governor confirmed that the official cash rate was unchanged at 2.5 percent. He noted that inflation remains subdued with the consumer price index increasing by just 0.7 percent in the year to June. However inflation is expected to rise gradually towards the midpoint of the Reserve Bank’s 1 to 3 percent target band as economic growth strengthens over the coming year.Hon Kate Wilkinson: What did the Reserve Bank say about the expected growth of the New Zealand economy?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Reserve Bank said that the strengthening of the New Zealand economy that occurred from late 2012 has continued through the first half of 2013. The economy is estimated to have grown 3 percent in the year to the September quarter. However I would note that the effect of the severe drought earlier this year is likely to show up in the GDP figure for the June quarter which is due out this Thursday. For example Treasury is in fact expecting a decline in GDP of 0.2 percent for the June quarter. Despite that the gradual underlying recovery continues and the Reserve Bank is expecting annual GDP growth to increase to about 3.5 percent by the middle of 2014.Hon Kate Wilkinson: How does the New Zealand economy’s expected performance over the next few years compare with forecasts for other developed economies and what global issues are expected to come into play?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As the Reserve Bank Governor said in a speech last month New Zealand is now one of the world’s fastest-growing developed economies. The growth is expected to remain strong and become more broad-based over the next 2 years. However the governor has also noted a number of global risks that could affect New Zealand. For example speculation about future Federal Reserve policy has put substantial downward pressure on emerging market currencies and in addition recent unrest in Syria has seen oil prices move higher. The Reserve Bank says that it is of some concern that potential exchange rate depreciation and higher oil prices could cause deterioration in the economies of New Zealand’s Asian trading partners.Hon Kate Wilkinson: What did the Reserve Bank say in its latest Monetary Policy Statement about new restrictions on high loan-to-value ratio mortgage lending and what impact are these measures expected to have on the housing market?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Reserve Bank noted that it expects the new loan-to-value ratio speed limits which come into force on 1 October to contribute to a fall in demand for housing. It will lead to lower house price inflation than would have otherwise been the case. The Reserve Bank estimates that loan-to-value ratio speed limits are likely to reduce annual house price inflation by about 1 to 4 percentage points over the next year. In addition it estimates the new loan-to-value ratio rules are likely to lower household credit growth by 1 to 3 percentage points over the next year. This lower house price inflation is projected to dampen household consumption expenditure over the coming year or so and reduce the expected 90-day interest rate by about 30 basis points.Businesses—Financial Support from Government and Treasury Advice4.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Did the Treasury provide advice as to whether he should support or oppose overruling the Commerce Commission’s draft determination on copper broadband pricing given that the Treasury has previously advised against subsidising big business such as the $30 millionTīwai subsidy which has “no economic justification”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance): I am advised that Treasury has provided advice on a range of options regarding the Commerce Commission’s draft determination but has not provided advice to support or oppose the matter raised in the member’s question. Treasury has supported the Government’s decision to bring forward the legislative review of the Telecommunications Act and has set the implementation date for the unbundledbitstream access price to November 2015.Hon David Parker: Why did Treasury say there was “no economic justification” for paying taxpayer subsidies to the owners of theTīwai smelter?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well I am not sure that that question actually fits with the primary question but nevertheless Treasury does provide advice on different matters from time to time and the Government sometimes accepts that advice and sometimes operates under different advice.Hon David Parker: Well then why did he ignore Treasury advice that there was “no economic justification” for paying a $30 million taxpayer subsidy to the RioTinto - owned smelter?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It was the Government’s judgment that in terms of the potential dislocation to the New Zealand power market and in terms of the potential dislocation to the Southland economy it was a sensible decision to provide the payment toTīwai Point. I bet money that when the new Leader of the Opposition goes to Invercargill he will be singing—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That last part is unhelpful.Hon David Parker: Did the Government’s deal giving a $30 million subsidy to the smelter which overrode Treasury advice that said it had no economic justification come before or after a telephone call between the Prime Minister and the smelter boss?Hon David Cunliffe: Another phone call.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is outrageous that people use telephones! I am not aware of that particular time line but I can tell the member that if he wants to back Treasury advice then he should see Treasury’s advice on his NZ Power proposal.Hon David Parker: Did the Minister for Economic Development seek the approval of the Minister of Finance before he pressured Vodafone Federated Farmers and 2degrees not to join the “Axe the Copper Tax” campaign; if so is that the same Steven Joyce who refused a base price for copper when the ultra-fast broadband contract was tendered to Chorus and now wants to put in place a base price which economists say is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Chorus?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do talk with the Minister for Economic Development from time to time. I find him particularly agreeable. We tend to agree particularly today on most things. I disagree with the member’s characterisation of my friend the Minister for Economic Development and his conversations with those three parties. The Minister for Economic Development explained to those three parties what was actually involved because the “Axe the Copper Tax” campaign is actually not honest there is no subsidy proposed for Chorus the Chorus contract is not being changed to increase its revenues and the Government is not introducing a copper tax.Accident Compensation—Levies5.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) to theMinister for ACC: What announcements has she made today about ACC levies?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC): Today I announced my support for ACC’s consultation on significant reductions to average levies for businesses for motor vehicle owners and for workers being a 17 percent reduction in the combined average work levy a 15 percent reduction in the combined average motor vehicle levy and a 15 percent reduction in the earners levy.Chris Auchinvole: What factors of ACC’s performance have enabled this?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The combination of effective rehabilitation prudent cost management and exceptional investment performance has enabled the consideration of substantial levy reductions. ACC runs the system. It is the envy of many countries in the world and I would like to thank the board—Grant Robertson: There’s no one left on the board.Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —and ACC staff for their hard work which has contributed to the possibility of levy reductions—an excellent board by the way appointed by me.Hawke’s Bay Water Management—Regional Council Plan Change Proposal6.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to theMinister for the Environment: Has she ever received any advice that the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Plan Change 6 which paves the way for theRuataniwha Dam proposal in its current form does not meet the requirements of the Resource Management Act 1993 for plan changes and would not achieve the requirements of Part 2 of that Act?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): I am advised that none of the advice I have received makes those statements. Furthermore I note that the advice on which I based my decision is publicly available on the Environmental Protection Authority website. I also note that questions of whether the proposal meets the requirements of the Resource Management Act including Part 2 is a matter for theindependent board of inquiry considering the proposal. The board operates independently of Ministers and is tasked with considering the full range of Resource Management Act matters including technical matters raised in submissions to it.Hon Maryan Street: Has she received any advice that plan change 6 in its current form does not give effect to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 or section 67 of the Resource Management Act which requires regional plans to give effect to the regional policy statement?Hon AMY ADAMS: To the best of my recollection no. But what I can tell the member is that those matters she has raised are not matters that the Minister is properly able to take into account. The decision that has to be made by the Minister and in this case joint Ministers is consideration of the matter set out in section 142 of the Resource Management Act which is very specifically related to whether the matter is one of national significance and whether it should be called in and the appropriate body hear it. The matters that the member referred to in her question are matters for the independent board of inquiry hearing the proposal to turn their minds to.Hon Maryan Street: Does she think that her colleague the Minister of Conservation who was appraised of this information should have shared the advice he had received about this plan change with her given her responsibilities for the Resource Management Act?Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member has claimed in the question that I had access to a report which I did not until I heard it on Radio New Zealand National this morning.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. It is very much a debating matter but it is certainly within the hands of the Minister to now answer the question.Hon AMY ADAMS: Well I have no ministerial responsibility for what advice or information my colleague had but what I can tell the member is that both myself and the Minister of Conservation properly turned our minds to all of the appropriate matters under section 142 of the Resource Management Act when we made our joint decision that it was a matter of national significance and that it should be referred to an independent board of inquiry.Hon Maryan Street: Given that the advice has just been tabled today in the House by Russel Norman in considering that information—Hon Dr Nick Smith: A draft submission. A draft.Hon Maryan Street: —draft or otherwise—is it her purpose in proposing to change Part 2 of the Resource Management Act and prioritise development over environmental protections to allow such plan changes as this one to go through more easily with fewer legal objections regardless of environmental impacts?Hon AMY ADAMS: No.Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table in addition to the other material I was going to table which has been tabled a report from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser calledThe role of evidence in policy—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a document that is available to all members.Child Protection—Legislative Reform7.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) to theMinister for Social Development: How will the Vulnerable Children Bill make a difference for those children most at risk of abuse and neglect?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): This bill is first and foremost about protecting vulnerable children. We are putting the children first. The bill introduces joint Government accountability requires agencies working with children tohave child protection policies and new standard safety checks in place and creates tougher orders for offenders who pose a high risk of abusing or neglecting children into the future. This work is being driven not just by my own and this Government’s passion to better protect children but also the determination of a number of New Zealanders who have contributed to this process. I am hoping that there is cross-party support across this House for this work.Hon Phil Heatley: How will the child harm prevention orders better protect children from adults who may harm them?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The child harm prevention orders will apply to people who have been convicted of or found on the balance of probabilities to have committed a qualifying offence against a child and pose a high risk of harming children in the future. I have heard that other parties have concerns around some of the checks and balances so we want to outline a few of them. Each order needs two health assessments from a clinical psychologist and a health assessor nominated by the respondent. They will be reviewed annually by the review panel and may be discharged if the person can demonstrate that they are no longer a risk. The orders will also be in line with the level of risk of reoffending or offending against a child. It will be for that period of time and as I say it may not be that they all cannot be at a park; it might be that they are just banned from a particular house and restricted from being there.Hon Phil Heatley: What role does the Government community organisations and the public have to play in the Children’s Action Plan?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Without a doubt all three are the answer to some of these issues. When it comes to New Zealand’s record on child abuse it is quite frankly appalling. More than 50 children have died in the last 5 years because of extreme abuse. A child under 2 is hospitalised every 5 days because of abuse. Every year Child Youth and Family substantiates around 22000 cases of physical sexual emotional abuse and neglect and those are just the ones that we know about. We all have a role to play in better protecting children from abuse and neglect. The legislation that will be introduced into the House shortly plays a very significant but only one part of that.Housing Affordable—Auckland Property Market and Commentary8.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū) to theMinister of Housing: Does he believe there is a housing affordability crisis in Auckland?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): The best measure is the Roost Mortgage Brokers affordability index published monthly for each region which measures the proportion of income needed for a person earning the median income to pay the mortgage on a median-priced house. The least affordable time on record was in Auckland in December 2007 when it hit 101 percent. The Minister of Housing at the time Maryan Street said that that was not a crisis. It is currently at 76 percent in Auckland. This drop reflects the increase in incomes and the lowering of interest rates since December 2007. I actually believe that at over 100 percent it would be a crisis. At 76 percent it is very challenging and that is why this Government has so much work under way to make housing more affordable.Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table analysis from Quotable Value that shows that the price of the average home in Auckland has risen by 38 percent since December 2008.Mr SPEAKER: Where have you sourced the document?Phil Twyford: I have sourced this from Quotable Value. It is analysis that it has done.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. That is the easiest way of sorting it out. Leave is sought to table such analysis from Quotable Value. Is there any objection to that course of action? There appears to be none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the Roost Mortgage Brokers house affordability index that shows that it was at 101 percent in December 2007 in Auckland—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a satisfactory explanation. Leave is sought to table the affordability index. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. It can be so tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the Government’s spokesperson on TV3’sThe Vote programme when he said that a $130000 deposit is not out of reach for the average first-home buyer?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It would be helpful if the member correctly and fully quoted my colleague who made it plain that it would be a stretch. I also note that this Government has trebled the number of Welcome Home Loans and KiwiSaver home deposit subsidies to help families in that member’s electorate.Phil Twyford: Are there “plenty” of affordable homes in the electorate of Maungakiekie as stated by the Government’s spokesperson on that programme; if so will his Government policy to ration mortgages help or hinder first-home buyers to buy those affordable homes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the first instance this Government on 1 October will treble—treble—the number of Welcome Home Loans and particularly increase them in the city of Auckland because we have real policies that will make a positive difference. I also note that last week the Auckland Council unanimously adopted the Auckland Housing Accord after that member said that it never would.Phil Twyford: Is he surprised that 72 percent of those who voted on that television programme supported the Opposition’s housing policies and only 28 percent voted for the Government’s housing policies; if so does he take such an overwhelming crushing rejection of his policies personally or is it that people just do not understand him?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The most telling part of the programme was the press release the day before it went to air from the Green Party saying that actually it was not really part of its policy to wreck the equity that most New Zealanders have in their home and apologising for the mistake.Schools Partnership—Successful Applicants and Non-registered Teaching Staff9.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) to theMinister of Education: What recent announcements has she made on partnership schools?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Today I was really pleased to join the Prime Minister and the Hon John Banks the Associate Minister of Education in announcing five partnership schools kura hourua. They are The Rise UP AcademyMāngere East; South Auckland Middle School South Auckland; Te Kura Hourua o WhangareiTerengaParaoa Whangarei; Te Kura Hourua ki Whangaruru Whangaruru Northland; and Vanguard Military School Albany North Shore. I welcome these schools as another model in our already diverse range of schooling options aimed at raising achievement for all our children and young people. I thank all those who have contributed—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise for interrupting the Minister but the level of interjection now is at a stage where I am having trouble listening to the Minister. I apologise to the Minister.Hon HEKIA PARATA: I should like to thank all those who have contributed so constructively to the process to date unwilling as we are on this side of the House to condone the status quo of failure for specific groups of children and young people.Mike Sabin: How will partnership schools raise achievement?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The schools will have greater freedom and flexibility to innovate and engage with their students in return for stronger accountability for improving educational outcomes. These schools will particularly focus on the children and young people who are not being successful in our mainstream system. Partnership schools kura hourua will be accountable to the Government for raising achievement through a contract to deliver specific school-level targets.Chris Hipkins: What proportion of those teaching in the approved partnership schools will be required to be registered teachers?Hon HEKIA PARATA: All five schools are going to be delivering the New Zealand curriculum and/or TeMarautanga o Aotearoa. In the delivery of the core curriculum registered teachers will be delivering those together with those who hold limited authority to teach that provide co-curricular activities together with some who are not registered teachers but who are skilled for instance in equine husbandry defence force preparation engineering carving and so forth.Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was actually a very specific straightforward question asking her what proportion of those teaching in partnership schools were required to be registered teachers.Mr SPEAKER: I heard the question. I think that to be fair to the Minister it was actually difficult to hear the question because of the level of noise particularly from the Government side. Can I ask the member to repeat the question.Chris Hipkins: What proportion of those teaching in the approved partnership schools will be required to be registered teachers?Hon HEKIA PARATA: We have accepted contracts with the proposed sponsors and they are different across each of the schools. For The Rise UP Academy it will be 100 percent registered teachers. For Te Kura Hourua o WhangareiTerengaParaoa it will be 79 percent. For the other three schools it will depend on the division between core curriculum and TeMarautanga o Aotearoa and co-curricular activity.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate the answer that the Minister gave there but I am struggling to understand why she was unable to give that answer to my colleague when he asked—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. I explained when I rose to accept a repeat of the question from your colleague Chris Hipkins that it was possibly because of the level of noise that it was difficult to hear the question. When the Minister heard the question I think she made a very adequate response to the question.Resource Management Act Reforms—Environmental Protection and Commentary10.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to theMinister for the Environment: Will she ditch the Government’s proposal to remove references to the “ethic of stewardship” the “maintenance and enhancement of amenity values” the “maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment” and the “intrinsic value of ecosystems” from the Resource Management Act 1993; if not why not?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): Firstly it appears the member may not have read the proposals because it has been proposed that the reference to ecosystems be not only retained but in fact elevated with the clause clarified to state that the effective functioning of ecosystems be raised to be a matter of national importance. On the other matters the member raises the Government hasindicated that it is our view that those matters are already adequately provided for in Part 2 of the Act and this remains our position.Eugenie Sage: Was the Hon Tariana Turia wrong when she said the Resource Management Act was designed to ensure that our use of natural resources is sustainable and that the Government’s proposed changes to Part 2 undermine the whole purpose of the Act?Hon AMY ADAMS: Minister Turia was certainly correct in her statement on the purpose of the Act and the Government has no intention—and never has had—of amending the purpose of the Act. In respect of her characterisation of our changes she is of course entitled to her opinion.Eugenie Sage: Was the Hon Peter Dunne wrong when he said that the Government’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act will make matters worse for the environment?Hon AMY ADAMS: Again Mr Dunne is certainly entitled to his opinion.Eugenie Sage: Will her proposed Resource Management Act amendment bill now retain the hierarchy of matters of national importance and other matters in the current Act to avoid creating considerable uncertainty and losing 20 years of case law on the meaning of sustainable management?Hon AMY ADAMS: Every time that this Parliament creates or changes law it always creates a period of time in which people have to adjust to those new provisions. If we were to not do anything on the basis that any change would create uncertainty we might as well all pack up and go home now. Our proposal is about creating far more certainty in the system over time and it would be wrong and foolhardy to pull out one aspect of the proposals and focus on whether that single aspect of change creates more or less uncertainty. The proposal is a package. The objective of the package is to create more certainty less time less cost and far better outcomes for communities. That is still the intention.Te Ururoa Flavell: What advice has she had from iwi and Māori groups regarding the maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment and any effects the proposed changes will have on their role as kaitiaki or guardians?Hon AMY ADAMS: We have certainly had considerable feedback from iwi and Māori groups on the changes to sections 6 and 7 and as a result of that feedback we have made a number of changes to the draft provisions. Kaitiakitanga is of course to be elevated from a matter that the decision makers must have regard to to becoming a matter of national importance which must be recognised and provided for. Of course the role of iwi in planning is one of the key ways in which iwi exercise their role as kaitiaki and those provisions around planning and iwi involvement in it received considerable support from iwi and Māori groups.Hon Peter Dunne: Is it the Minister’s position that the changes to Part 2 of the Act are necessary for the process changes that she is proposing to other parts of the Act to have any impact—in other words that you cannot make the second set of changes without making the first set?Hon AMY ADAMS: Well it is certainly my view that the proposal is a package and has to be viewed as such. Part 2 is a critical part of the Act and that is the reason it has attracted so much attention and debate. It is fundamental to the way that the whole of the rest of the Act is read and applied.Intelligence Agencies—Legality of Operations11.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to thePrime Minister: Why did he say in regard to the raid on the Fiji Democracy and Freedom movement “Istand 100 percent by what I said before: any actions that the SIS or the GCSB take in my opinion are legal …”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Because I believe that to be the case. I do think it is important to repeat the full statement I gave at the time which is that I said: “I stand 100 percent by what I said before: any actions that the SIS or the GCSB take in my opinion are legal with the exception of the case of Mr Dotcom.”Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is true why did the SIS officer leading the raid on Mr Singh fail to identify herself and fail to produce a search warrant when questioned claiming that it was classified both of which failings are a breach of section 131 of the Search and Surveillance Act?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to comment on that. I do not have those details but I will say that I understand that there has been a radio report—at least I have been advised that Mr Singh said that he complained to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. I am advised that the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service has no record of a formal complaint to the inspector-general in relation to what the member is talking about. If Mr Singh feels there is a problem he should follow his legal rights and make a complaint to the inspector-general.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a letter from the Office of the Ombudsmen setting out Mr Singh’s right to have the matter referred on to the inspector-general by the Office of the Ombudsmen which he requested of them and which they did do.Mr SPEAKER: So it is a letter from the Office of the Ombudsmen that the member is seeking to table. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he explain ColonelMoseseTikoitoga’stexting Mr Rajesh Singh alerting him to the SIS raid already taking place in Mr Singh’s home if the Fiji military did not receive advice in advance; and as Minister how does he explain that?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have any of the details that the member is talking about. I stand by the statement I said earlier which is that in my opinion any actions—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a most serious matter to do with the rights of people who live in this country legally. The Prime Minister was giving all sorts of answers up inMajura in the Marshall Islands on this a week ago and now he comes with no evidence whatsoever.Mr SPEAKER: The member asked a question about how the Prime Minister explained thetexting to Mr Singh etc. The Prime Minister was halfway through that answer—and he may not have the details; that is a legitimate answer—before the member was jumping to his feet claiming that this is a most important matter. That is not a legitimate use of a point of order. If the member is unhappy with the answer and if he has further supplementary questions to use he should so use them.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That would be the case if the Prime Minister could generally say it about that but up in the Marshall Islands just the other day he was making all sorts of statements and slurs about the evidence before this House—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard—Rt Hon Winston Peters: That is why—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard quite enough from the member. If he wants to stay to complete his question I advise him to start asking supplementary questions. If he is going to raise points of order that are not valid and if he persists with that I willhave no choice but to ask the member to leave the Chamber. Supplementary—does the member want to complete his answer?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. It would probably be a good idea. I should complete my answer which is that I do not have details. I have never had details about the text messages that the member speaks of. Secondly I stand by the statement that in my opinion in all instances the SIS and the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) have acted legally with the exception of the case of Mr Dotcom. And I repeat what I actually said in the Marshall Islands which was that if the member has some evidence and he believes there has been unlawful activity then he should feel free to take that to the inspector-general or the police or bring it to me.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would one go to the inspector-general when the inspector-general had this matter referred to him by no less a body than the Office of the Ombudsmen and secondly the Prime Minister has not even responded to the complainant for all these months since then or come to his office and then when he is pushed on it in the House he claims to have no knowledge whatsoever?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly it will not get scarier because the member raises his voice. I am advised that the office of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has no record of a complaint by anyone named Rajesh Singh. If Mr Singh wants to make a complaint he is free to do so. The letter that the member spoke of before—I am guessing but I am pretty sure I will be right—would have been laying out the rights of Mr Singh under the law to make a complaint to the inspector-general if he wants to.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I tabled a document because that document specifically was an offer by the Office of the Ombudsmen to pass on Mr Singh’s information for him if he so desired which he did request in a telephone call. Now we are being treated to more information from the Prime Minister or disinformation when it is simply not relevant to the information that the House needs by way of answer.Mr SPEAKER: Well I am not sure what that point of order is either. Again the member asked a—[Interruption] Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will take it through for you very slowly. The Prime Minister said—Mr SPEAKER: I will give the right honourable member the chance to do so.Rt Hon Winston Peters: The Prime Minister’s inference in two answers today is that the inspector-general’s office was never advised of Mr Singh’s complaint. That tabling of those documents was to prove that the document from Mr Singh by way of complaint went off to the inspector-general. So why is the Prime Minister repeating disinformation and obfuscating in his answers?Mr SPEAKER: That is certainly not a point of order. The member needs to go back and look at the question that he asked. It was a question about why anybody would go to the inspector-general or to the Prime Minister either and he gave you a reason for doing so. The Prime Minister adequately addressed that. If the member has a further supplementary question he is welcome to use it but to continue to relitigate an answer that is given by using a point of order will lead to disorder in this House. I will not warn that member again today.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why should anybody in New Zealand follow the Prime Minister’s advice and trust him as we heard him say time after time in the GCSB debate when there are scores of text messages confirming the Fiji military Government’s clear prior knowledge of the SIS raid and associated actions including the Government of New Zealand working closely with the Government in Fiji as the Prime Minister hinted in aOne News item on 19 July 2012?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe it is in the national interest for me to go through all of the details of this particular case but let me state once again that in my opinion any actions taken by the SIS or the Government Communications Security Bureau have always been lawful with the one exception of Mr Dotcom. If anybody believes their actions are not lawful they should follow their legal rights and take them to the police or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security or they are welcome to bring them to me. The fact that they have not taken those steps probably speaks volumes. But what I can say to the member is this: I know a lot more about this issue than he ever will and he is wrong.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have not called the member yet.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Perhaps Mr Speaker you can explain to me how the last part of that answer was remotely relevant given your decisions in respect of questions I have asked?Mr SPEAKER: Again I invite the member to go back and look at the tone of the question he asked. I thought he was given a very adequate answer.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a number of documents—first of all a complaint from Rajesh Singh dated 19 July to the Office of the Ombudsmen the Office of the Ombudsmen’s reply dated 20 July a further letter dated 24 July from Rajesh Singh to the Office of the Ombudsmen and a 24 July letter from the Office of the Ombudsmen back to him offering to pass on the information to the inspector-general. In fact one two three—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need that information.Rt Hon Winston Peters: No wait on—it is all here.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Keep going.Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is all here. Plus there are 16 texts that were sent on the cellphone of ColonelTikoitoga the Commander Land Force in Fiji to Mr Rajesh Singh; and a further 41 texts also sent by the commander of the Fiji forces on this matter; and further a receipt document from the SIS as to the computers and technology machinery they took away from Mr Singh at the time of this illegal raid.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a number of documents. If I can summarise them quickly they are correspondence between a complainant and the Office of the Ombudsmen. Does anybody have any objection to that detailed information being tabled? There is none. It can be so tabled.Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House.New Zealand Defence Force—External Safety Management Review12.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) to theMinister of Defence: Does he accept all of the conclusions of the New Zealand Defence Force External Safety Management Review; if not why not?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence): Yes. The independent review panel makes a number of observations throughout the report and there are 20 detailed recommendations. The New Zealand Defence Force has accepted and welcomed these recommendations.Hon Phil Goff: When this report says that the Government has failed for more than 2 years to implement any of the key recommendations of the previous 2011Cosman review on safety in the Defence Force does he as Minister accept responsibility for that or is it his intention—unannounced as yet—to sack the Chief of the Defence Force Lieutenant General Rhys Jones and make him the scapegoat for the Government’s failures in defence?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No. The report does not actually say that. The previous review was in the process of being implemented but it actually covers a narrower set of circumstances than this current review. I would also point out that when that man Phil Goff was the Minister of Defence he did nothing to address defence safety and indeed the accident rate was the same under Labour’s tenure.Hon Phil Goff: Given the Minister’s denial that this report says that I seek leave of the House to table the report to show that I am right and that the Minister is wrong.Mr SPEAKER: Is it a report that is freely available to members?Hon Phil Goff: It is on the net but it is not widely available.Mr SPEAKER: If it is on the net then they can go and search for it if they want to.Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Minister repeatedly deny in Parliament that cost cutting restructuring high attrition and low morale had anything to do with the accident rate in the Defence Force when this report points out very clearly that all of those factors do have an impact and have had an impact on having more accidents in the Defence Force than we needed or that we should have had?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Actually the report says nothing of the sort. The fact is that Vote Defence was the same this year as the year before and there has not been a cut in the vote.Hon Phil Goff: When the report found that up to 5 percent of all navy life jackets did not have as they should have an inflation device attached to them and that that was the key cause of the death of Private Michael Ross what does that say about the state of the Defence Force under this National Government?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well what it says is that there were issues with life jackets that the National Government has addressed but that in 9 years Labour never did anything about.Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you explain to me what remedy a member asking a question has and who cannot table a report when the Minister simply says things that are untrue about what is in it?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now using the point of order system to again disagree with the answer he has been given. He asked what response the Government was taking and the Minister said he is taking a lot more action than the previous Government did. That is a legitimate answer.Hon Phil Goff: He said things in the report Mr Speaker that are not there.Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wants to raise a breach of privilege he knows the procedure to do so.Vulnerable Children BillFirst ReadingHon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): I moveThat the Vulnerable Children Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the bill. I am going to speak quickly as there is a lot of detail I would like to get through and I know that that will be a surprise to everyone! This omnibus bill proposes two new Acts: the Vulnerable Children Act and the Child Harm Prevention Orders Act. It amends the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 and the KiwiSaver Act 2006 and it makes consequential amendments to a number of other Acts. This bill is about protecting vulnerable children and putting that priority ahead of the needs of adults. These changes are bold and by their nature controversial. This work has been driven not just by—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Would members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly and show some courtesy to the member who is trying to address us.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Thank you Mr Speaker. These changes are bold and by their nature controversial. This work has been driven not just by my own and this Government’s passion to better protect children but also by the determination of the New Zealand public to address this country’s horrific record of child abuse. I hope Opposition parties will at least support this bill going to the select committee so that it can be heard there. I can say hand on heart that I have not played party politics with this work and I believe that it is above politics.Every year Child Youth and Family substantiates 22000 cases of physical sexual and emotional abuse and neglect. We have already introduced significant changes that are making a difference and there is an enormous amount of work under way on the Children’s Action Plan. For me personally the most important work I will ever do as a Minister is contained in the Children’s Action Plan.Firstly the bill aims to make Government agencies jointly accountable to a responsible Minister for producing reviewing and reporting on a vulnerable children’s plan. The measure combined with clear child protection policies—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Courtesy is contagious. I am looking to the members on my right.Hon PAULA BENNETT: —will help to ensure that front-line staff take responsibility for keeping children safe from abuse and neglect. The bill also introduces measures to protect children from adults who may harm them. Finally it addresses how we can better respond to those children who have already been harmed and are in the care of the State. The legislative programme will ensure that changes are enduring.The bill introduces a new requirement for certain chief executives to collectively develop and report on a vulnerable children’s plan. That plan must set out how these agencies will work together towards collectively achieving the Government’s priorities for vulnerable children. Chief executives will have to report annually on that plan and answer to the responsible Minister on whether or on the extent to which each agency has implemented the plan for these children. The plan will be made public. Do not underestimate the power of this unprecedented move. Never before in this country have the chief executives of health education police and justice had this specific accountability for vulnerable children. Now they will alongside the Ministry of Social Development of course. It will significantly change the way they work.These five agencies as well as TePuniKōkiri and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment are all well represented on the Vulnerable Children’s Board. That board is an important part in the accountability chain leading from the children’s teams working on the ground up to a ministerial oversight group. To support better identification and reporting of child abuse and neglect this bill requires clear child protection policies to be introduced. Specified Government organisations including district health boards and boards of trustees of State schools integrated State schools and partnership schools must have child protection policies.The bill also requires these agencies providing children’s services as well as those they contract or fund to adopt policies on identifying and reporting child abuse and neglect. Too often individuals and organisations know of abuse but do not take the required action. There will no longer be justifiable excuses.I now turn to screening and vetting of what we call the children’s workforce. Although many organisations have checks in place to ensure that unsuitable people do not work with children there is no consistent approach and there are a number of gaps. The bill will introduce a rigorous approach to vetting and screening with new standardsafety checks of the children’s workforce in New Zealand. This approach will reduce the risk of children being harmed by those who are entrusted to look after them and to work around them. The legislative scope of the standard safety check regime focuses first on paid employees within the Government sector and the services that they fund. Beyond that it provides voluntary guidance for all other organisations to encourage sound practices in safety checking.The bill will specify the minimum checks that must be conducted and further detail will be outlined in regulations and guidelines. A workforce restriction will be based on a list of qualifying offences in order to prevent known child abusers and offenders from having control of or working alone with children. The workforce restriction will apply to the same category of organisations as the requirement to conduct standard safety checks. There are cases where children have been abused because a dangerous individual got close enough to do so sometimes literally by moving into their home. We will not tolerate abusive adults having that freedom and that power over children.New Zealanders are sick of known abusers repeatedly hurting more children. It is time to put those children first. This bill introduces civil orders to be made against those who pose a high risk of abusing or neglecting children in the future. These orders will be called child harm prevention orders and I want to acknowledge the Hon Judith Collins for the work that she and her department did in pulling this together. These orders will apply where a person has been convicted of or found on the balance of probabilities to have committed a qualifying offence. Only three individuals can make an application for a child harm prevention order. They are the chief executives of the Department of Corrections and the Ministry of Social Development and the Commissioner of Police.The High Court or the District Court must be satisfied that the person poses a high risk of causing serious harm to a child or children in the future in order to place these restrictions. The restrictions will be proportionate with the level of risk the person poses. Restrictions may apply to a specific child or home or to loitering in parks and other areas where children may be. The duration of the order will be for the period necessary to provide the required degree of protection to children up to a maximum of 10 years.Because these orders are new we have put new checks in place as well. They will be reviewed once every 12 months by a panel to determine the continuing justification for the order and the terms imposed. The chief executive of the monitoring agency and the person subject to the order can apply for a review at any time and the court must also review the order every 3 years. Child harm prevention orders will better protect children from abusers. Cabinet thought long and hard about these orders cognisant of the trade-off between individual freedoms and preventing potential abuse of children. Unapologetically we have come down on the side of children.To improve the lives of our most vulnerable children who have suffered abuse and neglect this bill includes amendments to the Children Young Persons and their Families Act to clarify section 13(a) “the principle that children and young persons must be protected from harm their rights upheld and their welfare promoted;”. It strengthens family group conferences and court plans so that parental obligations include steps to be taken before a child placed out of the home can be returned to a parent’s care as well as definite decision time frames about a child’s future. It allows external family group conference coordinators to be appointed includes new guardianship provisions to increase stability for children with home-for-life caregivers and includes an obligation on the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development to provide specific types of financial assistance to the permanent caregiver of a child or young person. It establishes a Family Court review an appeal process for permanentcaregivers who consider that the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development has wrongly or unreasonably declined financial assistance and it provides more support for those young people aged 15 right through to 20 years.That is very important because we see too many of them going out on their own when they are 17 and it is too young for some and just not right. The financial backing really will help these young people. There is the issue of the safety of subsequent children. There are significant risks to children born into the care of parents who have already had children permanently removed or in whose care children have died due to abuse or neglect.Currently when abusive parents have a subsequent child come to the attention of Child Youth and Family the child’s safety is assessed and then if Child Youth and Family believes that the child is unsafe it takes the case to court to prove it. We will reverse that burden of proof. There is hope that that person can prove they have changed but they will have to show they have taken steps that mean they are no longer unsafe and they actually can look after a child and put that child’s needs first. It is unfortunate but necessary if we are truly to protect those children who are coming along and we know that past behaviour is an indicator of future behaviour and is absolutely important.That was a lot and very quickly. It is an unfortunate reality that these changes are necessary.Iain Lees-Galloway: You’re working too hard.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Something like that. This legislation will make a fundamental difference to protecting the most vulnerable children and allowing them to thrive. We are doing everything we can for New Zealand’s most vulnerable children and these changes complement the work already under way. I move that the Social Services Committee consider the Vulnerable Children Bill.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): Thank you Minister for Social Development for outlining the rationale behind what is a bill with many many elements to it and one for which I hope the Social Services Committee will have enough time and space available for both ourselves and the public to give due consideration to the bill. I also want to acknowledge Minister that there has been a long process in reaching this final stage for the Vulnerable Children Bill beginning with the green paper. It is correct that at the time the green paper was first brought into the public domain it was Labour’s view that enough evidence already existed around what we needed to do collectively to address the challenge of not only child protection issues but wider child well-being issues. But there is no doubt that since the green paper process began there has been unprecedented engagement both by the general public and also by those who work in the children’s sector more generally. From the green paper process to the white paper process then finally through to the action plan I think there have been two very clear messages that have come through.The first has been the desire that Parliament—but particularly the Government—brought in its perspective around the issue of vulnerability. It is a plea that Labour has made continually—that if you want to look at well-being for children generally if you want to take a preventative approach to child protection issues we do need to look at issues like child poverty. It is one of the single biggest determinants for child well-being if you look at all of the research and evidence that exist. There are small glimmers in this bill around the action plan that the Minister intends for Government departments to come on board with where we could use that action plan to ensure that a family’s economic well-being is a key consideration for the Government. I will come to that. But we must make sure that that is what happens and at the moment it is a bit of an openquestion. So that would be Labour’s first plea: let us broaden the perspective that we take on child well-being; let us consider child poverty. Let us act on it.We agree with the Minister that we must work together. There was a strong message that the public wanted a cross-party approach that goes beyond electoral cycles when it comes to child protection issues. I agree with the Minister that we should be able to take the politics out of it and it should come down to a simple matter of an evidence base. In fact that has been Labour’s hope from the beginning. We made the offer to work collaboratively in October 2009 we made it again in July 2011 and I made it again in January 2012. It is an offer I make again today.Hon Paula Bennett: Respond to my letter then.JACINDA ARDERN: I also responded to the Minister today on her broader question around the Children’s Action Plan and more specifically the Children’s Teams. Labour gives its pledge that in Government we will continue with the broad framework that has been set out by the Minister. We maintain our right however to review the action plan based on evidence continue what is working and revise what is not. We maintain our position that we have severe concerns with the risk predictor model and as I have stated that we wish to broaden generally the view of child well-being and be much more holistic. But we believe we would be doing a disservice to the sector and the public who have engaged in this process if we were to dump the plan as a whole. There are good elements to this plan. We acknowledge that. That is the pledge that Labour gives today to the sector and to the Government.I want to go through some of the key elements of this particular bill though to highlight some of the areas that we will be looking atat the select committee. As the Minister has highlighted one key element of this bill actually brings together something that Labour has been advocating for some time via our Child Poverty Reduction and Eradication Bill and that this to have a cross-government plan for children’s well-being. Probably where there is one main point of difference though is that Labour wants to see the Government commit to targets to reduce child poverty. At the moment we have a general framework but we have no specific targets. We think it is much easier to hold the Government to account whichever party happens to be in Government if we are very specific about what we hope to achieve. So that is something that we will be asking questions about at the select committee.We also want assurances from the Government that the one note in the bill about the action plan the Vulnerable Children’s Plan can include improving children’s economic and social well-being. We want to see what specifically that means and whether it means we will be looking directly at child poverty. Otherwise this element of the bill very closely mirrors the Labour member’s bill that is in my name and we are pleased to see that this element is going to progress more quickly in this form. But like I said we will be seeking a bit more meat on the bones when it comes to that plan which is a bit of a hollow plan at the moment.The second element of the bill is to require State services to have policies in place containing provisions on the identification and reporting of child abuse and neglect. This provision has been called pseudo-mandatory reporting. I understand the Minister’s rationale for not going as far as having mandatory reporting. We ourselves have said that we think that before mandatory reporting comes into place you need to have two elements. You need to have appropriate training for front-line workers who are required to identify child abuse and neglect. Otherwise you run the risk of over-reporting and as a result either Child Youth and Family being overwhelmed with reports of child abuse that are false reports or those most significant reports getting swamped and not addressed in a timely manner. So we will be seeking at the select committee some assurances and some evidence that training will be occurring because it is not containedin this bill. The work that groups like Child Matters does should be happening across the board. If we are requiring some form of plan for reporting we should be requiring that that training goes alongside it. We also want to ensure that Child Youth and Family is appropriately resourced to deal with any increase in reporting. At the moment we are continually expressing our concern that it is under-resourced at present. That will be an issue that we will continue to raise in this House and at the select committee.The third element is the new standard safety checks for employees. There are a number of issues that we would like to get into. I believe that the Ministry of Education has been heavily involved in these provisions. One question I will raise now though is why alongside this we still have not made the step of mandatory registration for social workers. If we are seeking these kinds of safety checks for employees surely we would finally take that step. I know that the registration board has been seeking that move for some time. Labour has been seeking that move for some time. We will want to explore at the select committee why we have not taken that step.Probably one of the most controversial elements of this bill though is allowing for new civil orders the child harm prevention orders. Labour has said from the outset that of course we want to support measures that protect children from harm but we will be seeking evidence at the select committee that that is what these orders will do particularly because this is such a significant change and because of the threshold around the burden required to impose a significant order. The regulatory impact statement by the Ministry of Justice tries to liken these orders to those in overseas jurisdictions but in fact I have not seen any evidence of any overseas jurisdiction that allows an order to be in place where there has not been a criminal conviction. So that is a considerable change in the threshold. We accept that the Minister is still setting a bar that has to be reached via the justice system but still it is on the balance of evidence rather than a criminal conviction. That deserves significant scrutiny at the select committee and we have already expressed our concerns. Our spokesperson on justice Andrew Little will speak further to that point in his contribution to this House.I want to commend the fact that the Minister has heard concerns about children in foster care and their need for care to go beyond the age of 17. That is something I absolutely agree with. I believe that it should be legislated. I would like to see how far that support will go. I believe that it needs to go into pastoral care and not just financial care and that is something that I look forward to discussing at the select committee. Equally there is merit in reversing the onus of proof where parents have already proven that they have failed in their responsibility to care for their current children and where they look to have further children. I do believe that there is justification for reversing the onus as the Minister has done.Overall as I have said Labour supports measures that evidence shows will protect children. We absolutely agree that children need to be at the centre of everything we do. We will bring in a Minister for Children. We will have a Ministry for Children. We will give greater support to the Children’s Commissioner to be independent. We will make sure that children are indeed at the heart of everything we do but we will also make sure that there is continuity of policy.Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I am going to take a short call on this matter. I do so specifically to deal with some of the issues that have been raised by the member who has just resumed her seat Jacinda Ardern in regard to the Vulnerable Children Bill and in particular creating the new civil order called a child harm prevention order. I think that if we look at the background to this we can see why this is absolutely necessary. Perhaps before I start into that I will just assure the House that this matter will be going through the full Social Services Committee process. I welcome the debate and the tone of it so far.More than 50 children have died in New Zealand in the last 5 years not because of poverty actually but because of extreme abuse. I do not think for a moment that poverty is any excuse for killing one’s child or the child of somebody else either or of harming them. Because of abuse a child under 2 is hospitalised every 5 days in this country—this country the best country in the world except for children who are abused. Every year Child Youth and Family substantiates 22000 cases of physical sexual and emotional abuse and neglect in this country of plenty this country of free education this country of opportunity where some children’s lives are destroyed by either their own families or the people whom their families allow into their homes often because those families do not even realise what they are dealing with.If we are going to look at poverty as an excuse have a look at the convicted paedophile James Parker the well-respected teacher from Northland who has destroyed the lives of families children and young men. It does not just stop because the offending stopped. It never stops because every single day of those victims’ lives they live with what that man has done to them. Of course it does not affect just them; it affects their entire families who now look to see what it is that they could have done differently. Well they are not the perpetrators; they are also victims but who can blame parents for wondering whether they could not have done something differently and whether or not that might have saved their child.So I would like to congratulate the Minister for Social Development the Hon Paula Bennett on the work that she has done in this area. I join with Miss Ardern in noting that she has undertaken an unprecedented amount of consultation in this area on a matter that I think concerns all right-thinking New Zealanders who cannot for the life of us understand how anybody could harm a child on purpose. How could this be? The child harm prevention order is something that will be controversial for some. I make no apology for working with Minister Bennett on this area and I congratulate her on having the courage to bring this matter to the House.These orders aim to protect children from being abused or neglected by very high-risk adults. How many times have we heard of a child being killed or very seriously abused and then learnt that the perpetrator had a history of children in their care dying being killed or being seriously injured? How many times do we hear it and how many times are we going to hear it before this Parliament really does sit up take notice do something about it and do something to protect those children? What is more these orders are a very clear example of our commitment to keeping people safe and reducing crime because an ounce of prevention in this case is going to actually save a lifetime of misery particularly for a child.Currently available mechanisms do not always properly address the risk posed by some individuals. The tools either focus on a specific child or are too restrictive on the person whom they are imposed on. For example the Family Court can impose a restraining order to prevent an adult from residing with a specific child. In contrast child harm prevention orders will allow courts to restrict high-risk individuals from living working or associating with groups of children as well as with specific children. Another existing tool is extended supervision orders which can be used to monitor manage and recall serious offenders to prison. However extended supervision orders are applied only to people convicted of certain sexual offences. In contrast child harm prevention orders will be imposed by the High Court or the District Court where a person is convicted of specific offences against children or has been found on the balance of probabilities to have committed such an offence. The person must also be assessed as posing a high risk of causing serious harm to other children. The member who has resumed her seat quite rightly notes that that is a pretty tall order. This is a world-leading provision.I would like to run through some of the reasons why we would want to have that. It is partly because a dead child cannot say who has killed them. A smashed baby cannot say who has done anything. If we want to have an example of what happens when adults through all the fault of their own refuse to take responsibility let us just remember Chris and CruKāhui the little twins for whose murderous deaths nobody—nobody—has yet been convicted. Those children those babies could not say who killed them. Strangely enough no adult living in that home knew saw or heard anything. I can tell this House this for nothing: I would not let any of those adults look after my dog let alone a child ever because they are not fit to be anywhere near a child whether it is their child or anyone else’s. I do not care for a moment that they have not been convicted; I would not let them near them. I would be there taking them away.Each order though must be able to be reviewed and these will be regularly reviewed by a review panel and the District Court or the High Court. The orders will last up to 10 years and can be renewed at the end of that period. It is important and I think we should acknowledge that there may be something in someone’s life that for some reason means that they have abused a child—in other words they have taken those actions themselves and for which I hold them fully responsible. They may however turn their lives round. I believe in the power of redemption of people to change their lives to turn their lives round and to stop their behaviours. They will in fact be able to say: “Look I’m a better person now. I’ve learnt. I was under the influence of drugs or whatever but I have now owned my actions and I will not be doing that again.” They should be allowed to have that. I think that is in fact what gives these orders the ability to actually work. People can change their lives. But I am not silly enough or naive enough to believe that all people will change their lives.These child harm prevention orders are a very important way of protecting our vulnerable children. They demonstrate our commitment and they demonstrate the commitment of the Minister. So Minister Bennett I congratulate you. I believe that this bill is a bill that the select committee members will find very interesting and I hope they bring it back in as good condition as it is being sent. Thank you.Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):Namaste. Thank you very much for the opportunity to take a call in the first reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill which will be a very important bill in the series of important discussions in the Social Services Committee and indeed through the other stages of this bill. I accept what the Minister for Social Development said about her sincerity in bringing this bill to the House arising out of concern for our most vulnerable children and that this is not politics. I hope the Minister will accept in return that this side of the House also is very sincere in trying to find solutions to longstanding problems around vulnerable children and that the select committee will use all of its intelligence and all of the resources available to it to interrogate in depth what these proposals are about and whether or not they are likely to succeed. I hope that we will not rush through the process and that we will have the information we require and that the changes made to this bill will be as a consequence of collaborative discussion. So Minister you have our assurances on that.It is often said and worth repeating that a nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members and vulnerable children are certainly its weakest members. If we just use that quote as a standard then greatness in this particular area is not something we can be proud of. I guess we can all take responsibility for that. But it is worth reflecting on how we got this way. New Zealand has one of the oldest child welfare systems in the world. When Minnie Dean was killing off children in Winton—she was the last person to be hanged in New Zealand for murder—we immediately passed child protection legislation and then the Child Welfare Act. That Act stood until the 1970s. We have had a long experience of protecting children and promoting them.How is it that in the 21st century our performance is so bad? Why have we not been more successful in protecting our most vulnerable? It is not as if we have not had many policies. We have had policies for Africa. We have had new ideas for Africa. We have had new reports for Africa. We have had new programmes being developed all the years that I have worked in this particular field and yet they end up in this place. When reading this particular bill I have been looking to see what is missing and throughout the select committee process I hope we as a committee will look at that. I do not think grand plans will achieve the goals that the Minister has set and we accept that our children should not be placed in a vulnerable position.There are a number of things missing and we should confront those. We should try to seek explanations about what is missing from the proposals so that we can make the proposals more comprehensive. My colleague Jacinda Ardern referred to a number of these. The time has come for us to look sincerely at the needs of our children particularly our most vulnerable as comprehensively as possible from the perspective of what impacts on their development. I think sometimes this House takes the idea that this is a comprehensive plan far too readily without actually interrogating what that means. We have the signs we have the knowledge and we have the research to do it and understand it. There are textbooks in libraries full of this information about what provides children with the best start in life and what protects them from vulnerability. Yet much of what we do in our society works against those interests.Jacinda Ardern talked about poverty. You cannot talk about addressing the needs of vulnerable children without addressing that as well. Poor housing poor health communities that are suboptimal—all of that—[Interruption] I do not know what the member is interjecting about. If the member would like to listen and just carry on listening we might get to it. We are on the same select committee Mr Sabin and I think unless we reach a level of understanding of these points we are going to make the same mistakes again. I say to the member to please listen because we are sincere about the select committee doing this work well and that information is there. Maybe in that member’s life experiences he has not come across this material. Well many of us have and we intend to ask the officials to show us where those are. Unless those are addressed—Mike Sabin: Twelve years as a detective—never saw a thing happening in child abuse!Dr RAJEN PRASAD: That is the problem with the member. If this is what carries on then this is how the select committee will progress. Here the Minister has very sincerely put her agenda on the table and we are responding to that sincerely but Minister if that is the kind of response your colleagues will give us then I think the member might need to speak to you to say how you intend this to progress because we intend it to progress well. So the total environment I say to Mr Sabin also needs examination and unless we do that we will not have it. We can all talk about those things inside the home that make for a good place to develop children. But if the community in which they live is toxic if the policies that inform that are toxic and if our whole perspective on what happens to that subset of society is toxic and negative then nothing will happen. Mr Sabin that is precisely the environment from which many of these vulnerable children come. So I ask the member to just contemplate that.We are not here looking for short-term gains. We are not looking for something to suit our particular ideological agendas. We are looking for some real change. Members of the select committee ought to look at that in some detail. I ask then: is the package that we see here likely to make a real difference? Have we examined the programmes that we have introduced over the years comprehensively enough to see what it was about them that we missed? There was a time that this Parliament debated proposals justlike this and passed policies and laws that were designed to address these issues and yet we come back and we have to redo them again.We all know a lot about vulnerable children. Early identification is not the problem. In many many environments those children who are vulnerable are identified sometimes 1 week after they are born sometimes 1 week after they enter early childhood education or sometimes 1 week after they enter primary school. Yet many of those children end up on the negative side of the effects of that vulnerability. A lot of professionals see this. Why is it then that even when we identify those children even when we refer them somewhere in many many cases they end up being vulnerable? Well there is something missing in this and the bit that is missing is the question of the people who are actually working in these vulnerable environments and how they are trained. What is their expertise? In order to do that it actually requires a lot of expertise. That is a piece that is missing out of the considerations here. Even after you identify vulnerable children the work to get them to the point where they receive the services that they need where they make the personal changes that they need and where their families are just as they need to be is a very very expert set of activities yet the profession largely charged to do that is social work and the allied professions.But we do not have minimum standards for their training. We do not have compulsory registration for them. We do not have workforce planning and development. We do not know how many we need. Many many courses around the country have great standards and very poor standards. There are 2-year programmes and 4-year programmes. There are postgraduate programmes and certificate programmes. And yet somehow these professionals are entitled to enter into the lives of these vulnerable children in the hope of making some difference. So writing a coordinated policy amongst Government agencies is easy but actually making sure that those vulnerable children are serviced by competent people who will make a change is harder. This will flounder again unless we have the right people working with that. Mandatory registration of social workers is important so that we can guarantee to the vulnerable that those who will come to work with you will be competent whether they are in the statutory agencies or the voluntary agencies. We want to say to social work educators that it is time they understood well what is demanded of the profession and they should be resourced and positioned to deliver to us the social workers we need.The final point is that we need to know that we are producing sufficient numbers of them so that we have a workforce pipeline. In this area for as long as I can remember there has been nothing there. The Social Workers Registration Board has come up with a very well written report saying that social worker registration should now be compulsory. I think it is that missing link that has to be tied into this programme. We certainly will be asking officials to tell us what those figures are. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. The Green Party will be supporting the Vulnerable Children Bill to the Social Services Committee. We look forward to hearing from the experts and those with experience of these systems to guide us in our future vote. I would like to acknowledge the Minister for Social Development and the commitment that she has put inin terms of focusing on children in the work that she has done and acknowledge that this bill comes out of a good place and we can see that. I also acknowledge you Minister for the time that you have taken to brief us on this bill. With that said probably quite a bit of the content of my speech will now be raising concerns and issues that we will be wanting to look at in the select committee inquiry. I guess that is about good democratic process and about working together on these things in the future I hope.We certainly also have children at the heart of our concern and recognise that 152000 notifications every year are a sign of a real deep problem in this country. Athird of those are dealt with by Child Youth and Family and 22000 are substantiated through that process. I am sure that for all of us when we think about that we can have media stories that come to our minds or stories of people we know and the pictures and the faces of those children and we know where today in this process we are talking about their lives and their ability to be safe and grow into the people whom they would want to be. So it is incredibly important.I am compelled to point out that of the abuse in New Zealand 70 percent—and this has been pointed out by Child Matters and also in a different context by the police—of the abuse of children happens within the context of domestic violence. We will be looking and asking questions throughout the process to see whether those connections will work whether they are transparent and whether this system will respond to the reality of domestic violence and the tragic role that it plays in the abuse of children. For us at the moment it is not clear whether it will. In fact all too often we are hearing through people’s experiences of Child Youth and Family that in fact it is often working in the counter. So we will be definitely looking towards that.Improving the vulnerability of our children means measures that are aimed at protection from abuse and neglect; improving children’s physical mental cultural and emotional well-being; improving their education; strengthening their connections to familieswhānau iwi or other culturally recognised groups; increasing their participation in decision making in society; and improving their social and economic well-being. It is a big job if we are going to fix this. I think it is really important and I notice that the Minister has acknowledged that this bill is a small part of that work and that the Children’s Action Plan actually takes up an even bigger part of the Government’s agenda for this work. For us we need to be able to see those connections to be able to see how it is going to work. If we can see that the systems are being put in place and those systems need improving then we have to see that they are improving. Otherwise we are sending people into and fixing in systems that currently are we could say re-abusing.We also have a concern that the model suggested by this bill as it is at the moment does not look at the wider environmental impacts on children. Focusing on the individual and the State’s response to abuse potentially might undermine the well-being of children. We clearly need all of our Government policies to put children at the heart of them. Previously there have been several bills this year that have come before the House where there has been a refusal to put those clauses in. So that does create a sense of discomfort for us around that ability for the Government to actually really enact that across the board which is necessary for ensuring children’s safety.We also need to resource families and make it as easy as possible for them to get help when they are struggling. At the moment part of the result of the level of inequality in New Zealand is the distancing from the mainstream of people with the least and that has an impact in terms of people being able to get help and to create strength in their family when they are struggling. We also need to ensure that those helping systems we have are as robust as possible.Just last week the former Commissioner of Police Howard Broad released his review of the Child Youth and Family complaints system. He raised a number of concerns and for us that is really critical in terms of looking at this whole process. If we are going to be increasing referrals to Child Youth and Family and we are going to be setting up a cross-departmental group with that at the heart of it we need to know that that system is working and sadly at the moment there are a lot of concerns. In his report he noted that each child in State care is currently supposed to be visited by a responsible social worker on an 8-week rotation but doubts around compliance with that were raised because of the high levels of caseloads for social workers. Although this is a reallysignificant part of the defensive screen for child protection provided by the State at the moment even that is not happening at the moment. We are concerned about putting a whole lot more work into the system when the absolute fundamentals are not working—the children in State care have not got those protections working for them at the moment.We are also a bit worried that at the moment a lot of the information that is coming into Child Youth and Family in terms of the complaints and concerns is staying on the database as evidence which is locking in what turns out to be incorrect information. That needs to be sorted out as well. If we are particularly going to be making decisions around people’s suitability to be parents that are not based on court rulings we need to make sure that the information in the system is accurate. Concern around the evidence in court decisions was raised by former commissioner Howard Broad as well. At the moment those decisions are relying on social workers’ judgment and on the facts that they are bringing to the court. Currently I think they suggested that the process suffers frompredeterminable bias because of the reliance on that information and perhaps a lack of consistency from social workers across the board. So if we are going to be putting these systems in place we need to make sure that the evidentiary processes are solid and that the ability for the system to cope is sound because our children’s lives depend on it and at the moment we are worried and we are going to be looking to make sure that that is in there.I also just want to bring some people’s stories into this and recognise that we have a particular concern around the child harm protection order. I noted that the Minister of Justice spoke very passionately before about the importance of this particularly in relation to where there has not been a conviction and I cannot help but respond now on the basis of that Minister’s refusal to pick up the recommendations of the alternative pre-trial and trial hearings systems which mean that our justice system convicts only one in 100 sexual offenders. There was huge agreement right across sectors on significant aspects of that Law Commission work which could have improved that conviction rate. If we are talking about keeping children safe then we need to have a justice system that will deliver justice to those children before we remove anybody’s rights. This seems to be just saying: “Well the system does not deliver justice so we will work around that.” rather than fixing the problem.MELISSA LEE (National):Ahnnyung ha seyo. It is a great pleasure to rise to speak in the first reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill. The whole aim of the bill is to protect and improve the well-being of vulnerable children here in New Zealand especially in the area of reducing the number of assaults on our children. Too many of our children in New Zealand are seriously abused and neglected. In many cases of extreme abuse many people had a range of knowledge or some knowledge but no one in particular had pieced the whole together and hence the help was not actually available.This National-led Government is taking action to protect our children. New Zealanders asked us to do that and we are taking action and delivering on our promise. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister for Social Development who has done a great deal of work through the green paper consultation as well as the white paper consultation right throughout New Zealand. I have actually witnessed her speaking at many many public events. I congratulate her on the development of this bill and on bringing it to the House. I will welcome the submissions from the public and I look forward to the robust debate that will happen at the Social Services Committee.Sitting here listening to members from right across the House and seeing their passion I see that we are all focused on our children and I am very glad to see that. Iwas sitting here looking at the plaques on our walls and remembering that our forebears fought for this country to make sure that New Zealand was left in a better condition was in better hands and was better developed for the future of our children. When I hear that more than 50 children have died in the last 5 years in this country—and the Minister of Justice actually quoted this—and that two children are hospitalised every 5 days I wonder what our forebears would think about where New Zealand is right now in terms of the way we treat our children. Our children are the most vulnerable people and yet there are people in this country who maim kill and hurt innocent children who cannot even respond to that kind of abuse. They cannot even say who hurt them.This bill will result in two new Acts: the Vulnerable Children Act and the Child Harm Prevention Orders Act. It also amends the Children Young Persons and Their Families Act 1989 and the KiwiSaver Act 2006. This bill is about reinforcing the need for shared responsibility and about taking coordinated and collaborative action across the Government’s social services sector to better protect vulnerable children and to help ensure that our children are safe with those who work with them.When children come into contact with people who have bad things in their heads in terms of the outcomes for those children we have the responsibility to stop those people to protect our children and to make sure that those children have a future—the future that we all come in here as members of Parliament to provide for this country. We committed to halt the rise in the number of children who are physically abused and to reduce the current number 5 percent by 2017 as part of our Better Public Services target. We are absolutely—absolutely—committed to this goal and we are determined to build a safer environment for all vulnerable children.I am very glad that members right across the House are in support of this bill. I know that members have talked about the issues of poverty and some members have talked about how poverty actually affects the outcomes for children. I echo the Minister of Justice’s comment: poverty is no excuse for the abuse of our children. This Government has actually spent a lot of money to try to better the outcomes for people who are poor so that we can actually assist them in providing better conditions for their families.Over the past 4½ years 215000 families have been able to access Government grants to insulate their homes so that their houses are not cold and so that children do not end up with rheumatic fever colds and flu. We are on track to finish insulating every State house that is capable of being insulated by the end of this year. We are also providing more places in early childhood education for the children who need it the most and we are especially targeting funding to ensure that vulnerable children are enrolled in early childhood education. It is in fact vulnerable children who do not end up in early childhood education and we want to make sure that they are in early childhood education. We have put money into that and we are making sure of that.We have also improved immunisation rates for children. Often people say that poor people cannot afford immunisation. Well we are providing it. Under National 93 percent of 2-year-olds are fully immunised and that is a great result to boast about I believe. Doctors visits at any time of the day or night are free for all under-sixes.The Government has funded 149 extra social workers in low-decile schools and an additional 96 social workers have been added to the Child Youth and Family front line. We also know that the effects of the global recession were hardest on those with the lowest income so we took action to soften the sharpest edges of the recession. We did that by protecting Working for Families payments and increasing them this year by legislating consumer price index increases to benefit levels by lowering income tax rates across the board by raising the minimum wage every year since we have been in Government by overseeing the slowest rate of increase to the cost of living in 12 years and by increasing wage rates.There is a lot more that we can actually do and that is why we have this legislation in the House today. We are working on a care strategy for children in State care. We have the Child Protect line and the Vulnerable Kids Information System and we are increasing the pool of iwi caregivers. Anybody who works in Government with children will be screened and vetted and I welcome that. This measure will affect around 376000 workers and I am sure that some of them will think that that is very cumbersome. I am sure that some will even complain that they should not be vetted at all.Anyone with a serious conviction will be permanently restricted from working closely with children. We will introduce child harm prevention orders which can be placed on adults who pose a serious risk to children to prevent them from ever interacting with children. We are getting tough on people who abuse children. Where abusive parents go on to have further children they will have to prove that they are fit parents. I know that that can be quite controversial in some sectors but we must protect our children because often those children who have been hurt abused and even killed have been abused neglected and killed by those people who are closest to them—often their families—and we must do everything we can to protect our children.I think that this is a fantastic bill that the Minister for Social Development has brought to the House. I look forward to the select committee process and I commend this bill to the House.Le’aufa’amuliaASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First): Talofa lava greetings andtēnā koutou katoa. I rise to speak to the first reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill on behalf of New Zealand First. When the lives and the rights of children are at stake there must be no silent witnesses. There must be no silent witnesses. It is our duty as politicians decision makers policy makers and legislation makers to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected against harm and from those who inflict it. I commend the Minister for Social Development for the efforts that you have put through in this bill. Unfortunately it so happens that in our New Zealand society the term “vulnerable” is too often associated with our children.The bill has a number of objectives to be commended as it aims to No. 1 reinforce the need for shared responsibility and coordinated and collaborative action across the Government’s social service sector to better protect vulnerable children. This collaborative effort will see the police justice the Minister of Health the Minister of Education the Minister for Social Development and the chief executive officers be held accountable for protecting and improving the lives of vulnerable children. I think that is a very good thing. No. 2 it will help ensure children are safe with those who work with them. This intends to address the issue of having paedophiles or people with a history of an abusive nature come near vulnerable children who should never be allowed to. No. 3 is to minimise the risk of future harm posed by those who have abused children in the past and in doing so ensure the safety of children from adults who have previously had a child or young person permanently removed from their care due to abuse or neglect or where the adult has been convicted of murder manslaughter or infanticide of a child in his or her care. There have been many cases in recent months in this situation.The bill seeks to enhance the response to children who have already been abused or neglected. Given the recently released devastating records of children being re-abused in the care of Child Youth and Family one would expect a thorough process this time. Although this Government’s response to these issues is positive we cannot forget that it is a delayed response—a delayed response warranted by recent cases often resulting in the fatalities of many New Zealand children. It is unfortunate that the victims in thesecases did not have a reasonable response of preventable measures set out at the time to protect them from such devastating harm.New Zealand First was fully aware of this issue. That is why a bill was developed and submitted which was pulled out of the members’ ballot on 6 December last year. It should therefore be mentioned that the New Zealand First bill in my name the Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill is the first step towards protecting our vulnerable children in New Zealand. It is rather odd that the Vulnerable Children Bill has been swiftly drafted for its first reading in the House when the New Zealand First bill has been waiting for its first reading for many months now. The Sentencing (Protection of Children from Criminal Offending) Amendment Bill was formulated some time before today’s bill to address the very issues that this Vulnerable Children Bill intends to remedy and more. Furthermore my bill also aims to properly address the way in which New Zealand deals with criminals who continue to ignore the rights of our children to safe and secure environments as well as contain deterrents to prevent future criminal activity from occurring. It is for these reasons that I sincerely hope that the Government will support our bill when the time comes for its first reading.There are key changes within the Vulnerable Children Bill. It will dramatically alter the judicial system as we see it today. There will be two principal Acts. One is the Vulnerable Children Act and the second is the Child Harm Prevention Orders Act. It is important that the bill has exhausted all evidence to suggest that the two principal Acts are absolute justified and provide no room for error. Key changes in this bill include a number of areas. First of all it requires chief executives to work together to produce and report on the Vulnerable Children’s Plan. New Zealand First supports a cross-agency approach. We recognise the need to have a better-coordinated and collaborative system put in place to address issues concerned with vulnerable children. We also recognise the importance of accountability placed on these agencies in achieving results for vulnerable children. However what we need to see is a transparent plan that sets out how these performance targets will be demonstrated and evaluated. I sincerely hope that the Minister could give that some consideration.Recently the Minister announced that the first two Children’s Teams had been established in Rotorua and Whangarei. The design of these two teams is driven by the communities they serve. With two demonstration sites in place it is important to see the differences these teams will make in assisting vulnerable children in New Zealand. A Vulnerable Children’s Board is already established so what accountability measures are in place for this board? Is there a risk of shifting the blame from one agency to another? These are some of the questions we want to ask from the teams to the board: who at the end will be accountable and where is the transparent plan to show how this structure will succeed?The bill seeks to have State services put in place policies containing provisions for the identification and reporting of child abuse and neglect. Although New Zealand First finds this an integral part of the reporting system we are yet to see what the provisions will be and whether enough focus has been placed on making sure that staff of State services are adequately trained to recognise abuse when it occurs. We do not want to run the risk of false accusations or neglecting to see when abuse is occurring. It is important that the code of practice for working with children which is being developed for professionals working with children is one that will appropriately provide guidelines for professionals. It is also vital that training is provided in conjunction with the code.No. 3 is new safety standard checks for employers in the Government and Government-funded children’s workforce. This means that over 370000 employeeswould be screened and vetted. In addition there will be the implementation of a permanent restriction on people with serious convictions being able to work closely with children. New Zealand First recognises the importance of having in place these appropriate safety measures when it comes to protecting children. At an estimated cost of $200000 every 3 years there will be no argument against the reduction of child abuse in our society. There is no doubt that early and appropriate intervention is crucial in preventing the abuse of children. The restrictions suggest the immediate dismissal of employees found to have serious convictions from working in roles in the core children’s workforce. We would query though whether this is to be extended to those suspected of untoward actions against children.There are many areas in this bill that we would like the select committee to consider. This is probably one of the reasons why New Zealand First will only support this bill going to the select committee at this time because we do have a number of concerns that we hope the select committee will consider and we hope that an opportunity will be provided to the wider public of New Zealand to either submit or comment on the bill in order for us to be satisfied that the bill will deliver the outcomes that New Zealand First believes New Zealand deserves. The bill comes with really great intentions Minister—I must reiterate that. I do believe that we are on the right track. You know it is a step in the right direction of addressing this very serious and very important issue in our country. Thank you.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): I too rise and congratulate the Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett on bringing the Vulnerable Children Bill to the House and of course on the considerable amount of work that has gone on behind the scenes but also publicly in putting this together. There is nothing like talking to and hearing from those on the front line both in Government departments and those who work in the NGO sector and also privately. I know too that the Minister has spent a lot of time talking to families who have been on the receiving end of tragic news and also families who want to help out particularly those who want to adopt or take children into their homes at a level perhaps below adoption but caring for them just as intensely and proactively.This bill is part of a series of measures that the National Government is putting together to provide wraparound care for those in this country who are not cared for. Too many New Zealand children are abused and put in difficult stressful and physically harmful circumstances. I would like to take the time to repeat some statistics that have been put about publicly. First of all more than 50 children have died in the last 5 years because of extreme abuse. You cannot get more extreme than death. Because of abuse a child under 2 is hospitalised every 5 days—an extraordinary statistic. Every year Child Youth and Family substantiates 22000 cases of physical sexual or emotional abuse and neglect. Those are not just reported cases; they are substantiated cases. That is something that clearly this House has given a lot of thought to given the fact that there is considerable cross-party support for this piece of legislation.In terms of the main provisions of the bill I think the one that is highlighted for me is requiring chief executives from across Government departments and agencies to work together to put together a plan that addresses the whole issue of vulnerable children and children who could be exposed to abuse. But not just putting together a plan; those chief executives are held to account on exactly how that plan is progressing and what results they are getting. That is so important so that changes can be made—tweaks—or if required they can stop doing something and replace it with something else more successful. The bill will require the ministries of social development education health and justice and the police to have policies in place as a ministry across the country to ensure that child abuse is reported is identified and is acted upon.I find that particularly interesting because to some it might seem like a Wellington approach with chief executives settled here in Wellington and ministries based here in Wellington but in fact this will affect those front-line staff out in the regions. Although we have this bill underpinning the Children’s Action Plan at a ministerial level at a chief executive level and a ministry level the reality is that we have examples in Rotorua at the moment and in Whangarei where in the regions staff on the front line are working together—the front line for TePuniKōkiri for the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment for district health boards for the police for education departments and of course for the local courts. We are seeing in Rotorua and Whangarei a coming together of minds and strategies in making sure that information is shared and that child abuse is brought to a head is reported and is acted on.I gladly commend this piece of legislation to the House. I support it and look forward to the select committee process where we can hear from those on the front line and can add to it and make it even better. May I congratulate the Minister.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I take a call on the Vulnerable Children Bill. I want to begin by acknowledging the work of the Minister for Social Development and by saying that no one doubts or challenges the motives or objects that sit behind this bill. There is no question that we in New Zealand have a serious problem when it comes to the safety well-being and health of our children. Both the Minister for Social Development and the Minister of Justice have spoken on this bill and they are entitled to be supported in improving the protection and standing of children in New Zealand today. Some would say it is overdue and I agree with that sentiment.It is easy to pass off violence to children as sickness stress or some other sort of cause but the reality is that the youngest children in our country—our most vulnerable—are being beaten up killed and savaged at the hands of adults and that is never acceptable. The track record we have in New Zealand is a bad one and it is time to do something about it. So I acknowledge the work that the Minister has done and the consultation that has taken place to arrive at a set of measures that have as their intention and their objective the protection of children. Nothing less will do or is acceptable.But I want to sound a note of caution. This House is faced with a lot of legislation now that has as its purpose the restriction of others’ freedom in the name of public safety. We have this bill we have the next such bill on the Order Paper and we have legislation like the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. They are all well intended all well meaning but we are being asked to legislate for processes that limit freedom stigmatise and have the power to be seen as punishment. Even though the explanatory note of the bill says that no punishment is intended with the civil orders that the bill provides for the reality is that they do punish because they restrict access not only to children but to family events and other things as well. When we are faced with that legislation then we in this House are obliged to proceed with caution—and that is not about protecting the abusers the damagers the hitters and thesmashers. It is not about protecting the violent and sadistic. It is about protecting the innocent.We do not protect the vulnerable by convicting and shaming the innocent. There will be obvious targets of the measures in this bill—the child harm prevention orders—but as we lower the thresholds that justify the granting of these orders then others come into the frame and others have to defend themselves. As we lower those thresholds we raise the risk of injustice because the reality is that our courts are not perfect and they do get things wrong. Well-meaning but zealous social workers Government officials and the chief executives of the departments who can apply for these orders can get things wrong.There are difficult and awkward people in our communities—some would describe them as misfits—who fit a set of prejudices and stereotypes but who are not child abusers. They might be the victims of misunderstanding and misapprehension and become the target of applications such as these. When as clause 48 provides an application can be based not only on past convictions but on the applicant’s belief—that is one of the qualifying chief executives—on reasonable grounds that a respondent has committed a qualifying offence we are going into territory that might suit the civil jurisdiction but might actually be more related to what is criminal. That is when the alarm bells should go off.That is not a reason to oppose the bill—certainly at this stage—but it is a reason to be alert to the potential for getting it wrong and to ask whether the safeguards we have built up over many years to protect the innocent are being afforded their proper place in this legislation. Let the criminal justice system do its part punishing offenders and those who do wrong those who beat up and smash our children—let them be dealt with in that sort of way. Let us protect children from those with a track record of offending. Let us have meaningful measures to deal with those who may not have been convicted but about whom there is evidence that they are unsafe around children. But the obligation on this House—and I say this in light of the speech by the Minister of Justice—is to rise above the emotional outrage that is easy to bring to bear on an issue such as this the emotional outrage that is easy to bring to bear on the extreme cases that we know about normally when there is a conviction.We must keep our focus on the objects of this bill and remember our obligation to all citizens including those who might be described as misfits the awkward the personality disordered and the slightly socially maladjusted who will not be child abusers but who can easily win that allegation and that sobriquet. I simply sound that note of caution. When we come to examine this bill let us make sure that the object of the bill is to protect the most vulnerable in our community—actually I think the Minister is right; those to whom this House ought to give absolute priority when it comes to protection—but let us in this House also make sure that we do not subject innocent citizens to unnecessary shame and ridicule and the expense of a process for which there is no justification to submit them to.I want to make the point—because we sometimes find it uncomfortable to talk about social morality in this House—that we do live in a permissive society. We do have young people who are exposed to the demands of adulthood whether it is choices about alcohol drugs and sex at an early age and at an earlier age than perhaps was the case 30 40 or 50 years ago. We do have in our prisons and in our youth centres teenage boys who have committed sexual offences not because they are child abusers but because they have taken risks and made decisions usually under the influence of alcohol or drugs and committed what are sexual crimes against under-age girls or young women. They are not boys or young men who are predestined to a life of criminal offending; they have just done dumb things made wrong choices or taken silly risks. In our quest to protect as we should children and the most vulnerable we have to make sure that this bill does not consign those people to a life where they cannot have their own families and lead a family life.It is important when we consider these important issues and issues of legislation that do encroach on rights and freedoms that we proceed with our eyes open that we proceed with caution and that we proceed on the basis that we understand the limitations and the restrictions that we are imposing and placing on people. We recognise that there is that tension. We recognise what the paramount objective is. We recognise our responsibility to all citizens. On that basis there is no question that wesupport the objects of the bill and we look forward to good and effective scrutiny of those important measures when it goes before the Social Services Committee.ALFRED NGARO (National): The member who has just taken his seat Andrew Little has raised some issues of concern and we would agree that when we look at the Vulnerable Children Bill we need to be mindful of that. But I rise to take a call and I want to actually state that this is more than just legislation. The reason I say that is that in 2011 when the Minister for Social Development undertook to consult with the New Zealand public this is what she said in her ministerial foreword: “Welcome to the single most important debate this country can have. It’s about New Zealand’s most vulnerable children; about how we care for and protect them the trade-offs and sacrifices we’re prepared to make and the opportunities we want them to have. It’s about how we ensure every child thrives belongs and achieves.” I want to state that because we can look at this as just one part of the legislation in which we are participating and wanting to pass through into the select committee work that we will have but I think we could miss the point. Those New Zealanders who are out there need to hear that this is a vision statement that has been set by this Government in particular by the Minister. Hence the reason it has the support of the majority of the parties that are here—because all of us would agree that this is an important issue.I think it is important that that vision statement in the consultation document that went out set out four key planks that I think are really important. What is important is that the process is equal to the end result. The integrity of a process is equal to its process in ensuring that what has been heard by the public is followed through with the recommendations. So here are the four key planks of the consultation document from July 2011 to 2012. It stated that in addressing the issues of vulnerable children it is about shared responsibilities. In other words it is not just about Government; it is about parents and caregivers. It is about the services that are in our communities and ensuring that they deliver the best possible services. It is about showing leadership. As a Government we show leadership by having a Children’s Action Plan. So from the consultation document which is a green paper to the white paper here is the leadership that this Government is making. It is about legislation changes. So we are here today in the first reading of the Vulnerable Children Bill to discuss the legislation changes but I do not want people to miss the overall vision under which we are trying to address the issues that are affecting our children who are vulnerable. It is also about working withwhānau withhapū with iwi and with our Māori leaders as well.There are two other things that are important. The plan talks about child-centred policy—in other words it is about reviewing the Government’s spend and allocation. And lastly it is talking about child-centred practice—in other words what are the best practices that are delivered to improve the conditions of children. Here is where it becomes really important. What the Government is saying and what the Minister is saying in particular is this: we cannot expect changes in our communities in the services we deliver to them and also to our families and our vulnerable children unless we as a Government department are willing to change ourselves. In other words the changes also need to come from the inside out. It is a whole-of-system approach.I finally want to respond to and just acknowledge Jacinda Ardern and Mr Prasad when they talked about needing to take a broader perspective. I look forward to our Social Services Committee where we can talk about a number of the measures in which we as a Government are addressing that. I want to just finish off by saying this. It is one thing to talk about the outputs. We can talk about the investment and the spend that we are making. We can talk about some of the shifts and changes we are making. We can tick them off as outputs. But what will really be telling—what truly will make the difference—are the transformational outcomes and I think we are going to see those.What we are going to see and we look forward to the debate is where we sit down we see the investment that we have made we see the whole-of-system change that is taking place but most important we ask whether we can track it according to the narrative of change—transformational change—that is happening in the whole system all the way down to our vulnerable children as well. That is what I look forward to. I know that New Zealanders are looking forward to the debate. We look forward to the submissions and also to the opportunity in the select committee. I really look forward to more than just this legislation; I look forward to the ongoing vision that this Minister has for our vulnerable children and our families in Aotearoa. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Phil Twyford; 5 minutes.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—TeAtatū): I want to note the very serious tone and genuine spirit of collaboration that I have observed in this debate and what seems to be a commitment across the House to really look for solutions and to try to find agreement. I have got no doubt that at the Social Services Committee there will be an earnest effort to test the provisions in the Vulnerable Children Bill to improve them where possible and to give the bill serious scrutiny.I want to devote my time—rather than rehearse the provisions in the bill and the things that colleagues have already covered—to addressing some comments to Part 1 in the bill “Cross-agency measures” and in particular clause 6. This is one of the core provisions in the bill. It is about establishing the Government’s priorities for improving the well-being of vulnerable children and ensuring that children’s agencies work together to improve the well-being of vulnerable children. The House can see that in clause 6 there is a list of measures aimed at this purpose including protecting children from abuse and neglect improving education and training increasing participation in decision making about them and so on and then finally in that list of things improving their social and economic well-being.The question I have is whether or not that final item—in the shopping list of measures there that could shape the Government’s priorities under this part of the bill—is there simply as a token gesture and whether it is there as a kind of an afterthought. I ask that question because when the Minister of Justice spoke she devoted most of her contribution to trying to rubbish the straw man—that somehow she said members on this side of the House were suggesting that poverty should be some kind of excuse for child abuse. That was the main rhetorical flourish of Judith Collins’ speech. A number of other members on the National benches have continued in the same vein including Melissa Lee and Alfred Ngaro.The first thing I want to say is that no one on this side of the House thinks that poverty is an excuse for child abuse—no one does. I have never heard anyone say that and certainly not in this debate. That is a total straw man. The reason that I want to focus on it is that it is very revealing about the National mind-set on issues of poverty welfare and social development including child abuse and vulnerable children. It is very revealing about the National mind-set that this is such a big issue for them. Although poverty is not an excuse for the abuse of children members on that side of the House must recognise that there is an overwhelming correlation between crime and poverty and that the perpetrators and the victims of crime in this country and in any other country that I have ever come across are drawn from the poorest and the most disadvantaged members of our society.It is not just poverty; it is inequality as well. The comparative data on inequality is very very clear. The social determinants of ill health also apply to mental health imprisonment teenage pregnancy violent crime and the abuse of children. Is it some kind of coincidence that we are a gold medallist nation when it comes to abusing our children and we are one of the most unequal societies in the Western World? This iswhy National members have no intention of ever tackling the root causes of the vulnerability of children. They are locked into a mind-set that cannot contemplate the more challenging task of actually addressing the inequality and poverty that is such a hallmark of New Zealand society. It is social factors that cause people to brutalise and neglect their children. It is not an excuse it does not let individuals off the hook and as far as I am concerned you can throw the book at them.I totally support the intention in this bill to improve procedures and regulations but as my colleague Jacinda Ardern outlined this will always be a partial and selective approach unless the Government is willing to contemplate—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Time has expired.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker.Tēnā koutou katoa. I am pleased to follow the previous speaker Phil Twyford and I applaud his courage in naming that issue. I think it is important that we talk about the whole issue of vulnerable children in a holistic way. The Green Party is supporting the Vulnerable Children Bill to the Social Services Committee because we want the debate and we do appreciate the Minister for Social Development coming and giving us a good briefing on the issues. That gave us an opportunity to have a dialogue and to raise with the Minister some of the concerns that we do have and there are some specific issues that I will cover.Above and beyond all that the question that is raised for me is why we are so violent as a society. Why when Sue Bradford put up the section 59 legislation—which most parliamentarians supported—were there death threats howls of violence and parents writing to us saying “These children are our property and we have the right to beat them or hit them if we want to.”? That was depressing and revealing at the same time but what it tells me is that violence is not just restricted to the 25 or so dreadful individuals a year who commit murder against children but also permeates our society. As a society we do not have a respectful attitude towards children. It was horrific to see the death threats about children as property that came out in the section 59 debate. Children are not our property and until we change not only the behaviour of offenders and potential offenders but the consciousness of a whole society towards the real value of children and their mothers who are also often subjected to the same violence no bill—no matter how well intentioned and this one is—will change that.We have got a lot of work to do. I do not think this House is a big part of the problem. I think we are willing to try to find solutions—some of us most of us—but we do have to acknowledge the complex matrix that has led us to being one of the most violent societies in the world. Violence cannot be solved through violence so we need to take a hard look at what this is all about. There are no excuses for violence against anyone let alone children. There are reasons why it has become a pandemic in our society and those are the tough issues that we absolutely have to face.So I draw my attention back to the bill. We do think that the relationship between child abuse and domestic violence cannot be separated. One of the reasons we are still concerned about what this bill misses is the economic vulnerability of women in violent relationships. The DPB was created so that women and children could be safe. In other laws in this Parliament where the welfare system has become based on sanctions women do not have the same opportunity to escape violent relationships if they are going to be taken into even greater poverty. The problem that these women and these children face is that we need holistic and consistent support for women and children so that violence is not their only reality and that they have genuine and real options. This bill addresses a number of specific situations but does not take on that really tough issue—where do these women and children go? Will they just go underground now because otherwise they will be in trouble? Potentially mothers could lose their childrenand Child Youth and Family could become more bureaucratic. So we want these issues addressed at the select committee. We appreciate the effort that is being made by all sides of the House to address these issues but we are really concerned.We applaud the idea of cross-department cooperation but we do not want it to lead to more bureaucracy more reporting and more statistics when what we need is not a top-down but a bottom-up change of consciousness towards this as well. I am interested in what the relationship is betweenWhānau Ora and this bill. What is the relationship between what the Minister forWhānau Ora Tariana Turia said which was that the Child Youth and Family system can never work for our families—she wanted to try something new—and how that relates to this bill? I want to see that.Whānau Ora was trying to healwhānau through self-determination versus the idea that bureaucracies and Government departments with more powers will solve this issue.I think that the member Rajen Prasad made a very good analysis of the challenge of social workers who are not always skilled—and as someone who has tutored social workers I know what he is talking about—in terms of dealing with the complexity of issues that they are confronted with. So we do have concerns about a number of things. We have concerns about the child harm prevention orders in terms of monitoring and spouse manipulation and also this issue of the balance of probabilities. We think that people need escape paths from violence. We did try to talk to the Minister about what has happened to the Ministry of Social Development and the law the Social Security Act around women and options to escape from violence. We do think those issues are intimately connected with child abuse and domestic violence.We do believe that when women and children are at the heart of not only social welfare legislation but also economic legislation then we will see change in this country. When women and children are the basis for the decision making around bills to do with the economy rather than being sidelined into social welfare we may see change. At the moment we are supporting the bill. We will continue to do that.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am pleased to take the last call on the Vulnerable Children Bill. I also want to join in commending the Minister for Social Development not only for this bill but also for the work that she has done right through the green paper and white paper process.I want to cover off just a few points because most of it has already been traversed. This has been an issue where the can has been kicked down the road year upon year for many many years. I remember the inquiry into JamesWhakaruru back in 1999 the abhorrence that New Zealanders expressed at that stage and the conversations that have gone on since. The conversations have amounted to a whole lot of hui and not much do-ey as far as I am concerned. While that has been happening over 50 children a year have been dying often at the hands of those whom they most rely on for their existence and protection: their caregivers and their parents. What I saw in the Minister’s efforts to actually make a substantial action-focused approach to this was the fact that she went out to the grassroots and she developed bottom-up ownership of this issue. Out there in the community not here in the halls of Parliament people actually know what is going on and they know where the deficits are. They know the cracks through which these children are falling notwithstanding the fact that so many agencies are often involved in the cases of children who are most often abused and who end up dying.We have heard the argument raised and I commend the fact that all members across this House believe that we need to come together and put the politics to one side to resolve the issues but I will not stand here and accept it when members turn this conversation into one about what they say is “poverty”. There are many many families in this country who are in challenging financial situations for a variety of reasons andwho do not beat their children and do not sexually violate them because of the fact that they may not earn what their neighbour does. The thing that really gets me—Iain Lees-Galloway: Try listening Mike. For once in your life try listening.MIKE SABIN: —and which comes from members like that member over there—is that they will sit there and wax lyrical as they have for year upon year as this can has been kicked further down the road and yet they will oppose every effort that this Government makes to actually do what is most important in ensuring that families have more ability to spend the money. If they raise the argument that it is about poverty then why vote against every effort to actually grow the economy? If it is about jobs then why vote against every effort that this Minister and this Social Services Committee have put in place to ensure that the focus for those who do not have work is on getting work and having the skills and the attitude to get into work?When I interviewed offenders who had abused raped and murdered children not once did they say to me: “Oh well sir the reason I have committed this offence is that I am living in poverty.” No it was because they were living in a situation where they had seen their parents and their parents’ parents doing that. It was because they had lived in an environment where they had no education no quality and no prospects for a future—again efforts in those areas that that party will vote against; our efforts to make sure that the one in five who are not succeeding actually have a chance to succeed—and it was because of substance abuse. I will bet the House that there are plenty of members on that side who are quite happy—in fact Iain Lees-Galloway is one—to see some more liberal approaches to what we see around drugs and alcohol.Those were the reasons that members opposite raised. Those were the reasons. If the members on that side are genuinely concerned about the children of New Zealand then they should stop voting against bills that are about ensuring that the economy grows and stop voting against bills that are about ensuring that people on welfare are given the opportunity to get into work because otherwise those arguments are disingenuous.This bill provides an important fabric and a vehicle for change and it does it for two reasons. It does it because it provides leadership and accountability a top-down process which ultimately through theViKi system the Vulnerable Kids Information System provides a bottom-up synchromesh with the vehicle of accountability and the direction that must come from a cohesive collaborate cross-government approach. When you join the top down with the bottom up you get a result.I commend this bill. I commend the work of the Minister. My challenge to those on the select committee is to not play politics but to actually deal with what this bill is dealing with. We will then look forward to seeing you supporting us in growing the economy and bills that support that.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Social Services Committee.Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform BillFirst ReadingHon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I moveThat the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill be now read a first time. I nominate that this bill be referred to the Commerce Committee. This bill forms part of the package of reforms that are being progressed by this Government that are designed to promote confidence in our financial markets including the market for consumer credit. Rewriting the rules for consumer lending was one of the Government’s pre-election promises and forms an important part of the Business Growth Agenda which aims toboost confidence and trust in our financial markets. I am pleased to say that the Government is continuing to deliver on its promises.The Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act came into force in 2003. It has since been reviewed and was found to be generally working well in promoting competition and protecting consumers. However the review has also identified that some lenders have irresponsible lending practices and that some consumers are making poor decisions. This contributes to the dreadful cases of spiralling debt and financial hardship amongst vulnerable consumers that many of us see in our communities.Consumer credit is important and it is vital to the New Zealand economy. The consumer credit market must be effective and competitive to work effectively and in a way that meets the standards expected by all New Zealanders. Lenders must act responsibly and there needs to be appropriate protection in place for consumers especially for consumers who are vulnerable to lenders that are predatory or unscrupulous. Vulnerable consumers often have limited financial literacy and lack knowledge of their rights. We know that unfortunately all sorts of people can be vulnerable because they lack financial literacy. We also know that people who are facing tough financial times and need credit for essential items have fewer options and are more vulnerable than other consumers. Borrowers with a limited understanding of the English language are particularly vulnerable.Regarding disclosure one of the explanations for poor consumer decisions on credit is that the current disclosure requirements and rules are not providing sufficient protection especially for the more vulnerable consumers at the lower end of the consumer credit market. There is evidence that consumers tend to be overly optimistic about their ability to repay a loan or that lending decisions are made based on poor use of the information that consumers do possess. The true cost of credit including costs such as bank fees default fees and default interest tends not to factor in the decision-making processes for many consumers. Another issue is that these fees are not disclosed in a way that enables ready comparisons between different loan products by consumers before they enter into the credit contract. To address this the bill improves disclosure requirements and increases the value of information available so that consumers can better compare credit contracts and make more fully informed decisions.This bill is about protecting vulnerable consumers. Improvements to disclosure are not on their own or of themselves enough to change lending practices and provide protection for vulnerable consumers within our society. The bill introduces responsible lending. Lenders providing credit to consumers will have a duty to exercise reasonable care skill and diligence just like anyone else providing a service to consumers. Responsible lending means assisting borrowers to make informed decisions and to be aware of the implications of the obligations that they are entering into. The principles in the bill are intended to be complemented by a responsible lending code reflecting industry best practice. The code will provide guidance on the application of the lender responsibility principles and lenders and interested consumer groups will be consulted on the development of the responsible lending code so the code should have a high degree of community and industry buy in.Regarding credit repossession credit repossession is currently regulated by the Credit (Repossession) Act 1997. This Act provides minimal consumer protection. Repossession involves the right to enter somebody’s property and take their goods whether or not they are at home. Borrowers whose home can be legally broken into so that their goods can be taken are particularly vulnerable and they are seldom in a position to enforce their rights. Improvements to the regime for credit repossession include providing the Commerce Commission with a monitoring and enforcement rolerestricting goods subject to repossession and providing for the licensing of repossession agents.Finally the bill makes some changes to the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act. It removes the requirement for a reserve dispute resolution scheme. The purpose of the reserve scheme was to ensure that dispute resolution schemes were available to all financial service providers including lenders. With the approval of a number of other schemes a reserve scheme receiving funding from the Government is now no longer necessary. The bill also addresses misuse of the Financial Service Providers Registrar by providing additional powers for the Registrar of Financial Service Providers and Financial Advisers and the Financial Markets Authority and disqualifying persons with certain overseas criminal convictions from registration. This will deal with the risk of overseas-based financial service providers registering in New Zealand for purely reputational reasons.To conclude I would like to take this opportunity to thank the many many stakeholders involved in formulating this bill and getting this legislation to where it is today. Thank you also to the Law Commission for its work on the Credit (Repossession) Act. The commission undertook a very thorough review of the Credit (Repossession) Act and virtually all of its 58 recommendations have been adopted in this bill. Lastly I would like to thank the stakeholders who have contributed to the development of the reforms through the various consultation processes including the exposure draft late last year. I am looking forward to future stakeholder engagement through their submissions to the select committee.It is important to ensure that consumer laws are relevant and work as intended. The reforms in this bill need to be workable for all parties involved. We need to ensure that New Zealand is a country of informed borrowers and responsible lenders. The reforms contained in the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill will deliver a welcome improvement to the current consumer credit legislation in New Zealand reinforcing consumer protections under Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and providing greater consistency across the financial sector. I commend this bill to the House.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is with mixed emotion that I rise to speak on the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. I campaigned hard over several years along with my colleagues to stop loan sharks and to improve regulation of consumer credit as part of what was needed. Although Labour is supporting this bill’s referral to the Commerce Committee because it does finally at least make some improvements in regulating consumer credit including third-tier lending or fringe-lending or predatory lending—depending on your point of view—where significant harm is being done every day to many vulnerable families we are appalled by the significant delay in action by the National Government. So anger is one of the emotions I feel and I know this is widely shared.Many people have asked the question as to why the Government has not prioritised this legislation. It has been clear for over 5 years that the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act needed reviewing and strengthening. Labour in Government started a process in 2007 and here we are in late 2013 finally seeing a bill having its first reading. What can possibly justify this delay especially in the tough economic times we are experiencing like those faced by many low and middle income New Zealanders under this National Government? What can possibly justify this delay?In tough economic times the harm caused by predatory lenders loan sharks truck shops and pay-day lenders is huge and has grown significantly. Families struggle to make ends meet with low or static incomes and rising prices and unemployment remains high. This is fertile ground for unscrupulous lenders and we need to have someaction. I have visited budget services around New Zealand and the workers there have told me overwhelmingly that the people they see are hooked into some form of high-interest debt. They say that it has been getting worse over recent years. They tell me the level of debt is higher. They tell me that the complexity of the financial problems that they are trying to sort is greater and that the proportion of people they see who are in paid work has actually increased.Members of the community those in our community organisations our citizens advice bureaux our law centres and MPs—I am sure from both sides of the House—hear these stories and they see the truck shops rattling around the low-income areas in their communities. They see the targeting of our poorer communities by these lenders. They see too the advertisements online and in our community newspapers and they do not like what they see. They know it is wrong and yet National members have sat on their hands for 5 years. This is a Government that is out of touch. It is not as if there have not been opportunities to do something and I think it is about what the Government actually prioritises. That is why we have waited for so long for this legislation and during that time vulnerable families have been harmed by unscrupulous lenders.When this Government came into power there was already a review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act under way. In 2009 my former colleague Charles Chauvel had a member’s bill drawn out of the ballot. I picked up that bill the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill and launched the Stop Loan Sharks campaign which led to a huge outpouring of support for change. In July 2010 my member’s bill was voted down by National and Act MPs. I subsequently tried to get a joint referral to a select committee and said: “Let’s work on this collaboratively. Let’s do something about this problem.” But again that was turned down by members opposite and this is despite the fact that they know the extent of the problem.In a Cabinet paper from October 2011 it specifically says unlike what the Minister of Commerce has just said that the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act was not working well. It states: “This law is not providing adequate consumer protections against unscrupulous third-tier lenders … whose irresponsible lending practices are resulting in severe financial hardship and spiralling debt.” That is pretty clear. The Government knew that there was a problem but despite that failed to prioritise this work. I think that that is negligent actually. It has caused serious harm to many many families.The harm caused by predatory and unscrupulous lenders obviously hurts the individuals concerned but it also hurts their families. The Ministry of Consumer Affairs’ regulatory impact statement also from 2011 talks about debt resulting in a huge toll emotionally and practically on families. It talks about difficulties in meeting other costs—food transportation and health needs—difficulty in engaging in activities that would normally be considered things that families would do negative impacts on mental well-being and negative impacts on relationships. These are all things that were stated as consequences of this sort of lending. A recent article “When rising debt becomes a black dog”—from yesterday in fact—identifies the cycle of debt says that it is one of the biggest root causes of violence and notes that negative impact on mental health.So I just want to acknowledge—and I know that members opposite would agree with this—that legislative change is not the only answer to this problem. From our side of the House it is also about addressing low incomes. It is also about things like housing affordability which of course this Government is completely out of touch with as many have already noted today. In fact the recent changes to loan-to-value ratios are probably going to push some people into the arms of loan sharks ironically. It is alsoabout financial literacy. It is also about access to fair credit and Labour has already announced that we would put in place a social lending scheme to provide access to credit for low-income people when they need it. But legislation is none the less a vital first step.There are a number of very positive provisions in this bill and I want to acknowledge that. Certainly the provision around the principle of the responsible lender is an important one and one in fact that was in my member’s bill. It will include things like advertising. It will require the making of reasonable inquiries as to the ability of a person to repay a loan. I am pleased to see that one provision is about assisting guarantors in making informed decisions. This code has to be developed though. The cooling-off period is extended. That is a good thing as well as is the fact that regarding unreasonable fees there will be more explicit tests for different kinds of fees and there are numerous fees that many of these lenders charge. I also want to particularly note the repossession provisions that the Minister has commented on. This is very timely. There absolutely is a need to do that work. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the Law Commission in dealing with reviewing the repossession situation which includes the licensing of repossession agents. One of the other things that is in the bill is around hardship provisions being accessible once a person has actually got into default. That is something for which budget services have been asking for a very long time and I am very pleased to see that there as well.So there are many good provisions in this bill but there are a number of concerns that we have as well. First of all and fundamentally there is a failure to address excessive interest rates. One prominent pay-day lender in New Zealand has annual rates of 500 percent meaning that a loan can very very quickly spiral out of control. In other jurisdictions controls are becoming more and more common: in France Germany Canada Mexico South Africa Japan Singapore much of the USA—in fact a bill has just been introduced that will extend interest rate caps across all states—Australia the United Kingdom and almost all of South America. Minister Craig Foss has encouraged members of the public to submit on this matter. I would certainly do the same and I sincerely hope that National members of the select committee will actually take account of what people are saying about this matter.There are other provisions we are concerned about such as whether the dodgy practices of the burgeoning number of truck shops and pay-day lenders will be sufficiently covered by this legislation. Another area I think we could profitably look at in the select committee is whether we need to include provisions around fair debt collection practices to prevent harassment and bullying. So we will be encouraging people to submit and the members of the select committee will be closely scrutinising this bill. As I said we are supporting its referral to the select committee where we will be doing that.I want to close where I started by saying: why did the National Government decide that the regulation of loan sharks truck shops pay-day lenders and the like who lend irresponsibly and charge excessive interest rates was not a priority?JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am pleased to stand in support of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill in its first reading. It is sponsored by the Minister of Commerce Craig Foss. The package of reforms that we are looking at in this bill was shaped by the Financial Summit which was hosted on 11 August 2011 in Auckland and chaired by Sir John Anderson. That summit brought together 250 people from community groups budgeting services NGOs banks financial regulators and credit providers. They looked at ways of tackling particularly irresponsible lending that was particularly offensive and was affecting people in our economy and in our communities. The financial summitparticipants called for legislation to require responsible lending and for greater penalties for lenders that are not registered on the Financial Service Providers Register which is under the Companies Office. Then in April 2013 Minister Foss introduced this bill to the House and here we are at today’s reading of it the first reading.The consumer credit and financial services law reform dovetails into the Consumer Law Reform Bill which the Commerce Committee spent considerable time working on and adds to that suite of reforms and changes. Indeed the Commerce Committee looked not just at the Consumer Law Reform Bill but right across the scope of financial bills and security bills. This bill contributes to that overall package and the changes introduced in this bill represent a comprehensive crackdown on particularly unscrupulous lenders that prey on desperate people and leave them and their families trapped in that spiral of debt that the previous speaker Carol Beaumont was talking about.National wants to have more informed borrowers and more responsible lenders. It is important that we approach this problem from both sides. Responsible lending is absolutely essential if people are going to have the confidence to use credit and the vast majority of people do use credit. They need to have that confidence that there is responsible lending taking place. I read some time ago that Professor David Mayes who is a professor of banking and financial institutions at the Auckland University business school said that New Zealanders are average. He called us average when it comes to financial literacy and said that this is not a problem unique to our country but it is a problem that we need to address. Financial literacy is an ongoing need for New Zealand because when people are financially literate then they can then have good judgment about borrowing and whom to or whom not to borrow from.Financial literacy is defined as the ability to make informed judgments and make effective decisions regarding the use and management of money. But we always know that there are people who are not financially literate and that is where some people can take advantage of them through unscrupulous lending. So we cannot just put it out there that the country needs financial literacy; it needs responsible lending as well. That is the other side of the equation. Some lenders have irresponsible lending practices and some consumers make poor decisions. So it is important that this bill contributes to the addressing of this issue of vulnerability and the taking advantage of that vulnerability which some people have done in the past.Under this bill lenders must act responsibly. Consumers must have the information they need to make informed decisions and there are serious consequences for those who breach the law. So this legislation is a major overhaul of consumer law and I am pleased that the opposite party the Labour Party will be supporting its referral to the select committee. I am sure that we will go through this very very well with a fine-tooth comb in that committee to ensure that the consumer of course benefits from this legislation. The proposals in the bill complement reforms being progressed under the Financial Markets Conduct Act which recently passed through this House. It was also a bill that was undertaken and reviewed by the committee.This bill is also part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda and will contribute to aligning business law between New Zealand and Australia. Many of the changes are based on equivalent provisions in the Australian National Credit Code. It is fair to say that this bill has already received wide consultation in the sector and no doubt during the select committee stage we will continue to receive that consultation. There is much to be said about this bill and I believe that as we go through this process in the select committee and back into the House we will see a very strong and robust law being put into place that will be as I said before of benefit to consumers in New Zealand as a whole. Thank you.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): One of the responsibilities that a Government has—and I think the Minister of Commerce used the term—is to protect the citizenry with decent consumer affairs law. The Minister talked about informed borrowers and responsible lenders and the last speaker Mr Young talked about financial literacy. It is a critical factor and Mr Young is right. Many New Zealanders through lack of education educational opportunity or whatever are not as financially literate as those of us who have either been in business or been exposed to certainlearnings and who can understand many complicated things in terms of our own personal financial affairs. But I see not a lot if anything in this bill the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill that deals with that key point.It is good that there is extra disclosure—that terms and conditions will have to be put on websites and that they will have to be disclosed up front which I believe is one of the provisions in this bill. But that does not link and solve the problem of the person who has to wade through a whole lot of legalese and fine print and maybe even does not understand for whatever reason—I mean no disrespect—the implications and the terms and conditions. It does not matter how much disclosure you have if they do not get that and they cannot understand that then they are liable to make amisjudgment or a bad judgment.The other thing I would say to this Government is that I would wager that there is a link. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that there is probably a link between those on low incomes and what I would call desperation borrowing. Those on low incomes may take great risks a bank will not look at them and they need the money—not necessarily to go to the boozer or to play the pokies or whatever; not necessarily to use the money for irresponsible purposes. But they have a need to use the money to perhaps say look after the family or feed the kids or get the school shoes or whatever. I say to this crowd over here—and I do not hear anything in their speeches about this—that I would wager and I would say most people would agree with me that there is a link between low incomes vulnerability and desperation borrowing. These sharks go around and prey on the most vulnerable.I have got to say that it is interesting. My colleague Carol Beaumont talked about the delays. She also noted that in 2010 I think a bill was put up by herself and other colleagues to deal with some of these issues and it was voted down by the Government. There is a pattern here. There was another bill that dealt with consumer protection that I was a steward of as an Associate Minister of Justice when we were in Government. At that point it was not loan sharks; it was land sharks—similar issues. There were vulnerable people who were dealing with some—and I say “some”—in the real estate industry who preyed on them like vipers. I draw that note because in that case these folks now in Government voted against that and that was huge—as big as this issue—consumer affairs and protection legislation where vulnerable folks again were being put in invidious and awful situations and were being preyed upon and fraud was committed upon them. They are the same principles whether it be loan sharks or land sharks.But National voted against that bill and it voted against Carol Beaumont’s bill in 2010. For 5 long years—5 long years—nothing happened and for 5 long years the most vulnerable whether they be financially literate or not have been exposed to this and to bad judgments and to these sharks. And this was such a priority that it was left to languish. I have got to say that you have got to walk the talk. These folks this National Party in Opposition voted against consumer affairs legislation. They voted against it in Government through Ms Beaumont’s bill and now they come into the House and to be fair to them it is not a bad hit but it is 5 years too late.What I say to Mr Young because he is right—again I come back—is that he makes a good point about financial literacy. You can pass all the legislation you like. You canwrap everybody up in legalese transparency accountability whatever you want to do. That is fine. But if people are not equipped with the skills and they are not provided with the advice and by the way if they are scratching out an existence with their bare hands and they desperately need the dough then simply passing a piece of legislation of itself will not solve the problem. It will not solve the problem. You can wrap these sharks up in all sorts of legal requirements but if people do not know what they are getting into and people are desperate people will do desperate things. The market for this sort of skulduggery the market where these folks—the most vulnerable—are preyed upon will still exist and will be perpetuated as my colleague said.Although I say we are supporting this bill and although I say that we support consumer protection legislation I just say to the National Government that you have missed a few bits and pieces out of the jigsaw. No one over there talks about the vulnerability of folks. If folks have got decent incomes and decent livelihoods and decent job opportunities then they are liable to go to places called banks—and by the way I do not mean John Banks—and those banks are likely to look at them as a responsible borrower on a decent living income who can pay back a conventional loan at a conventional interest rate with all the protections that are enveloped around the banking system.The Minister mentioned Sir John Anderson. Sir John Anderson is a great man. Sir John Anderson started as I think a board member of the National Bank and he was a promoter of the independent Banking Ombudsman which has its problems today but I have got to say it was groundbreaking at the time it was put in place to deal with disputes around conventional banking. I can understand why Sir John Anderson in—when was it—2011 at this great summit that was called by the Government called for legislation along with others. I can understand that because Sir John Anderson understands these issues extremely well and has had a track record and a history of dealing with issues in the conventional banking world and dealing with them I say pretty well. But then we move on 24 months and nothing happens and we get to this.I say to the National Government that there are some good reforms in the bill. There are some good safeguards in the bill. What I would question—and it will be interesting at the select committee to ask submitters—is will this in practical terms work? Will this in practical terms deter the sharks? Will this in practical terms do anything to assist people to be extremely wary of those who would prey upon them showering them with money and capturing them and exposing them to horrendous interest rates? I note for instance that members talked about Australia and bringing this in line with Australia. Australia enacted similar legislation in 2009. So we are bringing it in line with Australia but we are well over a day late and well over a dollar short. We are 3 or 4 years behind Australia. The interesting thing that is missing from this bill which I understand the Minister is inviting people to comment on is the issue surrounding interest rate caps to stop people exploiting those who are most vulnerable.I say to the National Government that this is a good attempt. It is not a bad piece of legislation. There is some good stuff in here. But I think even Maurice Williamson who in his time has dealt with the odd consumer affairs issue I think would agree with me that simply passing a set of rules in and of itself does not solve the problem. Maurice Williamson and I are members of a unique alumni called the ex—or in his case current—“Ministers of Building Issues”. Both of us over our time—the place is littered with ex-Ministers—have had to deal with some of the issues around consumer affairs protection in that portfolio. We know that simply passing a set of rules in and of itself does not solve the problem.I say to this Government that if it is not prepared to lift people’s incomes and get the most desperate on to wages that are liveable so that they can feed their families thenthere will always be the problem of desperate people seeking desperate remedies and putting themselves in hock up to their eyeballs in order to get the basics for their families. It is not a truism to say that only those who act irresponsibly and spend their money at the local boozer or the pokies are the ones who are exposed to this. So I look forward to the select committee process. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and Government members about how this in practical terms will deal with the problem of the most vulnerable.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak in support at least at this first reading of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill on behalf of the Green Party. The Green Party has been very enthusiastic about this bill coming before the House. I am glad that we have finally got to the first reading. It was first introduced in April and one would have hoped that given what appears to be broad cross-party support across the House and given the dire need for this legislation the Government could prioritise it a little bit better. I have to congratulate the officials from the Ministry of Consumer Affairs who have been working on this for many many years. It appears that the work in this area first commenced in 2007. This regulatory impact statement is dated October 2011 which is nearly 2 years ago. The bill will hopefully provide some protection for the most vulnerable in our society and provide better regulation of what are known as third-tier lending operators.The lending practices of such credit providers can result in some people getting into severe financial hardship and spiralling debt. That is a major social problem. It is a major economic problem. It has serious costs and implications not only for the affected individual but for their families for communities and for wider society. I just have to say that the excellent aims of this bill which are essentially to ensure that there is a responsible lending framework and protection for vulnerable consumers really need to be considered within the wider policy context of this Government which is relentlessly pursuing an agenda of increasing inequality by protecting the privilege of its mates by looking after big corporate rent seekers oligopolies and monopolies and undermining the rights and protections of workers with the Employment Relations Amendment Bill.We have to understand that one of the factors that is driving the need for some people to look for this short-term credit is low income. I note that the Families Commission released a report in 2012 calledPacific Families and Problem Debt and it conclusively found that low income was one of the factors contributing to financial strain in Pacific families. The reasons given for borrowing from fringe lenders were for eminently understandable needs. Forty-four percent of Pacific families who had gone to fringe lenders needed the money to pay for essential items and 36 percent needed it to pay for other loans and debts. The vast majority of families who had to go to these dodgy lenders were doing so because they could not meet their basic needs. Going for something like a short-term loan of just $800 in one case spiralled out of control to a debt of $70000. That is completely ridiculous and unacceptable. It is unacceptable that some families who are struggling to get by because of policies in the global context that have seen low wage growth over the past few decades are going to these short-term lenders out of desperation. They are being targeted by unscrupulous lenders who in many cases have a deliberate business plan which is to take advantage of people who do not have much who desperately need money and who do not understand the implications of 2 percent daily interest rates. It is completely unacceptable that families who are struggling who are working hard and who are simply trying to pay for essential items should find themselves in a situation of spiralling out-of-control debt. It is not good for them. It is not good for wider society.I think it is important that although the steps being taken by the Government are welcome they have taken quite a long time. In the meantime since this regulatory impact statement was written in October 2011 we have had an election and we have had the introduction of legislation for the mixed-ownership model which was a flagship policy of this Government and which was essentially to sell off or partially privatise publicly owned assets selling them to people who already have quite a good deal of wealth. They have money sitting aside that they can afford to invest in these companies. They are going to be earning returns potentially that otherwise would have come to the Government and to taxpayers.What we see here is that the Government instead of prioritising a legislation framework to deal with a serious problem that is affecting our most vulnerable families has found the time and resources to prioritise a policy that actually exacerbates the problem of wealth inequality in this country. These things are related. It is increasing inequality because of these types of policies that are aimed at protecting the wealth and privilege of the few and that lead to situations where families who are struggling to pay for essentials would potentially go and seek out some short-term relief going to some of these unscrupulous lenders who are deliberately targeting them and aggressively advertising to them and then those families are finding themselves in a situation of spiralling out-of-control debt from which they cannot recover. It is basically impossible when you get into a situation of being $70000 in debt if one already cannot meet one’s needs. It is extremely difficult to get out of that situation.It is interesting to see just what the Government actually prioritises. The Green Party stands for a clean green economy that works for all New Zealanders. The economy is just that. It is a tool that exists to serve humans. We do not exist to serve the economy. Our economic policy is based on a simple obvious recognition of the fact that the economy is but a small subset of human society and human society is a small subset of the natural environment. If we do not have a natural environment if we do not look after it and if we do not ensure that we have clean water and air a stable climate and safe food there is no economy. We are not achieving the goal of human well-being and we are not flourishing. Equally there is no economy if we do not have a functioning and fair society. So we cannot in the aim of supposedly increasing economic growth continue to trade off people and to trade off the rights of the most vulnerable people to be able to earn a decent living.Although we are finally seeing a very very important step being taken which is the introduction of a regulatory regime that is going to ensure that there is responsible lending and we welcome this it is within the overall policy context that is actually continuing to exacerbate the problem of inequality and that is not financially economically or socially sustainable. I look forward to examining the detail of this bill during the select committee process. I am very very interested in finding out exactly what those affected individuals in the community think. There has been significant consultation by the Government I believe of stakeholders thanks to the good work of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs up until now but it will be wonderful to be able to sit down and hear from the experts and hear from those affected most and to really delve into the detail and see whether there are any opportunities to improve the bill as it has been introduced.I can say that the Green Party welcomes this step. We are sorry that it took the Government so long to make it a priority. Ultimately within the context of an economic policy that is simply looking to erode the rights of workers and fails to put in a sensible capital gains tax we are going to continue to see increasing inequality. We are not going to see a rebalancing of the economy that would ensure that those who are themost vulnerable and who have the least are actually in a position where they are not going to be targeted by these predatory lenders. Thank you.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the first reading of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. Can I just say that the bill being introduced once again shows that this National Government is very concerned about the citizens of New Zealand. By introducing this legislation we are seeking to strengthen the regulation under which credit providers and financial service providers operate. By strengthening this legislation we in the National Government are seeking to protect borrowers from any dodgy finance companies and dealers. We want our citizens to be better informed.This is a fantastic piece of legislation for any new migrant coming to New Zealand. It takes some time before one settles in a new land. This requires a vast amount of effort and a good sum or amount of money. It is unlikely that new migrants will have sufficient knowledge or money at their disposal straight away. Therefore they are likely to use either banks or other financial institutions. This legislation will protect all consumers by providing them with the information so that they can make informed decisions. The legislation will also be a deterrent to lenders. They must act responsibly and there are very serious consequences for those who breach the law.There is little doubt that the fear that the global financial crisis created in the minds of the ordinary citizens of New Zealand still remains. The global financial crisis meant that most people had to work very hard to keep their jobs and provide for their families. Some had to borrow money at times to survive. However in times of need if a loan shark wishes to take advantage of your situation this is not acceptable. The bill seeks empathy and understanding on behalf of the borrowers who seek finance from these loan sharks. There can be a personal situation such as sickness or bereavement or any other kind of situation that may lead to the borrower not being able to keep up their repayments. Credit providers remain largely unregulated and have no code of conduct. Clarity is sought on any fee or extra payment that consumers are being implicitly asked to pay without the lender properly informing them of the total cost of buying a good or a service.I take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague the Minister of Consumer Affairs the Hon Craig Foss on sponsoring this legislation. It is the most extensive review of consumer law in the past decade. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First. We will be supporting the referral of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill to a select committee. This bill provides an increased level of consumer protection and we certainly believe that it is in the interests of all New Zealanders to have that higher level of consumer protection. It will particularly assist and serve to protect vulnerable consumers. It requires a higher level of responsible lending and a duty of care on the part of those who are lending finance to the citizens of New Zealand.The bill also puts in place greater controls on unscrupulous loan sharks and other such people who could perhaps be described as questionable operators to ensure that some of the practices that have been in place in New Zealand over many years now are brought to bay. We have seen exorbitant extortionate interest rates up in the range of 20 30 and 40 percent and more being made out in the retail market. For those vulnerable consumers many of whom are in very desperate and difficult circumstances this really is a very very grave situation.This legislation addresses matters of repossession which have at times seen basic civil rights not being observed. It must be very very taxing on some families and some communities when repossession takes place and when again perhaps unscrupulousoperators are involved in the repossession of those goods because of the very high finance charges that are being paid.The legislation also requires that lenders and consumer groups will be consulted to get a sensible and fair outcome from this legislation. Again as a result of this bill going through to a select committee and having submissions on it we believe there is the potential for and an expectation of a good outcome for New Zealand consumers.The bill also provides greater channels for dispute resolution. Again often by having sensible dispute resolution a difficult situation might not be compounded and might be resolved where in the past perhaps it would have been allowed to escalate and the finance charges would have just increased by a disproportionate amount. It also provides greater powers for the Financial Markets Authority to have controls in this area. Again New Zealand First believes there is merit in this. It is long overdue for this to take place.We are somewhat concerned however that this legislation has taken some 6 years to get to the House. We believe that this legislation should not have taken the amount of time it has—from 2007 through to 2013—to get to this point. It has been a time when New Zealanders have been facing great uncertainty in the workplace when the economy has been described as being in recession and when the most vulnerable in society often are the ones who are having to turn to all sorts of means in order to cover their weekly family budget. In that respect there is a requirement on this House to act in the interests of our citizens to ensure that legislation is there in place to help protect vulnerable consumers and citizens who may otherwise be finding it a great strain when trying to meet their weekly and monthly needs.So in this respect New Zealand First will be supporting this legislation going through to a select committee. We anticipate that it will receive quite significant submissions in terms of what is currently in the bill and we think that with consultation with the wider community there can be only a good outcome as a result of this. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): This is one of those opportunities when every single party represented in this Parliament is speaking with one voice about the problem that we are addressing here and the need to address it. There may be differences in degree but it seems to me that this is one of those opportunities for a select committee to take a framework piece of legislation that sets out some of the measures that are required to address this terrible problem that exists in our country and to actually turn it into a better law and make it a piece of legislation that every single party in this House can be proud of where we know that there will be serious measures that will stop this terrible practice of irresponsible lending and stop the terrible circle of debt that so many people in our country are finding themselves in and that will put in place measures that will actually put some accountability back where it is required.The regulatory impact statement on this bill the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill estimated—and this was back in 2011 so it is 2 years old—that there were almost 131000 New Zealanders who had accessed credit from third-tier lenders in the past 24 months and 218 companies that had been identified as third-tier lenders. But what the regulatory impact statement also acknowledged was that it was very difficult to map the extent of this problem. It is our belief that this does not represent the full extent and that this is really the tip of the iceberg for the high number of people who are finding themselves in terrible circumstances.I want to acknowledge the work that has been done on this issue since 2010 and possibly even before that by my colleague Carol Beaumont who brought forward a member’s bill that was voted down who has campaigned relentlessly around this issue and who has I think contributed to the fact that this legislation has actually finally appeared before the House today. I think as we have heard from almost every speakerthat it has taken a long time to get here. It is not right yet. I describe it as framework legislation. Some of the pieces are in place to address this issue but certainly not all of them. There is certainly a lot more to be done.I note some of my colleagues across the House today have talked about the kinds of people whom we are talking about. These are people predominantly on low incomes but make no mistake that these are not just people on fixed incomes people whom we describe as being on welfare or people who are on superannuation; these are people who are working people as well. They are being described as the working poor. Thousands and thousands—possibly hundreds of thousands—of people are finding themselves unable to pay their weekly bills their monthly bills their electricity bills their food bills their petrol bills their doctor’s bills and their bills for their children. They are finding themselves having to go and get loans where they may not otherwise be able to get loans and then finding themselves in that spiralling circling debt black hole which is also described as the black dog that so many people are getting themselves into. You do not just have to ask the budget advisers. You can ask Catholic Social Services the Anglican Family Care the Methodist Mission Presbyterian Support the Salvation Army and any social agencies in any town or city in this country and you will hear terrible stories about some of the situations that people are finding themselves in.So will this bill make a difference? Well it will make a difference if through the select committee process there is a large number of submissions from organisations and from people who know and who are at the coalface of these situations and it will make a difference if they are listened to—if they are listened to. When you think about what is going to deter the sharks you have got to be thinking about a wider range of measures than are included in this bill. In Labour’s policy going into the last election we had a comprehensive policy that started to really address what was needed. We talked about exorbitant interest rates which is not mentioned in this bill—yes there are the responsible lending provisions the advertising and promotion the disclosure by lenders of the component costs the prohibiting of use of certain items as security and repossession issues. It has to be a comprehensive piece of legislation to make a real difference.Anyone who sits on the Commerce Committee would know that there has been a series of pieces of legislation to try to deal with responsible lending right across the board and with practices that are in place whether it is people who are being caught at the investment end of the market the mum and dad investors who are being caught with the financial collapses and the terrible practices that have been going on at that end—well this is the end of real hardship and real need. Therefore a comprehensive piece of legislation is required here as well. I would argue and I am sure that there will be many many submitters who argue this too that it has to also look at the alternatives in place for people from these kinds of lending practices.One of the other things that was done by my colleague Carol Beaumont in collaboration with my other colleague Jacinda Ardern was to announce a social lending policy which really is the other side of this. It is what is absolutely required in order for us to get to the point where people are able to get themselves out of these situations in a way that is responsible where they can pay the money back in incremental ways but perhaps where they are on very low interest or zero interest rates. That is one of the core measures that is required. There is a policy that is in place.I note that in the Budget this year the Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett said that officials would work with the private sector and the non-governmental organisations to identify options around these sorts of measures but to be honest so far there has been silence. I was actually hoping that today we might hearthat accompanying this legislation there might be another piece of legislation whether it is legislation or hard policy that was going to address how people who are in these situations—which my Green colleague Julie Anne Genter described as the person who borrowed $800 and ended up with a $70000 debt—would actually be able to repay their debt. That is the work of the select committee. I sit on that select committee. I hope that in good faith we can all work together across the committee and come back with a much more comprehensive piece of law.Dr JIAN YANG (National): I rise to take a call on the first reading of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. This bill is sponsored by Minister of Commerce Craig Foss and its purpose is to strengthen the regulatory regime that applies to credit providers and financial service providers.Some lenders are giving loans that borrowers will clearly struggle to pay back misleading consumers who do not understand the real cost of a loan not disclosing essential information and taking disproportionate security. These are just a few examples of the behaviour this bill is targeting. I had a meeting with a Chinese lady earlier this year. She borrowed $15000 from a loan shark and was unable to pay it back. She said she had been constantly threatened by the loan shark and even made an attempt to commit suicide. Under this bill lenders must act responsibly so that consumers will be able to make informed decisions. There will be serious consequences for those who breach the law.This is a good bill because it will promote confidence in the credit market and the broader financial markets. It is also part of the much-needed reforms that National is making to ensure that irresponsible lending practices are stamped out. Too often we are seeing cases of vulnerable consumers making poor financial decisions that can lead to spiralling debt and financial hardship for them and their families. This bill will extend some protection to these vulnerable consumers particularly against loan sharks who feed off such people.This bill will result in a new easy-to-understand law that incorporates two pieces of existing legislation namely the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act and the Credit (Repossession) Act. Combining both pieces of legislation into the new bill will ensure a high degree of consumer protection particularly for vulnerable consumers; require responsible lending practices by credit providers; and promote good business practices in the consumer credit industry.This bill is the biggest overhaul of consumer law in a decade and it is part of National’s Business Growth Agenda. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): It is my pleasure to speak on this bill—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Is this a 5-minute call?Dr DAVID CLARK: I understand that it is a 5-minute call.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): A 5-minute call.Dr DAVID CLARK: Obviously Labour supports this bill the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill in its first reading. There are some more things that we would like to see in here. We would like to see the bill being given a bit more teeth. It is a little bit of a gummy bill in that respect—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member—Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh I was just hitting my stride.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Yes I see that but 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.Dr DAVID CLARK: Before I was rudely interrupted I was discussing the gummy nature of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill—the fact that it is a little bit toothless. It lacks the bite that we would hope a bill of this nature would have. In fact it kind of signals at the moment that this Government is soft on financial crime.We would like to see this bill strengthened. We would like to see it structured in a way that actually allows for things like interest rate limits. That seems a sensible step to take. It is something that many other countries—including France Germany Canada Mexico South Africa Japan Singapore two-thirds of the United States Australia the United Kingdom and almost all of South America—are doing already. It seems a sensible step.It was just over a week ago that the Commerce Committee met in Auckland to hear about theSkycity bill the deal funded out of gambling debt. There we heard stories of people who had to pay 25 percent interest on day one on debts owed to loan sharks who visit the casino. People were facing 25 percent interest on day one. Mr Lotu-Iiga of Maungakiekie was there hearing these same concerns. No doubt he is concerned about the gambling bill because a number of people have identified him as someone with a community that will be affected unduly by that bill.What the select committee heard was that not only is there a 25 percent charge straight off for these loans but that that charge builds over time. These loan sharks are unscrupulous. They destroy lives. They prey on people who are vulnerable and do not have enough money to feed their families from week to week. They prey on people who are suffering under a Government that does not seem to care about dropping employment about the way in which median wages are dropping about the rising cost of living and about the average New Zealander who is working hard wanting their family to get ahead but facing increasing financial hardship.This bill here is designed to address something of this issue. It is designed we know as a response to the issue of loan sharks. It attempts to get in the way of the truck shops and the pay-day lending but we in the Labour Party think that it does not go far enough. We are going to support the bill going to the Commerce Committee so that we can have the discussion about whether or not an interest rate limit would be allowed. We are hopeful that the Government will allow the scope of the discussion to cover off that debate. It would certainly seem fairly short-sighted if the Government cut that debate out. That would give a strong signal that it was indeed keen to be soft on financial crime on those kinds of moral crimes where people prey on the most vulnerable in our society on those kinds of crimes that people in other countries and most OECD countries have clamped down on.The Government has allowed this bill to founder on the Order Paper—that is the other thing that needs to be said—for 5 months on top of years of inaction to the detriment of our nation’s most vulnerable. In 2011 the Minister of Consumer Affairs Simon Power announced that “The Government is to target unscrupulous credit companies that prey on unwary consumers”. He also said that “There are gaps in the system that allow the unscrupulous to take advantage of the unwary when it comes to access to consumer finance in these tough economic times.” Those are quotes. But it does not seem to have been much of a priority for this Government—as I say 2 years have passed and we are only now seeing the first reading of the bill.We would like to see a Government that focuses on the most vulnerable people and on job creation. We would like to see a Government that recognises rising unemployment the struggles of those in the regions and the two-speed economy that is emerging which seems to be a response to a Government with no plan. We would like to see a Government that really takes seriously this kind of loan sharking looks tocreate a law that holds those accountable and restricts their ability to prey on the most vulnerable—a Government that cares for the people. It seems that it will be up to the Labour members of the select committee to put these proposals forward but we look forward to having that debate in the select committee. This is a bill that needs to be strengthened.JAN LOGIE (Green): I rise to take a short call on behalf of the Green Party to add my voice to that of my colleague Julie Anne Genter in support of the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill and also in support of the points made by my Labour colleague speaking just previous to me David Clark. This bill does do a whole host of things to set up protections for vulnerable consumers from dodgy lenders and to help create an environment for responsible lending. It does put in place some tighter regulation around creditors. We know that is really important. It makes consumer protection the primary purpose of the legislation which you would have thought would be there and sets out responsibilities that the lender has. It mandates the development of a responsible lending code compliance with which will be evidence for responsible lending. It clarifies the processes and rules around repossession.We have heard in this House and in the media and from those connected to any group working with the vulnerable in New Zealand untold stories of the harm of loan sharks and dodgy lenders in our society. We have heard already tonight the stories of people going into casinos seeking out people who are triply vulnerable in that environment and setting up loan arrangements with 25 percent interest from day one. The fact that that is legal in our current environment kind of boggles the mind really. We have heard stories of people taking out an $800 loan for an emergency in their family and ending up with a $70000 debt. Again it beggars belief that that has been able to go on for so long in this country. We have heard that it is really not uncommon for some pay-day lender rates to be 10 percent a week and that loans often compound into four figures really quickly for quite small amounts of money.In the area I live in Porirua 95 percent of the people whom budget services are working with have got into trouble paying back high-interest loans. This is a very widespread problem. I think that that is also important in the context of this and that is why we support this legislation as a first step and would also certainly support the discussion and the possibility of increasing or having a threshold on interest rates because clearly that is out of control at the moment and the most vulnerable are paying.Being Greens we look at everything in context. We look at systems. I do just want to touch briefly on some of the context that this bill sits within and the reasons that people are getting into debt. It is because we have low wages. It is because our benefit levels were consciously set below the poverty level back in the 1990s. People are driven to desperation. There are not many choices for many people in New Zealand who are in those economic circumstances. I would like to read you an abridged version of an extract fromInequality: A New Zealand Crisisby the Tongan-Palagi poetKarlo Mila. She notes that “Inequality means watching people close to you—extended family community networks neighbours and friends—who are persistently struggling in challenging circumstances to try to maintain their dignity to keep their households afloat to do their best for their children and to make good decisions by weighing up the constrained range of choices on offer to them … It is what happens when real banks won’t lend you money and the loan sharks are wooing you cheap bait for bad debt.” That is the context that this bill sits within. We see so often in this House bills that are driving people to these places. It is not enough to just put the protections in place; we need the social structures to prevent the need for them. Kia ora.Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): Tonight we have brought to this House two bills that help vulnerable families—our families. We have brought in two bills to protect children against abusive adults and I thank the Minister for Social Department Paula Bennett for bringing in that bill the Vulnerable Children Bill. We brought in another bill to protect borrowers from predatory lenders and I thank the Minister of Commerce Craig Foss for bringing this particular bill the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill to the House. These two bills demonstrate again that this Government cares for the poor the downtrodden and the vulnerable. In tough economic times when people have to work extra hard to pay their bills put food on the table and—as the last speaker Jan Logie has just stated—provide for their families it is unacceptable that they be taken advantage of by loan sharks.A family borrows a thousand dollars but cannot pay it back and the lender knows that they can take anything in that house to repay the loan—toys beds cultural items such as fine mats and even things that do not belong to them. When a young auntie is the guarantor of a car loan but no one explains to her that she may have to pay back this loan if her nephew does not meet those payments she can pay up to double the price of the car loan. When a man buys a TV on credit the contract includes lots of fees and insurance but he does not know what all these costs are about. These are the types of examples that I have witnessed in my electorate office in Maungakiekie in Onehunga. These are some of the common problems as has been identified in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs campaign launch last year that looked at vulnerable communities. We have addressed some of the issues around families who need to work within their means and their budgets. Minister Paula Bennett increased the budget for budgeting services up to just under $11 million and it was a paltry $4 million under the Labour Government.When this National Government came into power we set about to promote investor confidence in the financial sector which had been rocked by finance company failures and we moved quickly to arrest some of those issues that arose within the securities industry that we all know about. The Financial Markets Conduct Bill was passed 2 months ago. The financial service providers legislation and financial advisers legislation went through this House and did get support across this House and that was initiated by this National Government. It also follows on from my Moneylenders (Licensing and Regulation) Bill which I introduced in 2011. That bill addressed the licensing regime around some of these lenders repossession agents and forms of security. It looked at the behaviour of lenders as well as penalties for their behaviour. I am happy and I am proud that this bill takes some of the measures that I worked hard to deal with in my member’s bill.But that bill was also in response to a number of people whom I had talked to—budgeting agencies NGOs that worked with vulnerable borrowers—and the work that they had done. We also had the Financial Summit in 2011 where we brought together over 250 people from community groups—and some of those were budgeting agencies—but also banks financial regulators and credit companies. That was the genesis of this bill coming into the House. Last year the Hon Simon Bridges went through a draft bill that we consulted on across our communities across New Zealand. This bill took on board some of the recommendations of the Law Commission around repossession—58 recommendations that were made in total.This is a multi-pronged approach towards promoting responsible lending by increasing consumer protections and requiring that lenders give borrowers more information and that they also look at their total circumstances. It is not just about the income that that borrower is able to generate; it is about their total circumstances andtheir ability to repay those loans. It is right and proper that this bill addresses a borrower’s financial circumstances and requires that lenders look at them and at whether they can be reasonably expected to repay without causing significant hardship. It is about responsible lending and it means lenders have a duty to look out for their customers.Many lenders are responsible. In our discussions across this country talking to banks second-tier and third-tier lenders they are responsible and this bill does not target those lenders. It really is about targeting those we call loan sharks those who prey on the vulnerable those who prey on the poor and those who prey on those who are unable to repay their loans. We have incorporated both pieces of legislation around consumer credit contracts but also the Credit (Repossession) Act and this is what this bill incorporates as part of its mandate.The principles in this bill will be complemented by what many have already described tonight as a Responsible Lending Code. The code will go out and seek industry best practice and consultation. Lenders and interested consumer groups will be consulted in the development of that code. I think in bringing that together I believe we will have a workable and certainly a functional piece of legislation of which we can be proud. The policy objective really is around ensuring that creditors lend to consumers who can manage their consumer credit contracts responsibly. It provides protection for vulnerable consumers including protection from those unscrupulous lenders we have all talked about tonight. This bill is to be commended. It is a bill that we can certainly welcome and we seek not just the support of New Zealanders which we know we have but also the support of parties across this Chamber. Thank you.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): It is a pleasure to take a call on the Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill. I would just like to acknowledge the other parties in the House that are supporting this bill at its first reading and supporting its referral to the Commerce Committee. This bill is a good bill. It seeks to strengthen the regulatory regime that applies to credit providers and financial services providers. The key messages are that under this bill lenders must act responsibly consumers must have the information they need to make informed decisions and there are serious consequences for those who breach the law.The legislation is the biggest overhaul of consumer law in a decade and encompasses wide-ranging changes to consumer credit and repossession laws. The proposals in the bill complement reforms that were progressed in the Financial Markets Conduct Bill and that seek to promote confident and informed participation by businesses and investors in financial markets. The sector has been widely consulted on this bill.The Credit Contracts and Financial Services Law Reform Bill aims to promote confidence in credit and broader financial markets through strengthening protection for vulnerable consumers in credit markets—we have heard many of my colleagues in the House tonight talking about the protection that needs to be wrapped round people who are vulnerable and open to unscrupulous loan sharks—promote the confident and informed participation in markets for credit by consumers and protect the integrity of the financial service providers registration regime. It is a very good bill. I am looking forward to receiving this bill at the Commerce Committee and I commend it to the House. Thank you.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Commerce Committee.Electoral Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Electoral Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. The New Zealand electoral system has a high level of integrity. One reason for this is that we have regular reviews of electoral laws and practices. These reviews ensure that lessons are learnt from previous elections. They also ensure that electoral law and practices are modernised to reflect evolving technology and changing social expectations. The Justice and Electoral Committee carries out an inquiry after every general election. This inquiry looks into how the election was conducted and the relevant statutory and regulatory framework. Recommendations are then made to the Government on improvements for future elections. The select committee undertook its inquiry between March 2012 and April this year. I thank the select committee for its hard work and deliberation.I would also like to thank all those who made submissions. The select committee received 49 written submissions and heard 16 oral submissions. On 30 April the select committee released its report. The report is thorough and includes recommendations on a range of electoral issues. I am pleased to see that there is a high degree of consensus amongst members. When the Government responded to the select committee report in July we set out our approach to the recommendations. One recommendation has already been addressed through recent changes to the Electoral Regulations. Seven recommendations do not require law changes and the Government will work with the Electoral Commission as appropriate to action these. The remaining recommendations require legislative change and the Government has carefully considered them. The Electoral Amendment Bill is a result of these deliberations.The bill implements 11 of the select committee’s recommendations which can be practically implemented in time for the next election. Recommendations that require more significant policy development have not been included in this bill and will be considered in the future. Having a select committee inquiry into each election allows for a multiparty approach to electoral reform. In this spirit I look forward to working constructively with other political parties on this bill. By implementing 11 of the select committee’s recommendations the Electoral Amendment Bill will update our electoral law and improve the already strong integrity of our electoral system. The bill will improve services to voters candidates and parties. It will improve efficiency through greater use of technology. The bill will simplify and clarify existing provisions of the Electoral Act.I would like to briefly touch on two specific changes that the bill makes. The bill provides for full online enrolment. New and existing electors will be able to enrol or update their details online usingRealMe the Government’s electronic identity verification service. Paper-based methods of enrolment will continue to be available for those who prefer to enrol in this way. By giving people the choice to enrol fully online this bill responds to New Zealanders’ expectations that they will be able to complete most of their transactions with Government electronically.Another important change enabled by this bill is the greater use ofEasyVote cards during the voting process.EasyVote cards are currently used to assist election day workers find voters’ page and line numbers in the electoral roll. This bill will enableEasyVote cards to be used as a record that an ordinary vote has been cast. It will also allow the cards to be used instead of a declaration form for special voters. This new use ofEasyVote cards will simplify and speed up the issuing of ordinary and special votes. It will also make the scrutinising of the rolls that occurs during the election countingprocess more accurate and efficient. In addition to implementing 11 of the select committee’s recommendations the bill also makes some other minor changes. These clarify current provisions and correct minor incorrect references in the Electoral Act. Some of these reflect recent minor changes to the Local Electoral Act 2001.This bill should be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The select committee process is very important and I encourage members of the public to make their views on the bill known to the select committee. I hope that the select committee will be able to report back by the end of this year. It is important that the Electoral Commission has enough time before the 2014 general election to implement changes. The changes made through this bill will have a positive impact on the administration of future elections. The bill will enhance the integrity of our electoral system and will ensure the law remains relevant for next year’s election and beyond. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak on this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill and I just say what a disappointment it is that barely a year before the next general election—possibly even less—we are now considering the barest and the smallest number of possible changes that could be considered and made to the Electoral Act. I think it shows a level of laziness in the Minister of Justice Judith Collins that I think we have not seen in a Minister of Justice for a long long time.A Minister of Justice who was very concerned about real change to electoral law would have got on to it more smartly and would have ensured that we have an electoral law that not only reflects the issues that arose out of the last election but reflects popular demand for real change in particular to our MMP system. A concerned Minister of Justice would have done so in a time frame that allowed good public debate and good public input at the parliamentary level so that we would be debating substantial changes in response to the growing public demand for change to our system.As it is at the moment what we have got in this bill are the barest of changes made to reflect only some of the concerns that arose out of the review conducted by the Justice and Electoral Committee. There was of course another report prepared by the Electoral Commission which talked about other changes that might also be considered particularly in relation to MMP. So what have we got in this bill? Well we have got the giant leap forward towards electoral enrolment. I mean this is hardly leaping with great strides into a new age of electoral management. This is not a huge leap in terms of technology. It will create some efficiencies for some people and it will be much more convenient to that proportion of the population that is online but of course there will also be some who will want to continue to send in their paper forms and make their changes in a manual sort of way.So we have got electronic enrolment. We have got some technical changes about would you believe logo registrations. That is very important of course because we do not want party logos copying each other. Of course the silver fern has become a popular theme in some party logos and in Labour’s as well. It has become very popular. So we are now getting logo registration sorted out. That is very important when it comes to public demand for electoral law change. We have got a slightly changed penalty regime for general election candidates who either get their election returns in late or not at all. So the level of penalty has not changed but there is some modification to the way it is imposed.There is an interesting new change when it comes to party returns and in particular the requirement that any loans made to political parties whether in an election year or not are now the subject of a return to the Electoral Commission. We understand that in our election law arrangements where there are loans at concessionary rates from friendly people corporations or whatever these sorts of things should be disclosed as amatter of transparency in the conduct of elections. But there is an exemption in the bill for loans made by registered banks to political parties. It is understood that these would be at commercial rates—well the bill presumes that these would be at commercial rates—so there is a question about why any other loan on fully commercial terms would not also be exempt.I have to raise one concern that Labour has which is that although not objecting to the idea in principle of disclosing loans made there is an issue about just the level of detail required including reporting on the balance of any loan entered into from one year to the next. The question is whether that is necessary in terms of transparency for political parties when it comes to our election law arrangements.Then there is a very peculiar provision in this bill and it relates to what happens on election day. It is the law relating to promoting a party or influencing voters on election day. Up until now under section 197 of the existing Electoral Act it has been possible for cars doing election day work for a political party to be adorned with the party colours of that party. So it would be a red ribbon for Labour a green ribbon for the Greens and black and silver for New Zealand First perhaps—I do not know what Brendan Horan’s car will have if indeed he has one—and the National Party will no doubt have blue ribbons—Iain Lees-Galloway: Pink budgie smugglers.ANDREW LITTLE: It might be a pair of budgie smugglers dangling from his car aerial—we do not know but we will see it in the next election—or floating around Tauranga. That is the law at the moment. It seems to work quite satisfactorily. Party activists—and let us face it the Labour Party has a lot of them—as they go about doing their election day activities—Iain Lees-Galloway: Even more now.ANDREW LITTLE: Well they are streaming in by the thousands I am happy to report. They are streaming in by the thousands. The email traffic to every MP and every branch chair of the Labour Party has never been greater as people are lining up ready to participate in the great election rout of 2014. All those activists are keen to wear their party colours. There will be a clean out in New Plymouth. I can feel it now in my bones. All the activists will be turning up. They will want to wear their rosettes on election day as they are used to doing. But this law this bill says that they will not be allowed to and we know why—we know why. When I was party president I drove around the Auckland electorates one election and then I drove around the New Plymouth electorate in 2011. Not a single car was adorned with a blue thing on it. Not even the blue cars had blue things on them. There was not a single car with a blue ribbon a blue rosette or anything on it. But the Labour Party activists of New Plymouth and Taranaki were out in their numbers and there are going to be more of them.But this bill this National Party bill outlaws the wearing of rosettes and party ribbons on election day for those doing legitimate election activity by knocking on doors and doing those sorts of things. Why? Why would National do that? Because National members do not want people to see just how poorly organised and how lacking in support they are. They can get the big cheques from the corporates—it is very easy. You just do a deal with a casino. You do a deal with a telecommunications utility company. You can do all that but you cannot get the party activists out on election day wearing their rosettes.This bill overturns what has been a longstanding provision in our electoral law—that it is perfectly legitimate to wear your party colours on election day. That is very disappointing—very disappointing—and it should not be that way. It should not be that way—and it is only because the army of supporters that Labour has every election day gets out there and is an embarrassment to parties like the National Party.I want to comment on one other thing. [Interruption] Oh yes the growing numbers of jobless in New Plymouth are all lining up to join the Labour Party because they want their jobs back. They want their jobs back in New Plymouth. At Fletcher Construction 37 redundancies were announced just on the weekend. People are lining up to join the Labour Party because they know where their jobs are and that is with a thriving Labour Government doing good things with good businesses for good people.I want to make one comment before I resume my seat because members will be concerned about this. This bill was an opportunity to do something meaningful to meet the long-demanded change that the public of New Zealand have wanted and that is to change the threshold laws of MMP and to change the 5 percent threshold to 4 percent take away the one seat threshold and have a fair MMP system. The Electoral Commission recommended it and what did the lazy Minister of Justice do? She did nothing about it. She waited till the other political parties came to her and then she said that there is no consensus. There was only one party that was refusing to agree and that was her own. Her own party refused to agree to it. Then she said that there is no consensus. It is very disappointing.This was a bill to do something interesting and good for MMP and the New Zealand electoral system and that opportunity has been lost. Nevertheless we will support this bill and examine it closely at the select committee. We will have a look closely at the ribbon arrangements and the loan reporting arrangements and make sure that this is another piece of electoral law that is fit for New Zealand supported by New Zealand and good for the administration of New Zealand elections. And then when Labour gets elected we will change those MMP thresholds.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is always interesting following that member Andrew Little because his new leader has issued the caucus of the Labour Party a challenge and that is to get on the train. “Get on the train.” the new leader of the Labour Party says—get on the train. What I am interested to know is whether the train will have rosettes and ribbons on it or not and if so whether that member will be on the train because we were very unsure about what train he was on if any following that speech.It is a great pleasure to stand in support of this Electoral Amendment Bill in the name of the Hon Judith Collins Minister of Justice. As chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee I had the great privilege and pleasure of guiding to fruition the work of our committee’s inquiry which was commenced by my predecessor the very capable and hard-working member for Hamilton East Tim Macindoe—Tim Macindoe: West.SCOTT SIMPSON: West. Are you West? Are you West or are you East?Tim Macindoe: West.SCOTT SIMPSON: Well you are the very good junior whip and at least we still have you as a junior whip so there you go. The work was started by Tim Macindoe in his time as chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee and I have got to say that the committee’s work—certainly the portion that I was involved with—was very constructive. It was fulfilling. We heard from a number of submitters who I thought made particularly good points.But what was interesting to me is that really this process of having an inquiry after each general election conducted by the Justice and Electoral Committee is a good process. It is a process that encourages participation and sound faith in our democratic institutions of our electoral system. New Zealand as far as I am aware is one of only nine countries in the world that has an unbroken democratic tradition going back more than 150 years and New Zealanders can be rightly proud of the basis upon which we conduct our elections. We sometimes fight those elections very passionately withvigour with great excitement and indeed with a lot of energy but as a nation we are accepting of the outcome. We do not get involved in all the corrupt activities that we see in some places in the world. We do not have violence. We do not have criminal activity. We can be pretty proud of the process.I was pleased as chairman of the select committee to receive a very prompt response from the Minister to our recommendations. I think this is a Minister who has moved very quickly to enact in this piece of legislation the 11 recommendations which are easily achieved so that they can be in place before the next election in 2014. They are all matters that will enhance and add value to our electoral system even those matters that the member Andrew Little was so scathing about which were to do with ribbons and rosettes and what have you which in places around the country have from time to time been used in an intimidatory fashion by some political parties. We will be able to ensure that the good people of South Auckland are not having busloads of KFC - bearing Labour Party supporters wearing ribbons and rosettes descending upon them and escorting them to the election booth.We will have a more enhanced electoral system as a result of this piece of legislation working its way through the House. I think that as the select committee considers the provisions of the bill we will find that we will make good progress. I am confident that the committee will continue to work hard. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Well what a bizarre speech that was from Scott Simpson. The Government the great nanny State National Party is going to stop somebody from having a black and white ribbon or a green ribbon or a red ribbon or even a blue ribbon on their car because it will frighten the electors. It will frighten the electors Scott Simpson said. That is so absurd a statement that it should be just a joke but actually it is not a joke. This Government is going to interfere in election day activities that have been going for 150 years with people allowed to wear proudly on their lapel a rosette to say which party they are supporting. Mr Simpson says that that will frighten the voters. Well apparently it will not terribly frighten the voters because this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill—Scott Simpson: It’ll intimidate them in South Auckland.Hon PHIL GOFF: “Intimidate” he says. This bill actually allows you to wear a rosette in the polling booth. If you are ascrutineer you can wear a rosette. If there was anywhere that the elector was going to be intimidated you might think that it would be in the polling booth. No it is OK to wear it in the polling booth but by God do not wear it out in the streets because the dogs will run off yapping the cats will flee and the people will hide behind their doors. That is bizarre that is absurd and I have never heard so much nonsense spoken in this House before on a matter that is actually very serious. This is an Electoral Amendment Bill. It should be seeking consensus. It is really important in a democracy that on the fundamentals of process and voting there is widespread agreement around the House. Yet for petty reasons which Mr Simpson can do no better than describe as being intimidating of the voters the National Party and solely the National Party wants to impose its will on the people in this House and the country stopping a practice that has done no harm for 150 years. It is 150 years Mr Simpson. You said that that was the period of unbroken democracy in New Zealand and yes we should be proud of that.But I have got to say that when I go out on election day—and even when it is not an election day—and I knock on a door it is really important that I am wearing something on my lapel that identifies me to the person who opens the door. They know who I am and they know why I am there. I am not there to persuade them how to vote on election day; I do not talk politics on election day—you cannot and properly you cannot. But you can go along and say: “Have you voted?”. But before I turn up on somebody’sdoorstep I want to be able to be identified to that person as to whom I represent and there is no harm absolutely no harm in that Mr Simpson. You have failed utterly to make the case out for a piece of absurdity in this bill and I hope that you are a little bit more open-minded about it when you chair the select committee that looks at it.I want to say that by and large Labour will be supporting this bill to go to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It is important that it goes there. It makes relatively minor changes and those minor changes are I think designed to be quite helpful as the bill sets out. It is really important that you have changes that will improve services to voters candidates and parties and the bill tries to do that in a range of small but technical ways. It is about improving efficiency by allowing greater use of technology. Yes most people particularly younger people are doing things online. Let them do things online to the maximum extent. Do not do away with the paper-based enrolment system because some people like my father would be absolutely appalled if he had to open a computer and try to enter something on it. But those efficiency aspects are fine. Improving the integrity of the election process I think is something that is really important as well. And there is simplifying and clarifying the law making the law more internally more consistent. So those are the sorts of things that are common-sense things that have arisen out of the investigation into the 2011 general election and that you would expect to have in there.Using full online enrolment with electronic identity verification—yes that is good. A greater use ofEasyVote cards—I think that when all of us have taken people to the polls etc. their having theirEasyVote card means that they can go in it simplifies the process and it makes it easier.Tim Macindoe: You don’t take people to the polls.Hon PHIL GOFF: I do it quite frequently. Most recently I have got to say I did so in Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and by God they were pleased to see me when I turned up at the door and said I was from the Labour Party. I do not think the National Party stood in that by-election. It apparently did not have the courage of its convictions. Those things are quite good but if you are frightened of ribbons then I guess you would be frightened to go into Ikaroa-Rāwhiti and confront real people there.But I have got to say that as well as the absurdity of banning ribbons and banning rosettes the thing that is really disappointing about this legislation is what the Government has not put in it. The Electoral Commission is an independent body and quite properly the Electoral Commission was told to do an analysis of the voting system if MMP was passed by the electorate and find ways to improve it. Well the electorate did pass the MMP system. I personally voted for it. I think it is much fairer. But there were worries and as I went around my electorate the worry that people most often raised with me was the coat-tailing system whereby if you win an electorate and you get 3 percent of the votes then you carry 3 percent of the other MPs in with you. The National Party is quite smart on some things—it lacks common sense generally—but it was smart in saying “We know how to rort the system. Nobody much likes the ACT Party. They’ll never get over the 5 percent threshold. But if we give them our most blue blue-ribbon seat”—Hon Members: Ribbons?Hon PHIL GOFF: Ribbons—oh my God they are illegal now I forgot. It said: “If we give them the chance to get in on a blue-ribbon seat like Epsom then we’ll get all these MPs that the country doesn’t really want—the electoral system by and large would not have in Parliament—but we can smuggle them in on the coat-tails of a man of no less integrity than John Banks.”What I looked at when I looked at the Electoral Commission was that it did not just recommend that that be abolished; it strongly recommended that it be abolished. TheChief Electoral Officer is a man who has been there for a long time by the name of RobertPeden. RobertPeden said that coat-tailing was “the biggest single concern” that people showed about the MMP system. So here is another example of a National Government trying to rort the system a National Government absolutely arrogant about what people wanted and did not want and a National Government that has ignored the views of the vast majority of New Zealanders who said they did not want a rort in the system that allows MPs to be coat-tailed into Parliament. They saw the cup of tea between Mr Key and Mr Banks and they did not like what they saw.What is more not only is it a rort to the system seen by the Electoral Commission which is independent as being a rort but also it is a system that is inherently unfair. Let us take the 2008 election. The ACT Party that year gained 3.65 percent of the vote. It would not normally have got any member of Parliament at 3.65 percent but it stood not Mr Banks but Mr Hide—or Dr Jekyll one or the other—in Epsom and the National Party gave the seat of Epsom to the ACT Party. The result was that it ended up in this House with five seats—five seats with 3.65 percent of the vote. New Zealand First on the other hand actually narrowly missed out on getting elected that year. It did not get to the 5 percent threshold; it got 4.07 percent of the vote. But it did not rort a deal with the National Party to get a seat and with more than 4 percent of the vote it got no MPs and the ACT Party with 3.65 percent of the vote got five MPs. I want the next Government speaker who stands up to take the call to tell me how that system is fair to tell this House why the Chief Electoral Officer is wrong in saying that New Zealanders do not want that. And we do not want it—it is not fair it is not right. We talk about having a non-corrupt system. That is as close to corruption as we get when the National Party ignores the wishes of the people and did not include that in this legislation.DAVID CLENDON (Green): Kia ora koutou. I am pleased to take a short call on this Electoral Amendment Bill. I would echo the comments already made by other speakers about the importance of this process and the value of it—that each 3 years we investigate our electoral processes we evaluate them and we look for ways we might make them better. That is an entirely appropriate process and one that perhaps helps to reassure people about the integrity of our electoral system acknowledging that things do change over time and generally it is a good process. It is particularly important in the context of the decline in participation in voting that we have seen over the last several elections. At one time New Zealand despite not having any law that compels people to vote nevertheless had higher turnouts than many countries where there was a compulsion—where it was legally required that people voted. We have slipped a long way from that expectation about turnout and I think that is something we cannot simply put down to voter apathy. I think we have to think much more about the level of cynicism and the reason why people may have become disillusioned with the political process and seek to address those in a much more real and a much more honest and open way.Historically some of the people least likely to participate in general elections are young people and I think that the provisions in this bill to accommodate the electronic enrolment online enrolment will go some small way towards balancing that. The so-called digital natives are accustomed to doing most things online and enabling people to enrol for the first time or some subsequent time entirely online I think is a good thing. For quite some time people have been able to amend their enrolment details online. We see no reason why you would not extend that and I think that is one of the most positive steps in the bill.We still have another conversation to have perhaps about the desirability or indeed the possibility of online voting. That could be a more complex and arguably a morecontroversial step. But for the moment enabling enrolment to happen online is a good and positive thing and we do commend that aspect of the bill.The provisions around the disclosure of loans are we think also positive. Parties do take out loans to fund their campaigns and typically they repay them. Of course having the loophole existing that enabled a party to accept a loan and then have that loan written off but not recorded against its income for the election is we think undesirable. In a perfect world it would not happen and parties would declare honestly the money that they had received in by whatever means but of course recent history tells us that that level of integrity is not always in evidence. So we do see that those provisions in the bill are certainly worthwhile. Some of the detail may arguably be amended through the select committee process but the general principle of closing that very obvious and very unfortunate loophole is something that again we do support and think is a good thing to do.One of the recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee inquiry into the election proposed that the Electoral Commission should liaise with the Ministry of Education about incorporating ongoing and comprehensive civics education into the New Zealand school curriculum. Although I recognise that that is somewhat outside the ambit of this bill I would just like to put on record that we would wholeheartedly support that. We think that it is very strange that our young people can go through an entire education from age 5 to 16 17 or 18 and never be sat down and given some good basic information and education about how our electoral system works how our Parliament works and how our basic democratic systems and processes work. It seems a significant gap in our education system. I am aware of such things as the Kids Voting programme which popped up some years ago. It was a very positive programme that was well received. It exposed probably in excess of 100000 young people at schools to participating in a voting process and they learnt a fair bit along the way. But we see a time when we will think it should be taken as a given that we embed that education into our standard educational curriculum. Again it might go some way to empowering and enabling people to see the value and the importance of participating in our electoral processes every 3 years.The bill makes some minor changes to the business of Māori enrolment and the Māori electoral roll. We think that it is unfortunate that this bill does not go further. We do agree—it has long been Green Party policy—that Māori should not have to wait for a 5-yearly census cycle to move from one roll to the other—from the general roll to the Māori roll or the other way round. It is an opportunity missed perhaps that this bill does not engage with that. There is mention that the terms of reference did not enable it. I do think however that a stronger recommendation could have come through and I do think that it would have been an opportunity to enable people of Māori descent to have at least the option of moving one way or the other on the roll in conjunction with each 3-yearly electoral cycle. It seems perverse that it is only at every second election that in reality Māori have that option to go one way or the other. I think that the arguments proposed in the inquiry document were suggestions that it might create unequal electoral systems with some voters exerting more sway if you like. The proposition that changes in electoral boundaries could leave very high or very low numbers is I think very much overstated. I really do not believe that you would get sufficient movement in a roll in any given year in any given electoral cycle to have any significant impact on numbers within the elections. I do not see any way that it would skew the outcome. Even if somebody tactically set out to endeavour to do that I suspect that there would be either sufficient opposition or simply inertia to prevent any compromising of the integrity of that change. I do think that allowing Māori the right to move one way or theother each 3-yearly cycle would be something we would need to contemplate and aim to do at some future point hopefully not too far into the future.I would also say that in terms of what is lacking in this bill again there is a missed opportunity. It would have been nice to see included in this a repealing a reversal of the truly appalling change to the electoral law that was instigated by the gentleman now departed from this place—dare I say it the somewhat unlamented Mr Paul Quinn with his electoral disqualification of sentenced prisoners amendment. This would have been an excellent opportunity to put aside that entirely meaningless punitive and unhelpful piece of legislation that even its principal could not defend. No individual speaking on its behalf could give a substantive reason why we would deny every single sentenced prisoner the right to vote. It was a ridiculous piece of legislation. This would have been a very good opportunity to repeal it and to take that embarrassment off our books and it is unfortunate that that has not been included in this bill. The Attorney-General at the time that that bill went through the House noted that it would introduce irrational inconsistencies in the law. He found it unjustifiably inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Unfortunately we were saddled with it. I think this would have been a good opportunity to put it aside to remove it. That opportunity has been missed.On a brighter note there is some considerable value in this bill. Our very genuine disappointment I would have to say perhaps refers back to MrLittle’s comments earlier about how little time has been allowed to get the changes put in place. There is a lack of attention to the recommendations about accessibility that were very strongly and well made by the inquiry but that sadly have not been picked up by the drafters of this bill. We understand or we infer perhaps that there is not necessarily any objection to these accessibility provisions being picked up but that the issues of timing perhaps or even cost—I do not know—have meant that they are not included in this bill. My colleague will speak more to that later but for the moment the Greens are supportive of what this piece of legislation sets out to do. We will seek to make it even better during the select committee process but we do look forward to it going through the House. Kia ora.ALFRED NGARO (National): I rise to take a short call on the Electoral Amendment Bill. I suppose it is appropriate that we are celebrating 120 years of women’s suffrage and in particular Kate Sheppard who led the campaign for the opportunity for women to vote. This was world leading and it is a great opportunity because out of that came the principles to be accessible to give eligibility and to allow women to vote and the important aspect of this bill actually wants to take on those key principles.I was part of the Justice and Electoral Committee and I want to acknowledge all of the members in particular Charles Chauvel who was here at that time and also the Hon Lianne Dalziel. We had a very good working relationship on this bill. There were a couple of contentious issues that we debated. In particular I just want to point out the issue with regard to rosettes. There has been a lot of sort of hilarity about this—that we are anti-rosettes. Actually it is not about the rosettes and the ribbons. In actual fact—members may not be aware of this but I know that Mr Goff knows this—there is an exemption to the prohibition of electioneering on election day. The amendment in clause 35 of this bill means that the exemption is very narrow now; it is just about rosettes. It is a very narrow part of that clause—the exemption is just about wearing rosettes. There was common agreement from colleagues who were there.Look it was not a biggie. Let us just make sure that we cover that. As for the making of the rosettes the reality is that as a select committee we really did not have an issue with that so it was passed. It was agreed on and that was part of the report so we will go to the select committee with that as well. That was the issue about the rosettes OK?I was one of a number of MPs who went around the country and I suppose what was of particular concern to us in this review process was the low voter turnout especially for our young people. One thing we talked about was how we could improve access around this. I think that one of the main provisions around improving efficiency by allowing greater use of technology is absolutely important but I do take on Mr Goff’s point that there is another generation out there that still wants that manual process. They want to get up they want to do their civic duty they want to come down on a Saturday morning they want to go into a polling booth and they want to register. They actually want to physically do that. So as a select committee we took this on board. We know that it is not an either/or situation; it is a combination of the two. So the online registration is a part of that. There was also talk about the opportunity to pilot some of that and I know that Holly Walker was very much keen for us to do that and we are looking into that. That is an important part as well.Another provision of the bill is around improving services to voters and candidates. For example it will allow for greater use of theEasyVote card to simplify and improve the accuracy of issuing and recording votes. Although MrPeden talked about the fact that we can uphold the system as having some integrity there was some evidence albeit anecdotal to show that there are times when people have tried to rort the system. There were conversations for instance about the issue that happened in the Waitakere electorate and we know there was evidence there that goes to prove that the system is not perfect. It is a great system—however we do need to be vigilant. The amendments that we have made are to ensure that there is some vigilance around the integrity of the system.Lastly I just want to point out the other main provision and that is around improving the integrity of elections through simplifying and clarifying the law. We look forward to this bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. It will clarify that the High Court can direct the Electoral Commission to recalculate and to amend the allocation of list seats if there is a successful election petition as well. There are three good provisions and I look forward to a continuing discussion in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I think the provisions we have made are important they are correct and we have a unanimous consensus around this. I commend this first reading of the bill to the House. Thank you.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support this Electoral Amendment Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The committee’s inquiry into the 2011 general election did recommend several amendments to the Electoral Act. This bill will implement some of them but only some of them. It has been a collaborative process and was supported by I think some very good public submissions too.There are three areas of change that are promoted by the bill. Firstly it provides for the option of full online enrolment using electronic identity verification and that is a good step forward. Secondly it provides for the greater use ofEasyVote cards which will simplify and speed up the issuing of ballot papers and reduce special votes and that would be a good result. Thirdly the integrity of elections will be enhanced through amendments to rationalise and make transparent the provisions that regulate the electioneering disclosure of contributions and loans and the filing of election expenses.These are all very good things to achieve. But there have been some important recommendations of the Justice and Electoral Committee that are not to be implemented by this bill but that should have been. They concern the use of broadcasting of election programmes.If I look at the report of the committee I see on page 39 that it is noted that “The Electoral Commission noted that the statutory tests of what constitutes an ‘electionprogramme’ in … Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and an ‘election advertisement’ in section 3A of the Electoral Act are similar but have significant differences which cause difficulties when the commission considers broadcasting complaints. Both tests require an assessment of whether the programme or advertisement appears to encourage voters to vote or not vote for a party or candidate but they differ in the exemptions made … the Broadcasting Act states that nothing in the prohibition on paid election programmes ‘restricts the broadcasting in relation to an election of news or of comments or of current affairs programmes’ while the exemption in … the Electoral Act is not restricted to news or current affairs but applies to ‘the editorial content of a periodical a radio or television programme and a publication on a news media Internet site’… [several] submissions suggested removing the separate electoral broadcasting provisions from the Broadcasting Act and confining provisions regarding election advertising to the Electoral Act.” That is I think as it should be.The committee itself recommended that the Government align the statutory tests of an election programme in section 69 of the Broadcasting Act 1989 and an election advertisement in section 3A of the Electoral Act 1993. Those matters are very necessary and they are urgent matters that should have been included in this bill. I cannot understand why they are not. I expect to receive an explanation from the Government as to why they are not in the bill but I have not heard one so far.Similarly on page 40 of the report it notes that there were submissions that “the Broadcasting Act’s full prohibitions regarding election programmes should not be limited to the election period and should apply consistently to both political parties and broadcasters.” The committee recommended to the Government that it “consider aligning the liability for breaching Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act so that provisions would apply to the broadcaster and any person who arranged for the broadcast of an election programme in contravention of the Act whether within or outside an election period.” Similarly that matter needs to be addressed in this legislation before the next election. It is urgent.Those are the primary things that should have been attended to but there are some good things achieved by the bill and they include a number of provisions of which I will mention a few. Section 197 of the Electoral Act which has been mentioned by other speakers concerns the wearing of ribbons streamers rosettes lapel badges and so on. The amendment to this in clause 35 of the bill would create a more restrictive regime for those and would really allow them to be worn only by scrutineers.New Zealand First thinks that is appropriate. It does not want to see electioneering on election day. Voters need some peace and quiet from all the razzmatazz of elections. After all they have had 3 months of it before then. There is a fine line between simple decorations or identifiers and actual attempts to influence voters. We think the balance has to be against those attempts to influence voters. It should go only as far as allowing scrutineers to be identified appropriately in polling booths. The exemption for scrutineers is justified but nothing else we feel.I want to turn to clause 40 because that provides for a candidate who fails to file a return to be liable to a fine of up to $40000 and a candidate who files a false return to be guilty of a corrupt practice and up to 2 years in prison could be the result or a fine not exceeding $100000. That shows the gravity of the offence—something that some people in the community need to take note of.I want to mention clauses 44 46 and 47 which clarify the position to ensure the aggregation of contributions to donations for the $1500 threshold and the $15000 threshold for contributions to donations in clause 48. That is good law and it is supported by New Zealand First members. Concerning loans to political parties we are glad to see the provisions in new sections 213 214A 214C and so on inserted byclause 50. Those sections provide that a party may enter into a loan only with the authorisation of the party secretary and only the party secretary may enter into a loan on behalf of the party for election purposes. Another section provides that a person who enters into an agreement or arrangement of some kind for the purpose of circumventing that section will also be guilty of an illegal practice.New section 214C imposes an obligation on the party secretary to file with the Electoral Commission each year a return of loans entered into during the year for an amount exceeding $50000 those entered into in any previous year with an unpaid balance exceeding $15000 and those entered into for the year for an amount that when aggregated with other loans yields an amount in excess of $15000 and so on. Those are very necessary and important provisions.But what I want to finish on is a major and glaring omission from the bill which is simply that there needs to be an end of the coat-tailing provision in the Electoral Act. We have seen many reasons for that over recent times. It is something that I feel the vast majority of people in this country want to see an end of. It is time that simply winning an electorate seat should not result in coat-tailing for whatever low percentage of the party vote is currently enabling a party to bring more members into Parliament. The provision should be one seat plus at least 5 percent or just 5 percent or more of the vote to get seats in Parliament. That is what people want. That should have been addressed.We know why it is not being addressed and that is because the National Party needs people like Banks and Dunne and wants to try to get as many additional MPs as possible; because this Government is prepared to have cups of tea and do whatever else is necessary to gerrymander the result of an election. That is a cynical manipulation of the system and shows that this Government has no genuine regard for democracy in New Zealand. It utterly refuses to look at this provision but it is high time that it did.Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure to stand and speak at the first reading of the Electoral Amendment Bill and to follow from previous speakers. What impresses me about this bill is the amount and the high degree of consensus. I happen to come from the school of thought that says that when we are making changes in constitutional jurisdictional and electoral matters there should be that high degree of consensus. I am also one of those ones who was really fortunate and lucky enough to sit in on the Justice and Electoral Committee when it was actually doing the so-called hearing of submissions on the infamous Electoral Finance Act.The degree of memory lapse from members of the other side is astounding—Maggie Barry: Typical.Hon KATE WILKINSON: —but typical. Absolutely right it is typical. Actually I took the opportunity to read the minority report on that which we wrote several years ago. Just as an example members of that committee received a paper at 9.05 a.m. for discussion at 9.30 a.m. That was a total abuse of the democratic process. There was no opportunity to read the document before the discussion took place.We have heard criticisms of this bill because of what it does not contain. Again the short memory loss of the other side is astounding. We know that some parties may want a different threshold for MMP. That is fine. But there was no consensus reached on that. Actually on the other side of the coin some wanted a proper discussion on the closure of the electoral rolls. So not everybody got what they wanted. But what we have is a consensus. It is a compromise. I believe that for the public to have confidence in our system that consensus is vital and I am pleased to support it.I know that the previous speaker Denis O’Rourke talked about cynical manipulations and no genuine regard for democracy. Well if that was the case then with the numbers across the House the bill might have been in a different form. But theimportance and the emphasis must be on consensus in relation to electoral matters and I believe that we have got that across the House.I think it is trivial point-scoring to try to criticise either the process or the fact that this bill has the barest of changes. There has been some considerable discussion as Mr Little knows through the select committee process to actually achieve that consensus. Mr Little did not get the changes that he necessarily wanted. We might not have got the changes that we necessarily wanted either but that is the genuine nature of consensus.I do think that we have a bill here that is pragmatic that will improve the efficiency of voting will improve the services to voters candidates and parties and will improve the integrity of our election system. I commend this bill to the House.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): I just want to comment on a few of the points made by the previous speaker the Hon Kate Wilkinson who made the point around coat-tailing and the lack of consensus in this Parliament as to whether that should be included in the Electoral Amendment Bill. Well there was not a consensus because it was the National Party that did not want to bring it in. There was only one party around this House that did not want to have anything to do with changing the law around coat-tailing and it was the National Party. Conveniently the National Party needs ACT in Parliament so to stay in power it needs that piece of the electoral law. I think it is rather rich from the member who just resumed her seat to say that there was not a consensus around that when every other party other than the National Party which did it for its own blind self interest wanted that part of the legislation changed.Never in my mind did I think that I would utter the word “kordéllaphobia” in the House. That is what Scott Simpson suffers from. Unfortunately Scott Simpson is scared of these. Scott Simpson hates ribbons or is scared of ribbons. When he wakes up—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!KRIS FAAFOI: When he wakes up in the middle of the night sweating it is because he hates ribbons. That is the truth because that is what that member said in one of the more ridiculous speeches I have heard in this Parliament. He said that this legislation is going to ban rosettes being worn by anyone—Moana Mackey: And ribbons.KRIS FAAFOI: —and ribbons—on election day because they are intimidatory. Well as Phil Goff has mentioned in his speech for years decades many more years than I have been alive it has been part of the election day ritual for members of parties right across this House to don one of these scary things. I hope Scott is not watching in his office. Turn away Scott if you are watching this speech in your office because you will not want to see this! He thinks that it is intimidatory to wear a ribbon on election day. I think that Phil Goff actually made a number of good points about why it is crucial to identify yourself if you are out and about—oh here he is. Scott Simpson is over here. He is hiding. He is ducking over there because he does not want to see the ribbon.Phil Goff made a number of good points around the wearing of ribbons on election day. I hope this is actually mentioned quite a lot in the Justice and Electoral Committee because it is very important that when you knock on someone’s door on election day to check if they have voted you identify yourself and why—Hon Judith Collins: Mind your own business.KRIS FAAFOI: Oh so that Minister does notdoorknock. When you are knocking on doors you identify yourself and where you are from. You cannot say: “Go out and vote for x y and z.” That is not allowed. But what you can do is say: “Excuse me sir or madam or young person have you voted today?” and that is a tradition and has happened for many many elections. It is very important that the person in the house where you are doorknocking knows where you are from because if you say something that you should not be saying then they know how to get hold of you. The flip side ofthe situation is what you could have—and it may be an unintended consequence—is someone from some other party could go around saying: “Hey I am from the Labour Party. Have you voted?”. If they say yes or no and they come back with some kind of rude remark what is going to be the recompense for that if they have not properly identified themselves? So I think this is a bit silly and probably evidence that the National Party actually cannot get people out on election day to knock on doors so that is why it certainly does not want that there.The Minister of Justice did say in her speech that our electoral system does have a lot of integrity and I would happen to agree with her. But I just also wanted to point out one thing that David Clendon said in his speech. It is good that we are improving the efficiency of our electoral system but I would also like to echo his comments about improving the effectiveness of our electoral system by making sure that we not only make it easier for people to get enrolled—and that is what this piece of legislation does by way of making it easier to enrol online—but also emphasise the importance of actually being enrolled on the electoral roll and why it is important to be on the roll and to make sure you vote. I am pretty sure that all the members of Parliament in this House will send that message out to the youngsters when they visit their schools in their electorate or outside of the electorates. I say to them to just make sure you are enrolled and you vote. I do not care how you vote; just make sure you have a say in this electoral system.As David Clendon said and I agree with him we have to do a much better job at engaging our youngsters in politics and in the decisions that get made in this House. Yes it is also a challenge to us to excite them to get them engaged in politics and in the decisions that we make but I think it is also very important that we tell them about the importance of being enrolled to vote. Certainly I think that the move that this bill does to make it easier for us not only to just update the system and print off a piece of paper and to send it in but to fully enrol and change your details online is certainly a good thing.Just talking about some of the details on election day which I think might be of interest to most of us in this House the bill changes the time at which the early vote can be counted. So to the people who are scrutineers and the people who go and do that I say that it used to be 3 p.m. but now they can get in there much earlier at 2 p.m. and go and get the early vote counted. So that is probably a bit boring for those who are listening to this debate at home but I can say that it is one of the things that make us here in the House excited having been through many many election days ourselves.Right so a number of other speakers have talked about what is not in this bill and I just wanted to end in the way that I started which is to talk about the coat-tailing rule. As Mr Goff said RobertPeden the Chief Electoral Officer of the Electoral Commission has said that the coat-tail rule was a serious concern for most New Zealanders because they do not like what they have seen in terms of I think it was the 2008 election was it Mr Goff when ACT got only 3.65 percent but Rodney Hide took the seat of Epsom. It was given to him by the National Party—and again in 2011 it was given to John Banks over a cup of tea—and that party brought in five MPs with 3.65 percent of the vote but our colleagues to our left over here from New Zealand First who got about 0.5 percent more of the party vote but no electorate seat did not get any MPs in Parliament at all. There was a consensus of all but one of the parties in this House to change that rule—to give the electoral law in our country more integrity as the Minister said—but there was a lack of support from that party across the House. So as Kate Wilkinson said yes there was not a consensus but that was only because one party did not want to agree to that.There are a number of other changes that I think have been mentioned in this debate. I think we still have a concern about the declaration of loans of over $15000 and why you have to declare loans that are not bank loans. I think that is one of the issues that is going to be raised in the select committee. I also wanted to raise the point that there are some common-sense things in this bill that we certainly will be supporting. I think that making it easier for physically and mentally disabled people to register with a representative is a very wise thing to do as is making it easier for them to register online. Just the general use of more technology in the registration of electors is a good thing and I think it will be a first step towards the greater use of technology at probably general elections. I am not sure how far away we are from that and maybe the Minister might be able to tell us during the Committee stage but if we are moving towards some kind of electronic voting to help make it easier for people to vote I certainly think that would be a good thing. It is certainly something that I think is going to be trialled in my area of Mana in some subsequent elections with the Porirua City Council. I think that is a good thing to try to encourage more younger people to vote and I think that it is a good thing that we are seeing more use being made of online technology to help people take part in the democratic process.So as the previous two speakers from this side of the House have said we will be supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee but I would just like to warn the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee that we will certainly be bringing up his “kordéllaphobia” during the select committee stage.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Being lectured by Labour members on electoral propriety and fairness is a bit like taking lessons in personal security from Jack the Ripper. Labour is the party that brought us the Electoral Finance Act supported by some of the other parties opposite and it has yet to apologise to the electorate for doing so. But I am very pleased to see this particular bill the Electoral Amendment Bill before the House tonight because as my colleague the member for Coromandel—not “Coromandel East”—and the current chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee was kind enough to point out I did actually chair the committee through the whole of last year when 90 percent of the work was done ably supported by the then deputy chair Dr Cam Calder. Both of us moved on to new roles at the start of this year as a result of which our names do not even appear in the report but I would like to think that we could claim a little bit of credit for getting it to this point and I want to acknowledge all the members of the committee who worked on the bill last year. They attacked the task intelligently and with vigour and I believe that a good job was done. So I thank all members across the House for that.Some excellent recommendations have come forward in this bill as a result of the work of the committee and these should streamline election day procedures and promote awareness of the importance of civics and voting amongst young people. It is particularly important that we encourage our young people to vote because all the evidence shows us that if they develop a history of voting as young people they will continue with that throughout their lives and it should also encourage a return to our historically high voter turnout. We can commend ourselves in New Zealand for the fact that we achieve that without having compulsory voting because we have just seen again in Australia that even though it has compulsory voting it does not get anywhere near to achieving that particular outcome.Some Opposition speakers tonight have criticised the recommendation to do away with streamers rosettes etc. but I just want to point out that election day must be absolutely fair. Members opposite can trivialise the reason for it but in fact it is very important that the day should be completely free of electioneering and politicalinfluence. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that it has not been and I believe that this bill is a positive step to ensure that it is as fair andunintimidating as it can be.The other point I want to make is to just highlight the absolute nonsense that we have heard from a number of speakers including the Hon Phil Goff Kris Faafoi most recently David Clendon Andrew Little and unfortunately even Denis O’Rourke about the apparent consensus on issues that arose from the Electoral Commission’s review of MMP because anybody listening to this debate has been subjected to complete nonsense on that issue particularly on the issue of coat-tailing. As a result of the MMP review that was conducted it was necessary for the Government to work to see what sort of consensus there was amongst the parties on all of the issues that arose. I have highlighted on this document just how different all the parties’ positions were on a number of issues. Yes there was consensus on a few things. All the parties agreed that list candidates should be able to stand in by-elections. All of them agreed that it should be possible to be both a list and an electorate candidate and that the party list arrangements should be essentially as they are at the moment. But those were not really the controversial issues.The things that were of particular heat out in the community included whether the party vote threshold should be lowered whether the one seat electorate threshold should be abolished and whether the overhang should be abolished. If I hold this document up—I have highlighted it in colour so that hopefully people can see on TV what the different colours are—when the Labour Party tells us that it is only the National Party that is out of step in fact looking at the recommendation to abolish the one electorate seat threshold of the eight parties in the House at the moment Labour the Greens and New Zealand First were in the minority. They were the ones that wanted to abolish the one seat electoral threshold whereas National the Māori Party the Mana party the ACT Party and United Future all wanted to retain the status quo. So it is completely wrong for those speakers to suggest that they would have had consensus if only it was not for the nasty National Party. What they really mean is that consensus means: “See it and do it our way.” Well that is not good enough and that would not reflect the will of the people.On the issue of the overhang the Labour Party and the Māori Party wanted to abolish the overhang the New Zealand First Party had a slightly ambiguous position but wanted to look into it further and the National Party the Green Party the Mana party the ACT Party and United Future all had the same view.On the issue of lowering the party vote threshold the National Party the New Zealand First Party and the ACT Party went one way; Labour and the Greens went a second way; and the Māori Party the Mana party and United Future went a third way. So it is worthwhile just clarifying the fact that there was no consensus. Without consensus no change was possible. I will leave it at that.I do want to say again how delighted I am that this bill has come to the House. I thank all members of the committee for the work they have done to this point. I congratulate the Minister of Justice—and what a scurrilous attack she received from the Labour Opposition justice spokesperson earlier—on the hard work she has done in a short time in bringing this bill to the House. That is a very good achievement and I look forward to seeing it pass its way through so that we can have these changes in place ready for the next general election.I seek leave to table the document that I have prepared which highlights the differing parties’ positions on the recommendations of the Electoral Commission.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! I understand that the next call is a split call. Moana Mackey—5 minutes.MOANA MACKEY (Labour): Well we are very beholden to the Government whip Tim Macindoe for sitting up in his office with his crayons and colouring in a pretty document for us none of which changes the fact that the National Party absolutely did not want to get rid of the coat-tailing provisions. None of those members have been able to tell us why the coat-tailing provisions should remain in place given that the No. 1 issue under the MMP review for voters was that they wanted to see those provisions go. We did not hear anything from any of the National speakers as to why the biggest party in this Parliament the National Party which implemented the MMP review and then completely refused to listen to those who participated in that review did not deal with the single biggest issue for voters when it came to the tweaks that they wanted to see in a system that they largely liked and had voted to keep in place at the last election.There is much in this bill that is very good and much in this bill that is very sensible but unfortunately there are a number of things in this bill that are completely ridiculous. I do want to come back to the issue of the banning of rosettes ribbons and streamers on election day. As my colleague Andrew Little said this is not about not electioneering on election day because that is illegal. You cannot do that. So if the concern that members have is that people do not want electioneering on election day well you cannot do that under the law. But I would ask the National Party about early voting. If that is its big concern—that it is far too intimidating to have all those party colours there and that no one should be influenced in any single way—does that mean that National does not support early voting when people are voting right in the heat of the campaign period? Are those people being intimidated? Are those people somehow being influenced in a way that is inappropriate? Silence. Exactly—because they are not.I sat there wondering why it is that the National Party wants to ban ribbons on election day because it just seemed to be utterly ridiculous. What was the point? Then we had Scott Simpson the chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee kindly give us the reason why. It is that ribbons are intimidating. It is that voters on election day will see a ribbon or a streamer and will be intimidated. Well it is nice to know the actual reason. That is completely ridiculous and just unbelievable.The reality is that National does not have the number of troops out on the ground on election day that the Labour Party has. It does not have the number of people going around turning out the vote reminding people that it is election day and asking them whether they are ready to vote. Also of course we assist people in getting to polling booths if they are unable to get there for themselves. People want to see when you turn up on the doorstep that you have a got a Labour rosette on. They know that you are the person that they have called to come and assist them to get to a polling booth. Well the National Party wants to take that away because it says that ribbons streamers and rosettes are intimidating. Well if they are so intimidating then why are we continuing to allow them at the polling booth? Surely if they are so intimidating that voters cannot be exposed to them on election day why are they still allowed in polling booths then?It highlights the absolute ridiculousness of this particular provision because we have early voting now. We are not allowed to electioneer on election day. If you look around the world in fact New Zealand is fairly unique in having the great restrictions that we place on election day. I am not saying that that is not a good thing but of course in Australia just across the Ditch it is full-on electioneering right up to the time that the polls actually close. Again I come back to the issue of early voting. As we go furtherdown that path and as more New Zealanders take the opportunity to vote early rather than on election day then I guess it just really highlights the ridiculousness of singling out one day over all the others.It was interesting to hear the Hon Judith Collins. She said that when you go on to someone’s doorstep you are intimidating them. Well I shudder to think what Judith Collins does on—Hon Judith Collins: I did not say that. Don’t lie.MOANA MACKEY: I am not lying Ms Collins. That is what you actually said. What you actually said in response to my colleague’s speech was that “You shouldn’t go on to the doorsteps—stop intimidating people.” Well I do not know what Judith Collins does on the doorsteps when she is out doorknocking—I shudder to think—but I can absolute reassure her that we do not intimidate people on the doorstep. People are pleased to see the Labour Party turn up on their doorstep particularly on election day to remind them that it is election day and to help them get to a polling booth if they want to vote. So I think that the Minister really should reflect on the comments she has made and if she regrets them now then I am quite happy for her to take them back—quite happy for her to take them back.There is much in this bill that is good. As colleagues have pointed out it is a shame that the provisions of the MMP review were not fully implemented—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry but the member’s time has expired.MOJO MATHERS (Green): My colleague earlier spoke about how we are going to be supporting this bill the Electoral Amendment Bill. For us one of the highlights of this bill is the provision for online enrolment. Several speakers have talked before about how there is declining voter engagement and that it is really important to try to turn that round with a range of ploys. However there is a disappointment that perhaps the bill is not totally maximising its opportunities and I would like to talk about a particular group of people who are quite disenfranchised in general elections which is that of disabled people many of whom are not able to cast an independent vote. This is quite core to a democratic society because the right to be able to cast an independent vote is absolutely the core political right. Without that there is no mechanism for holding people to account. New Zealand has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and that includes Article 29 section (a) which is about ensuring that political information is accessible and is provided in an accessible format including information on how to vote and it protects the right to vote by secret ballot for people with disabilities.At the moment in the current Electoral Act section 170 allows disabled people to vote with assistance if they need it. That is great but the very fact of having to disclose their vote to someone else is a breach of the right to a secret vote. What is more I have often heard from colleagues that they overhear when they are in the polling booth people disclosing their vote so they have not just disclosed their vote to the person who is going to mark the voting ballot for them they have disclosed their vote to whoever can hear in the same room. Clearly this is not a desirable outcome. This problem has been recognised overseas and in many other countries they have brought in a whole range of other methods to try to assist disabled people to have an independent vote. These have included transparent overlays voting templates touch screen kiosks telephone voting and internet voting. I would just like to point out here that out of all these options internet voting is the only voting that allows people who are deaf and blind to cast an independent vote because they can access that using Brailletexting technology from their computer.It is very disappointing that at this stage we will not have internet voting in place for the 2014 election. I understand however that phone dictation is being looked at by amending the regulation and we welcome that. But what I would like to note is that at the moment the regulating-making power that is provided for in subsection (6) of section 170 extends only to electors who are wholly or partially blind enabling them to vote by means of devices. That is a clear omission of a whole range of other voters and what I am working on is a Supplementary Order Paper that will extend regulation-making powers to other groups of disabled people and I really would hope that the Minister of Justice would permit this Supplementary Order Paper to go to select committee for consideration. Thank you.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): In taking a brief call in this first reading debate on the Electoral Amendment Bill I would like to congratulate our very fine and very hard-working Minister of Justice the Hon Judith Collins and also Tim Macindoe the member for Hamilton West who chaired the Justice and Electoral Committee that undertook the review of the 2011 election.As the Minister and previous Government speakers have canvassed this bill implements 11 of the key recommendations from the Justice and Electoral Committee’s inquiry into the 2011 general election. These changes can be summarised in three main areas: they are updates to processes to both improve efficiency and take into account the possibilities offered by technological change they offer a tightening of rules to ensure fairness and integrity in our voting system and they offer minor technical fixes to our otherwise pretty robust existing electoral law—that is the law as implemented by the National-led Government in the last term prior to the 2011 election.Among the improvements that this bill introduces I particularly applaud the inclusion of a provision for full online enrolment using electronic identity verification through the Government’sRealMe system. It seems only sensible that in this era of the falling use of snail mail and increased uptake of online services enrolment to vote should be a process that can be completed electronically online. This will make it a much more convenient and efficient process for the end clients—that is the electors—and therefore we should see an increase in enrolment rates and the accuracy of the electoral roll. But it is also important that up-to-date safeguards and sureties against hacking data corruption identity theft and false registration should be deployed to protect the integrity of our electoral system. So it is good to see this as another practical implementation of theRealMe system.Provision for increased use ofEasyVote cards also seems pretty logical to me. These will now be able to be used as the official record for an ordinary vote having been issued and as evidence that a special voter is enrolled and eligible to vote. These changes make very good sense in terms of streamlining the voting process.Extensions to the time frame for filing party vote declarations to 90 days—as we know this can be a fairly time-consuming and bureaucratic process for our various party officials—also seems like a fair measure but this is balanced against tougher penalties for failing to meet the requirement to file expenses and donation returns within 15 days of the deadline. Late returns without reasonable excuse will now actually—contrary to what Mr Little said earlier—become a corrupt practice and therefore face much higher penalties than in the past. Treating loans to parties in a similar way to donations and making loans the subject of the same disclosure rules as donations also helps to strengthen the integrity of our already very sound system.As I learnt at the Transparency International New Zealand branch workshop yesterday at Te Papa which was also attended by the Hon Phil Goff our system is already perceived as being among the cleanest in the world. A high-integrity electoral system is one of the 13 key pillars that Transparency International identifies along withan uncorrupt Public Service impartial judiciary sound law enforcement authorities and an effective audit and review function among others that contribute to New Zealand being ranked as the No. 1 least corrupt country in the world in its survey.We are doing well but this legislation will help us stay ahead of the game and maintain our outstanding No. 1 ranking which is so important to our exporters because of the international reputation and high trust levels in our country our people and our products that this engenders. So for this reason among other reasons I happily commend this bill to the House.Bill read a first time.Billreferred to the Justice and Electoral Committee.Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) BillFirst ReadingHon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I moveThat the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Justice and Electoral Committee to consider the bill. This bill will improve public safety and save potential victims from almost certain serious harm or worse. The High Court will be able to order the detention of the most high-risk offenders under a public protection order. The new order will complement existing measures such as parole conditions extended supervision orders and preventive detention. The bill responds to situations where an offender presents an unacceptable risk that cannot be managed through these existing measures.People must ask themselves whether they would place someone who has a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent offending in any community in New Zealand let alone their own. At this very high level of imminent risk the law runs out of options to manage these offenders’ behaviours once their sentence is complete. This is reflected in the small number of people expected to receive a public protection order. I expect five to 12 orders over a 10-year period. Once public safety has been assured the bill provides that the people detained under a public protection order will have all the rights of other citizens. Detention under the bill is civil in nature but within the precincts of a prison because the safety of the community cannot be assured otherwise.Some may say that the bill raises significant human rights issues. I believe this bill strikes the right balance between the liberty rights of individuals under a public protection order and our duty to protect New Zealanders from imminently dangerous offenders. The bill is necessary effective proportionate and fair. The bill specifies a threshold and a test for a public protection order. The threshold requires that a person has nearly completed sentences for sexual or violent offending or has been released from prison and is subject to the most intensive form of supervision. The test requires that the person poses a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent offending. Imminence means that the person is expected to commit a serious sexual or violent offence as soon as they have the suitable opportunity to do so.The Crown must prove four characteristics that give rise to the risk. I will go through each of these characteristics in turn because they are integral to the justification for continuing detention under a public protection order. The first is an intense drive or urge to offend. Evidence used to prove this urge could include for example the individual’s rapid reoffending following previous releases from custody. The second is an inability to control behaviour and emotions. This may be shown by evidence of impulsiveness and an inability to cope with or manage any form of stress or difficulties. The third is an absence of understanding and concern for the impact of offending on potential or actualvictims. I would note here that all offenders in this group who could be subject to a public protection order will have had or been offered the opportunity of comprehensive treatment during their time in prison. The fourth and final characteristic is that the person experiences poor interpersonal relationships or social isolation or both.The Crown must prove all four of these characteristics to a high level to subject someone to a public protection order. Three out of four characteristics is not enough to support an order. Although these people have offended in the past they will not be detained for their previous crimes. They will be detained because of their imminent risk of serious sexual or violent offending at the time of the application. The test for the risk of imminent future offending will be difficult to meet.The bill recognises the serious implications of a public protection order. It also provides the following robust procedures for making the orders. Only the High Court in its civil jurisdiction will be authorised to make an order. Any application to the High Court will be accompanied by two health assessors’ reports on the level of risk posed by the person. A person for whom an order is sought will have the right to independent legal advice and psychological evaluation—funded if necessary by legal aid. The court may of its own initiative direct a health assessor to prepare a report.The bill includes a number of safeguards for the protection of the rights of individuals subject to a public protection order. There is ongoing judicial and independent supervision of the detention. A review panel will review public protection orders each year. The High Court will review the public protection orders every 5 years or more frequently on the recommendation of the review panel or on application by the resident. These regular reviews ensure that the initial determination of risk does not result in unjustifiable continuing detention. A regular review of the basis for detention ensures that a person is detained only when they pose risk.The measures in this bill will improve public safety by ensuring the detention of individuals who pose a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent offending. I commend this bill to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to speak on the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill and from the outset I say that notwithstanding some concerns we have about an aspect of this bill we will support it because we think it should be given proper and appropriate examination in the Justice and Electoral Committee. I note that this bill has taken some time to arrive at this stage in Parliament. It was a promise made in the 2011 election campaign by the National Party. I think there was an undertaking for some consultation by the Government with other parties in Parliament. That did not happen. The bill was tabled and is now being read for the first time notwithstanding the fact that there have been prisoners reaching the end of their sentence who have posed a risk to the community.We understand that this bill and the measures that it contains apply when the sentence of an offender convicted of a violent or sexual offence is exhausted. There is a tension between the long-established principles of criminal justice which are that the crime is proven a conviction is entered a sentence is to reflect the magnitude of the crime and a punishment is proportionate to the crime that has been committed. Normally the sentence is given with the minimum incarceration period with potential for parole on the basis that a convicted offender has the opportunity to demonstrate that they are capable and that they can return to the community and pose little or no risk to the community. But the Minister of Justice is right. It is a very small number but it is the nature of humanity—there are people who because of the nature of their personality the nature of who they are continue to pose a serious risk to the community. There does need to be a way of managing just those sorts of people.We might wonder why it is that we have not had measures to deal with those people until now—why that has not been a problem until now. It is certainly something I have reflected on. Probably once upon a time these are the sorts of people who would have been locked up in a mental health institution and left and they would have been placed under some sort of compulsory order. They may not have had a genuine mental health problem—they might have had a personality disorder—but they would have been left inside a mental health institution and treated accordingly. Many years ago they possibly would have been treated through lobotomies and other measures which is what of course was depicted in that great movieOne Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. But we have a system now where of course we do not treat people with personality disorders who are routinely violent in that sort of way and we have a set of social mores that tries to put as many people as possible in the mainstream.But as the Minister has said and as we know from media reports there is that very small number of people who have demonstrated that regardless of convictions that they have had entered against them and the punishment that has been meted out to them and that they have been managed under in our criminal justice system they nevertheless continue to pose a risk to the community. We understand that there needs to be that balance struck between those people who fulfil their criminal justice obligations and who would otherwise be entitled to the freedom that they would otherwise get and those who were they to be freed into the community would pose not just some risk but as the legislation says an “imminent” risk—a risk that I would see as an almost certain risk to the public—and therefore there needs to be some sort of restraint.But as I said in a debate on a bill earlier today we are seeing more of this sort of legislation. We saw it with the Vulnerable Children Bill. We have seen it in other legislation where this House is being asked to put in place measures that do not fit the criminal justice framework that we are used to but are about affording protection to the community. I do note by comparison the provisions in this bill as compared with those in the Victims’ Orders Against Violent Offenders Bill. One of my criticisms about the latter bill is that it is left up to victims to take steps to afford themselves protection in circumstances where I would have thought it was obvious they were entitled to it. In this bill as indeed under the Vulnerable Children Bill it is left up to a public official to make that application in the civil jurisdiction of the court. I simply prevail upon the Minister to think carefully about the disparity that is opening up now in these pieces of legislation. If it is genuinely about affording protection to the public against people who are a clear and obvious risk to the public then that is a matter that certainly in the public interest the State should pick up the cost of and take responsibility for. There is no reason why some consistency should not be created across these pieces of legislation.Let me go back to the point I wanted to make. One of the things we will be doing as the select committee process unfolds with this bill is ensuring that a proper balance is struck between the criminal justice system doing its job within the sorts of principles and the framework that we are used to and those people who having been though the system are otherwise entitled to their freedom. This bill says that there will be some constraints on an offender who comes under the aegis of this piece of legislation. It says that a prisoner detained under a protection order under this bill will have the rights of a person of full capacity who is not subject to a public protection order except as limited by the Act.But the reality is that the limitations are extensive. The person must be in a facility within the precincts of a prison. Their communication means are subject to scrutiny and potential interference. They are not entitled to unsupervised access to the internet and there are other limitations that they are subject to as well: monitoring of telephone callssearch and seizure including strip-searches and drug and alcohol tests. So we will need to hear from the authorities if not the experts those who will be called upon to certify that these people are the risk that is claimed of them whether or not these sorts of measures simply go too far in terms of that balance between protecting the public and ensuring that there is at least some freedom afforded to people who have fulfilled their obligations to the criminal justice system.What we do not want to do is pass law after law and bill after bill that do not just encroach upon important freedoms but start establishing as a matter of principle that it is OK to do this without a proper consideration of those rights of citizenship including the rights of citizens who have transgressed the normal mores and socially accepted standards of behaviour but who have paid their dues done their time been punished as a result and ought ordinarily to expect to go back into the community. That is the principle of criminal justice. We must always uphold that but there will be exceptions. When we are faced with these difficult problems that this bill seeks to address then we in this House need to be absolutely sure in fulfilling our duty as representatives of all citizens that we have got that balance right that we have got the tension properly managed and that we do not create a principle that allows us without undue ceremony to encroach on those important rights. As I said at the beginning we will support this bill going to the select committee. We will examine it very closely and very carefully to make sure that all those rights and those principles are properly respected and observed.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): It is a pleasure to rise and stand in support of the first reading of the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill in the name of the Hon Judith Collins Minister of Justice. We have heard two presentations one from the Minister and one from the Labour justice spokesperson Andrew Little and I think that they have both been very good measured and well-considered presentations. There are unfortunately in society a very small number of troubled people who have fulfilled their obligations in terms of the criminal justice system but still present a real and very threatening risk to the wider public. As Andrew Little made the point in his speech in less enlightened times these people would probably have been incarcerated in some kind of mental institution where they would have been subjected to all kinds of indignities both mental and physical and probably involving drugs and all kinds of treatments that we would consider entirely inappropriate today.As a Parliament we do have an obligation to balance very carefully and very finely the responsibilities of the State to ensure that the public are protected in their homes and as they go about their lawful business from this very small number of people who have the potential to inflict ongoing harm and danger to the general public. So this piece of legislation fulfils a campaign pledge that I and other members of the Government campaigned on during the 2011 general election. It is aimed at people who reach the end of their finite prison sentence and who are subject to the most intensive form of extended supervision order and yet who still pose a very high risk of imminent serious sexual or violent reoffending and where less restrictive forms of supervision are simply not going to be adequate for preventing almost all further reoffending.This is a Government that believes that we should ensure that New Zealanders can feel safe in their homes and in their communities. So I think this fulfilment of an election promise is a significant piece of legislation and I am very pleased that the Minister has been able to bring it to the House for consideration by the Justice and Electoral Committee. Despite serving prison terms a few dangerous offenders are highly likely to reoffend once they have been released back into society. Existing mechanisms such as preventive detention and extended supervision orders which allow authorities to monitor manage and/or recall offenders to prison are sometimes simply not adequate to protect the public. I think this piece of legislation as we go through theselect committee will probe and make sure that the balance between the public’s right to protection and also the individual’s rights in terms of the fulfilment of the criminal justice penalties that have been inflicted upon them because of previous bad crimes will be neatly addressed. The bill balances those rights of New Zealanders to be safe in their community with the rights of offenders who have served their sentence.This bill will protect members of the public and that is what it is really all about. The public protection order will be a court order that will allow the detention of a very high-risk individual at a secure facility within existing prison precincts. Only a very small number of people are likely to be subject to public protection orders. As the Minister has indicated officials estimate that over the next decade a maximum of somewhere between five and 12 offenders are likely to be included in these public protection orders. Individuals will have the opportunity to show that the Crown has not established that they meet the risk criteria at the time that the Crown applies to the High Court for an order.So what are the risk criteria? Well “very high risk” will mean that offending is considered extremely likely. “Serious” means that the predicted offending would cause serious physical or psychological harm to one or more other persons. “Imminent” means that the offending is expected to occur when provided with a suitable opportunity the offender would immediately inflict serious physical or psychological harm to one or more persons.I think this will be a good piece of legislation. As I said I am very pleased that the Minister has introduced it to the House. As chair of the Justice and Electoral Committee I am looking forward to the deliberations and to the submissions we will receive on it. I commend it to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): As my colleague Andrew Little said Labour will be supporting this bill the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill going through to the Justice and Electoral Committee. Notwithstanding the fact that it was an election promise and therefore some may be sceptical about the motivation of it I think there is a need to reflect on the fact that there is a small group of people in the community who are very likely to reoffend.One of the hardest things that I found in 6 years as Minister of Justice was dealing with people who had committed crimes and who were often of low intellectual ability. They were most frequently paedophiles. They behaved in a way that would be totally irrational to all of us in this House. They were compulsive in their behaviour and I worried a lot about some of those individuals. I can still think of the names of some of them—that were released publicly. Lloyd McIntosh was one of them. He was responsible for sexual violation of a baby. It is not normal behaviour. He had low intellectual ability. He had served his time and we could not do anything with him. It was that particular case that led me to think very seriously about what we do in that minority of cases where people who have served their time and would normally be released to the community are not actually safe to have in the community.We did a range of different things all of which were effective to deal with most of the cases that we confronted. One thing we did was make greater use of preventive detention rather than sentencing somebody after they had effectively already served their time. As you are aware when you are sentenced to preventive detention usually for a serious sexual or violent offence you can be detained indefinitely. You are released only when the professionals consider that you are safe to be released and once you are released you can be recalled at any time that you show high-risk factors indicating that you are likely to reoffend. So we extended the use of preventive detention so that we could deal with that category of people—who in some senses werebarely culpable because of low intellectual ability and compulsive behaviour—and keep the community safe from them.In the case of people who are sentenced to life imprisonment—which is for a restricted number of offences of course such as murder—again when you release people you have the capability to recall them if they look to be at risk of reoffending. But that does not cover the sorts of people whom we were concerned about. Normally when somebody has served their sentence right to the end you can keep them on parole for 6 months past the period of their determinate sentence but again some of these people clearly were not safe to be in the community.There is the Intellectual Disability (Compulsory Care and Rehabilitation) Act and that gives the authorities the power to detain people for up to 3 years. But I accept that notwithstanding the range of things that we put in place there is still a number of people—said in the regulatory impact statement to be between five and 12 over a 10-year period—who fall through the cracks and are not even adequately dealt with through the system of extended supervision which can last for 10 years which was perhaps the most effective measure that I introduced to try to deal with people who were very high-risk reoffenders and reoffenders in terms of serious offences that had dramatically bad impacts on their victims.I accept that this bill is not about punishment; it is actually about protecting the community. Protection of the community in this small number of cases is a valid consideration against which to balance the longstanding principle of justice that you do the crime you serve the time and when you have served the time you are released and you are a free person. What we are actually proposing in this bill is that when people have served their time they will actually keep on serving time indefinitely. That is a significant step to take.Most countries have indeterminate sentences such as preventive detention. That meets the criteria of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. It meets the criteria followed by the European Union’s human rights court. But the concept of detaining people after they have served the sentence imposed on them by the court is pretty unusual. We can be pretty certain that it will breach the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. We can be pretty certain that it breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. You do not lightly take action and legislate in this way when you know in advance that you are going to be in breach of significant pieces of legislation and international obligations.When I have looked at what is done internationally actually there is not that much that goes this far. In some of the Australian states people can continue to be kept in prison mainly for crimes of sexual offending and often sexual offending against children. In England and Scotland there is a form of close supervision for sexual and violent offenders but that is in the community. In the United States there is a form of civil detention. So we are taking a very significant step here which is why the select committee will be obligated to look very closely at what this bill actually means. I accept that there are safeguards put into this legislation quite appropriately. There will be regular reviews of detention by a review panel and by the High Court there will be an independent inspector there will be ombudsmen’s visits and there will be annual reporting to Parliament. But notwithstanding all of those things this is a pretty dramatic step to take.The objective as set out in the regulatory impact statement is to deal with people who present “a very high risk of imminent and serious sexual or violent re-offending”. What does that mean? Well “very high risk” means that offending is considered to be extremely likely. The judgment will be made by professionals such as psychologists who have worked with the individuals over a significant period of time. “Serious”means that if you put this small group of people out into the community you are putting individuals at risk of really serious physical and psychological harm—people who are innocent victims. You do not really want to have those people victimised when you take the step of waiting for an offender almost inevitably to offend and then put them away. The damage has been done. “Imminent” is also an important word. It means that offending is expected to occur when the offender is provided with a suitable opportunity and the offender would immediately inflict serious harm on a vulnerable victim. When you consider those criteria when you consider that the people whom you are dealing with are a real problem to the community there needs to be a way to protect the community from those individuals.I have talked about international practice and looking at the regulatory impact statement it is difficult to find a lot of precedent for what is being proposed to the House so I think the select committee if it decides to proceed with this legislation will need to ensure that the safeguards are very clear and are very reliable. The final thing is in terms of human rights. I want to come back to that. The regulatory impact statement does make it clear that this bill will breach human rights legislation in this country and internationally in a number of different ways. The challenge that we will face in examining this legislation—first of all the select committee examining it and then us in the House—is to ensure that any action that we are taking can be justified on the basis of an intense risk from a very small number of people. And on that basis the select committee and the House may subsequently find that this legislation does need to be put into place.DAVID CLENDON (Green): I think it is interesting that we are debating the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill for the first time in Parliament 1 day short of a year after its introduction. It was introduced on 18 September 2012. We are here today on 17 September 2013 and this bill is being read for the first time. Mr Goff made the point that the National Party campaigned on the suggestion or the proposition that legislation of this nature would come into the House if it won the election which clearly it did. Two years on despite the implied urgency of legislation like this and the apparent urgent necessity for it it has taken the Government 2 years to bring this bill to its first reading. I think that is worth reflecting on in terms of the motivation behind this bill. All sorts of extravagant and wild things get promised and said in the heat of an election campaign and I do feel that the legislation reflects more a political than a principled position in terms of its provisions in terms of what it seeks to do.At the time a year ago when this bill was introduced we were assured by the Minister of Justice that the orders were intended to be protective not punitive that it was not a form of double jeopardy and that offenders would have as many civil rights as practicable. And that is a really interesting qualifier to put against the notion of civil rights—that offenders would be assigned as many rights as were practicable. So 1 year on we are debating this legislation for the first time and again we cast our minds back a year when it was introduced around the time when there was a great deal of attention being paid to the form of release of one offender Stewart Murray Wilson. At that time there was an extraordinarily irresponsible display of media reporting there was an extraordinary level of sensationalism about that single case and I do think that that in a sense paved the way potentially for legislation like this which in the Green view does significantly overstep the mark.One needs look no further than the regulatory impact statement. Right up front some of it talks about some of the constraints on the analysis done by the officials whose job it was to prepare that statement. It makes the point that “it is not possible to accurately report recidivism data for such a small and unique subset of offenders.” It makes the point that “Impacts arising from other initiatives”—and it mentions the Sentencing Act2002 which significantly expanded the criteria for preventive detention—“may reduce the need for the proposed measures over time.” It is pointed out that the provisions in this bill as they have evolved are “likely to override fundamental common law principles … specifically the principles in favour of liberty of the subject that the law should conform with both international law and treaty obligations …” and that we should assure that “statutes and regulations operate prospectively.” not retrospectively.The point has been made that this legislation has been designed to capture a vanishingly small number of offenders—potentially as few as five individuals and at the highest estimate it would be 12 people. It does seem extraordinary to put in place a unique piece of legislation that does compromise our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and I will come to that point later and that will inevitably compromise international agreements and obligations so as to manage potentially only five offenders. No one is underplaying the severity of the offending of some of those people but it is a very peculiar and we think unacceptable way to endeavour to address to manage the potential release of those people. We are contemplating legislation a whole raft of provisions for very few people as I have said.We already have at our disposal a range of provisions to manage these people. We have mechanisms to manage the risk that they may present at the point when their sentence is complete and I have yet to hear a really compelling argument or to see particularly powerful evidence that the existing provisions are inadequate to meet the requirements of public safety around this very very small number of people who may potentially be released into the community. Again I would look to the regulatory impact statement and reflect indeed on the outcome of the Stewart Murray Wilson example. The regulatory impact statement tells us that “In all jurisdictions where very high risk offenders are released into the community the police play a major role in preventing reoffending by … deploying … resources in the surveillance and interception of these offenders. The resulting detection of breaches of orders and notification requirements or minor offending usually then results in the offender being prosecuted and returned to prison.” Clearly that is exactly the case of Mr Stewart Wilson who is now back in prison because he failed to comply with the very strict conditions that were imposed on him. That is I think an example that shows that existing provisions are adequate to the cause or that we have the wit and the capacity to ensure that there is an acceptable level of public safety around the potential release of this very very small number of offenders.The point has been made about international examples and again we can look to the regulatory impact statement which is a very useful document. It actually indicates that there are four Australian states that have similar provisions for detention or very very strict supervision orders placed primarily on sex offenders at the end of their finite sentences. Indeed they may be detained in prison indefinitely or for a renewable finite period. We are told that the United Nations Human Rights Committee has already determined that each of those orders breaches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. We are going a step beyond what the Australian states have done. Inevitably we will be taken to task and found in breach of those selfsame UN civil and political rights agreements to which we are signatories.We are told that this legislation is not intended to be punitive and that it is simply protective. Holding that thought I fail to see how the provisions of this legislation are not punitive. I would like to just list the conditions—what is possible in terms of the ongoing detention of people who have completed their finite sentences. These people will clearly be further denied their liberty their freedom of movement—a most fundamental right of human beings. We must acknowledge that their liberty will be denied them. People may be prevented from sending or receiving writtencommunications under the provisions of this legislation. There may be restrictions on phone calls. They may be unable to make calls or may have their calls very seriously restricted or monitored. They may be prevented from receiving visits or communicating orally with people according to the management plan under which they will be placed. They may be subject to searches within the usual confines of the so-called residence any time they leave the prison precinct or come back to it and those searches can include strip searches. They may be placed in seclusion which I think is a gentle name that endeavours to differentiate between it and solitary confinement which is what it would amount to. We got told that they may be constrained—that mechanical restraints may be used.I invite anyone to explain to me how those provisions are not punitive. How does that differ in any substantial way from a conventional prison sentence? All that this legislation does really is elongate extend the finite sentence that has been applied to these people. The legislation does in fact allow for the offender to be simply kept in a prison rather than under the disguise of one of these so-called residences. The proposition is that this legislation is not punitive that it will not impugn human rights and that it will not contravene our New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. Despite dare I say it the rather convoluted semantics of the Attorney-General’s report inevitably this will be found in breach if it goes ahead in its current form. The Greens do not find this acceptable and will be opposing this legislation.ALFRED NGARO (National): I am constantly concerned when I hear that member David Clendon talk about the issues and the rights of the offender over the rights of the victim. He actually turned round and said that this was electioneering. Well if we have gone out and we have said to ordinary Kiwis to New Zealanders that we want to embark on a comprehensive programme of reform to protect communities to prevent crime and to put victims first and if that is electioneering then I am not sure what that speech from that member was actually all about. Ordinary everyday New Zealanders want to know and ensure that their safety is actually paramount in this Parliament.What I am also looking forward to after this first reading is this Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee and hearing submissions. I would like that member to look into the eyes of the Sensible Sentencing Trust’s Mr GarthMcVicar and of the family members and tell them that the rights of offenders are far more important than the rights of the victims and that all the things we are doing in this legislation are punitive.This legislation is important. We know that the number of offenders we are talking about is between only five and 12 but the impact that they have on the community is huge—the trauma the tragedy. All of these things we know are significant in a community. It can never be understated Mr Clendon that what we are trying to do here is to put the rights of the victims first and ensure that our communities are safe. This is absolutely not punitive as the member has talked about.Let us address some of these issues. First of all he talked about the concern that the bill is setting a precedent for this type of detention order. This is a civil detention order. There are civil detention orders that are already used as part of other regimes that protect the community from harm. These include detaining people with highly contagious diseases or individuals who have mental health or intellectual disability issues that make them a danger to others or themselves. The bill does not affect the functioning of other civil detention regimes.Secondly Mr Clendon talked about the bill overriding offenders’ rights. The bill appropriately balances the right of New Zealanders to be free from almost certain serious harm versus the liberty rights of offenders who have served their sentence. By holding individuals in a civil detention facility and allowing them a high degree ofautonomy where possible the system responds proportionately to the legitimate objective of protecting citizens from almost certain harm.Mr Clendon also talked about the legislation being inconsistent with human rights legislation and international obligations. Let us just spell this out really clearly. Public protection orders are civil orders not criminal punishments and their sole purpose is to protect the community from near certain future harm. I would like to know what that member of Parliament who is here today would say if an offender had gone out and sexually and violently harmed a member of our community. What would be the speech from that member? What would be the response to the family members? What would be the response to the community? What would be the response to New Zealand as a whole? Would he stand up and say: “Let’s look at this legislation. It has been punitive to the offender.”? Well I guarantee that that member would not do that. He can say all the words that he wants but this legislation is important to protect the rights of ordinary New Zealanders.I look forward to this legislation going to the select committee and to hearing the submissions. I look forward to sitting down and actually being alongside that member and hearing the submissions from people like GarthMcVicar who talk about the importance of balancing the rights of individuals to protect them against the trauma and tragedy of violent and sexual offending on New Zealanders as a whole. This is good legislation. I think it is important and it is well balanced. I commend this legislation to the House.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First will support the Public Safety (Public Protection Orders) Bill going to the Justice and Electoral Committee. The bill must achieve a very difficult balance between protecting citizens from serious sexual or violent harm and the right of those affected to be subject to the least restrictive form of detention that is practicable. It must also ensure adequate oversight of detention through regular reviews by a review panel and the High Court independent inspector and Ombudsman visits and an annual report to Parliament. There is a high level of public expectation for legislation of this kind. What we must do and what the select committee must do is get the legislation right and that comes down to the detail of it.I would first like to refer to the opinion expressed by the Attorney-General that the bill is not inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. The issue is whether these orders would amount to further punishment of sentenced offenders or a regime of civil committal as provided for in other legislation. I agree that the bill incorporates the key safeguards necessary for a civil committal regime and that it will therefore be New Zealand Bill of Rights Act compliant. Whether the bill as introduced includes adequate safeguards at each of the stages of the making administration and review—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but the time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.