Volume 694 Week 59 - Tuesday 12 November 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 694 Week 59 - Tuesday 12 November 2013[Sitting date: 12 November 2013. Volume:694;Page:14531. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 12 November 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.MotionsTyphoon—PhilippinesRt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to move a motion without notice in relation to the typhoon in the Philippines.Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I moveThat the House express its support for the people and Government of the Philippines following TyphoonHaiyan. We expressour solidarity with those waiting for news about friends and family and our condolences to those who have lost loved ones. Over the weekend one of the biggest storms yet recorded hit the Philippines. It caused major damage and affected nearly 10 million people. The scale of the disaster is staggering and a full picture of the destruction and the loss of life is still emerging. The images we are seeing out of the affected areas are deeply harrowing and I know that all New Zealanders will be moved by them. The anguish within our large Filipino community reminds us of how closely this disaster is felt here at home. At this stage we know that more than half a million people have been displaced the death toll is significant and rising and many people are desperately waiting for news about their loved ones.Following the Christchurch earthquakes many New Zealanders were confronted with these same emotions and we know firsthand how difficult the response to and recovery from a major natural disaster can be. What we also learnt from Christchurch is that no country has to face this alone. The international community always stands ready to help. Last night I called President Aquino to personally extend New Zealanders’ condolences and to assure him that we stand ready to assist in any way that we can.Almost immediately after Typhoon Haiyan hit we announced a contribution of $150000 to the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies to help with the delivery of much-needed relief items. We have now announced a further assistance package totalling $2 million; $750000 of this funding will be delivered via New Zealand non-governmental organisations and the balance will be used to address priorities identified by the Philippines Government and the international humanitarian community. In addition we will be helping to provide disaster management expertise. An official from the NZAID programme will be joining the specialist United Nations Disaster Assessment and Coordination team. We have also deployed a senior consular adviser to supplement our embassy consular response to the typhoon. I have made clear our willingness and readiness to provide further assistance if required.Finally I am due to visit the Philippines next week to lead a delegation focused on building business ties and furthering the already very strong relationship between our two countries. One of the areas in which we cooperate closely with the Philippines and other countries of the region is in disaster risk management. Typhoon Haiyan reminds us why this is an ever-relevant and ever-pressing shared challenge. I have spoken to the President and offered to postpone this visit on the grounds that the Philippines Government will be focusing on recovery efforts. We await its response. Again on behalf of this House and of all New Zealanders I extend our condolences to President Aquino and his people at this difficult time. We also pay tribute to the resilience of the Philippines people and of those working to respond to this cyclone.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): In this awful time our hearts go out to the people of the Philippines and to their families here and overseas. We stand with the Government on this matter. We are horrified by the scale and devastation of Typhoon Haiyan and by the knowledge of the tragic and immense task ahead. We know from media reports that there are dire shortages of water food and medical supplies. We have heard about the cries of the injured with some having to undergo surgery without anaesthetic; about women having to give birth without proper care; and about the dead awaiting burial days after the event. We have seen the vacant shock on the faces of those who still cannot possibly take in all that they have lost.We commend the Government for committing $2 million in aid in addition to the $150000 initially committed to the Red Cross. Having just been out collecting for the Red Cross with my colleagues I am personally heartened to see the great generosity and care once again shown by the people of New Zealand. There will be a need to do more in the time ahead and we offer our support to the Government in any way that we can. We encourage any New Zealand - Filipino families some of whom I have met today to contact their loved ones through our Foreign Service where appropriate. Once again we offer our deepest condolences. This is a difficult time for them to be so far from home and their families but please know that you have the aroha of all members of Parliament and all of our nation.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I rise on behalf of the Green Party to speak to this terrible event that has befallen the people of the Philippines. I think that the best way I can acknowledge those who have died and the suffering of those who are currently trying to find their way through the rubble in the Philippines is read out a statement by the Filipino people themselves. This is a statement by Yeb Sano head of the Philippines delegation to the UN climate talks. He read this statement at the opening of the climate talks in Warsaw in the last few hours. His home has been devastated. Many of his family are missing.These are his words: “It was barely 11 months ago in Doha when my delegation appealed to the world … to open our eyes to the stark reality that we face … as then we confronted a catastrophic storm that resulted in the costliest disaster in Philippine history. Less than a year [after] we [could not] imagine that a disaster much bigger would come. With a … cruel twist of fate my country is being tested by this hellstorm called Super Typhoon Haiyan” which has been described by experts as the strongest typhoon that has ever made landfall in the course of recorded human history. It was so strong that if there was a Category 6 it would have fallen squarely in that box. … we remain uncertain as to the full extent of the devastation as information trickles in in an agonizingly slow manner because electricity lines and communication lines have been cut off … .The initial assessment show that Haiyan left a wake of massive devastation that is unprecedented unthinkable and horrific affecting 2/3 of the Philippines with about half a million people now rendered homeless and with scenes reminiscent of the aftermath of a tsunami with a vast wasteland of mud and debris and dead bodies.” He said: “Despite the massive efforts that my country had exerted in preparing for the onslaught of this monster of a storm it was just … too powerful and even as a nation familiar with storms … Haiyan was nothing we have ever experienced before or perhaps nothing that any country has ever experienced before. The picture in the aftermath is ever slowly coming into focus. The devastation is colossal.”I will continue with a quote from Yeb Sano head of the Philippines delegation at the UN climate talks: “To anyone who continues to deny the reality that is climate change I dare you to get off your ivory tower and away from the comfort of your armchair. I dare you to go to the island of the Pacific the islands of the Caribbean and the islands of the Indian ocean and see the impacts of rising sea levels; to the mountainous regions of theHimalayas and the Andes to see communities confronting glacial floods to the Arctic where communities grapple with the fast dwindling polar ice caps to the large deltas of the Mekong the Ganges the Amazon and the Nile where lives and livelihoods are drowned to the hills of Central America that confronts similar monstrous hurricanes to the vast savannas of Africa where climate change has likewise become a matter of life and death … Not to forget the massive hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico … And if that is not enough you may want to pay a visit to the Philippines right now.The science has given us a picture that has become much more in focus. The IPCC report on climate change and extreme events underscored the risks associated with changes in the patterns as well as frequency of extreme weather events. Science tells us that simply climate change will mean more intense tropical storms. As the Earth warms up that would include the oceans. The energy that is stored in the waters off the Philippines will increase the intensity of typhoons and the trend we now see is that more destructive storms will be the new norm.” [Interruption] I am speaking quoting from the Philippines head of delegation who spoke of the typhoon in the last few hours and am quoting from that speech. “Typhoons such as Haiyan and its impacts represent a sobering reminder to the international community that we cannot afford to procrastinate on climate action.” He said that the Warsaw conference “should muster the political will to address climate change” and raise ambition.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. For all that there is a great deal of chatter my colleague is entitled to speak on this motion and I would like it to be heard in silence because even sitting next to him I cannot hear what he is saying.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just remind the House that this is a very serious motion we are debating. The member has a right to deliver his speech. It would be better if it was delivered without a political message but the message is in the hands of Dr Russel Norman for him to complete his speech.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Thank you Mr Speaker. I am quoting from the Philippines head of delegation at the Warsaw climate conference. He says: “What my country is going through as a result of this extreme climate event is madness. The climate crisis is madness. We can stop this madness. Right here in Warsaw.” He said that it was the 19th conference of the parties to annual meeting of the UN climate talks but that “we might as well stop counting because my country refuses to accept that a COP30 or a COP40 will be needed to solve climate change. And because it seems that despite the significant gains we have [made] 20 years hence we continue to fail in fulfilling the ultimate objective of the Convention. Now we find ourselves in a situation where we have to ask ourselves—can we ever attain the objective set out in Article 2 which is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system?”.He went on to say: “We find ourselves at a critical juncture and the situation is such that even the most ambitious emissions reductions by developed countries who should have been taking the lead in combating climate change … will not be enough to avert the crisis. It is now too late too late to talk about the world being able to rely on [developed] countries to solve [it]. We have entered a new era that demands global solidarity in order to fight climate change.” He said that this is why means of implementing support for developing countries is so crucial. He went on to say: “We cannot sit and stay helpless staring at this international climate stalemate. It is now time to take action. We need an emergency climate pathway.”This is Yeb Sano head of the Philippines delegation. He says: “Super Typhoon Haiyan made landfall in my family’s hometown and the devastation is staggering. I struggle to find words even for the images that we see … I struggle to find words to describe how I feel about the losses and damages … [I] wait for word as to the fate of my very own relatives. What gives me renewed strength and great relief was when my brother succeeded in communicating with us that he has survived the onslaught. In thelast two days he has been gathering bodies of the dead with his own two hands. He is hungry and weary as food supplies find it difficult to arrive …”.He said that he calls on the Warsaw conference “to pursue work until the most meaningful outcome is in sight…This process under the UNFCCC”—the climate change convention—“has been called many names. It has been called a farce. It has been called an annual carbon-intensive gathering of useless frequent flyers … But it has also been called the Project to save the planet. It has been called ‘saving tomorrow today’. We can fix this. We can stop this madness. Right now. Right here in the middle [here]. I call on the [Polish president] to lead us … Can humanity rise to the occasion? I still believe we can.”Those are the words of Yeb Sano head of the Philippines delegation. Let us honour his words and the words of the Government of the Philippines and take action on climate change as they are asking us to do.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of New Zealand First. New Zealand First members wish to extend our deepest sympathy to the people of the Philippines who have been affected by the devastating storm that has struck their country. The scale of their loss is hard to comprehend. The estimated number of people who have died from the super typhoon is staggering. There are reports that around three-quarters of specific provinces have been destroyed. Although the extent of the full devastation may take days to assess we all recognise that the Philippines is now faced with an enormous task of reconstruction and rebuilding.It is right that along with other members of the international community New Zealand should aid the Philippines. Any practical assistance that New Zealand can give should be provided to help the disaster relief effort. New Zealand First supports the decision of the New Zealand Government to give additional support for humanitarian relief efforts in the Philippines and we continue to pray for the people and their families.Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): On behalf of the ACT Party and the people of the Epsom electorate I join with the Prime Minister in extending our condolences and heartfelt thoughts to President Aquino and the people of the Philippines at this significant tragedy and great loss. Also in our thoughts and prayers are the hard-working Filipino citizens and residents of New Zealand. They are good people with great values and are much appreciated in this country. Despite the safety of distance many will have lost family and friends. The awesome power of nature is matched only by the magnitude of the numbers: 10000 lives lost and counting 10 million people displaced and homeless tens of billions of dollars in property damage. It is indeed a very cruel twist of fate. Thankfully Typhoon Haiyan has lost most of its force as it makes landfall in Viet Nam. At this time of trial and tribulation it is right that our Prime Minister has extended the hand of friendship to the people of the Philippines. New Zealand as a good global citizen and an Asia-Pacific neighbour should and will do what she can.Brendan Horan: Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I will certainly take a contribution from Mr Horan. There are no rules. A motion without notice is by convention one that is for party leaders to comment on but I am aware of the member’s interest in this issue.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): I rise to support the Prime Minister’s motion of support and condolence to the people our dear friends of the Philippines. I also support any assistance that we can give as a country for those in the Philippines who continue to endure the consequences of this tragedy. The forces of nature can be terribly cruel and at times of great human need like this it is important that we demonstratehumanity and compassion and render whatever assistance we can give. To the people of the Philippines kia kaha arohanui.Motion agreed to.VisitorsPapua New Guinea—Parliamentary Delegation National ParliamentMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the National Parliament of Papua New Guinea led by the HonMalakaiTabar is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.ResponsesPaora Maxwell—Statements Made by Clare CurranMr SPEAKER: I hereby present a response under Standing Orders 156 to 159 on the application of Paora Maxwell relating to reference made by Clare Curran on 4 and 5 September 2013. Those papers are published under the authority of the House.Questions to MinistersEconomy—Employment and Wage Increases1.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to theMinister of Finance: What do official statistics show about progress in the Government’s goal of supporting new jobs and higher incomes for New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): First it is important to recognise that businesses create jobs and the Government is following a supportive policy for businesses and the people who work in them so that they can invest more and create more jobs. Recent indicators confirm that the programme is working. In the September quarter 27000 more New Zealanders had jobs than in the previous quarter. The increase in jobs over the year to September stood at 53700. Regional employment data was moderately strong with eight regions having a lower unemployment rate than Auckland.Maggie Barry: What did labour market statistics show last week in respect of overall employment levels labour market participation rates and hours worked across the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The results from the survey for September were a bit more positive than expected although to be fair those expectations were pretty moderate. Employment increased by 2.4 percent in the year to September. The labour market participation rate—that is the proportion of the potential workforce that regards itself as being in the labour market—increased by half a percentage point to 68.6 percent and the unemployment rate fell to 6.2 percent. Both the number of hours worked and the number of hours paid rose and this is indicative of reasonably good growth for the whole economy. Wage growth accelerated more than expected according to the quarterly employment survey. All these indicators suggest that the economic recovery is gathering some momentum—and I am pleased to say particularly in the regions and particularly in manufacturing.Maggie Barry: How does New Zealand’s rate of unemployment compare with unemployment levels in other developed economies?Hon BILL ENGLISH: At 6.2 percent it is still higher than we would like to see it but it is a considerable improvement on 7.2 percent a year earlier. This improvement is more noteworthy given that New Zealand’s labour market participation rate has increased significantly to 68.6 percent which is high by world standards. In a number of other developed economies participation rates are falling as people are discouragedfrom looking for work. Our unemployment rate is a bit higher than Australia’s 5.7 percent; however in New Zealand—[Interruption] No just listen to this. In New Zealand 64.4 percent of the working age population is in work. In Australia that percentage is 61.1 percent of the population in work. So a bigger proportion of the New Zealand population is in work than in Australia by quite some margin and our unemployment rates are pretty similar.Maggie Barry: According to official labour market statistics how do recent wage increases compare with movements in the cost of living?Hon BILL ENGLISH: This is particularly relevant for households that feel the pressure of rising costs and for many New Zealand households that have had to wait a bit long for wage increases. The quarterly employment survey measure of average hourly earnings rose 2.6 percent in the year to September—almost double the 1.4 percent increase in the CPI for the same period. So average hourly earnings rose almost twice as fast as the Consumers Price Index. This is moderately helping families to get ahead of the cost of living.Andrew Little: Why is half the workforce not getting a pay increase in any one year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We will continue to pursue policy that locks in to the extent that it can relatively low inflation but more important policy that supports workplaces paying higher wages.Pike River Mine Disaster—Compensation2.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by his statement yesterday that the compensation awarded to the Pike River families “should be serviced by the company not by the Crown”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he believes that the Government should have no role in the compensation to the families of the Pike River miners given that the royal commission found that the Department of Labour did not have the focus capacity or strategies to ensure the compliance of the mine and that the department “should have prohibited Pike from operating the mine …”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me summarise a few things from the Government’s point of view. Firstly we have great sympathy for the families. Secondly the Government has honoured all of its legal obligations as it sees them—certainly in terms of ACC payments and the like. Thirdly the Government has been extremely supportive of New Zealanders and the donations that they have made to the trust funds that were set up for the families. But the Crown’s legal position is that it sees no cause of action that could be the basis for the Government legally having to pay compensation to the victims’ families.Hon David Cunliffe: Did the Prime Minister tell theAustralian newspaper that the Pike River mine a single-entry uphill mine “ ‘couldn’t have been constructed in Australia’ because it would have been ‘illegal’. ”; if so does he still believe that the Crown has at least no moral responsibility to help contribute to the compensation of the families of the dead miners?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the first part of the question yes I made that statement. In terms of the second part the Government believes there is no cause of action. Obviously the legal representatives of the family are free to test that case in court. But the Government is also a guardian of taxpayers’ money and it would need to be very careful about any precedent that it might set. There are plenty of New Zealand companies that for instance go broke and actually do not end up paying redundancypayments that are owing to those workers. So that situation is another situation that the Government would have to avoid.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister accept that at least two entities of the Crown the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the Accident Compensation Corporation are parent shareholders of Pike River Coal and that they have received insurance payouts on behalf of Pike River Coal that they have not passed on to the families; if so does he still maintain that the Crown has no moral or legal obligation to contribute to the compensation for the dead miners?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of those particular claims. I have made no comment about the moral position. What I have made quite clear though is that the advice that the Government is following is the legal advice it has received and that is that there is no cause of action.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Prime Minister has said that the families of the deceased miners must further test their case in court does he agree with the judge in the original insurance case that New Zealand Oil and Gas the primary parent of Pike River Coal should pay the full compensation; if so what steps regulatory or otherwise has he taken to make that happen?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not my responsibility as Prime Minister.Hon David Cunliffe: What steps of any kind has the Prime Minister taken in respect of any parent entities that have together received $80 million of insurance money and paid out none of it to the families who have received only $5000 per head out of the $110000 court-ordered compensation and why does he wash his hands like a modern-day Pontius Pilate of this travesty that is occurring on his watch?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Government’s responsibilities rest with the legal framework that is there for any person or any family who would be in this situation and that is through ACC. The Government is not responsible for a compensation claim that was awarded against the company any more than it would be for for instance payments made to a redundant worker. If the families believe there is a cause of action they should test the cause of action.Hon David Cunliffe: Did the Prime Minister have a legal obligation to give $30 million to Rio Tinto and does he have a legal obligation to pay up to $400 million in subsidies to Chorus; if he does not have a legal obligation to those two companies why does he not have a moral obligation to the families of the dead miners?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I think the Government has not paid anything to Chorus yet in terms of what the member is talking about. In terms of Tīwai Point—I really have to caution the member. I think he is doing a great disservice to the families when he starts playing silly political games.Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I do take offence to being impugned in respect of the families of the Pike River miners when the entire push by the Opposition has been to ensure they get what is due to them which the Prime Minister is denying.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am surprised that the member has taken offence. If the member has taken offence at something the Prime Minister said I guess we have got to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw but I cannot think of anything the Prime Minister said that could possibly offend the member.Sexual Offences—Prevention and Court Processes3.KATRINA SHANKS (National) to theMinister of Justice: What steps is the Government taking to support victims of sexual violence?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): The Government is committed to providing better support for victims of crime including all victims of sexual violence.As a result of the Law Commission’s recent review of the Evidence Act I will shortly be introducing proposals to improve the way some evidence is dealt with in these cases. If the defence wants to raise issues about a complainant’s previous sexual history they will need to give notice before trial. In addition child witnesses under the age of 18 will be able to give evidence by video recording which can be challenged in trial. They will be able to have a support person sitting nearby when they give evidence. There is a range of support services for sexual violence victims across the Government. They include specialist victim support no real limitation period on the making of a complaint automatic name suppression in criminal proceedings and the court is closed when victims give evidence. Victims can give evidence behind a screen and they are allowed a support person with them in court while giving evidence and there is a range of counselling and financial support through the Ministry of Justice ACC support or the Ministry of Social Development including funding of agencies such as Doctors for Sexual Abuse Care Auckland Sexual Abuse Helpline and Wellington Rape Crisis. The Victims of Crime Reform Bill which is awaiting its second reading will also introduce a new victims’ code.Katrina Shanks: What criminal processes exist to deal with sexual violence offences?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: In New Zealand we have a common law justice system based on democratic principles of fairness. Some European and former communist countries have a different system the inquisitorial method of criminal justice which effectively means that any accused person has to prove their innocence. Accused persons are examined directly by judges trained in the inquisitorial method of examination. There is limited ability to challenge evidence presented to the judge. In the common law method prosecution and defence each present their evidence and arguments to the court and have the right to challenge each other’s evidence. In 2012 the Law Commission published an issues paper and invited submissions on a range of pre-trial and trial processes particularly to consider whether inquisitorial processes could be incorporated into our justice system for sexual offences. Some of the issues considered have been advanced such as child protection orders greater use of restorative justice to deal with sexual violence offences protection for child witnesses and requiring notice to be given if the defence intends to raise evidence of the complainant’s prior sexual history.Katrina Shanks: What else is the Government doing to help prevent sexual violence victimisation?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Prevention is obviously the key for progress in this matter. Sexual violence is obviously abhorrent but it is also linked with alcohol and other drugs. The Government’s alcohol reform legislation comes into force on 18 December. From 18 December this year it will be an offence to supply alcohol to a minor without parental consent. In addition the Government has passed the Psychoactive Substances Act to stop the sale of harmful party pills. The Ministry of Health funds a rape prevention programme in schools called BodySafe which is currently run in many schools and teaches young people how to keep themselves safe from sexual violence and how to deal with a sexual attachment if it does happen. Earlier this year Minister Bennett announced a major funding boost for victims of sexual violence through agencies such as the Auckland Sexual Abuse Help Foundation. In addition ACC is redesigning its support assessment and treatment services for sensitive claims to provide more responsive services to victims of sexual violence. Sadly many victims of sexual violence are repeat victims and part of the approach is to help victims keep safe to prevent revictimisation. There is a good deal currently being done to deal with sexual violence in this community and it is a real problem that affectsold and young. We need to continue to bring offenders to justice and to acknowledge that sexual violence is a crime and needs to be dealt with accordingly.Capital Gains Tax—Investment Properties4.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Will the Government tax realised capital gains on investment property; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government already taxes capital gains on property speculation where property investment is for the purpose of trading. The member may not be aware of that. In addition to this the Government’s 2010 tax changes on property disallowed deductions for building depreciation and this raises around $700 million per year from property investors a much larger number than any estimate we have seen for the foreseeable future for a further extension of the capital gains tax. Further extension of the current tax on capital gains is likely to have high compliance costs and that is a conclusion that three tax inquiries and several Governments have come to over the last 20 years. If it excludes the family home it will not raise much difference it will not raise much revenue and it becomes effectively a tax on successful businesses. In overseas jurisdictions it has not improved housing affordability.Hon David Parker: Why does he think the profits on the sale of investment property are of such critical importance to the economy that they should not be taxed but instead be cross-subsidised by every other taxpaying business and worker in New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would point out two things as I pointed out in the primary answer. First where any property is bought for the purposes of selling the gains on that are taxed at current income tax rates. It is called an income tax but actually it is a capital gains tax on trading investment property. The member may have seen recent publicity about the scope of the Inland Revenue Department’s activities in ensuring that everyone who does trade in property pays full income tax rates not the half-baked rate that he proposes in his proposition of 15c in the dollar. They are actually taxed at 33c currently. Secondly the changes made in the 2010 tax package do collect $700 million per year from property investors which is a much larger number than any revenue that he has posited as a result of his partial extension of the current capital gains tax.Jami-Lee Ross: In considering various tax options for New Zealand what international evidence has the Minister seen on the effects of capital gains taxes on housing affordability?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports from Australia on the effects of a partial capital gains tax limits on foreign investment a so-called mansion tax and compulsory savings. If these policies are meant to improve housing affordability then they have not because housing affordability is worse in Australia than in New Zealand. Just today there is a report being published showing that first-home buyers now make up the smallest proportion of the housing market ever in Australia. So the housing market in Australia now consists of fewer first-home buyers than ever so we would be a bit careful about following that policy prescription.Hon David Parker: What proportion of investment property sales pay tax as traders; is it closer to zero percent than 100 percent?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not have that information to hand but I can assure the member that the Inland Revenue Department is vigorously pursuing every investor who trades in property.Jami-Lee Ross: What reports has the Minister received on the case for a new capital gains tax in New Zealand?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have received the report of a speech to the Wellington Property Investors Association in July 2005. It noted that the Government-appointed tax review in 2001 considered a new capital gains tax and concluded that the disadvantages of such a tax—its complexity and costs—outweighed the theoretical benefits so it did not recommend such a tax. The speech also noted that the Government of the day agreed with that conclusion that the status quo was entirely adequate. The speech was delivered on behalf of the Minister of Finance Michael Cullen by his associate David Cunliffe.Hon David Parker: Is it fair that every dollar earned by a salary or wage earner is taxed every dollar spent by working New Zealanders on consumption is taxed yet wealthy people who sell off investment properties for millions of dollars ordinarily pay no tax on their capital gains?Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place investors in property do pay tax on their capital gain if they are trading. That is really important. Secondly they no longer have the benefit of depreciation deductions which means they are paying $700 million a year more tax than they were. But the fundamental position has not changed. A capital gains tax might have an effect if it is comprehensive—that is if it covers all capital gains in the economy. But no one is proposing that and I do not think there is anyone in the House here who believes that it is practical to implement such a tax in New Zealand.Hon David Parker: Given that the majority of the public agree that a capital gains tax excluding the family home would be more effective in taking the heat out of the property market than loan-to-value restrictions why is it that under this Government we have loan-to-valuation restrictions that hurt young people and first-home buyers in favour of property speculators?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Firstly the Labour Party was actually a couple of years ago saying that we were old-fashioned on monetary policy in not implementing macro-prudential mechanisms like loan-to-value ratios. Of course now that the Reserve Bank has done that it is not so keen on it. Secondly a comprehensive capital gains tax might have a benefit but no one is prepared to implement that including the Government. A partial capital gains tax has no real impact on housing affordability including for first-home buyers and we need only to look to Australia to see that.Hon David Parker: Is not the truth of the matter that conservative Governments like National try to hang on to tax advantages like the lack of a capital gains tax on investment properties because this is what is in the interests of their backers?Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member is wanting to make that assertion then he should explain why David Cunliffe made a speech when representing the Minister of Finance arguing against a partial capital gains tax. And when I have heard the member’s explanation of that we can continue the debate.Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting—Appointment of Sri Lanka to Chair5.JAN LOGIE (Green) to thePrime Minister: Will he oppose Sri Lanka chairing the Commonwealth following the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Sri Lanka as called for by the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): The process for appointing Sri Lanka as the chair of the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting took place in Perth in 2011. All member States of the Commonwealth endorse Sri Lanka taking on this role. As host of this year’s meeting Sri Lanka automatically becomes the chair in office of the Commonwealth for the following 2 years. The process has been followed ever since the role of chair in office was established in 1999. The Commonwealth operates by consensus amongst its 53 members. I can tell the member that no process exists toinstall a different chair in office for 2014-15. There is no vote held. Sri Lanka is automatically the chair.Jan Logie: I seek leave to table a letter from the Commonwealth Human Rights Initiative to John Key dated 6 November asking for them to oppose the appointment.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Jan Logie: Why will his Government not put out a statement opposing Sri Lanka chairing the Commonwealth for the next 2 years in order to put pressure on the regime to change?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because there is no process for changing the chair.Jan Logie: Does he accept that there are serious human rights abuses that have taken place and are still taking place in Sri Lanka?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is highly likely that there have been significant human rights abuses that certainly took place at the back end of the civil war and some of those could be ongoing. They will be matters I raise personally with the President when I meet with him later in the week.Jan Logie: Does he consider that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka is better or worse than in Fiji; and if his Government is willing to talk tough on Fiji why will it not take firm action on Sri Lanka?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The major issue that the Government has with the incumbent Government currently in Fiji is not one of human rights although those issues are raised from time to time. The issue is the way that the Fijian Government was installed and that was through a military coup. That is the reason why the Government takes action against the current Government of Fiji.Jan Logie: Is he concerned that having the Sri Lankan PresidentMahinda Rajapaksa chairing the Commonwealth for the next 2 years might undermine international efforts to get an independent inquiry into war crimes and human rights violations in Sri Lanka?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not think that will be the effect. I think actually the effect of Sri Lanka being in the chair and therefore hosting the event is that the world’s media will descend on Colombo and draw its own conclusions. I do note that before I came to the House I rummaged through my office to see whether I could find any statements from the Green Party about Sri Lanka becoming the chair a couple of years ago. It may have issued one but I am not sure I saw it.Jan Logie: Is he aware that local Tamils and Sinhalese human rights activists believe that the current approach of this Government is validating the regime and buying them time to entrench their power?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sure there is a range of views on the ground in Colombo and in Sri Lanka.Jan Logie: Will New Zealand support the call of United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron for an international inquiry into allegations of war crimes in Sri Lanka?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We may well do so; we have not drawn a conclusion on that yet.Hon Maryan Street: Why will he not move to create a process to challenge Sri Lanka’s chairing of the Commonwealth by working with other like-minded Commonwealth countries and thereby take an active rather than a passive approach to human rights records in that country?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly the Government is not taking a passive approach. In the last 12 months the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been to Sri Lanka twice he has raised the issue of human rights with that Government and he is travelling to the north where significant human rights abuses may well have taken place during the back end of the civil war and I am having a meeting with the President to raise New Zealand’s concerns. I do not think that it is a strong argument that the Opposition can mount that we do not take human rights concerns in Sri Lanka seriously.Sharks—Conservation Initiatives6.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to theMinister of Conservation: What steps is the Government taking to improve the conservation of New Zealand’s 113 species of shark?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Conservation): The Government at the weekend announced a new plan of action for the conservation of sharks. It includes a ban on shark finning. It is already illegal to fin a shark live and return it to the sea. The change is to prohibit the catching and killing of a shark and the discarding of its remaining carcass except its fins. This change will assist global efforts to conserve sharks of which 30 percent internationally are threatened or near-threatened with extinction. The plan also provides for the total protection of the seven species of shark that are the most threatened.Nicky Wagner: When will the ban take effect and why is it necessary to have a 2-year transition in some fisheries?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is proposed that the ban take effect at the beginning of the next fishing year which is on 1 October 2014 for most fisheries. For others time is needed to develop safe and sustainable fishing practices. Sharks are often caught as bycatch in the longline tuna fishery. The current practice is to kill the shark remove its fins and then dump it at sea because the hull space is needed for the more valuable tuna. We actually need to work with fishers in this fishery on safe methods to unhook the shark and return it live to the sea. That is not without its challenges. The 2-year transition is proposed to develop trial and implement these new shark conservation measures.Sexual Offences—Pre-trial and Trial Processes7.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) to theMinister of Justice: Does she stand by all her answers to Oral Question No. 9 on Tuesday and Oral Question No. 8 on Wednesday last week?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): Yes.Andrew Little: Why when asked last Tuesday: “Will the Minister implement the recommendation of the Law Commission made in March this year to modify the law on evidence in sexual offence cases … ?” the recommendation of which related to advance notice being given of evidence of previous sexual experience did she say: “No.” and then tell theSunday Star-Timesin the weekend just gone and theDominion Post as reported today that she is now planning to change the law of evidence in exactly the way that the Law Commission has recommended?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well actually the member has misquoted himself again. What we have is that he went on to say—when he put the quote mark in there it was not quite right and I am sure he knows it when he looks at theHansard—“so that victims are not re-victimised when giving evidence on offences against them?”. Well actually there is no way at all that anyone would think that the changes to the Evidence Act will of themselves prevent victims from being re-victimised when they giveevidence. I can tell that member that I cannot think of any proposal that would prevent victims from feeling utterly re-victimised whenever they have to give their evidence.Andrew Little: What happened between question time last Tuesday and question time last Wednesday so that when she was asked to explain her “No.” answer given on Tuesday she first denied that she was asked the question then said that I was confused and then said that she was looking at the issue when on the previous day she said that there was no need to?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I cannot speak for that member Andrew Little but I can certainly say that I had a lot of work to do and I went to sleep and woke up very refreshed thanks very much for asking.Andrew Little: Does she think that her suggestions in theNew Zealand Heraldtoday of providing better information about core processes to victims allowing someone else to read a victim’s impact statement to the court and providing notification to victims about bail or parole—all of which presuppose a prosecution to be on foot—are sufficient to deal with the fact that 90 percent of sexual violations go unreported and only about 1 percent of sexual violence events result in a conviction?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I cannot imagine for a moment that the proposals that I am supporting would of themselves go anywhere near dealing with the trauma of a rape victim having to give evidence to make a complaint to confess to their family members where they might or might not have been and to get rid of those dreadful feelings that victims have when they get accused of wearing clothes that might apparently turn moderate men suddenly into abusers. So I cannot imagine for a moment that anything that has been proposed will make a victim feel better. What it will do however is actually help to bring more offenders to account and that is important.Andrew Little: Does she accept that it is time to make real change on the law of sexual violation by ensuring that courts focus on the only issue in any such case which is whether the act in question was consented to ensuring that complainants are not left feeling as though they are on trial and leaving issues of mitigation to the sentencing phase or will she just continue to deal with this important issue with her usual bombast bluff and bluster?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: On the first part of that question I would have to say that I take this issue very seriously—far more seriously than that member seems to be taking it from the nature of the second part of his question to which I have to say I will leave it to him to be bombastic and silly about this very serious issue.Dairy Industry—Foreign Ownership of Farms8.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to theMinister for Primary Industries: What concerns if any does he have regarding government policy for the dairy industry in New Zealand?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade)on behalf of theMinister for Primary Industries: I have every confidence that the policies of this Government will provide an excellent future for our No. 1 export industry. I have to say however that I have serious concerns that the policies that underwrite this success such as new public-private partnership irrigation proposals Primary Growth Partnerships existing free-trade agreements such as the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement and not to mention the Trans-Pacific Partnership would be put seriously at risk if that member were ever to be part of a Government cobbled together from a coalition of the unwilling.Richard Prosser: Is he concerned that vast tracts of New Zealand farmland including dairy country are being accumulated by foreign buyers despite a Government directive from the Deputy Prime Minister to Land Information New Zealand in 2010noting concern over the aggregation by foreigners of large swaths of New Zealand farmland?Hon TIM GROSER: Vast areas of our farmland are not in the hands of foreign ownership. This country’s agricultural base was actually established by foreign ownership of land which is now standing at between 1 and 2 percent.Richard Prosser: Does he believe it is good for anything other than property prices that Shanghai Pengxin will soon own 29 farms across New Zealand totalling over 12000 hectares of our most productive irrigated dairy pasture?Hon TIM GROSER: This application is before the Overseas Investment Office at the moment and it would clearly be inappropriate for the Government to make a comment at this stage.Richard Prosser: Is he concerned that foreign owners of large amounts of farmland have the potential to move to large-scale integration of dairy farming including processing which would completely lock out New Zealanders?Hon TIM GROSER: No I do not share that concern.Richard Prosser: What action will he take should Shanghai Pengxin break its pledge to not invest in dairy processing and to export only finished products?Hon TIM GROSER: Well I will not comment on the proposal before the Overseas Investment Office at the moment but of course there are procedures to ensure that when applications are granted and approved the applications and the conditions that were pursuant to that are followed through and there is a very rigorous process underlying that.Richard Prosser: Can he confirm that Shanghai Pengxin’s pledge to export only finished products is legally enforceable and does it extend to Shanghai Pengxin not buying out existing private dairy companies which may themselves be able to then export bulk commodity product for further processing offshore?Hon TIM GROSER: I refer the member to the answer to the previous question. Since this is before the Overseas Investment Office the member will have to wait and see what happens.Drugs Control—Regulation of Psychoactive Substances9.Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to theAssociate Minister of Health: What actions has the Government taken to ensure compliance with the Psychoactive Substances Act 2013?Hon TODD McCLAY (Associate Minister of Health): I recently announced that the 0800 Psychoactive Substances Hotline has gone live. The number is 0800 789 652. The hotline provides a direct avenue for concerned communities families and parents to report any activities by users or retailers that they believe to be illegal so that our enforcement agencies can take immediate action. The Psychoactive Substances Regulatory Authority has already withdrawn a number of licences following reports from the public. I do expect the hotline will further strengthen the public’s ability to take action when they see activity that is inconsistent with the Act.Dr Paul Hutchison: What feedback has the Minister received on the effectiveness of the Psychoactive Substances Act?Hon TODD McCLAY: The feedback is positive. The Psychoactive Substances Act has already had a significant impact by reducing the availability and access of these products. The number of shops previously selling psychoactive substances was estimated to be 3000 or 4000 and as of today it sits at 130 retailers with interim licences. Indeed the products were estimated to be in the number of 200 to 300 available before the Act came into force and that number was growing. Today there are just 46 with temporary licences. These products continue to be monitored closely. Ihave noted previously that district health boards have reported a reduction in the number and severity of reports of adverse reactions from individuals using these products and the National Poisons Centre has also reported a reduction in the number of calls of concern to them.Freshwater Management—Water Quality of Rivers and Lakes10.EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to theMinister for the Environment: Will her proposed changes to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management ensure our rivers and lakes are safe for swimming?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): The amendments to the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 and the creation of the national objectives framework will help to improve water quality across New Zealand particularly through the national bottom lines and a new collaborative option for water management. Many of the attributes to meet bottom lines will be attributes that also improve water towards being suitable for swimming. Where a community determines that particular rivers or lakes are valued as swimming spots the national objectives framework provides a robust scientifically backed set of attributes to help communities plan to meet that objective. These are bottom lines; they are not targets. They do not limit the ability for communities to set an objective of swimmable water for any water body in its catchment.Eugenie Sage: So to be clear is the Minister saying that the proposed changes to the national policy statement will not actually ensure that New Zealanders can safely swim in our rivers?Hon AMY ADAMS: The amendments are very clear. They set nationally required bottom lines for ecosystem health and secondary contact for human health. If communities wish to also add requirements to manage those water bodies for swimming they are absolutely able to do so. That is a choice for their communities. If they do the national objectives framework provides a robust set of measurable criteria that they should use to work towards that goal.Eugenie Sage: When does she expect that the 61 percent of monitored river sites that are unsafe for swimming to be clean enough to swim in given that her proposed changes to the national policy statement do not make it mandatory for councils to set standards for swimmability?Hon AMY ADAMS: The first point I would make is that that member continues to misquote that sample. It has never talked about the percentage of rivers in New Zealand. It talks only about the ones that are monitored. It is not representative and it does not suggest that 62 percent are unsafe for swimming.Eugenie Sage: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I said: “When does she expect that the 61 percent of monitored river sites …”; I did not say 61 percent—Mr SPEAKER: Order! And I have heard enough from the member. The Minister was responding to that by saying that she disagreed with the way the member had phrased her question. She has every right to do that in her answer. Does the Minister wish to continue with her answer?Hon AMY ADAMS: What I would say is that the improvements we are making will ensure a significant improvement in the quality of water bodies across New Zealand. That will lead to cleaner waterways. I think it is somewhat rich for members of the previous Government which did nothing and allowed the situation we now have to develop to sit there and criticise the fact that we are doing something when they were happy to oversee a Government that did absolutely nothing. I would have thought they would welcome it.Eugenie Sage: Did she decide to have a national bottom line for boating and wading but not for swimming because she considered that it would be too costly for industries like dairying to reduce their contaminant leaching so that we could have rivers that are suitable for swimming?Hon AMY ADAMS: The first point I would make is that the recommendations to have bottom lines for ecosystem health and secondary contact for human health are recommendations of the Land and Water Forum. They are not my recommendations or my decisions. The second point I would make is that they are backed up by a very robust combination of science to support them. Finally I would make the very clear point that these indicators that we are rolling out are currently out for discussion. That is the point of a discussion document. We are now consulting with the public on the framework that we have developed based on the Land and Water Forum’s recommendations and I encourage people to put in their views on those.Meka Whaitiri: Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Tēna tātou e te Whare nei. Why given the advice of “60 of New Zealand’s top scientists” and having received the Land and Water Forum’s third report some 12 months ago is she unable to come up with comprehensive minimum water-quality standards?Hon AMY ADAMS: I reject the member’s assertion that we have not come up with comprehensive standards. What I have always said is that the development of water-quality standards under the national objectives framework is a process that will continue to develop and evolve over time. But what I am not prepared to do is do nothing until we have every answer. My view has always been that we have to start to improve water quality with all the information we do have and continue to develop it. That is a significant step forward. And as I have said it is somewhat rich for parties that did absolutely nothing and were happy to watch our water quality deteriorate to now complain when we are taking action that they think should be stronger. We are doing it; they did not.Disability Allowance—Case Management11.SUE MORONEY (Labour) to theMinister for Social Development: Does she agree with the statement made by her spokeswoman with regard to Work and Income requirements for the disability allowance that “There’s no reason anyone would be repeatedly asked to prove a congenital condition and we have no information about any cases where that has happened”?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Yes. People with a congenital disability that their doctor has diagnosed as never needing to be reassessed do not need to provide ongoing medical evidence to keep their benefit going. However if their costs change Work and Income is required by legislation to ensure that the new costs relate to the individual’s condition or disability.Sue Moroney: Did she read the email sent to her on 15 October by Stephen Taylor from Hamilton who has two sons with muscular dystrophy—for which there is no known cure—who have been required to have annual medical reviews of their congenital condition despite the fact that their GP said that they should never be reassessed in order for them to retain the child disability allowance?Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have more than 240000 disability allowances that we do at the moment. If the doctor has said not to reassess then we do not need a reassessment for the actual disability. If that has happened then we will own up to it and we will say that that is a mistake—we will do that. But if the circumstances have changed as we saw in the weekend papers where the young person has gone flatting or something like that they may actually be eligible to have more assistance. So we do a reassessment on that but not on the actual disability or medical condition.Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a letter from Hamilton Central Community Link to Mr Stephen Taylor informing him that the child disability allowance has been stopped for his child Austin because it has not received—Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a letter from Stephen Taylor. [Interruption] Is the member just asking whether permission has been given by Mr Taylor?Sue Moroney: Yes.Mr SPEAKER: Permission has been given. Leave is sought to table that particular letter. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Sue Moroney: Did she read the email sent to her by David Wise also of Hamilton whose son Duigan was born with autism and global delay deficiency and was required by the local Work and Income office to be reassessed four times a year even though his GP and specialist agreed that reassessment should take place on an annual basis?Hon PAULA BENNETT: The way that we have set the system up particularly since the welfare reforms is we have simplified the forms. I have actually looked at them again today. We do not ask for people to be reassessed if their doctor has said not to. If there are cases where that is happening—and I have asked the department to look into that to make sure it is not because it is certainly not our intention and it is certainly not our policy—then we will fix it. I have not seen evidence of it in the cases that have been presented to me.Sue Moroney: You’re not reading your emails.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well of the cases that have been presented to me we have looked into them and the facts are different from what has actually been presented by the media. But as I say such reassessments are not the intention of the policy. They should not have to have doctor reassessments every year or four times a year.Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table an email from David Wise to the Minister on 10 November advising her that his son is required to have reassessments four times a year.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Sue Moroney: Does she accept the account that Auckland woman Colleen Brown gave to theSunday Star-Times that when she applied for a change in living arrangements for her son Travers he was required by Work and Income to have a further medical assessment to prove that he still had Down’s syndrome?Hon PAULA BENNETT: No I do not. Those are not the facts as they are presented in the file.Sue Moroney: Does the Minister accept that this constant reassessment by Work and Income of conditions that cannot be cured creates additional stress for families who already face difficult circumstances creates unnecessary cost and bureaucracy for Work and Income and also puts additional work on GP services that are already stretched?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it is incredibly stressful for these people who have these conditions or have children with these conditions. It is certainly not our policy that we reassess if the doctor has said that we do not need to. If we are asking them to fill in forms—which in itself I acknowledge can be stressful—if they have had a change in circumstances—Sue Moroney: No to be reassessed.Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think there could be a difference in language in what is actually being asked. I have asked for—Sue Moroney: You’re asking them to go and get a doctor’s certificate.Hon PAULA BENNETT: You do not know that actually. You do not know—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon PAULA BENNETT: Well the member has asked a question; I am endeavouring to answer it Mr Speaker. So at the end of the day we do not believe that they are being reassessed. If there are cases where they are then we will fix it. It is not our policy it is not the way it should be happening and I do not think it is happening in all the cases that you have presented.Sue Moroney: Why is the Minister denying that this practice takes place when she will by now have received many emails from New Zealanders that tell her of their experiences and show that she is wrong and will she get out on the ground and go and visit Work and Income offices to ensure that this practice of asking these families to constantly re-prove that their family members have these congenital conditions is not taking place?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I note that the member’s sort of run on this is to try to say that I do not visit Work and Income offices whereas in fact I am up and down this country weekly and on the front line talking to those staff. What I am saying is that there could be a difference of interpretation of us asking for information and reassessment. The information that I have had from the department is that we do not require another medical assessment of those on this allowance if a doctor has said that they do not require one. However we do require more information if their circumstances have changed. If there are changes to that then we will front up to them and we will make sure that those changes and those people are treated fairly.KiwiSaver—Disclosure Rules12.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) to theMinister of Commerce: What progress has the Government made on the introduction of new KiwiSaver periodic disclosure rules?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): New disclosure rules that give New Zealanders better information to compare KiwiSaver funds came into force on 1 July this year and the first statements under the new rules were recently published online by KiwiSaver providers. These changes allow KiwiSaver members to directly and easily compare funds and make more informed investment decisions. The new rules are part of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda to promote the confidence of investors and businesses in the regulatory settings that support New Zealand’s capital markets.Mark Mitchell: How will this information help mum and dad investors?Hon CRAIG FOSS: Mum and dad investors will enjoy the new reporting requirements that give New Zealanders more information to make informed decisions about the appropriate KiwiSaver fund for themselves. The providers must publish quarterly and annual disclosure statements online. Other organisations will also be able to compile the information now being made available. For example the Commission for Financial Literacy and Retirement Income will shortly release a new online tool that enables members to compare KiwiSaver funds’ fees and returns to get their retirement circumstances sorted.Urgent Debates DeclinedCommonwealth Heads of Government Meeting Sri Lanka—AttendanceMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from Jan Logie seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the decision to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka this week following mounting international pressure. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be a new situation of sufficient importance to warrant a debate being held. Although the Prime Minister has this weekconfirmed his plans to travel to Sri Lanka I am not convinced that the decision in itself justifies setting aside the business of the House today. The Prime Minister’s attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting has been known for some time. The Sri Lankan human rights record is an existing situation. There is no new development for which there is ministerial responsibility of significant importance that would warrant a debate being held. The application is therefore declined.Points of OrderMembers—Declaration of Financial InterestsMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your clarification on just a few short matters concerning correspondence between our offices on the application of Standing Orders 161 and 162 to the vote on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I have three questions of clarification which I hope will not take long. The first is: is it the case that Standing Orders 161 and 162 require MPs to make an explicit and separate declaration of any financial interests that they might hold in Skycity given that the bill is a matter of business before the House held by the MPs or family members?Mr SPEAKER: Will the member bring her point to a close very quickly. I do not want to labour this—METIRIA TUREI: No absolutely. That was the first question. The second question is: is it the case that if an MP does not declare a financial interest that they or their family or trust or companies in which they have an interest own shares in Skycity they are at risk of being in contempt of the rules of the House and therefore subject to a privileges complaint? Third will you require MPs to declare under Standing Orders 161 and 162 whether their family members or trusts or companies in which they have an interest own shares in Skycity before the third reading vote on the bill is held?Mr SPEAKER: I thank for the member for the points she is raising. The member may not be aware but following receipt of her letter dated yesterday I have written a substantial reply to the member. I can summarise that very quickly. All members are aware of potential conflicts of interest. It is for members to monitor that not for the Speaker. That applies to any particular debate that may be about to take place in this House.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry I have one more.Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify that this is a fresh point—METIRIA TUREI: Not to do with that conflict—absolutely.Mr SPEAKER: All right we will hear it.METIRIA TUREI: On Friday I sent a letter to your office seeking your view on a privileges complaint that John Banks holds a conflict of interest—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Those matters are under consideration. They are not matters that should then be raised in this House or for that matter in the media.New Zealand International Convention Centre BillThird ReadingHon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister)on behalf of theMinister for Economic Development: I moveThat the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be now read a third time. The third reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill brings to an end the long and involved process to set up and establish an international-standard convention centre in New Zealand. Wehave long needed such a centre. There has been discussion about it particularly in Auckland for over 20 years. We will now be getting one thanks to the persistence of this Government and thanks to this bill.This is a bill that will provide jobs and better incomes for New Zealanders. There will be around a thousand people employed in the construction process—not 18 as the Opposition is prone to assert. There will be 800 people servicing the needs of delegates and exhibitors when the centre is fully established. The centre will generate economic growth for all New Zealanders. It will inject an estimated $90 million in additional spending by delegates in Auckland and elsewhere in New Zealand and it will increase GDP by $49 million as a result. It will also enhance New Zealand’s reputation as a developed-country destination. The bill will enable the construction of an international-standard convention centre that seats up to 3500 delegates. We simply do not have a facility of that size and that standard. It will be a new $402 million asset that will consolidate Auckland’s standing as an international metropolitan city and a destination of significance—something that Aucklanders have been keen to achieve for many years. This will be achieved with very little if any investment by New Zealand taxpayers. This is another initiative of the Government’s Business Growth Agenda which is a comprehensive programme of work to build jobs and growth for New Zealanders.Members opposite have had their credibility tested in opposing this legislation. Skycity will be allowed an additional 230 pokie machines. This is an interesting number. It is the same number granted to Skycity under the previous Government in 2001 for the development of the existing and much smaller Skycity Auckland Convention Centre. In fact in return for a deal of the same increased number of pokie machines that Government ended up with a convention centre one-quarter the size of this one. It was welcomed by Helen Clark and Mark Burton at the time. They praised it for helping to bring tourists to New Zealand. Then they used to know about the benefits of convention centres.What is more under the 9 years during which the Labour Government was in power the number of pokie machines around New Zealand increased by an average of 707 per year—that is an increase of 707 per year. In the last 5 years the number of pokie machines has been falling not increasing by around 500 per year. Opposition members were criticising pokie machines but under the previous Government the number went up 700 per year with the support of the Green Party—a 700 per year increase in pokie machines. Now that those members are safely out of Government the number of pokie machines is falling by 500 per year. So I invite them to speak and explain that policy to the House. Where were the Greens in 2001? Were they building fake casinos in Aotea Square then? No they were not. Were they pulling stunts outside Parliament when pokies were going up at 700 machines per year? No but once pokie numbers started dropping by 500 a year then the Greens decided they were against pokies and moreover against the Government under which the number of pokie machines has been dropping by 500 per year. But they were absolutely as quiet as church mice back then.There is a claim that the bill is constitutionally dubious—that it breaches the principles of equality before the law or the principle that Parliament is sovereign or even the Bill of Rights of 1688. Here is the reality: many pieces of legislation confer benefits on a particular party or activity. That is one of the reasons why we have lobby groups. It is called democracy. For example the Rugby World Cup empowering legislation benefited rugby supporters as well as New Zealand. Fonterra legislation—backed as I understand by these parties—was actually argued as conferring a benefit on the farmers involved. That was the point of it. So there is nothing special about the fact that this legislation gives effect to an agreement. Parliament has considered for instance Treaty settlement bills for nearly 20 years. Those bills give effect toagreements made between the Crown and a non-government entity on which the Crown confers considerable benefit. The Government could not function if contracts did not extend past the ending of particular Governments and Government contracts almost always extend past the expiry of a Parliament. They do that all the time. The Government enters into long-range agreements on construction projects and a whole range of Government services like IT and banking services.There has been criticism of the compensation provisions of this agreement. The compensation provisions are standard commercial practice. If Skycity breaches certain agreed operating standards it will be required to pay money to the Crown for non-compliance. If it does not build the centre it is required to pay back to the Crown the value of the concessions granted to this point.Let me speak briefly on the issue of problem gambling. The impact on the incidence of problem gambling from increasing gambling opportunities within an existing gambling venue is by no means clear. This was made clear by Professor Max Abbott who has been well-known to the parliament select committee system for the last 25 years. He stated that in his oral submission to the committee. The Department of Internal Affairs acknowledges that figures around problem gambling are very difficult to quantify and putting a cost on it is to use the words of Government officials “extremely difficult”. It is important to note that the agreement requires Skycity to implement a range of enhanced harm minimisation measures including a predictive modelling tool that analyses data to better identify players at risk of problem gambling—the Greens claimed in their minority report that Skycity already uses this; like most of their claims that is false—and a voluntary pre-commitment system where players can elect to restrict the amount of time they play or the amount they spend.The agreement requires a doubling in the number of host responsibility specialists to deliver 24/7 coverage of people trained to identify problem gamblers and the introduction of player identification requirements when amounts of over $500 are being put into or cashed in at non-restricted areas. These extra harm minimisation areas and anti - money-laundering requirements will become part of Skycity’s host responsibility programme. If in the future the Gambling Commission decides to revoke or amend this programme or require the Auckland casino to have tougher measures then Skycity must comply. Many things in life have the potential for harm. The Government has done a good job of minimising the harm from this agreement while maximising the economic benefits to New Zealand. In that respect it is no different in principle from building roads where people will die in car accidents on roads that did not exist before but the benefit to the community is significant.For little if any investment by taxpayers we will get the benefit of an international-standard convention centre new jobs improved competitiveness as a tourist destination an increase in GDP and attracting more investors to New Zealand. On this side of the House we are pleased to stand up and take practical steps to build jobs and growth for New Zealand and we are pleased not to be with those parties that are simply against all jobs and growth and increases in incomes. I am very pleased to commend this bill to the House.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition): What an unusual third reading speech for a Minister of Finance and a Deputy Prime Minister. I mean I am sure people out there in TV land understand that third reading speeches are supposed to be where a senior Minister takes a principled approach to summarising the reasons that a Government is doing this or that piece of legislation summarises the arguments for and thus convinces the public. But what a bizarre effort. I mean most of it was talking about the fact that the total number of pokies was falling under Labour’s sinking lid but of course Skycity’s share is rising because this Government does not like RSAs itdoes not like the footie clubs and it does not even like the racing clubs. It does not like community gaming. It likes it only when it is big boys’ wide boys’ gaming at the big end of town because that is its way.This Government is not focused on building a productive economy that all New Zealanders can benefit from. It is focusing on feathering its own nest. You have only to read the paper to see how that party feathers its own nest and it is feathering the nests of the big end of town with this legislation. The name Skycity is entering into National’s hall of shame alongside Warner Bros MediaWorks Rio Tinto the shabby Snapper 1 deal potentially Chorus if Mr Key gets his way and of course the shame we have heard about today with Pike River and the deal that has been cut for New Zealand Oil and Gas which should have paid out those poor families. These are the companies that my opponent has done his deals with. He has sold the law. He has bailed out big business and he has acted against the interests of New Zealand families. In the case—Hon Dr Nick Smith: What did you say to them? What did you say to Skycity privately?Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What do I say to Skycity? I say this to Skycity: “We will not abide by the compensation clauses of that contract. We will regulate against gaming harm. We will preserve the mana and the authority of the New Zealand Parliament and we will not do a dirty deal to indemnify money-laundering and profiteering which Treasury and the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment have said are at risk under this deal.” That is what we will say to Skycity Dr Smith. If you had been so awake you would have banned shark finning months ago Mr Smith.In the case of Skycity the Prime Minister’s personal style if we can call it that is on display for the world to see. Business calls him a map with no compass. He is known colloquially as “Trader John” and there is nothing—nothing—that he would not trade. Do not take my word for it—do not take my word for it. Read the independent report by the Deputy Auditor-General because the Prime Minister has been up to his eyeballs in this deal. He kicked it off over a dinner with Skycity executives and very soon after that he intervened in the departmental process run by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. The Deputy Auditor-General said that the process of Skycity getting the contract to build the convention centre was “flawed”. It was not “transparent or even-handed”. The report established deficiencies on the part of both Ministers and officials. The Ministers of course were Mr Key and Mr Joyce—the maestro of business management. Mr Key said that he was totally vindicated by the report. He cannot have read it—he cannot have read it because there is no vindication in that.So what has the Government actually agreed to? Well there is a problem. The public does not know because the full text of this shady shabby deal has never been made public. [Interruption] There is an old saying in politics which is that sunlight is the best disinfectant Dr Smith.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just tell us what you are going to do.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I just did Dr Smith. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Table the deal. Table the contract. Let New Zealanders see it for themselves. Minister if you cannot put up button up because this is not something that the New Zealand public is prepared to put up with.This deal gives Skycity a substantial extension to the term of its licence. It allows for 230 extra pokie machines 40 extra gaming tables a further 12 tables with a swap table that seats up to 20 players 17 percent more electronic gaming machines and the famous ticket-in ticket-out gambling system that allows in the words of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment potential money-laundering. Do not take it fromus—take it from the Minister’s own officials’ warning about potential money-laundering as a result of this shabby shoddy stinking deal.Mr Key met with Skycity repeatedly. He had five meetings in 2009. You can see the minutes. He said: “You’ve got to close off the Skycity angle first before you involve any other bidders.” I wonder what that meant. In June 2000 he said: “My office has had no correspondence no discussions no involvement” in the tendering process. That is pretty hard to reconcile when he has just instructed his own officials to close off the Skycity deal first. Well we are learning a lot about the modus operandi of “Trader John” who would trade the law to a movie company trade the law to a casino send the RSAs and the footie clubs down the river as they endure the sinking lid while the big end of town the wide boys in their alligator shoes they get preferential treatment from this nest-feathering nest of Nats—this nest-feathering nest of Nats. This is a common problem with Governments. It sets in normally in their third term but these folks have it early. They have got it halfway through their second term. That is why their second term will be the last. On the mantelpiece they may have the trophies of Warner Bros they may have the trophies of Skycity but they will not have the confidence of the New Zealand public.What would Labour do? Well here is the clear message to the business community. Under Labour there will be one set of rules for all again—not one set for John Key’s best mates and another for everybody else. Do you know a prominent chief executive officer came up to me and said: “You know the trouble with this Skycity deal is we do not know how to get business done in this town any more. It seems like you’ve got to be a special friend of the Government.” Well I know they have been out doing a lot of fund-raising but that is no excuse for this kind of travesty.Labour will regulate to prevent gaming harm. We will not compensate for the normal regulatory functions of Government. If the convention centre is half built we are not going to dynamite it. We are not going to rip up the contract that enforces it. But we will make sure that the proper anti-gaming functions of Government are upheld and there will be no compensation for the normal processes of Government. That means no guarantee of extra gaming tables no guarantee of extra pokies and certainly no guarantee of compensation. We will regulate to protect New Zealanders—we will regulate to protect New Zealanders. I cannot be any clearer than that. If the National Party and its cronies cannot understand that the incoming Labour Government will stand up for the rule of law—the rule of law—and the interests of New Zealand families then we cannot help them. We cannot help them because there cannot be a plainer distinction than that.The folks upstairs and the folks out in TV land understand that this is all about trading and about gambling but it is gambling with New Zealanders’ futures not just the Russian roulette at the gaming tables themselves. Let us not gamble with New Zealand’s future. Let us not set a precedent where we will once again sell the law to the big end of town. Let us preserve Parliament’s right to regulate in the interests of all New Zealanders.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): What is clear is that we have just heard a speech from the “Yeah Nah Leader” who back in 2001 said: “Yeah yeah let’s go. Let’s do it.” In 2013 it is: “Nah.” It is “Yes” in the House here: “We are going to do this and that. We are going to make sure that whatever regulation is put in place will not bind us in the future.” But in private sessions it is: “Nah don’t worry we won’t do anything to dynamite this deal.” So we have seen the “Yeah Nah Leader” talk about the position that is very clear to this Parliament and this country—what it thinks about this agreement.The other thing that I think is perhaps the most ludicrous statement that I have heard in the speeches in this House regarding this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill is from the Green and Labour members who say that after $402 million worth of expenditure of which $315 million is capital cost followed by an estimated $90 million a year of increased expenditure only 18 new jobs will be added to the economy. If I was to write that economic prediction I would be ashamed of those sorts of figures. I have got to say if this is the number of jobs that the Greens and Labour parties expect from such significant economic activity heaven help us if they ever gain the Treasury benches.We need to understand that as we go forward with this bill when it is enacted we are going to see economic activity in a number of sectors in Auckland and around the country. It is going to affect travel accommodation tourism retailing arts and culture. All of these sectors are going to see an increase. We are going to see an increase in GDP in New Zealand and in Auckland additional new and larger conferences and events and additional tourism expenditure from high-yield international visitors. We are going to see additional jobs catalysing investment in other infrastructure and service industries in and around central Auckland. We are going to see the raising of New Zealand’s international reputation and competitiveness as a business events destination. We are going to enable more links between innovative New Zealanders and overseas experts. We are going to attract more investors to New Zealand adding to Auckland’s reputation as a global international city.During the select committee stage we heard responses from officials to a number of information requests. We learnt many things. We learnt that the Department of Internal Affairs has a team of inspectors who are located near the casino and have unrestricted access to it. They monitor data from the casino operations as well as being present in the casino itself. The department also undertakes periodic audits of Skycity’s adherence to the Auckland Casino Host Responsibility programme the problem gambler identification policy and the operating standards and procedures that sit below these policies.We heard reports from Dr Paul Delfabbro an associate professor at the school of psychology University of Adelaide who said that from an international perspective current New Zealand legislation would be considered quite rigorous in the extent to which it emphasises responsible gambling practices—in particular the requirement for providers of gambling services to have policies that mitigate potential harm as opposed to just actual harm which is not a feature that is observed in many other jurisdictions. As we went through the process we heard that New Zealand actually has very robust standards and very high standards internationally. Collectively he said the responsible gambling measures provided in both Australia and New Zealand are more rigorous than anything offered in the United States the United Kingdom and Asia. The only locations where responsible gambling provisions have progressed to similar levels are in some parts of Europe most notably in Holland and in Switzerland.I think that New Zealanders can be assured that Skycity Casino has one of the best Host Responsibility programmes in the world and leveraging off the agreement between Skycity and the Government this bill lifts the bar on harm-minimisation obligations. Not only do we see these higher levels of obligations and harm minimisation which will continue to address problem gambling sinking lids around this country will mean that we will continue to see a net reduction in pokies but we will have an international convention centre that will put Auckland on the map and generate economic activity and growth for Auckland and the regions beyond that city. I commend this bill to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): Jonathan Young who just resumed his seat chaired the select committee that considered this legislation the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. What Jonathan Young did not explain to the House was why he refused the Opposition the right to question the Department of Internal Affairs the Department of Health or Treasury by having them before the Commerce Committee to determine what the real impact of this bill would be—not the narrow impact that allows Skycity a generous $400 million subsidy to build an international convention centre but the cost to New Zealand of extra gambling machines and extra gambling tables which those officials would have explained to Mr Young and to the select committee would cost this country dearly by accelerating the problem of gambling addiction in this country.I listened with amazement to Bill English who moved that this legislation be read a third time—Bill English whose own Treasury department said this bill will be of immense private benefit to Skycity but of very little public benefit to New Zealand. It is no wonder Bill English and Jonathan Young did not come into this House to tell the truth about what this bill will actually do but rather glossed over the problems and tried to present this as a huge benefit to New Zealand. It is not that. This is a bad piece of legislation which has been passed through incredibly bad process and should not be passed by the House through this third reading today.This is not about an international convention centre. If we need an international convention centre according to this right-wing Government which believes in the free market then surely market forces will allow for the funding of an international convention centre. But no apparently this convention centre which will be of so great a value to New Zealand can survive only if it has the benefit of an enormous subsidy to Skycity: 230 extra gambling machines and 40 additional tables.Bill English tried to tell the House that the gambling machines accelerated under a Labour Government. I want Mr English to look back at the provisions of the 2003 Gambling Act because that Act caused a turn-round in the otherwise growth of gambling machines and gambling tables by setting a policy whereby the number of gambling machines would reduce as they did from a peak of 23000 before that Act to around 14000 today. The Gambling Act was about harm minimisation. The reason why this bill is a stand-alone piece of legislation and not an amendment to the Gambling Act is because this bill contradicts the very essence of the Gambling Act which is to minimise harm. This bill actually reverses the sinking lid on gambling machines for Skycity and gives it an incredibly privileged position which will last through to 2048. I cannot remember when we last moved legislation through this House to create a privileged position for a private sector profit-making enterprise that would be locked in for 35 years—and that is what this legislation does. It is a gift to Skycity that will keep on giving for 35 years through to 2048.I say this: the Government is doing this because it thinks it can get it cheap and it thinks it can provide positive benefit to its own cronies. Where does the National Party meet every election night? It meets at Skycity. Where does it get its funding from? Is anybody from the National Party prepared to stand up and deny that Skycity is a major funder of this National Party at election time? Is any one of them prepared to make that statement? Of course they are not prepared to make the statement.The fact is that something that should have been through an open competitive tendering process that was transparent to everybody was done as a dirty dodgy deal behind closed doors. It was done over a couple of bottles of wine and a fine meal no doubt supplied by Skycity. John Key met with them twice and he left there giving them a gold-plated deal—a gold-plated deal. John Key was the one who instructed officials not to deal with the other tenderers but to give preference to Skycity. That might befine if you are a wide boy working as a currency trader; it has no place as a proper process in the public sector. In fact it is a disgrace. So disgraceful was it that the Auditor-General thought that she needed to have a look at this so she held an inquiry. The currency trader tried to pre-empt her. A couple of days before the report was due to be delivered John Key said publicly no doubt at his post-Cabinet press conference: “This report totally vindicates me.” That is simply untrue.The Deputy Auditor-General’s report when it came out did anything but totally vindicate John Key. In fact the Deputy Auditor-General said she had found deficiencies in the role of Ministers and in the role of the officials. She said this: “we do not consider that the evaluation process was transparent and even-handed.” That is moderate language. That is language becoming a Deputy Auditor-General. But the intent of that language was in fact very clear. What the Deputy Auditor-General was saying was that this was wrongly done and it was cronyism and that is indeed what this process represents. It was biased it was done in secret and it was not on a level playing field. That sort of conduct has no place in a democracy and a country that is proud of the lack of corruption or the low level of corruption that exists within it. The Prime Minister of this country was saying that it is OK to do a deal behind the scenes it is OK to look after your mates it is OK to cut other people out by not having a level playing field and it is OK to give private benefit to a major multinational profit-making commercial enterprise at the cost of those who suffer from gambling addictions.This clearly increases the harm from gambling. This document was read by the Ministers who have pushed this bill through the House. It is called the regulatory impact statement and what does it tell us? It says: “most of the money spent on gambling in New Zealand is spent on gaming machines and substantial proportions of it by people who play machines frequently. New Zealand studies have found that gaming machines are associated with harm more often than any other form of gambling.” The Government in passing this legislation was told by its own officials that it was actually promoting the most damaging form of gambling there is in this country.There is not a member in this House who has not gone and watched those poor unfortunate people who bend over those machines for hours at a time. They do not move they feed the money to them they suffer from gambling addiction and this regulatory impact statement says that as a result of this Government’s legislation that it is trying to ram through today there will be another 8000 families who are affected by gambling addiction. Of those 6500 people will be children. They are people like the woman in my electorate who goes down and spends her benefit on the gambling machines. This will feed the problem that she and thousands of others suffer and that Government will come back and blame that woman take away her benefit further punish her kids when actually it is supporting the cause of the harm in the first place and that is intolerable.I want to say that this bill is dodgy. I want to say that this bill will result in more gambling harm. The evidence is there in black and white given to the Government before it did it. This bill should not proceed.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I am very proud of the Green Party and my colleagues who have led the opposition to this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Where were you in 2001?METIRIA TUREI: If Dr Smith is referring to the gambling legislation that was eventually passed in 2003 the Green Party voted against that legislation. You should check your facts. I would note that the whole debate from National on the sale of this deal to New Zealanders has been littered with falsehoods and lies—littered with falsehoods and lies. We can start from the very beginning from the very start of theprocess when John Key Steven Joyce and their officials went out seeking tenders for building the convention centre in Auckland.Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member made an assertion about the Ministers responsible for this bill including my colleague Steven Joyce and specifically used the word “lies”. That is not a parliamentary phrase.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understand the point of order and I was listening very carefully. What the member said was that the process was littered with untruths and lies. It was not attributed to an individual. I know it is a fine line but this House has been quite clear that all members are honourable members. I would caution the member that she will bring disorder if she skirts around the areas that the member is doing. I am not ruling against her on this occasion but I caution her to be very careful with her words.METIRIA TUREI: Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker.It started from the very beginning when the tenders went out and five tenders I understand were returned to the officials. Of the five tenders the Skycity tender was the fifth. It was the one that failed most of the criteria that the officials had put out. Yet it was Skycity and its tender that went to John Key and John Key wrote: “Check with Skycity first.” He got his officials to go off to talk to Skycity to have meetings with Skycity’s people to talk to them about their tender to talk to them about what they could do to improve it. The Government then changed the criteria to make it even easier for Skycity to meet the threshold test because from the very beginning John Key and Steven Joyce wanted to deliver to Skycity the new casino that Skycity wanted. For 10 years Skycity has been fighting to get a new casino and it finally found the mechanism to do it—by offering to build John Key his monument the convention centre in exchange for the concessions that would deliver to Skycity the third-largest casino in the country.So right from the very beginning there were mistruths and secret deals being done by this Government through its process. The only reason that that became public after nearly 1 year I think of the negotiations was because the Green Party put in a complaint to the Auditor-General and asked her to investigate. It took them 6 months to work through the papers even to decide whether or not to investigate and after 6 months of investigation—initial investigation—the Auditor-General did look at this deal and did come back with a finding that it was neither even-handed nor transparent. It was neither even-handed nor transparent. John Key broke the confidentiality arrangements with the Auditor-General and went out around Christmas time of that year saying: “She’s not going to find me guilty of anything. She’s going to say that it’s all fine. I’m vindicated.” What happened was that 2 months later the report came out saying it was neither even-handed nor transparent. There were problems with the process because the process was dirty from the start. It was National and the officials and the Ministers who were wanting to keep all of that secret but we got that exposed through the Auditor-General process and rightly so.What are some of the untruths and misleadings that have come out as a result of John Key having now got the deal signed with Skycity spent all this money getting it ready so that its tender would be accepted and accepted its tender to build this convention centre in exchange for the third-largest casino? He then has to sell it to the country. So what does he do to sell it to the country? All sorts of dodgy stuff is going on to sell it to the country. Let us start with the jobs shall we? We end up with a report which the Government relies on—it says so in its regulatory impact statement—that there will be 800 jobs after the casino is built and 1000 jobs in its construction. There is not a single piece of evidence. There is no document that the Government has or at least that it has released that shows those numbers—not a single one. Why? Because actually thatinformation comes from Skycity. The Government is relying on Skycity’s numbers to justify this deal and to try to sell this to the country.What does the evidence say? What do the independent financial reports say? There might be around 350 jobs in construction. There might be around 300 jobs maybe in the operation of it—certainly not the 800 and the 1000 that Steven Joyce and John Key and now Bill English talk about. But do you know what the independent financial analysis of this deal shows? It shows that there will be a net increase to the country in jobs of just 18—just 18. And the Government has refused—it refers to this report actually—to acknowledge the numbers of the only independent financial assessment of the results of this deal because it wants to sell this deal to the country so badly that it is prepared to inflate the numbers from just a few hundred to thousands and thousands across the country. It is simply not true.Who in the Government disagrees? The Government is saying of course that this is all fine and perfectly rational and that it has lots of evidence to show that this is a good deal and that the harm minimisation measures that it is putting in place will be effective in reducing the harm that will be caused by the increased gambling. Actually that is not the truth either. That is just another set of spin. The Government is not telling the truth when it says that these harm minimisation measures will work. Who do we turn to for that evidence? We turn to the Ministry of Health; we turn to the Department of Internal Affairs—those agencies that are responsible for assessing whether or not these measures will work. What does the Ministry of Health say? It says that the measures are effectively useless. It says that the voluntary pre-commitment is effectively useless. It says that the harm minimisation measures that the Government is trying to sell to the country will not reduce harm.What else does it say? It says that 8000 New Zealanders will be affected—badly affected—by this deal. And on top of those 8000 New Zealanders another 6500 children will be badly affected by this deal. That is the evidence that the Government has but it will not talk about this to the public. It will not ask for the cost of that social harm so it can say that it does not know what it will cost. It will not ask for more detailed evidence about the impact of gambling harm on families so it can pretend that if it does not have the information it does not count and it does not matter. It is another major spin another mistruth perpetrated by this Government in order to sell this deal to the country.Then I think the last and the worst of the mistruths that this Government spins is that it comes at no cost. The Government says to New Zealand: “This deal doesn’t cost you anything taxpayers. You’re all fine. You don’t pay a cent and you get this wonderful convention centre.” That is a lie. It is a lie. It is a lie because the cost is borne by taxpayers. I tell you who bears that cost. Those who will bear the cost are not just the 8000 individuals who will be badly affected or the 6500 children but the hundreds of New Zealand businesses that we know will suffer from serious fraud and theft as a result of gambling addiction caused by the increase in gambling opportunities from this bill. It will be the community organisations the playcentres the marae and the community groups that work so hard to support New Zealanders across this country. They will be the ones who pay when we know that more than 50 percent of the crime that these groups these charities suffer is to feed gambling addiction and gambling harm. We know that the fraud that businesses will suffer will be what pays for this deal. So when the Government says that it is at no cost to New Zealanders it is telling New Zealanders a lie.The Green Party has been very clear from the start that we are opposed to this deal. It is morally contemptible. It is a dirty dodgy deal. It should never have occurred in this way. We welcome Labour’s commitment to opposing this. We make this commitmentto New Zealanders. We will continue this fight. This convention centre has not been built yet. The agreement that Skycity has with the Government has not yet been fulfilled. It still needs to do a great deal more before a single sod is turned or a single new pokie machine is put into that building. We will fight this deal all the way and we welcome every New Zealander who will join us. Thank you.Dr JIAN YANG (National): Out of the 11219 non-governmental international associations conferences organised in the world in 2012 only 45 were held in New Zealand. This is partly because we do not have the facilities to host the larger conferences. Larger conferences are important to our economy not only because they contribute to our tourism as my colleagues mentioned earlier but also because they would bring us non-quantifiable benefits such as fostering commercial links between international and New Zealand businesses and supporting innovation and knowledge transfer between international delegates and New Zealanders. This Government is delivering what the tourism industry and business sector have been asking for for years. This is one of the initiatives of the National Government to build a more competitive and productive economy.Skycity’s current Host Responsibility programme has been recently described by Associate Professor PaulDelfabbro as one of the most rigorous in the world. The programme will be augmented with new measures including a predictive model created by Focal Research Consultants which analyses loyalty data as a tool to identify players who are at risk from gambling harm.The 230 new pokie machines is the same number granted to Skycity under the previous Labour Government in 2001 for the development of the existing but much smaller Skycity Auckland Convention Centre. Here is what Labour Minister the Hon Mark Burton said on the 2001 agreement: “Skycity’s $140 million investment into this facility will give it the capacity to compete for a whole new range of prestige events. The potential gains from this are widespread—not only for Skycity but for the Auckland city and region the tourism industry and the whole of New Zealand.” As late as 2007 the then Labour Minister of Tourism the Hon Damien O’Connor said that an international convention centre “can offer enormous potential for generating demand in shoulder and off season periods. They can generate high expenditure include leisure travel add-ons and don’t clash with high demand in peak seasons.”The New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill will deliver jobs and growth for all New Zealanders. I commend the bill to the House. Thank you.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First): I take a call on behalf of New Zealand First in the third reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill and I would like to perhaps provide a historical overview of how this whole piece of legislation has got to the House today. Initially we were advised that Auckland the largest city in New Zealand required a larger convention centre than it already had. The existing one was located at Skycity and was built back in the early 2000s and we were told that if Auckland was to secure much larger international conferences and conventions it would need a considerably larger venue.Early in the National Government’s term of 2008 to 2011 the Government sought expressions of interest for building a larger convention centre. Five organisations tendered for the new convention centre. Four were declined. Of the four one was Ngāti Whātua the local iwi in Auckland who were prepared to put forward land holdings in the Auckland area controlled by Ngāti Whātua in the downtown area adjacent to the historic railway station and to the large Vector Arena which seats 12000 people. It could have perhaps been a wonderful link to Vector Arena and the historic railway station and could have provided a wonderful international centre on local iwi land. Again we hear this talk about the Government working with iwi and working with theMāori Party. That particular proposal which would have brought in major landholders in Auckland was dismissed.A second submission was made by the Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund owned by Morrison and Co. which had a major cornerstone investor being the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. That organisation again wanted to invest significant funds into the Auckland convention centre and exhibition centre and it was turned down. Instead at the time the Public Infrastructure Partnership Fund said that it was disappointed it had to take its money elsewhere and it—a New Zealand fund with investment from the New Zealand Superannuation Fund which is owned by New Zealanders—invested in the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre. So what a shame that New Zealand superannuation funds have ended up going offshore to support the funding of the Melbourne convention centre while those very same New Zealand superannuation funds have not stayed in this country in perpetuity for ongoing funding from that.The Auditor-General then did a report in February 2013 as a result of concerns being brought to the Auditor-General’s attention over the process when Skycity was awarded the tender. The Auditor-General concluded that Skycity got special treatment in talks around the International Convention Centre after the Prime Minister personally intervened and had meetings with Skycity. The Auditor-General’s office determined that Skycity was treated very differently to others tendering for the contract. The report concluded and stated that Mr Key personally penned his note on the briefing paper calling a halt to wider business consideration being prepared—“we should close off the Skycity angle” wrote John Key in his own handwriting on the notes given to Cabinet. Mr Key was personally briefed on options for the convention centre at a dinner with Skycity board members and executives on 4 November 2009. On the same day as Mr Key’s dinner with Skycity a Treasury official warned officials about process and probity. The same warning was conveyed to Mr Key in a briefing note on 12 November 2009.The Auditor-General found a range of deficiencies in the advice that the Ministry of Economic Development provided and in the steps that officials and Ministers took leading up to that decision. I quote from the Auditor-General: “The quality of support that was provided fell short of what we would have expected from the lead government agency on commercial and procurement matters.” Secondly the Auditor-General stated that there were “inappropriate considerations” and further that there were “connections between political and business leaders.”Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did not.ANDREW WILLIAMS: This is the report from the Auditor-General Mr Smith so please do not deny it or you are denying a report of the Auditor-General. Further Treasury in its report said that Treasury made it clear that it “was not convinced by the cost-benefit analysis” presented by Ministers. Treasury expressed “strong concerns that private benefits to SkyCity will exceed public benefits to New Zealanders.” I am quoting from Treasury reports. It said that there were “strong concerns that private benefits to SkyCity would exceed public benefits to New Zealanders.” John Key personally cut a backroom deal for Skycity to build a $350 million convention centre in exchange for the casino getting another 230 pokie machines and a 35-year licence—until 2048. Can you imagine anyone in this country getting such a sweet deal as to get a licence through until 2048 with basically carte blanche from this Parliament? It increases the number of pokie machines from 1647 to 1877. This is a prime example of the Government cuddling up to its buddies and selling off our laws to the highest bidder while ignoring the social cost of problem gambling. It makes you wonder what other dubious deals to sell off the country are being hatched by Mr Key.Official party donation returns also show that United Future and John Banks during his 2010 Auckland mayoralty campaign both received funding from Skycity—both United Future and John Banks. The National Party received $60000 from Skycity management in 2005 while United Future received $12000 in the same year. These three parties that received donations from Skycity are the same ones that can ensure that this John Key deal gets a majority in this Parliament today. The very same people who have received funds from Skycity will be voting on this bill and putting it through today. The National Party has also pumped money into Skycity which it has used as a venue for party events. The National Party used Skycity for its campaign launch in 2005 it was the election night headquarters for John Key in both 2008 and 2011 and there have been many other meetings of the National Party held at Skycity. Again one would question how much money passed hands to have access to those venues or were they at favourable buddy rates to secure the goodwill of both sides?It is also disappointing having come from local government where local government throughout New Zealand has tried to put a lid on the number of pokie machines which are affecting our society and which are one of the major concerns in many communities. I was looking today at some of the different council policies but all over New Zealand local authorities have sinking-lid policies including the Auckland Council the Nelson City Council the Hamilton City Council the Christchurch City Council the Hastings District Council and many many more. It is interesting that those communities do receive returns from those pokie machines but it is interesting that at the same time in the community those gaming trusts give 37 percent of the proceeds from those gaming machines in their communities back to the community—37 percent.By contrast the pokie machines in Skycity return only 2.5 percent of their takings in the way of community grants. That is a shocker. So although Mr Key says “Oh well don’t worry because on one hand the number of pokie machines is reducing around New Zealand in different communities and under different authorities while we are giving out another 230 in Skycity.” they are not the equivalent of 230 machines because the funds going back to the community are only 2.5 percent from Skycity not the 37 percent that goes back in other places all over New Zealand. That is another shocking result of this John Key deal.New Zealand First does not support this bill. We think that this is absolutely what we call a “John Key shonky deal”. This will go down in the annals of history in terms of being one of the sleaziest deals that this Parliament has ever put legislation through on—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Tell us about Owen Glenn.ANDREW WILLIAMS: —and for ever and a day the likes of Nick Smith and others of his ilk will remember the day that they sold out New Zealand law and sold out the principles of this Parliament in order to do deals with their mates and to sell out to the gambling industry.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I will take just a short call on this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. I do have sympathy for the constituent whom Mr Goff referred to—the lady who was having to pick up her benefit and then go and cash it and use it on a pokie machine. I do not know whether that pokie machine was at Skycity or whether it was at a local venue in her own community. Of course she is going to need some treatment and that is going to have to be combined with her taking some personal responsibility for her own rehabilitation.The point is that we have taken a decision in this country and in this Parliament. Every party that sits in this Parliament has decided that we will not ban pokies we will not ban alcohol and we will not ban the ability to go to the races or to do some sports betting. We have decided that we are not going to penalise the people who do thisresponsibly just because there is a small group of people who form an addiction. We have decided that instead of banning those things we will try to find a way to help them and wrap some support around them. The only solution for this that I saw contained in the minority report written by the Labour Party on the bill was to apply another tax: a levy on international travellers. That is the last thing that we need to be doing when we are a small country at the bottom of the world trying to attract more visitors to our country and trying to grow our tourism sector.So actually having an international convention centre is critically important to our future. It is critically important that we are able to grow our tourism sector. It is important that we are able to create more jobs. During the Committee stage I spoke about my own electorate of Rodney where there are a lot of businesses a lot of boutique lodges and other accommodation which are going to benefit from us being able to attract more international visitors through this international convention centre. I am very happy to recommend this bill to the House. Thank you.Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North): I can understand why that member Mark Mitchell wants to take only a short call on the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. The Government is on the back foot here. It is defending its decision to pay for a convention centre off the backs of problem gamblers. The excuses that come out are not fooling New Zealanders. New Zealanders do not want a convention centre funded off the back of problem gambling.John Key of course is up to his eyeballs in this deal. No doubt the members opposite have been instructed to keep this debate as short as they can because it is a pretty uncomfortable place for the Prime Minister to be. It was all kicked off over dinner with the Skycity executives. We know that he said that at this dinner they discussed a possible national convention centre and they “raised issues relating to the Gambling Act [2003]”.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Get out of the gutter!Dr DAVID CLARK: Mr Smith is claiming that by quoting the Prime Minister I am in the gutter. I find that deeply ironic because it is his Prime Minister across there who is in this dirty deal up to his eyeballs. He told officials to cancel their business case study and close off the Skycity options. His Ministers and officials repeatedly met with Skycity while holding off other tenderers. No one but Skycity was ever going to secure this deal. This was a deal done in a way that was not transparent. New Zealand businesses across the country are looking to this Government and asking “Why?”. New Zealand businesses are sick of a Government that does deals with its mates where the playing field is not level.The Deputy Auditor-General investigated this deal and even before the report was released the Prime Minister John Key was telling everyone he had been cleared and was “totally vindicated”.Hon Dr Nick Smith: He was.Dr DAVID CLARK: But it was not true.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes it was.Dr DAVID CLARK: The Deputy Auditor-General Phillippa Smith said at the Finance and Expenditure Committee that her report established deficiencies on the part of both Ministers and officials. If Mr Smith wants to claim that that is being “totally vindicated” that is very revealing about his view about what constitutes vindication. The Deputy Auditor-General says that this is a dirty deal and not “transparent or even-handed”—“flawed” was the word the Deputy Auditor-General used. She used “flawed” not “transparent or even-handed”. That is not total vindication on this side of the House. It may be on that side of the House. I think that reveals more about the values on that side of the House.This casino deal lines up with other deals we have heard about: the Warner Bros deal the MediaWorks deal and the Rio Tinto deal—handing over $30 million without even asking for a jobs guarantee.Hon Dr Nick Smith: Every one of them is about jobs.Dr DAVID CLARK: Oh that is not true Mr Smith. We know it is not true because Rio Tinto for example started restructuring the very next day—the very next day. There was no jobs guarantee. Bill English said that he did not even ask for any kind of jobs guarantee. Chorus is up next of course—we will see. This Government will go on doing deals for as long as it is here and as long as it can.I found Jonathan Young interesting in his contribution to this third reading debate. He referred to one or two submitters who were in support. They were certainly a minority around that table. Jonathan Young as the chair of the Commerce Committee along with the other National MPs blocked officials coming in to give further evidence on health consequences. He blocked Treasury from coming in. He blocked the Department of Internal Affairs from coming in. He blocked the Problem Gambling Foundation coming in. The members of Parliament who requested additional information were frustrated—frustrated—by the National members of Parliament who did not wish for further evidence on the problems and harms that will be caused by this bill because they simply did not want to know about them.The Tourism Industry Association was one of the few who presented in favour of this bill but it was pretty nervous and it trod a very careful line. I suspect that was in part because when the association was asked whether gambling harm was the best way of paying for this it was uncomfortable and did not want to answer that question and in part because across the industry there is a mix of consequences. We know from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and its independent report that just a net 18 jobs will be created across the economy. That is because there will be a few jobs created in Auckland but they will be sucked out of places like Taupō so Louise Upston across there will have to answer to her constituents as to why the convention business in Taupō is down. It is a direct result of this bill. It is a direct result of this bill that the National MPs are behind. Todd McClay will have to answer why business for conferences in Rotorua is down. David Bennett will have to answer why business for conferences in Hamilton is down. It is because this is a convention centre that will draw business from elsewhere in the country. That is why there is only a net 18 jobs created—because business is being sucked out of the regions by a Government that is neglecting these regions. That is not atypical. It is all about Auckland and Christchurch. Even they are struggling because of the Government’s reluctance to tackle the big issues but other places are struggling more and the Government does not seem to care.We know that a convention centre may not be a bad idea in and of itself but nobody thinks that paying for it by problem gambling is the answer. It is a bad deal for all New Zealanders. The Government originally tried to sell this as an economic development initiative. I think that the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report has embarrassed the Government. There is no doubt about the just net 18 jobs across the economy. The reason the deal is so bad of course is because the Government put itself over a barrel. It did it itself. It shut down the process to competitive bidders. It got rid of transparency. It said: “We need to get the deal done because we’ve put our political futures on the line here.” That is where the Government found itself. Of course Skycity is not stupid. It is run by smart business people. They said: “We’ve got an opportunity here. The Government has put itself over a barrel. Let’s write our own blank cheque.” And so they proceeded to.The Government very hastily dropped all of the things that would have been good for New Zealanders in terms of covering off the risks of problem gambling. It decided notto write any of that stuff into law. It is there in the loosest of forms. None of the measures that the National members have been crowing about are actually written in the legislation. The Government got rid of the clauses in the original negotiating documents that would have allowed the New Zealand Government to claw back lost GDP if the centre was not run properly. It got rid of the clauses that said that the New Zealand taxpayer could have got back lost tax revenue if the centre was not run properly. The Skycity people were having a field day. They said: “Oh we don’t like this clause we don’t like that clause—strike them out. Put one in in fact. Put one in that says if gambling laws change we’ll see the upside no matter which way they change.” Two clauses were drafted to make sure that that would play either way. Skycity has got a fantastic deal out of that. There is no doubt about that of course.A professor of marketing at Bond University in Queensland—a friend of the Skycity chief executive Nigel Morrison—who has worked as a consultant on casinos on five continents says that the deal was a clear win for Skycity. He said: “He’s a friend but if you want to quote me you can: ‘Morrison did an excellent job negotiating with authorities.’ ” The 27-year licence extension is labelled as “icing on the cake”. So Skycity Casino gets 230 pokie machines and an extension on its licence until 2048 in return for building the International Convention Centre. But even if you put the horrors of problem gambling to one side comparison with any overseas valuation tells you that the taxpayers of New Zealand have been short-changed. Treasury was absolutely spot on—spot on—when it said that the public costs will flow to private gain once the centre is paid off.Of course there may be worse to come. The negotiations are not over. If the initial proposal exceeds $402 million there is a special clause in the agreement that allows the Government to hand over more cash to Skycity—more cash. And that is going to be negotiated when? In election year. So taxpayers should watch out. The Government has left itself open to close off this deal to put more money Skycity’s way. It is already one of the worst deals in Australasian history and this Government is trying to save its own political skin with it. But in the meantime ordinary New Zealanders are looking on and saying: “This is one deal too far. This is a Prime Minister who is riding roughshod over the law and over transparent process. We are sick of it.” They are getting sick of this Government. They are getting sick of the deals with the big end of town and ordinary New Zealanders are saying: “This is enough. This agreement should not go ahead. These people can and must be stopped.”That is why the National Government is falling out of favour with New Zealanders. That is why people are looking elsewhere for political leadership. That is why the people on the street are stopping me and saying: “We cannot wait for a Labour-led Government.” because ordinary New Zealanders are sick of a Government with its hands off the wheel that is doing dirty deals and is abandoning ordinary New Zealanders.Hon PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei): For years the tourism industry and the business sector have been asking for investment into a world-class international convention centre in New Zealand. Here we have the opportunity to see one built. The Labour Party driven by the Green Party has decided to highlight the issue of gambling which will take part in the convention centre as part of its activities. Many of us here do not like the idea of gambling. We do not gamble. But the Labour Party driven by the Green Party ignores the fact that the number of pokie machines across New Zealand since National has been in Government has dropped substantially. Furthermore in the next 3 or 4 years the number of pokie machines across New Zealand is going to continue to drop as it has in the last 4 or 5 years.So gambling is an issue about the centre but it is not the key issue. The key issue is a new convention centre for New Zealand—one that will cost $402 million to construct and one that will cater for 3500 international conference delegates at any one time. It has got to be recalled that as the Labour Party opposes this bill the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill driven by its friends in the Green Party it also opposes oil and gas exploration which has occurred in Taranaki successfully for 100 years. It also opposes driven by the Green Party irrigation in the South Island. It opposes driven by the Green Party the expansion of dairy farming right across New Zealand. The Labour Party at every turn has opposed the development of marine farming and aquaculture. In fact you find that it does not really matter what the private sector puts up to drive the economy and to create jobs the Labour Party now driven by the Green Party will oppose it. That is a very sad state indeed.I support this convention centre. I wish those involved in it well.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Carol Beaumont—5 minutes.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): Well this is the last chance for those across the House. This is it—the third reading of the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill. It is the last chance for members opposite to listen to their consciences. I understand a number of members opposite have concerns about gambling. Some of them have actually said quite explicitly that they are concerned about gambling harm. Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga for example talks about the scourge of gambling in his community. In the Asian community in the Pacific community in working-class households we know that there is harm. This bill will increase gambling harm. Labour is saying that it will certainly regulate to prevent gambling harm. Colleagues across this side of the House are extremely concerned about the communities that will be affected by gambling harm as a result of this dodgy deal.This bill and the agreement that it seeks to implement are inconsistent with the widely agreed and well-established objectives of harm minimisation in the Gambling Act. Furthermore it is also inconsistent with the established sinking-lid policy of the Auckland Council which has actually reduced the number of pokie machines. One of the contributions I recall during the passage of this bill was a member opposite standing up and saying “Oh no you know the number of pokie machines has decreased under this Government.” Well it was nothing to do with the Government’s action. It was everything to do with the Auckland Council’s sinking-lid policy. So we know that the deal itself introduces a huge number of additional gaming tables and electronic gaming machines and a whole range of new and increased opportunities for gambling harm.Harmful gambling has major costs. Obvious and immediate to people is the loss of the money that they gamble away but that then leads to other consequences. It leads in some cases to the loss of their homes to family breakdowns and in some cases to suicides and murders. It also increases the ability of dodgy lenders to target people. I know well from my own experience in talking to people about loan sharks of the involvement of people like that in targeting problem gamblers and providing them with further money for them to gamble away. In some cases that is absolutely criminal activity. I spoke to one man who had actually been held against his will had his passport taken been physically harmed and had threats made against his family because of debts that he had racked up because he was a problem gambler at Skycity.This will just increase that. In doing that this bill provides the opportunity for the casino to continue to have licence renewals through until 2036 and removes the Gambling Commission from that process and thereby cancels the requirement to consider an independent casino impact report in each of those years. Supposedly and listening to some of the speakers this afternoon this is about the economic benefits ofthis deal—that this international convention centre is worth this harm. Well actually a lot of us have got a lot of questions about this process.Certainly there was no transparent evaluation process for this so-called economic development initiative. There was no competitive bidding process because it was a shonky deal done by members opposite starting from the Prime Minister and through to some of his other senior colleagues. There were others. I remember my colleague Jacinda Ardern speaking—I think it was in the Committee stage—about the number of other players who were interested in promoting a convention centre.Nobody across here is necessarily concerned about the idea of a convention centre for Auckland if the numbers stack up. But it should have been a level playing field for people to bid for that and it was not because this was a shonky deal that was done. Even Treasury expressed strong concerns about the figures that were used and that private benefits to Skycity will exceed public benefits to New Zealanders. Certainly Ministers have undervalued the worth of additional pokie machines gaming tables and the 27-year extension to the exclusive licence given to Skycity. At the same time of course there has also been a decline in the number of international arrivals for conferences. So we are concerned also about the numbers.DENISE ROCHE (Green): When this New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill comes to the vote this afternoon for its third and final reading I implore members across the House to vote against it. I am deeply saddened to be in a Parliament that will make a law that will cause its own citizens harm and that will increase the prevalence of problem gambling in my city of Auckland. That will have an impact on individuals on families on our communities on businesses on not-for-profits and by the Government officials’ own account will also have an impact on around 6500 children who will be directly affected by problem gambling arising from the increase in gambling opportunities in this legislation.I am ashamed that this bill is being passed when the proper and full economic analysis has not been done and when even the Treasury advice says that the benefits to Skycity from the gambling concessions in this deal outweigh the public benefits of building an international convention centre. We know that with the extension of Skycity’s gambling concessions it will be the taxpayer who will carry the cost for the coming years not Skycity. So the increased problem gambling social and community harm—which includes family violence suicide and child neglect—and crime including loan sharking and money-laundering and the increase in costs associated with mopping up will all be paid for by the taxpayer.I am deeply disheartened that the Government has been entirely focused on its backroom deal to the point where it has trampled over due process. Democracy was trampled on transparency was trampled on and accountability was trampled on. The Government deliberately misled other organisations like Ngāti Whātua and The Edge which had also tendered to build the International Convention Centre. They were misled during the tender process and they were not even going to ask for gambling concessions around this.I am deeply disturbed that the Government can sell us out so cheaply. In exchange for the $402 million convention centre we will not even own that convention centre and this legislation will give Skycity 230 new pokie machines 40 gambling tables and 12 automated tables with 20 seats each. I forgot to mention that as well as that Skycity will welcome money-launderers into its arms with the ticket-in ticket-out system that it is seeking to introduce. I cannot fathom how we can be such poor negotiators that we cannot even negotiate a cost-neutral deal. I guess we have to ask why a Government would allow for those costs—which in terms of this deal are another 8000 or so people harmed by problem gambling—to be not only uncosted but ignored so totally.One of the submitters on this bill said that if one single person was harmed at all by this deal then the price was too high and he is right. What kind of Government thinks it is OK to deliberately create human misery with its legislation? Do we need a convention centre so badly that we would harm our own citizens to get it?The independent economic projection from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research says that there will be only 18 jobs created as a result of it and for that we will get 6500 neglected children. Physicians are guided by the principle “First do no harm.” I call on politicians across the House to do the same and vote against this bill.JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): The Opposition parties in this House like to call the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill a dodgy deal. Well I say that the only dodgy deal is the deal done between the Greens and Labour to conspire against New Zealanders who want to see jobs who want to see investment and who want to see greater tourism come into this country. That is the only dodgy deal. If the other side really cared about New Zealanders it would be supporting this bill. It would be supporting it because it means hundreds of millions of dollars of extra investment into this country it means hundreds of jobs for New Zealanders and it means huge tourism opportunities for this country. The Labour Party members and the Green Party members like to say that they are holier-than-thou and that they actually care about those issues but the complete opposite is the case. The other side of the House is not supporting New Zealanders. The other side of the House likes to talk big when its actual record is completely the opposite. This Government is doing for New Zealanders what members on that side of the House wishes they could do.If they want to talk about records and if they want to talk about their own views on gambling well they should actually look at the numbers and the statistics. They want to go on about gambling harm—well actually the average annual increase in pokie numbers when Labour was in office was 700 per year. The average decrease per year in pokie numbers in New Zealand since National has been in office has been 550. So if the Labour Party wants to be holier-than-thou—[Interruption] That is right Mr Williamson—an average increase of 700 per annum under Labour; an average decrease of 550 per annum under National. But listen to the other side and they will be telling you that we are the evil ones.We are bringing jobs we are bringing investment and we are bringing tourism to New Zealanders. That is what New Zealanders want. Members on the other side should be the ones who are ashamed of themselves.A personal vote was called for on the questionThat the New Zealand International Convention Centre Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 61Adams (P)Dunne (P)Key (P)Simpson (P)Ardern S (P)English (P)King CSmith (P)Auchinvole (P)FinlaysonLee (P)Tisch (P)Bakshi (P)Foss (P)Lotu-Iiga (P)Tolley (P)Banks (P)Foster-BellMacindoeTremain (P)Barry (P)Goldsmith (P)McClay (P)Upston (P)Bennett DGoodhew (P)McCully (P)WagnerBennett P (P)Groser (P)McKelvie (P)Wilkinson (P)Borrows (P)Guy (P)MitchellWilliamsonBridges (P)Hauiti (P)Ngaro (P)WoodhouseBrownlee (P)Hayes (P)O’Connor S (P)Yang (P)Calder (P)Heatley (P)Parata (P)Young (P)Carter (P)HenareRoy (P)Coleman (P)Hutchison (P)Ryall (P)Collins (P)Joyce (P)Sabin (P)Teller:Dean (P)Kaye (P)Shanks (P)RossNoes 59Ardern J (P)Harawira (P)MoroneyStreet (P)Browning (P)Hipkins (P)Norman (P)Tirikatene (P)Clark (P)Horan (P)O’Connor D (P)TureiClendon (P)HughesO’Rourke (P)Turia (P)Cosgrove (P)Huo (P)Parker (P)Twyford (P)Cunliffe (P)Jones (P)Peters (P)Walker (P)CurranKing APrasad (P)Wall (P)DelahuntyLees-Galloway (P)ProsserWhaitiriDysonLittleRobertson G (P)WilliamsFaafoiLogie (P)Robertson R (P)Woods (P)FentonLole-TaylorRocheFlavellMackeySage (P)Genter (P)Mahuta (P)Sharples (P)Goff (P)Mallard (P)Shearer (P)Graham (P)MartinSio (P)Teller:Hague (P)Mathers (P)StewartBeaumontBill read a third time.Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) BillProcedureHon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) on behalf ofMike Sabin (National—Northland): Following discussions in the Business Committee I seek leave for the Kaipara District Council (Validation of Rates and Other Matters) Bill to be set down for second reading as private and local order of the day No. 1 on Wednesday 13 November 2013.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there anyone opposed? There is not. Leave is granted.Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) BillIn CommitteePart 1 Preliminary provisionsHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of thePrime Minister: This is a very brief comment on Part 1 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill which deals with the preliminary provisions. Clause 3 sets out the purposes of the legislation the primary purpose of which is to ensure that the House and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament. There will be Supplementary Order Paper 389 to deal with clause 2 the commencement clause to amend the commencement date to 16 December 2013 other than what will be sections 36 to 39 which will come into force on 1 July 2014.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thanks very much for the opportunity to take a call on Part 1 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. I know that a number of people around the country and perhaps even within our own precincts in the parliamentary press gallery have been getting a little excited about this bill thinking that it reverts to Parliament setting the salaries of members of Parliament. Actually it does not. The fundamental point is outlined in Part 1—what the preliminary provisions are and the overview of the bill. The point of this bill is to ensure that the provisions for support services that are required by members of Parliament to properly fulfil their functions are made in a way that is transparent and that is fair to members of Parliament and the staff but also obviously to the people who fund them the public of New Zealand.But it is also to ensure an additional point—and it is one that has been highlighted in the House quite recently but also in previous terms of our Parliament—which is that where members of Parliament have an impairment the support services that they require in order for them to fulfil their duties are different from those of other members of Parliament. So I am really pleased that as part of the provisions in this legislation we have ensured that quite rightly the law will now clarify beyond any doubt that the support for members of Parliament who have a physical or a sensory impairment is properly the responsibility of the House and not of the political party that that person happens to be representing.The bill comes about through the work of the original drafting of the legislation and the responsible Minister the Prime Minister as well as the work that the Government Administration Committee was able to do on a very politically neutral basis. We had a lot of debate between submitters and we had a lot of debate between the committee members but on this particular issue there was pretty rapid unanimous agreement that it is proper that support for all members of Parliament whether they have different support needs or not should be the responsibility of Parliament. We hope that this sends a really clear message to disabled members of our community who in the past may have been put off from being members of our Parliament because of feeling as though they might have some spotlight shone on them and feeling that they might not be able to perform their duties in the way that they would want to as an elected representative. I am very pleased with that particular clarity that is now in the legislation which I presume we are going to pass in a little while.The contentious issue that I just want to raise right at the outset of this debate because it is relevant to the very purpose of it and is one on which we got differentopinions from submitters is who would make the determination of the travel allowance for members of Parliament—whether that was a matter for the Remuneration Authority or whether it was a matter for the Speaker. The committee was persuaded in the end that for members of Parliament but not for their family members the ability to travel to Wellington every week when Parliament is sitting when they have select committee meetings in Wellington or elsewhere and where they might have a Cabinet meeting is actually a fundamental part of the responsibility—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is in one of the other parts of the bill not in Part 1.Hon RUTH DYSON: I will refer to that later. I am just saying that because the primary purpose was not to determine as I explained at the beginning our rate of pay. Part of the contentious debate was about who determined that travel allowance. The committee decided that it would be the responsibility of the Speaker because travel is part of the job of a member of Parliament. Regardless of whether we are in the backbench or in Cabinet all of us are required to travel as part of our job. I think the Hon Annette King and Grant Robertson would probably be the only two members of this House who would consider that it is a perk to come to Wellington. The rest of us consider that it is just part of our responsibility that it is part of our job. Of course it is a real pleasure to fly into Wellington every week and leave our homes and electorates behind but it is actually a fundamental part of the job and that is why we decided that it was appropriate for the Speaker to maintain that determination.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I just want to refer briefly to the Supplementary Order Paper 369 in my name. It recommends an amendment to clause 4 in Part 1. Clause 4 is just a descriptive clause. It just describes what the rest of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill does. So it is not a substantive clause in that sense but we have made amendments to this clause as well as to the substantive ones in later parts. The overall thrust of the Supplementary Order Paper that we have for this part and for later parts of this bill is to re-include MPs’ travel as one of the matters that the Remuneration Authority will determine.It was part of the original bill. The original bill that came into Parliament included that accommodation allowances and all travel services of MPs would be determined by the Remuneration Authority. Actually the Green Party has supported that proposal for a very long time but it also came from the Law Commission in its review of MPs’ expenses and allowances. It also came from the Appropriation Review Committee’s report which is the only financial analysis if you like of Parliamentary Service’s spending and it is done once every 3 years. A previous appropriations review also recommended these kinds of changes. The principle behind it is that there should be an independent authority that makes these decisions on behalf of MPs so that there is a separation between the benefit that we receive individually and the decision on that.I do agree with the Hon Ruth Dyson and others that the travel services for example are extremely important to us. We simply cannot do our jobs without them. They are as crucial a tool for our work as standing here and speaking as crucial a tool as our phones—as every MP who is chained to their telephone can tell you. Yes travel services are a crucial tool but they are also under the current system something that allows MPs to use that tool for private purposes as well as parliamentary purposes. The current travel entitlement means that as the rules have been set by our own people by our own institution MPs can use that travel entitlement to come to work and do our business but also to go away on holiday somewhere in New Zealand if we want to. So there is a personal benefit to the travel allowances.The value of that benefit has been taken into account by the Remuneration Authority and the authority has changed its view of what MPs should be paid to reflect thepersonal benefit that it believes is provided through the travel allowance. That is one way of dealing with it but it is not the most transparent way. It is not best the way I believe that the public would like to see these kinds of allowances being dealt with. We are firmly of the view that an independent authority ought to be making these decisions and that it will then be able to assess both the needs of MPs to be able to travel to do our jobs and the needs of the public who look to our system and seek from it the best possible transparency so that they can have the greatest confidence that we are using public money wisely.This is all within a highly politicised context. MPs live in this deeply politicised environment where political attacks come from all over the place. We are right now in the middle of some very significant public scrutiny over pecuniary interests and I am sure that there will be more of this scrutiny over housing allowances—all of these things. We do not operate outside of an intense political environment but this is why yet again it is so important to have these decisions being made not by our own institution but by an independent one. We would like the members of the Committee to give serious consideration to supporting our Supplementary Order Paper that proposes returning to the original proposal—which is to have the Remuneration Authority also determine our travel allowances—on the basis that the best principled basis is to have an independent agency make these decisions on our behalf.I guess we can see why that is so important at the moment with the scrutiny over the use of housing allowances superannuation funds and other trusts that are currently in the media and there is apparently more to come. I am very pleased that the housing allowance part of the MPs expenses is being moved to the Remuneration Authority through this bill because that is one important step. But the scrutiny on MPs will not end until there is a genuine truly transparent and independent process for setting allowances.Although it is really good that we are making steps towards increased transparency and independence and although certainly the Greens will be supporting this legislation because it does make some important steps in that regard we can do better and we should. We should trust the public to view us and our work in the best light. It does not always feel like that sometimes but it is certainly true as I have travelled around the country speaking on issues around MPs’ expenses and allowances that the majority of New Zealanders understand that we need resources to do our job and that we do an important job and they would like to see us do that job well. But the quid pro quo is that we are open and transparent and we give more than just a vague nod to the independence of deciding around these things. As I say I urge members to support this Supplementary Order Paper and the changes to this part and to future parts and look forward to further debate. Thank you.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am going to endeavour to take a call on the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. You will forgive me if my voice collapses halfway through. I have the lurgy that many other members of Parliament have had and I can see the—Hon Christopher Finlayson: No I’m as fit as a fiddle.DARIEN FENTON: —Minister looking very sympathetic. Well at least he is not gloating.Moana Mackey: Viruses have no effect on him.DARIEN FENTON: Is that right? Does he carry around garlic or something? Anyway it is a pleasure to take call on Part 1 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. In responding to the last speaker Metiria Turei I have some sympathy with what she said. I have a lot of sympathy with the general public’s view particularly at a time when we are facing workers struggling to get payincreases with 46 percent of the working population not having had a pay increase. The Government is proposing to make it even harder for workers to conclude collective agreements and win pay increases—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!DARIEN FENTON: So I completely understand and support the comments that people have made.However I do want to say in speaking to the purpose of this document that I think the Government Administration Committee has done an excellent job.Chris Auchinvole: Thank you.DARIEN FENTON: I have read through the report. The committee is chaired by the excellent member Ruth Dyson and I know that the member Chris Auchinvole was there as well. I think the changes to the purposes clause make a lot of sense. They spell out very clearly what this bill is intending to do. It is “to ensure that the House of Representatives and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament.” That is very very important. We do have to be properly supported to do our jobs but we also have to be able to demonstrate integrity. I think the changes that this bill brings do enough to demonstrate integrity in Parliament. The other purposes in the bill include “providing for the remuneration of members of Parliament;”. Members of the public do get upset when we get pay increases but it is important to emphasise that this bill continues the practice of remuneration being decided by the Remuneration Authority so it is very much at arm’s length from Parliament and is independent.The bill is about “ensuring that members of Parliament are provided with the services that they require to enable them to carry out their roles and functions.” Metiria Turei and others have talked about the importance of us actually being in this place of coming to Wellington. I do not know why anyone would think it was a perk to leave home at 5 o’clock on a Tuesday morning and get on a plane to come to Wellington particularly when it is not a very nice day and the plane does the waving of the wings as it is coming into Wellington. But we do have to be here. Our primary job is legislating. Our primary job is as legislators and that is why we are here. Our primary job in Opposition is to hold the Government to account so that is why we must be in Wellington. We cannot do this by remote control. We have to be in Wellington.Also we do need efficient and effective systems for determining the services that are provided to members of Parliament and may I say that I think the support services we have around this Parliament are excellent. I want to put on record my thanks to the parliamentary staff and to Parliamentary Service staff who do a wonderful job in very difficult circumstances. The tricky one really is around the travel services for the family of members of Parliament. This bill will change that so that those travel services for family members are decided by the Remuneration Authority. The tricky bit the point of conflict is that the travel arrangements of members of Parliament will not be decided on; they will continue with the current arrangements.As I say I think the select committee did an excellent job. I know it heard from many submitters—about 18 submitters. The committee considered this issue very carefully and I am sure it considered how this is a deception for the public. But I think it is important also that the travel arrangements for members of Parliament to do their job do involve people who actually understand what doing the job is all about—the people who know what it is like to be in this place know what the requirements are know when we are expected to turn up here and know when we are not. I think as I said that the select committee has done a very good job of changing the purpose clause of this bill. Clause 4 is I think a very useful overview. I am sure that we are going to talk a little bit more about other parts in the bill but I think it is a very useful overview. Thank you.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I would like to rise to take a call to put into context the speech of not the member who has just spoken but the one before that Metiria Turei. But first I recognise the previous speaker Darien Fenton. I would agree that the Government Administration Committee meeting was well chaired. The work that it did was particularly well researched and well prepared. We were remarkably well served by all the officials and we had a fair number of them. This bill the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill involves a very central part of the work we do and so we did have the opportunity to be well advised by a range of very very experienced officials.There are two stages of consultation for a bill passing through the House. I know from those times when I have been at the Australasian and other Commonwealth meetings that they ask how we manage with having just one House. The way we do it of course is to have a very significant part of consultation with the public going through the select committee submissions and considerations. It is a very very important part of a bill’s progress. Full participation during the select committee process is available to any member of Parliament and to every party. All parties in the select committee process are given the opportunity to be fully involved.I note that the Hon Trevor Mallard was very critical of the introduction by the Green Party of a Supplementary Order Paper that effectively assumes one could say a holier-than-thou virtuous amongst all never really wanted to agree attitude. I personally find that a disappointment and an unnecessary intrusion into an otherwise very hard-worked process. I am put in mind of someone who is deliberately rude in public and then apologetic in private. This is a sort of reverse process. The public we have been told expect transparency as if the committee process has not provided it. We most certainly did. But the public expects not just transparency in the end result and in the public process but also deliberation and consideration to be conducted with integrity and with ethics—all of those parts of the bill that are held in the committee consideration.For a party to suddenly change its mind coincidentally when there was some criticism in the media of the result of the changes that the select committee recommended—I noted that the Green Party was singled out as having not fronted up; so there was a sudden change in their view—does not reflect well on the parliamentary process and I think parties should do better than that. I think there is a problem. Where you have a party that constantly votes against everything thereby claiming for itself a particular position in parliamentary process the reality of that is that it is doing so only because it knows that the legislation is going to pass anyway. That is the only way parties can protect themselves. I would suggest that for a party that has no electoral seats for a party that considers itself a future partner in Government it needs to really consider the current standpoint that it is using. Thank you.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): Thank you for the call. In addressing the important preliminary provisions in Part 1 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill which determines remuneration for MPs I would like to indicate my intention to seek a couple of calls on this part to discuss the purposes outlined in clause 3 and also the changes to clause 4 proposed by Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper. Clauses 3 and 4 set out the purposes of the Act and provide an overview a road map of the substance of the bill. In clause 3(1) we are told: “The primary purpose of this Act is to ensure that the House of Representatives and its members are properly supported in a way that maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament.” That is a bit of a masterpiece of drafting but it does not reflect what a difficult task it is to achieve that in the real world.I live in Mount Maunganui and speaking to the people of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga I can tell you that everybody thinks that MPs are well paid—that is well paidby the standards of the average Kiwi. I know there are many MPs who could be earning more in other jobs and other businesses and who view their work here as a service to their country. Be that as it may Kiwis think that MPs are well paid. What is not realised by a lot of people in New Zealand is that MPs do not set their wages. A few people who take an interest know that there is an independent body called the Remuneration Authority which sets wages for MPs. We can make submissions as indeed this House did in 2009 when it supported the motion of Jeanette Fitzsimons for a nil wage order but the Remuneration Authority makes its decisions independently and tells MPs what their wages will be.I will have a little more to say on this in the debate on Part 2 and the Supplementary Order Paper in my name proposing to have MPs’ pay determined before the election and to apply for the 3-year term. I must say that I hope that parties in this Committee will support that when we come to it although I was quite surprised today when I was interviewed by a reporter who said that she had spoken to some MPs who were not going to vote for my Supplementary Order Paper because they did not like me. I would just say that I am sorry for their poor judge of character but also it would really surprise me if an MP in this House ever voted on something because they did not like somebody rather than based on the content or the merit of that particular Supplementary Order Paper.To return to clause 3 it is not easy to preserve confidence in the integrity of Parliament. Indeed some actions by some MPs may be said to directly attack that confidence. However the second leg of the clause is to ensure members are properly supported. In other words we have to have the tools to do the job. If we were plumbers—David Bennett: Who wrote this speech? Did Winston write it?BRENDAN HORAN: Nah he is down in Christchurch at the racing.David Bennett: Is he? Oh good on him.BRENDAN HORAN: Yes. If we were plumbers we would need the tools to do the job. If we were builders we would need tools also. I would like to acknowledge the Hon Maurice Williamson for clarity on this point. We would each need a cellphone a ute and a dog. But we are members of Parliament. We need information. I would like to acknowledge the important role that the Parliamentary Library undertakes for all MPs and the wonderful job that it does. We also need access to internet and email and also the skills and competencies required as we have emerging technologies and a rise in those technologies. We need to be able to communicate. Communication is No. 1. We need to be able to travel around New Zealand. Recently in the last week MPs have travelled everywhere for important work. Last weekend I travelled to Auckland and then I travelled to Rotorua to help some of the Tachikawa Forest Products (NZ) workers. MPs need to travel.Recently I travelled to Foxton. I had a phone call when we were debating the Psychoactive Substances Bill. The concerned members of Foxton rang me and said they had two dairies that were selling these substances. I was able to come to Wellington and then drive to Foxton. I was able to talk to those dairy owners. The dairy owners were unaware of some of the effects and some of the extremely harmful substances that are in the psychoactive substances and some of those synthetic cannabinoids. It is going to be very interesting. I wonder about some of the side effects that we might have there—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Order! That is well outside the scope.BRENDAN HORAN: Thank you—back to the bill. I was talking about travel because sometimes MPs need to travel for devastatingly sorrowful reasons. I would like to pay homage to Parekura Horomia’s tangi.I know that there are people who talk about access to telephones the ability to travel and our access to a bed to sleep in. Some people view those as perks. A number of those people are in the gallery and I will neither attack them for their view nor try to dissuade them from their folly. I respect their right to be wrong; indeed I will defend their right. But the fact of the matter is that I do not travel for fun. When I get on an aircraft it is business. When I check into a hotel or motel it is because I am away from my home away from my family because of my work as a member of Parliament. When MPs want to relax it is generally with their families at home. When I am using communication and information when I am travelling and when I am using accommodation I am simply using the tools of our trade that are necessary—indeed essential—for us to do our jobs as members of Parliament.I note that in clause 4(4) it says that Part 4 provides legislative authority for former members of Parliament. That is something I do not support. If it were in my gift we would strike this out. Thankfully the entitlement is being grandfathered out; it will not apply to any MP first elected at or after the 1999 election. I believe it is inappropriate because these people were well paid when they were in Parliament. They have done their job and there is really no reason they should get discounts of up to 90 percent on international travel for life and substantial numbers of domestic flights. I ask members to tell me whether there is any other job that provides benefits for life long after the job has been finished. Certainly the people of Mount Maunganui and Tauranga do not know of any jobs like that and I do not know anybody at the beach who even has a job like that.I want to turn to Metiria Turei’s Supplementary Order Paper 369 which would give to the Remuneration Authority the task of determining what travel and accommodation services are to be provided for MPs. I acknowledge that the member believes this is important to bolster confidence in the integrity of Parliament—public confidence that is—and I would like to thank her for taking the time to talk with me about this Supplementary Order Paper to explain her reasoning and to argue her case. I would like to repeat my appreciation for her party’s support for democracy that they cast my proxy vote. I repeat my thanks to the Greens’ caucus but I will have to disagree on this amendment. I believe that it is important that the authority and responsibility for determining what travel MPs can undertake and what accommodation they can access remain with the Speaker. The Speaker understands the demands of the job and the importance of family. I support Part 1 of the bill.BARBARA STEWART (Whip—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wonder whether you could please bring to that new member’s notice the fact that the Standing Orders actually prevent him from talking about somebody’s absence from the House or whereabouts that person—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! He was responding to an interjection about where someone was and he replied. That is a rebuttal to an interjection.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 in the name of Metiria Turei be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes15Green Party 14; Mana 1.Noes105New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 agreed to.Part 2 Salaries and allowances of members of ParliamentHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Just a brief commentary from me on Part 2—Chris Hipkins: Make it brief.Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well it can be brief I say to Mr Hipkins because I can say it in words that he will understand. Part 2 is concerned with salaries and allowances of members of Parliament. Clauses 9 to 13 very importantly set out the role of the Remuneration Authority which is appointed to determine the salaries and allowances. Clause 14 sets out provisions relating to substantial increases in financial penalties for members who are absent from the House without permission with deductions starting after 3 days’ absence—I think Mr Mallard called it the “Chris Carter clause”—and clause 14A introduces a financial penalty for members who are suspended from the House. The clauses covering financial penalties for members suspended are new and they reflect a recommendation that was made by the Standing Orders Committee.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I want to make just a very brief contribution to this part of the debate on the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill because I do not think that Part 2 changes a huge amount with regard to the way members of Parliament are paid. The most substantive provisions are the AWOL provisions—so basically those are for members who are absent without leave. As a former whip I did discuss this with my caucus colleagues of course and suggested that in fact this clause did not go far enough. They did not approve of my microchipping idea which I thought might help or ankle bracelets which was the other option that I thought could be a useful contribution in the Committee. They did not think that that went far enough or maybe they thought that I was going a bit far.I think that this is actually a really important provision. It is important that we have very good rules within the parliamentary Standing Orders for members to be absent from the House for legitimate parliamentary reasons. If members are absent without legitimate parliamentary reason and without leave then there is actually very little the Speaker can do about it. I think that we became very aware of that over the last couple of terms of Parliament and the only really substantive change that Part 2 of this bill makes is to give the Speaker the ability to do something about it. So I think that it is a very welcome addition.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Can I first of all acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General and say that it is admirable to have such a high level of education and understanding about so many matters of the world but still be able to speak in language that the rest of us can understand. It is such an admirable quality. Very few people in that position have it.I want to make a brief contribution to Part 2 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill as well. One of the debates at the GovernmentAdministration Committee was about not just the role of the Remuneration Authority but also the size of it and the competency of the members. It was not in any way to challenge the competency of the existing members but really to look at what mix of skills might be required on the Remuneration Authority. It is my recollection that the select committee made a small amendment to it by lopping one of the proposed new members off it and retaining it at the current size. I think that was a good decision.I share the view of my colleague who has just resumed his seat Chris Hipkins that we should have a much higher level of penalty on members of Parliament who have been elected to be representatives either of their constituency or of their party and do not bother to show up in the House. I find that immensely frustrating. All of us of course would like to stay in our electorates or in our home areas at various times. But being in Parliament—and not just being here physically but actually being a participant in Parliament—is why we were elected we should always face up to that being a fundamental part of our responsibility.The previous regime let us off far too lightly and I think that we could actually go a little further than this bill but it is a good step forward in the right direction. As for the idea of microchipping members of Parliament and having GPS trackers on us—what harm would be done? I am sure it would provide other members of Parliament and—[Interruption] It would certainly provide the media with a lot of additional copy to prepare I am sure.But on a serious note members of the public know that we get very well paid for the role we undertake as their elected representatives and the very least we can do is make sure we turn up at the appropriate time. So we have a penalty provision for people who do not show up but do not have a legitimate reason—and of course there are reasons that are legitimate when a member of Parliament might not be physically in the Chamber at any particular time or indeed in the precincts of Parliament—and we also have provisions for people if they are suspended from the House. I think that a deduction of salary is entirely appropriate and I am very pleased that we introduced those stronger AWOL provisions.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I want to make just a brief call too on Part 2 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. We also agree with the changes to the AWOL provisions—to the deductions. There is no point in having a rule if you cannot enforce it. If you cannot enforce a rule then you probably need to change the nature of the rule. If we have a rule that says you have to be here and if you are not here without leave then you are in trouble well we may as well make it enforceable in some way and a financial penalty is one of the ways to do that. We have got no particular problem with that.I would also just note that one of the provisions in this part in clause 12 is the one that provides for 3 months’ pay for an MP who is no longer an MP as at polling day. It is an old provision. It is a transitional provision where MPs continue to be paid their salaries for 3 months after the election if they stand and are not re-elected. There is nothing new in this but again it is one of those issues that perhaps the public are not aware of. I do not think that it is particularly unusual to have a transitional period like this for someone in a role like ours—I am open to other advice about that—but it does raise one of the issues for me which is around former members’ entitlements.We have discussed this at various times in Parliament. It is not part of this bill as such but it does raise the issue that we have to be very careful that we do not continue with provisions that we do not need and that allow for MPs to be paid or given benefits well after they have finished their jobs. There is no other profession that I am aware of where a person continues to be paid to gain to obtain or to use the same or similar benefits that they had from their employers when they were employed after they finishbeing employed. There are some justifications for this 3-month provision; there will be some concerns. We are supporting the bill with this provision in it but it does again raise for me that we will need to discuss as a Parliament at some time in the future and it is likely to happen sooner rather than later the issues around former MPs’ entitlements and how they can continue to be justified.I would also just like to pay note to Brendan Horan’s proposed amendment. We have looked at this and there are differing views from the Green MPs on this. One of the concerns—and this is a concern that I have around this Supplementary Order Paper 368—is that if we are to say that the Remuneration Authority is genuinely independent from political interference and that we do this because we want to have someone quite independent and separate from us making decisions about our salary and allowances then every time we make a change to the law that gives the authority some kind of instruction or guideline are we doing so for political purposes as opposed to practical ones? Is there a genuinely good reason why beyond our own political interests we would be asking the Remuneration Authority to do something differently from what it currently does?I would note that the Greens made a change and had a change pass through this House for the Remuneration Authority to give consideration to the financial circumstances of the country as a whole. This was just before or around the same time as the global financial crisis. So we have been involved in some of these discussions in the past where the issue is to what extent this is a political issue that we are asking of the Remuneration Authority and to what extent it is a legitimate process issue that we are asking of it. I am very reluctant to support any changes or requirements that we might place on the Remuneration Authority where there is a political interest in doing so because again it becomes another means by which we can impose political influence over the decisions of our pay and allowances.The other argument for this Supplementary Order Paper though in favour of it is the practical reality which is that MPs’ salaries and allowances are political issues and that there is a great deal of political interest in what they are how they are set whether they go up or down and how they do or do not relate to the minimum wage and the average wage. It is absolutely true that there is no process in New Zealand for protecting and raising minimum wages like there is for protecting and raising higher incomes. So we have this enormous inequity not only in pay but also in the way that pay is set. We had the Higher Salaries Commission which did that work for those on higher salaries. We now have the Remuneration Authority which will be doing this work for MPs. We have nobody no agency whose job it is to look at the viability and the value of the lowest wages in New Zealand. That is actually a political decision made by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister essentially sets the minimum wage. So we do have a significant discrepancy in the way that wages and salaries are managed for New Zealanders and that has to change.The Green Party has proposals for how to change that so that it is more equitable and so that we can close the gap between the lowest paid and the highest paid. That is one of the political issues that are buried in the instructions that we might give the Remuneration Authority about setting wages and salaries. So understanding that there is severe inequity in this country between the wages of MPs and others on high salaries and the lowest paid that there is inequity in the way that wages are set for those two communities and that there is a great deal of political interest in the decisions that are made about MPs’ salaries should it then occur only once every term? Is that one way of taking out the political heat on issues of MPs’ salaries and of giving the Remuneration Authority the power to limit how often MPs’ salaries might go up? They tend to go up; they would never go down. I do think that Parliament and MPs do have apolitical interest in having the Remuneration Authority limited in its ability to increase MPs’ wages because of the public concern about those increases. None the less it is a reasonable tool to give the Remuneration Authority some indication that it needs to take some of these things into account too.So on balance we will be supporting the Supplementary Order Paper. We think that it is a tool that the Remuneration Authority can use. It does deal with some of the heat in the issue around MPs’ salaries and allowances. It does not deal with the inherent inequity in pay. It does not deal with the inherent inequity in structure that means that MPs’ pay and the pay of highly paid New Zealanders—highly paid public servants for example—are protected whereas the minimum wages of those on the lowest incomes are not. That is another discussion that is still yet to be had. Thank you.BRENDAN HORAN (Independent): We are debating Part 2 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. Part 2 of the bill—clauses 9 to 15—is entitled “Salaries and allowances of members of Parliament” and it starts off importantly by stating that the Remuneration Authority determines the salaries and allowances of members of Parliament. I have Supplementary Order Paper 368 which I would like to address. It inserts new clause 9A and would address the practice not required by law of the authority giving MPs a pay rise every Christmas. It may be nice but is it fair? Is it justified? What new clause 9A will do is this. The Remuneration Authority will set the pay rate for MPs before each general election and that pay rate that determination will apply for the full 3-year term of Parliament. MPs’ wages will be fixed for each term of Parliament if that amendment is adopted.Last Christmas in December I promised that I would put forward an amendment in a bid to get Parliament to agree that salaries would be set by the Remuneration Authority before the next election. This keeps that promise. Three weeks ago I wrote to all parties in Parliament seeking their support. Quite honestly I cannot understand why anyone would vote against this. If adopted the new law would still require the Remuneration Authority to independently set the salaries of MPs. The difference is that the determination would be published about 3 months before the election. That way every candidate running for Parliament and all the voters will know the remuneration of MPs for the next 3 years. Voters will choose their MPs and we will have an end to the spectacle of Christmas back-pay bonuses.A commentator said that unless MPs enjoy the annual self-flagellation they go through they should vote for this Supplementary Order Paper. He went on to say: “Some MPs may be reluctant to support this amendment because it is from Horan.” I do not know that particular commentator very well at all but I would say that that would be very short-sighted and cutting off the nose to spite the face. Certainly I would appeal to every party every member here to support this Supplementary Order Paper. We are elected for a fixed term of 3 years. None of us can be certain that we will be returned in November 2014. Yes I will be a candidate at the general election and I may or may not be back. I would say to the honourable David Bennett and the honourable Mark Mitchell that they cannot take for granted the green leather that they are seated in over there. It is up to the voters to exercise their judgment and those members might not like the verdict of the public this time next year. We are here on a fixed-term contract and it is appropriate that the voters and the candidates should know before the election what the pay is going to be. It is called openness and transparency.Last Christmas we had the shameful treatment of KiwiRail’s safety maintenance crews where they lost their jobs and were made redundant. And we had the ridiculous situation where a train driver from Veolia Transport Auckland fell through rotting sleepers in a track. Being made redundant is not fair and it is certainly not fair that workers are being made redundant at Christmas and then hearing that MPs are getting apay rise. It sticks in the craw. I found that out last year as we all did and I would hate to think that it would happen again. Thank you.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Rt Hon John Key to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 368 in the name of Brendan Horan to Part 2 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes16Green Party 14; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes104New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.The result corrected after originally being announced as Ayes 15 Noes 105.Part 3 Services for members of ParliamentHon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Part 3 deals with services for members of Parliament. I refer members to clause 17 which sets out the principles. There are to be three decision makers in relation to the provision of services for MPs. They are the Remuneration Authority the Speaker and in certain circumstances the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services. In relation to all the services that the respective decision makers provide they are to have regard to certain principles and it is worth noting those principles including the need to be fair to the taxpayer the need for the promotion of transparency and the maintenance of confidence in the integrity of Parliament and in the independence of the Remuneration Authority.There are three types of services. Clause 18 sets out the services to be provided by the Remuneration Authority and the way in which the authority is to make its determination. Clause 24 provides that the Speaker is to be given responsibility for setting directions on travel and communications services for MPs and on party and member support funding and sets out the way in which the Speaker is to go about making that determination.Clause 27A deals with the provision of services or entitlements for Ministers. The Minister responsible for Ministerial Services is to make that determination and the following clauses set out how the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services is to go about that task. The only other clause I would refer members to is clause 30 which provides for quarterly reports on travel and accommodation expenses to be prepared by the general manager of the Parliamentary Service and to be made available in respect of each member of Parliament and each party.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Again I will make my contribution on Part 3 relatively brief. I guess the first point that I would like to make in reading through Part 3 and particularly clause 17—actually most of the clauses have it in them—is on the use of the word “entitlement”. I think that if I was writing the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill from scratch I would avoid the use of the word “entitlement” because I think the public quite rightly get upset about that andwhat we are actually talking about are business-related expenses. These are the expenses that members of Parliament incur in order to be representatives of the people—to do the job that we are sent here to do. So we are talking about travel to get to and from Parliament and to get around the country in order to be able to see people and represent them and accommodation for those people when they are travelling around the country and when they are here in Wellington. They are work-related expenses.I particularly want to draw the attention of the Committee and of those members of the public who are listening to clause 17(1)(b) because I think that there is a lot of public misunderstanding around the personal benefits from the job-related expenses that we get. What clause 17(1)(b) does is basically say that if there is a personal benefit arising from any of the expenses that are covered through our parliamentary activities that will be taken into consideration by the Remuneration Authority when our salaries are determined. In other words if through this legislation or through any determinations issued by the Speaker or the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services or through the Remuneration Authority we end up with things that we personally benefit from we will effectively end up being paid less as a result of that. So there is a safeguard in there for the taxpayer that none of the decision makers in this legislation can do things that will give members of Parliament a personal benefit without there being some offset against the salaries that we receive and I think that that is quite right. I think that that is a very legitimate expectation. It adheres to the principles that are set out in the Act about being fair to the taxpayer—which I think is very very important—about there being transparency and about the need for public understanding of the work that members of Parliament do. I think that those things are relatively well safeguarded in here.If I was writing this bill from scratch I would do it differently and again I think one of the things that I would say is that I would try to avoid the use of the term “entitlement” because I think that that sends all of the wrong messages around what we are trying to do. What we need to do here and what this legislation aims to do is ensure that members of Parliament can be effective advocates for the people who vote for us who send us here to Parliament. So that involves our need to be able to be here in Wellington. I am one of the members who can speak with no conflict here. I do not get any Wellington accommodation allowance. I do not have any interest in that whatsoever. But I absolutely accept that members of Parliament who do not live in Wellington should have that. They should be able to stay here. They should be able to find accommodation arrangements that are appropriate for them and that should be covered because I do not see how they could possibly do their jobs as members of Parliament without it.I also benefit probably less from or have less reason to be concerned about the travel sections of this bill too because again I am a Wellington member of Parliament. I drive home every day so I stay at my house. I do not fly as much as other members do but I absolutely defend the rights of members of Parliament when it comes to their air travel as well. I think it is very important that members of Parliament have the flexibility to travel to and from their constituencies using air travel and have the flexibility to travel around the country to attend to other things. Although I am an absolute advocate for transparency one of the things that would concern me greatly is the idea that members of Parliament would stop travelling and stop making themselves available to the voting public to the general public because of potential perceptions and risks. So if every time a member of Parliament agrees to travel somewhere and thinks that they will have to justify that very trip and justify that individual airfare then the result of that would be that members of Parliament will attend fewer events and will become less accessible to members of the public. Again I say this as someone who probably has less reason to call on these services than others because I live in Wellington.I absolutely think it is important that we have transparency to the point that is necessary for the public to be assured that the system is not being abused and that members of Parliament are not claiming and personally benefiting from things that they should not be but I also absolutely think that it is important that members of Parliament have the freedom to travel around the country when necessary to do the job that the New Zealand public require us to do.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): We have some amendments to Part 3 but they are essentially to the same effect as the amendment I described earlier which is to re-include the travel of MPs in the determinations that are made by the Remuneration Authority rather than leaving that with the Speaker. I understand Chris Hipkins’ view and there is potentially some logic to it. The other view is that if we in Parliament are to treat travel services as a critical tool for the purposes of doing our job then I think the other option is that they remain with the Speaker as will be the case if this bill passes as it is at the moment. They remain with the Speaker but that is for parliamentary purpose only. Just as when we sign off our budgets and the various things that we have to do every month for the parliamentary spending that we do we have to sign a little piece of paper that says: “This spending is for parliamentary purpose.” We do—you know everybody has to do it. In having to do that we are having to make a genuine declaration that this travel is for parliamentary purpose. But the problem with travel is that we are entitled to use it for personal reasons. That is it. That is—Chris Hipkins: So if an MP flies home to attend to a sick child is that a parliamentary purpose?METIRIA TUREI: Well there is a question there. I agree Mr Hipkins and it might be that the right to travel from where you are for your work to your home is considered to be part of your parliamentary purpose given that you are entitled to get back to your house right? So we might have to look at how the parliamentary purpose reflects the nature of the job. MPs have to move from their home to Parliament and from their home to some other place to do some work and back to their home. That is not unreasonable for us to have that conversation but the issue is—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.METIRIA TUREI: If anybody is curious as to why I have this lovely young thing standing next to me her name is Jellybean Harakeke. She is part of the Buddy Day campaign that is being run by Child Matters over the next week. The campaign encourages adults to adopt a buddy to carry the buddy around with us and to encourage conversations about how adults can prevent child abuse and engage in real solutions to prevent child abuse. That is why I have my buddy Jellybean Harakeke with me today.Before the dinner break I was just responding to issues raised by Chris Hipkins about the travel allowances part of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill. He was suggesting that in the current system whereby MPs have access to travel for our work we are also able to use travel allowances for personal reasons as well. He was suggesting that part of the trade-off is that the Remuneration Authority assesses the value of that personal use and then in determining our salaries takes away—subtracts from the final determination—the value of that personal use.That is one way of doing it and it is the way that it has been done. The Green Party’s view is that it is not the most transparent way. It is not the most straightforward way. In fact a better way would be for the travel allowance to be for parliamentary purpose only. Yes that would require some understanding or rule-setting around what “parliamentary purpose” means. For example—and Chris Hipkins raised the issue—what would happenif an MP was away from town away from home on parliamentary business and needed to get home? Well one could reasonably argue that the travel itself is for a parliamentary purpose and therefore it is reasonable for the travel home to be included in that purpose. That would have to be a discussion.My argument here is that if travel is to remain with the Speaker as the bill currently sets out and because travel is considered to be an essential tool for MPs to operate in our job—like our laptops like our office furniture or whatever other kinds of tools you may want to consider—then there is an argument that that tool should be restricted for parliamentary purpose. That would take away then the perception that the public might have—and I think they do have actually—that MPs want to retain control over the travel allowances because they want to retain the ability to travel for personal reasons as well as parliamentary purpose.So what is the trade-off here? One trade-off we could have is to agree that travel stays with the Speaker but is restricted and is not available for MPs to use for personal travel. We have not had that conversation yet. This is another one of those issues that remain unresolved. The issue is unresolved—that is whether travel should be restricted to parliamentary purpose only with no provision for personal use—because we have not discussed that. That has not been a matter that MPs have wanted to discuss in the Parliamentary Service Commission and elsewhere even though it is an issue that has been raised by the Law Commission the Appropriations Review Committee and in other areas. The Greens’ view is that the travel should also then move to the Remuneration Authority.It is therefore critical for an independent agency to set the travel rules. We actually cannot have it both ways where we get to decide our own travel allowance and we get to keep—or decide to keep—the personal component of that travel allowance. I do not think the public believe that that is the right thing to do. I do not believe that the public should be mistrusted by MPs either. I think we can trust the public to have a reasonable view about the tools that we need to do our jobs and to have a reasonable view about the travel that we need to do our jobs. Some people will always complain about the resources that we use. But again in my experience of travelling around the country and talking to people about these issues the vast majority of people understand that we need to use our travel allowance to get around. They understand and they want us to be able to get out to a variety of areas and talk to a variety of communities. They want to see and hear their representatives from a wide range of parties and over a wide range of issues.They do not in the main believe that we are intentionally trying to maintain our own personal benefit to the extent that perhaps the media makes out sometimes but the public want to be trusted to hold that view. One of the ways that we can demonstrate that trust is to give over the authority to make these decisions ourselves. It does us no harm. It does us only good if we agree that the public can be trusted to hold our interests at heart; that the independent authority can be trusted to make a reasonable decision about the allowances that we need to do our work.Therefore at the end of the day all of this takes the political heat out. We do not end up with the kind of front-page news stories that we currently have. The more transparent we are the more information that we provide and the less we hold on to the authority to make decisions about these things ourselves the more the public will then agree with what it is that we need to do our jobs and trust us to do them with their interests at heart.So I urge MPs to vote for Supplementary Order Paper 369 that I have on the Table which again reinstates travel services as being a determination of the Remuneration Authority. I think that is a positive move. It is a practical move. It is a principled move. It gives confidence to the public that we are not here to further our own interests that we arenot here simply to improve our own personal financial wealth but we are here to serve the public and to use public resources in a way that is wise and transparent. Thank you.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I call and recognise the Hon Ruth Dyson.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Thank you very much Mr Chairman. I am pleased that you recognise me. We have worked together quite a lot and I think I would be quite disappointed if you did not actually. I want to make a small contribution in relation to Part 3 of the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill and in particular draw the attention of members in this debate to what I think is actually one of the most important parts of this bill: the principles that are outlined in clause 17.Clause 17 “Principles” talks about what the Remuneration Authority the Speaker and the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services must have regard to in setting determinations or issuing instructions. It says some really important things. Clause 17(1)(a) says: “that the entitlements of members of Parliament and Ministers to support services should be determined in a way that—(i) recognises the need for public understanding of the work of those persons and their parties and the services they require to enable them to carry out their roles and functions;”. It is really important that we recognise the need for public understanding and also the fact that it is the public who is funding these support services.What also has to be considered is that any such determination has to facilitate “the delivery of support services in an efficient and effective manner;” so we cannot be frivolous in terms of the support services we have. They have to be efficient and effective. A determination recognises “the need to be fair to the taxpayer;”. That is a really important principle to have in the legislation. It “promotes transparency in relation to the allocation and use of public money to provide the support services necessary for members of Parliament Ministers and parties to carry out their respective roles and functions; and (v) maintains confidence in the integrity of Parliament; and (vi) maintains the independent of the Remuneration Authority:”.I think we should be very appreciative of the fact that in New Zealand we have those principles of fairness of transparency of public understanding and support and of maintaining confidence in the integrity of Parliament and the independence of the Remuneration Authority. I bet that many other countries around the world would be very envious of us having in our legislation such provisions. I think as New Zealand members of Parliament we should be very proud that that is actually the legal requirement for those different bodies when setting determinations or issuing directions.The other important provision that I just want to draw to the attention of the Committee is also in the same clause but it is actually subclause (1)(b). It relates to what is often seen as the tension between what members of Parliament need to do their job properly—whether it is a phone or a flight to a meeting or an engagement you have been invited to or have to attend as a constituency MP or as a portfolio holder in that area—or some other support service that is provided to us in order to do our job. The tension arises when members of public see that support service as a private benefit.I want to just draw the attention of the Committee to 17(1)(b) which says: “that if services provided include an element of remuneration or result in any other private benefit the value of that benefit should be taken into account by the Remuneration Authority in determining relevant salaries and allowances…”. So if there is a private benefit that is gained by a member of Parliament through any of the other support services that we are given the Remuneration Authority say: “Well you gain X Y and Z from that particular determination. You gain that as a private benefit. Therefore when it comes to setting the salaries of members of Parliament that amount will be deducted.”I think that having that transparency is really important so that the Remuneration Authority does not do it behind closed doors. It can actually say: “This is the private benefit that a member of Parliament gains from that determination and therefore we are going to take that same amount off their salary when we take into consideration any increase or adjustment to the salary.” I am very pleased with those two provisions. I think they are very important and enhance the strength of this bill.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Rt Hon John Key to Part 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Metiria Turei’s amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 deleting clause 27D is out of order as it is contrary to an earlier decision of the Committee. So that has been ruled on. But we do have another one in the name of the honourable member Metiria Turei. It is the remaining amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369. All those in favour please say Aye to the contrary No. The Noes have it?Hon Members: Party vote.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Party vote called for. The Clerk will please conduct a party vote. Just to make sure and so that I am not confused these are Metiria Turei’s remaining amendments to Part 3 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369. That is what I have here. So it is not the one that was set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 deleting clause 27D because that was out of order. But there is another one. I think the Greens will want to vote for this one. So let me put it again.Hon Ruth Dyson: They’ve said that. They’ve called a party vote.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): You want a party vote? I just want to make sure you know what the situation is. OK we will have a party vote. Please conduct a party vote.The question was put that the remaining amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 in the name of Metiria Turei to Part 3 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes15Green Party 14; Mana 1.Noes105New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Amendments not agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Part 4Entitlements of former members and other miscellaneous mattersThe CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Could honourable members now turn their minds to Part 4. It is debate on clauses 36 to 68 and it also includes the schedules 2 and 3.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Rt Hon John Key to Part 4 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes102New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 33; New Zealand First 7; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Noes18Green Party 14; Māori Party 3; Mana 1.Amendments agreed to.TIM MACINDOE (Junior Whip—National): I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise I have cast the vote in Part 3 incorrectly for the Māori Party. The Māori Party’s vote should in fact be cast against the Minister’s amendment and Part 3 standing part. I would be grateful if the record could be corrected.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): So you are seeking leave to amend the record?TIM MACINDOE: I am seeking leave.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Is there any objection to that course of action—there was no vote on Part 3; it was agreed on. That is OK?TIM MACINDOE: That is fine. My apologies. There was a vote but it was actually on a—The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Yes the only vote was on the honourable member Metiria Turei’s amendments. OK.TIM MACINDOE: That’s fine. No correction needed. I apologise for apologising.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): It is Tuesday evening!The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 369 in the name of Metiria Turei to Part 4 be agreed to.Amendments not agreed to.Part 4 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1agreed to.Schedule 2agreed to.Schedule 3The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Rt Hon John Key to schedule 3 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 3 as amended agreed to.Clause 1agreed to.Clause 2CommencementThe question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 389 in the name of the Rt Hon John Key to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 5 November.Part 1 WorkSafe New Zealand(continued)Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): Last week I was in full flight in the debate on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill answering some of the reasonable contributions from around the Chamber. It was a great pleasure to speak then as it is now because this is a bill that I anticipate does have multiparty support and quite rightly so given its content and given that we are all I think unified in trying to do something very good in terms of health and safety and lifting that in this country.Let me not take up more time now; I may make a contribution later. Let me just acknowledge the member Brendan Horan who came to my office with Supplementary Order Paper 371. It was a helpful contribution and we have effectively been able to amalgamate it or subsume it into the Government’s Supplementary Order Paper Supplementary Order Paper 374. It was of course to do with the entitlements of workers transferring from the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment through to WorkSafe. So I just place on record my thanks to him for his useful contribution in that regard.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I am going to endeavour to do my best to speak on this bill tonight. As you can hear I have somewhat of the lurgy that has been going around Parliament. However I will do my best to put my views and those of others on this very very important bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill on record. It is in the context of a lot of work that has gone on and a dreadful tragedy of course which occurred some 3 years ago now and bearing in mind as we always do the loss of the lives of 29 miners—the unnecessary loss of life—and the work that came out of the inquiry of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coalmine Tragedy. That made recommendations around how we could get on top of our appalling health and safety record and the sheer negligence that had developed in the mining industry. That is what has given rise to this bill. I also want to recognise that there has been a health and safety task force. Some of its recommendations—I think it reported back in July—have been incorporated into or have informed this bill. Also an exposure draft has been released by the Minister of Labour on a new health and safety in employment Act which is being consulted on at the moment. So there are multiple changes going on in health and safety and we also say so there should be given our disgraceful record of health and safety in this country.Part 1 helps establish the stand-alone agency called WorkSafe which was a recommendation of the Pike River coalmine commission of inquiry and also of the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety. Both made very comprehensive reports and I think have built consensus around the need for major change in our approach to the health and safety of people at work. That is why Labour is supporting this bill has been pleased to participate in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee process and will work constructively on other health and safety changes that are coming forward. That said I cannot go far without noting that it is a real pity that at the same time that we are really trying to tackle health and safety in New Zealand and that we are really trying to get New Zealand off the map of the worst health and safety death and injury records in the world we are changing employment law which I think will have only a detrimental effect.However turning to Part 1 the task force was particularly clear about the need for tripartite involvement. The Minister has been a little bit cute on that. He did tell theTransport and Industrial Relations Committee earlier this year that the WorkSafe board would include union representation. He actually used the “u” word which I thought was pretty brave of him because it is not in this bill. It is not in this bill anywhere. I recall that it actually made some headlines. People said: “Oh the Minister of Labour is going to have unions in this new task force—shock horror!”. But of course when you look at what is actually in the bill although there has been an amendment that has made an improvement in who is on the board of WorkSafe New Zealand it does not pick up the recommendations of the task force and does not recognise tripartism in the way that we certainly understand it and that the International Labour Organization understands it. I think that is why Andrew Little’s Supplementary Order Paper 387 has an excellent description of what should be in the bill. It should include a board of three representatives of Business New Zealand; three from the Council of Trade Unions which is the most representative organisation of workers in this country; and three appointed by the Minister to represent other interests. That would be a truly tripartite board. As I said this is what the health and safety task force originally recommended.I have heard no clear reason from the Minister why he is departing from that. We had no real explanation in the select committee. We asked the officials at length to explain to us what “tripartism” means. Some of our National colleagues on the select committee had no idea and were I think a little bit outraged at the idea that the Council of Trade Unions would have some role. I recall that one of the members wanted to go to great lengths to talk about the very small number of unions that are outside of the Council of Trade Unions—why they did not get a say. Well you know they can. They can come and make submissions and so on. The point of a tripartite board like that would be that it was a genuinely independent voice for workers employers and of course the Government as well. That means there is consistent representation. There is a consistent voice.The reason that we are so strong on this is that if you look at the theme through both the Pike River commission of inquiry report and the Independent Taskforce on Workplace Health and Safety it is the fact that the worker’s voice in particular in health and safety over the last 20 years has been lost. Employee participation has become a tick-the-box exercise. It has become something that many employers control and where workers are simply afraid to stand up and have their voices heard. I think we have seen the consequences of that. I do not want to keep going over the tragedy. I would like to know from the Minister though whether he feels obliged to get on his feet to explain why he objects to the recommendation of a tripartite board. I would be interested to hear his views on that.The other thing about Part 1 that I am a bit concerned about is that the functions provided for WorkSafe in the bill are pretty much a shadow of those that were recommended by the health and safety task force. For example the agency has no power to approve codes of practice. There is no role in making or amending regulations it has no clear lead role in workplace health and safety it cannot make recommendations about the nature of funding and it has no role in the important job of fostering tripartism or working with unions. I think that that is a real shame. I think that it is a missed opportunity. There is an opportunity for us to revisit the issue of the board representation. Hopefully we would see from that tripartite leadership as we have seen on the health and safety task force and as we have seen through the business forum for health and safety as well where it has been prepared to stand for business and say: “Actually yes workers should have a formal voice through their unions and we shouldn’t be afraid of that.” So we are supporting this bill but I think that it is a shame that we cannot get this agency off on the right foot. We need to accept our history and own up to it. That exclusion of workers and workers’ organisations in health and safetyand the changes to the Health and Safety Act in Employment Act 1992 were a fundamental mistake which have ultimately led to not only the tragedy of the Pike River mine but many others—the disgraceful record that we have where we see people die or get injured every week in our workplaces.I accept that this Government is genuine and I congratulate it on the work that it has led and I congratulate the Minister of Labour’s predecessor Kate Wilkinson as well. I congratulate them on that work but I think there are two things: let us understand that unless there is a genuine workers’ voice this is going to be problematical and will continue to be problematical. Let us also—please Minister—understand that the other changes that you are proposing to legislate for are going to undermine the very very good work that is being done in this bill. So in Part 1 there are those two things that I have mentioned. There is plenty more to mention and I will have another call I hope.If I do not get the opportunity later I do just want to mention the issue about the transfer of workers. I have not had a look at Brendan Horan’s Supplementary Order Paper 371—I am sure it is good and we will support it; actually I do not know whether we will support it but I will have a look at it. But what I do not want to see is a continuation of the botch-up that we have had with health and safety inspectors in the inspectorate who where we have had this change programme have been through endless change. It was part of the problem that contributed to the Pike River mine disaster in fact where they were so under-resourced that they could not even get the travel costs to travel to inspect the mines. So let us make sure that in transferring those health and safety inspectors from the old Department of Labour—the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment; whatever it is called these days—to the new agency those things are taken care of as well and that there is proper resourcing and that we get up to our full complement of—ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I just want to take a reasonably brief call on Part 1 of this bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. This is a very important part about the governance if you like of WorkSafe New Zealand the new agency that will take responsibility for workplace health and safety leadership in New Zealand. Of course we know—and there has been ample research—that good health and safety practice in the workplace also means good health and safety practice in the home and in the community more widely. Workers who are well drilled well exercised and well trained in health and safety practice in the workplace take it back into their homes and the wider community. One of the bigger claims on ACC is injuries caused by DIY. So this is a great opportunity with WorkSafe New Zealand—a dedicated agency—to get it right.It is a great opportunity to repair the mistake of 1992. The failure in New Zealand’s health and safety performance goes back to the failures in the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 where we did a half-pie job in reforming health and safety. We drew on the English model which had been in place—would you believe—since 1974 thinking that we would do the same thing. But of course we did our workplace health and safety reform at probably the peak of anti-unionism anti-collectivism and anti - independent-worker voice and we did the wrong thing. We had an opportunity then to have the open-textured law that was the Health and Safety in Employment Act which replaced the plethora of legislation that we had—the Machinery Act the Construction Act the Boilers Lifts and Cranes Act and every other piece of industry-specific legislation you could think of. We replaced it with this open-textured legislation but what we did not do was support that with a range of other measures.One of the things we did not support it with was a commitment to genuine tripartism in the workplace. The reality is this: the people who are dying and who are being maimed and injured in our workplaces are not the managers and they are not thebusiness owners; they are the front-line workers. Those ones—whether with their trade skills their certificates of completion for their on-the-job training or whether they are simply learned in the task they are required to perform—are the ones who are suffering the injuries and they need to be involved in decisions about health and safety.For that to be meaningful and indeed for that to be led we need an agency that reflects that tripartism as well. The independent voice of workers must be reflected in workplaces along with the independent voice of employers. They must all be reflected in the governance of WorkSafe New Zealand. That is about sending a signal about how we want health and safety management to be conducted in the future. But it also has a practical effect on the leadership of health and safety regulation in this country.So I urge the Minister of Labour to rethink and to consider the Supplementary Order Paper 387 that has come forward which provides for a recast board of WorkSafe New Zealand and equal representation of the social partners—workers employers and the Government.I think that if this Minister were to do that then that would send a very strong signal and would be a courageous step by a Minister whom I know has a got a long political career ahead of him—probably longer than mine. I would want him to be able to look back in some years’ time and say: “I did the right thing.” It is something that goes against the natural National Party grain—that is not a criticism; that is an observation—but we would look to a Minister who took a courageous step and said: “Yep. We want to really transform and change health and safety leadership and management in this country and we are going to build our structures from top to bottom to reflect that.” Changing the governance of WorkSafe New Zealand by ensuring genuine tripartism and by incorporating the social partners would do that. That would be a cause for celebration and great admiration. Naturally we support change because the change in this bill will be positive for the workers of New Zealand. The change in that governance would add to it.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): It is a pleasure to rise in the Committee stage of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. I want to pick up from where my colleague Andrew Little has just left off in looking at Part 1. I will consider clauses 7 8 and 9 in this contribution.The establishment of a new workplace health and safety agency WorkSafe New Zealand is something that is vital and it would be fantastic if we could agree and make changes to get something set up that is going to be world class and that is going to make a real difference. We know and we have seen firsthand in this country in recent times just how wrong things can go at work. The fact is that we want—and I am sure that is across this House—to see that we are as safe as we can be in our workplaces and that people go to work that they do their job to the best of their ability and that they come home safely. The establishment of WorkSafe New Zealand is part of that. We believe that at the moment unfortunately there is a missed opportunity to create that world-class health and safety regime.The first reason for that is looking at clause 7 around WorkSafe New Zealand’s board. That clause provides first of all for the Minister to appoint “at least 5 but not more than 9 persons as members of the board.” When the Minister does that appointing of a member to the board—and there is a question about how genuine that process will be and we can only assume that we will have Ministers taking very seriously that role of getting the best people to do the work—they are required under this legislation to ensure that the board “has among its members persons who have collectively knowledge and experience of and capability in the following:” and then it lists a number of things.We do not think that the notion of “perspectives of workers” in paragraph (d) of clause 7(2) and of “perspectives of employers” in paragraph (da) actually goes far enough in seeking and setting up what we really need which is a tripartite board where there is genuinely equal representation and where there are leaders from the business community from relevant Government agencies and from unions the representatives of employees. Those people all need to have the ability to argue create and determine on that board—as equally valid representatives if you like—the outcomes that we need. There is plenty of evidence to show now that diverse boards—and that is not just in this area but in business generally and in community organisations—do better. Where there is not a mind-set of one group over another and where there is a range and a contest of ideas you get better outcomes. That is the real strength of having a genuinely tripartite board. It can take account of different views and different expertise members can challenge each other’s ideas and it can make better decisions because of that.So I too as Andrew Little has done would urge the Minister to rethink this provision and to make sure that we do not have these strange words about “perspectives of” and that we actually have genuine representatives of employers workers Government agencies and public sector experts. It is really important that we get that right because that is the leadership. That is the group that will determine a lot of other things.Interestingly enough in clause 8 which talks about the advisory groups it says that “WorkSafe New Zealand may establish an advisory group” and then talks about “a forum for dialogue and co-operation between the Government employers and workers on workplace health and safety matters;”. To me that sounds like a tripartite kind of group and it seems strange to me that the board—if you like the head of the organisation—does not equally have that kind of structure. I do not understand the logic of that. So I think that it is important to think about the relationship between the WorkSafe New Zealand board and the potential advisory groups that WorkSafe New Zealand can establish.The main objective of WorkSafe New Zealand which is set out in clause 9 is I think quite a strong statement actually. Clause 9 states: “WorkSafe New Zealand’s main objective is to promote and contribute to securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces.” I think that that is quite a strong statement.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. I was in fact on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for all of the submissions on this bill and for much of the process undertaken with this bill.Of course Labour is supporting this bill but we know that it can be improved even more particularly in Part 1 where we know the Government has departed from recommendations from the royal commission. It is really important that we ask the question of why that is. Why is it that the Government has gone out of its way to create WorkSafe New Zealand in a different format than that recommended by the royal commission? This is a very serious issue. We know the serious impacts when this goes wrong. Sadly we know it all too well recently in this country. But for the Government to depart from a recommendation of the royal commission it means that the Government quite specifically wants to challenge what the royal commission came up with. I would like the Minster in the chair the Minister of Labour to actually get up and explain to the Committee why that is because in my experience a Government does not do that for no good reason; it does it for a reason. I would like to understand the underlying agenda in setting up WorkSafe New Zealand in quite a different way from what the royal commission recommended.In particular and my colleagues have talked about this the tripartite nature of WorkSafe New Zealand was something that the royal commission thought veryimportant in terms of getting this right. Yet the Government when it brought this bill forward has failed to do that. As I said just before it quite deliberately failed to do that and it did that not only against the recommendation of the royal commission but against the advice of many of the submitters who came before our select committee who argued that they wanted to make sure that the right people representing the stakeholder groups in health and safety were on the WorkSafe New Zealand board.I am hoping that the Minister of Labour will explain why it is that instead of talking about having a workers’ representative—in other words a union representative—on the WorkSafe New Zealand board we have got this strange legal description of a person who has “perspectives of workers:” whatever that might mean. I do not know whether that has ever been tested in the court before. My guess is that it has not been. We do not know what that phrase means. It could mean anyone who has ever been in a workplace before. It could mean anyone who has ever met a worker before. It could mean the grandmother of someone who is currently in the workforce. It could mean the grandchild of someone who is currently in the workforce. We do not know in fact what that means. Yet what we do know is that the Minister has specifically and deliberately chosen to change what the royal commission recommended and to go down this path instead—this path of describing people when we really do not know who they are.At least if it had said “a representative of the Council of Trade Unions” which it ought to say in my view we would know specifically exactly what we were talking about there. But we have no idea who this person is or who these people are because it says: “When appointing a member of the board the Minister must have regard to the need to ensure that WorkSafe New Zealand has among its members persons who have collectively knowledge and experience of and capability in the following: (a) public sector governance: (b) central government processes: (c) New Zealand’s workplace health and safety environment including workplace illness and occupational disease:”—and then mysteriously—“(d) perspectives of workers:”—and then—“(da) perspectives of employers:”. Well what might that mean? I think that is equally as difficult to analyse.Darien Fenton: Of an employer?SUE MORONEY: Well yes I would probably understand some perspectives of employers. I do not think I would be the right person to represent them on the WorkSafe New Zealand board but I could argue that I have a knowledge of the perspectives of employers. That is because I have negotiated against them for many many years as a union organiser. But I do not think employers would want me necessarily to be their representative on the WorkSafe New Zealand board. So—Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): I apologise to my colleague Sue Moroney who was in full flight. I would like to carry on. The profound wisdom of having a worker involved in the active management of health and safety is so clear when we read through the objectives of WorkSafe New Zealand in the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. It is being set up to advise on the operation of the workplace make recommendations for changes to improve systems develop codes of practice and provide training. All of those things rely on—pardon the pun—the coalface wisdom of people going back into health and safety systems. And for the Government to ignore that is perhaps a continuation of the stupidity and the blind arrogance that led to the 1992 legislation. I use those blunt words because I can still recall a meeting with Bill Brazil a previous mine manager who said to me in 1994: “You will rue the day”—“you” being the Government; I was a member in Opposition at the time—“that you changed that legislation to discard the wisdom of 100 years of legislation.”My colleagues have spoken eloquently on that and I will go on to what I see as a rather ironic part of Part 1 and that is in Subpart 3“Transition to WorkSafe New Zealand and consequential amendments”. That is a part that protects the terms and conditions of employment of those people who transfer from what was the Department of Labour—I guess it is the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment—through into WorkSafe New Zealand. I applaud the provisions in here. Many many—in fact thousands of—workers in New Zealand would love to have had these provisions when they were kicked from a job into another one or when the contractor or the name of the contract changed and they saw their terms and conditions disappearing in front of them. Well the Government in its wisdom—part wisdom short wisdom temporary wisdom; I do not know—has seen fit to ensure that the people who transfer into WorkSafe New Zealand will retain the terms and conditions of their previous employment. I applaud that. Then I have gone through to work out whom that might apply to and I guess it could be a number of people. WorkSafe New Zealand should be a big organisation.If I go back to the reason for this legislation in the first place it is the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy. There are a number of recommendations here and what we are doing tonight is progressing legislation that is part and parcel of these recommendations. As we know it was a thorough inquiry and it exposed a lot of flaws at almost every level of governance and management in the company oversight by the Government itself and a number of other areas. What it says here of course in the summary of the report is that things had got pretty bad in the mining inspectorate. It says that in fact at the time of the tragedy the Department of Labour had only two mining inspectors. It was under huge pressure. And then it goes on to say that in May 2012 the Minister of Labour announced extra funding of $37 million for health and safety administration including an increase in the number of health and safety inspectors.If we can go back to the mining industry what this Government has done in setting up the High Hazards Unit which sounds all well and good is that it now has three mining inspectors in place—three. That is up by 50 percent admittedly—from two at the time of the Pike River disaster to three now. Those individuals are under pressure now. It is maybe not quite the same as it was but none the less they are under pressure. The Government made the announcement and everyone thought that we would have a huge boost in the focus on health and safety in the mining industry but it has not occurred. It has not occurred and the families of those people who lost their lives at Pike River do not feel too good about that.One of the things that they had hoped to see was a substantive increase in the focus on mine safety. Admittedly we have had a couple of mines close unfortunately under the National Government—one of them because of the Government’s own mismanagement of Solid Energy. We have seen mines close. That is unfortunate. Maybe the workload is not quite as good as it was.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): I moveThat the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No I am going to call the honourable member Kevin Hague. He is pleading with me.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): Thank you very much Mr Chair; I appreciate your perception of my pleading because I have a number of comments to make. Back at the first reading of this bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill I indicated a number of concerns about Part 1 and I want to talk about how those concerns have or have not been addressed through the select committee process and the detail of the bill that is before us right now.The first of those concerns relates to how the board of WorkSafe New Zealand is to be comprised and I speak therefore in relation to Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of Andrew Little. Dave Feickert in particular is a mine safety expert. He talks about what he calls the triangle of safety and draws the attention of this House and the industry to the fact that successful mining industries—those that are safe—have this thing called the triangle of safety where there is responsibility taken for health and safety in the mine by the Government by employers and by workers. The example that we have talked about previously in other readings of this bill is in relation to inspectors. We have said that there is a role for the employers the workers and the Government in the inspection of a particular mining operation for compliance with health and safety regulations and requirements. This is the key. In the triangle of safety we expect each to take responsibility and to recognise and own responsibility for health and safety.What that means in relation to this new entity WorkSafe New Zealand which we expect to be the leader in workplace health and safety is that we want each of those entities to have a sense of ownership of that organisation. That is why the task force recommended a different model for the composition of the board of this organisation. It recommended what I would call a representative model which is the kind of structure that Andrew Little sets out in his Supplementary Order Paper. Instead the Government has chosen what I would call a reflexive model—that is a model in which the members of the board of that organisation are responsible not to organisations from employers and from workers but instead they are all responsible to the Minister—and that is antithetical to the idea of having a tripartite sense of ownership and responsibility for health and safety.I do not think that the select committee heard a single submission supporting that reflexive model. Instead we heard both from unions and from employers supporting the recommendations of the task force that the structure for the board of WorkSafe should be a representative one. If we think about it that is the democratic model actually comprising that board. The reflexive model that the Minister has used is certainly appropriate for the boards of some entities but for an entity like this which we expect to have that tripartite sense of ownership it is the wrong model. When we asked officials why it was that despite all of the submissions that we received and despite the recommendation of the task force for a representative model they had selected a reflexive one for us to have in this bill they effectively came back and said: “We just prefer it.” There were no reasons given. So I echo Sue Moroney’s call for the Minister to explain the reasons that he has chosen a reflexive model rather than a representative one.So fundamentally this part of the way the board is comprised is wrong. I have to say that I suspect that the reason that the Government has got it wrong is that it does not want the triangle of safety. The Government does not want to share responsibility to share decision making with workers and employers. [Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): I am going to hear the honourable member Kevin Hague.KEVIN HAGUE: Thank you very much Mr Chairperson; I appreciate the opportunity to speak further on this matter. What I have suspected all along is that fundamentally the royal commission was recommending a response that was a regulatory response which would involve the Government intervening more in the affairs of employers in workplaces and this is a Government that comes from a tradition that actually deregulated health and safety in the first place as my colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor has spoken about just now in the debate. I believe that this Government is allergic to the idea of regulating more in order to achieve ends in the workplace. It is allergic to the idea of greater union involvement it is allergic to the ideaof sharing power and that is why I believe the Government has chosen this reflexive model.I want to talk also about clause 10 of the bill which sets out the functions of WorkSafe New Zealand. In my view and in the Green Party’s view this clause still does not go far enough. I appreciate that the clause now does pretty well reflect the recommendations from the task force. But my point is that when we now compare this list of functions which include the verbs “advise” “make recommendations” “monitor” “develop”—but not “enforce”—“provide guidance” and “promote and support” these are all words that describe the way that the Department of Labour was going about its business at the time of the Pike River disaster. If we had gone to the Department of Labour on the day before the Pike River disaster and asked its staff: “Please describe the functions that you believe your organisation has in respect of workplace health and safety.” they would have given us a list pretty much like this.The fact is that when the royal commission examined the adequacy of the Department of Labour’s role in respect of Pike River it delivered a damning verdict. It said that the model of work the approach that the Department of Labour took to that work was inadequate to actually ensure compliance with the legislation and with the regulations that existed at that time. The department’s working-alongside way of working which is pretty much the model that is outlined here in clause 10 was inimical to the achievement of workplace health and safety.The basic problem that is created by deregulation is this: employers actually want to minimise cost. You maximise profit by either minimising cost or maximising sales. That is how to run a business. So when it comes to health and safety if the employer is given the option of taking a short cut and if they are given the option of not being forced to do something bad employers very often will take that option.I fear that the weasel words that are set out in clause 10—these functions in the bill that is before us now—continue to provide bad employers with the carte blanche that they need to take those short cuts and I believe that they are doing a disservice to those men lying dead in the Pike River mine and to their families and to the submissions that were made by so many New Zealanders including employers unions and workers about health and safety. I believe that we ought as a House to actually ensure that the way that WorkSafe is established in the first place is on a sound basis—on the kind of basis that can and will require employers to comply with their obligations to keep workers safe—and I do not believe that this bill achieves that.My colleague Andrew Little has also spoken about advisory boards—Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): I believe the spirit of tripartism certainly is in this bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. I disagree with members of Labour and the Greens when they say that it is not. Indeed in clauses 7 and 8 of this bill it is very clear that the Minister must have regard to the perspectives of workers and of employers. I do not agree with the member Sue Moroney that there is anything at all unclear about that. Of course we also see enshrined in clause 8 the ability to establish advisory groups that are specifically in relation to tripartism—a forum for dialogue and cooperation between the Government employers and workers.As I have said at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and as the member Darien Fenton made clear—Ross Wilson is on the board right now. Frankly I cannot envisage a situation when there would not be someone of his calibre there. He is of course a former president of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions like the member Andrew Little. Ross Wilson is one of the few New Zealand Council of Trade Unions presidents who has had the good sense not to try to come to this place but that is another matter. I think what is also true is that we—Sue Moroney: What other New Zealand Council of Trade Unions presidents have come here?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well we have heard very recently that the current one would not mind coming here. Indeed there have been some tweets on that.Sue Moroney: What other ones have come here?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well as I just said the current one. But what is also true is that in selecting a board I believe—and I think actually the members around this House on reflection would believe as well—that we want the best possible board. We want a board that is not just some tick-box exercise but that has the very best skills expertise and experience to drive health and safety advancement in this country.Very soon I am sure once I have gone through the appropriate process I will be announcing the final board for WorkSafe New Zealand which this bill establishes on 16 December. I think the members of this Committee will see it is a board of exceptionally high quality which does have perspectives of workers perspectives of business and perspectives of the public sector and which will do an excellent job at the end of this year and next year driving advancement and frankly a step change in health and safety in this country.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): When I was last speaking I had just touched on clause 9 of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill about WorkSafe New Zealand’s main objective. I want to explore that and then look at clause 10 “WorkSafe New Zealand’s functions”. The main objective just to reiterate I think is quite a strong one: “WorkSafe New Zealand’s main objective is to promote and contribute to securing the health and safety of workers and workplaces.” That is an absolutely critical goal which every person in this Committee could agree upon I am absolutely sure.Then it goes on in this bill to talk about the functions of WorkSafe New Zealand. They are quite broad-reaching. It is a little unclear to a number of us why these provisions are similar but not as recommended by the royal commission itself. In clause 10 from paragraph (a) to paragraph (m) they go through a range of different elements that WorkSafe New Zealand would have to do to deliver on that objective. It includes a range of research for example and in paragraph (g) it states: “promote and support research education and training on or in workplace health and safety”. I think that is vitally important.One of the things I know from my own experience is that it is quite difficult sometimes to align the statistics that we collect at the moment to be really clear on what the trends are and to be able to break things down appropriately by different demographic groups. Are there differences between men and women in particular industries in terms of their health and safety outcomes etc etc.? I think that is quite an important provision there.There are also I think a number of interesting things. In paragraph (k) we have got “promote and co-ordinate the implementation of workplace health and safety initiatives by establishing partnerships or collaborating with other agencies or interested persons in a coherent efficient and effective way:”. I think that again makes a great deal of sense—that there is a range of people and agencies operating in this space rather than saying that WorkSafe New Zealand will necessarily do these things all by itself that it will collaborate with others that already have expertise and so on.Again I do really want to reiterate especially having just listened to the Minister and his explanation of clauses 7 and 8 that this broad range of functions to deliver on what is a good main objective would be so much stronger if this was driven by a board that was truly tripartite. It is such an easy thing to say that a board will have the perspective of employers or the perspective of workers. I think Sue Moroney perhaps pushing theparcel out a little in her explanation of that about who might be able to say they have perspectives of this or that—that is not the same as saying that these people will be representatives of bodies like the Council of Trade Unions which is the peak organisation for workers in this country and for trade union members. It does have expertise institutional knowledge and respect which have been obtained over many years of operation. So not only do those representatives then have that background but they also have a whole structure in which to seek feedback and ideas and information that is relevant to the work of the board of WorkSafe New Zealand.I do think that the Minister still has the opportunity to do something about this and my colleague Andrew Little has a Supplementary Order Paper that would deal with this issue. If the Minister is as clear and as committed as he says he is to ensuring that there is strong representation with people like Ross Wilson and nobody would have any question about the ability of somebody like Ross Wilson to be there as the Council of Trade Unions representative—[Interruption] Actually that is a very good point. I had forgotten that momentarily Ms Fenton. That is true. How could that have happened—someone with that degree of knowledge and expertise and commitment? So that is good anyway. Obviously the Minister on the other hand does understand. But he could easily represent the voice of workers through an institutional arrangement with representative organisations like the Council of Trade Unions.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes55New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 387 in the name of Andrew Little to clause 7 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments be agreed to.Ayes56New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendments not agreed to.Part 1 as amended agreed to.Part 2 Amendments to Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): This part of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill really goes to the guts of what lay at the bottom and was the rotten part of Pike River. It was one of the essential parts of what the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy addressed and also the independent task force’s report on health and safety—that is the engagement and the involvement of workers indecisions about health and safety. It is certainly a welcome development to see that this is now made explicit in a way that was never in the Health and Safety in Employment Act. In spite of the last Labour Government’s best attempts to make it more explicit and to encourage greater involvement of workers in health and safety by setting up health and safety committees and by funding health and safety training for health and safety representatives clearly that still was not adequate to avoid the disaster that happened at Pike River and indeed the disasters that have happened at many workplaces around New Zealand over the last 20 years where workers have continued to be injured and maimed and in the worst cases killed. It is good to see now that there is a more comprehensive adumbration of what is expected when it comes to worker participation in health and safety.But it would be remiss of me not to say or to acknowledge that notwithstanding a clearer signal being given a more explicit signal being given about what is expected there is nevertheless because of the language used I think some equivocation in just what we can expect to see employers doing—and workers therefore doing—when it comes to health and safety. Although there is now specific provision for site health and safety representatives a site health and safety committee and the involvement of workers in health and safety it is couched in terms of workers contributing to decisions. In point of fact I do not even think that is the language. It is about ensuring that when decisions are made the perspective of employees or workers is heard. It does not go as far in my view as it should which is that workers are seen as having an equal role to play in the decision making about health and safety.Naturally there will be resource implications for employers when they are engaging with their workforces about health and safety because workers will have a view about for example the PPE or the personal protective equipment that is required in particular tasks. They might have a view about what is required and employers will have a different view. To give a classic example in the State sector prison officers routinely have a view about the personal protective equipment they require to do their job effectively and safely and their employer—the Department of Corrections and therefore the Government—often has a different view and it is usually a view that entails less personal protective equipment.In a truly worker participative mode in a truly engaged model of worker participation that would be a shared decision. There would be an argument but that would be a shared decision and the employer would understand and acknowledge exactly what the risks are. They would have an obligation under this bill and indeed under the current Health and Safety in Employment Act to mitigate those risks. A decision would be taken and it would be a shared decision. That is what a truly tripartite regime looks like at the enterprise level or the organisation level if it is a nationwide organisation.I draw the Committee’s attention to that because to the extent that this bill starts taking steps in the right direction as we acknowledged before in Part 1 and with the failure to set up a truly tripartite governance structure with the WorkSafe New Zealand board in this part we just do not get far enough when it comes to the measures required for genuine employee or worker participation and engagement in health and safety measures. That is the test by which this bill will be measured. That is the test that was set up by both the royal commission and the independent task force. What are we doing to ensure proper engagement so that when the decisions are made about health and safety the workforce and its insights and knowledge from the front line are truly captured? That is I think what we are looking for to make sure happens in this part.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): As my colleague Andrew Little has said Part 2 is the guts of this bill the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. We havedebated a lot in Part 1 about the setting up of WorkSafe New Zealand which is of course a very very important part of the architecture of our health and safety system into the future. But Part 2 deals with changes to the Health and Safety in Employment Act and employee or worker participation in health and safety in the mining sector. There are some things that I think were improved during the process of considering the bill at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I want to mention those before I get to the things that I am disappointed about and want the Minister of Labour to perhaps comment on.In the bill as it was originally presented in new section 19U(2) inserted by clause 27 a person could not be elected as a mine health and safety representative unless they met the competency requirements prescribed in regulations—sounds fair enough. But submitters told us that that would provide a barrier. It would limit potential candidates for the role to those who had already received the necessary training. So the select committee has recommended that we amend the provision so that a person could be elected without the prescribed competencies but would not be allowed to exercise the functions and powers for which training is required until they have completed their training. I thought that was a very practical and sensible response to submitters’ concerns about how we actually get this operation this change happening in mines.Another change came about because of the concerns of submitters. There was concern expressed by some submitters about the potential liability of health and safety representatives. The select committee members listened to that and heard that and are recommending that health and safety representatives should have immunity for liability for any acts or omissions in good faith when exercising their functions or powers. Again I think that was a positive change.However I think the big change that has happened in Part 2 that is most disappointing is the narrowing of the application of the health and safety requirements in Part 2 from applying to all mining operations including quarrying and some types of tunnelling. We believe that that scope was appropriate. We did have submissions of course from those with vested interests—owners of mines above ground. We also had submissions from workers or workers’ representatives who represent people in quarrying operations and tunnelling operations. They had a completely different view.The bill as originally presented gave us an opportunity to do something quite advanced that would make a big change rather than focusing on just the narrow issues arising out of Pike River mine and underground coalmines. I think it is a real pity that the recommendation—obviously from the Minister of Labour—was that the scope of the legislation be narrowed. I think that what we will see—it is inevitable—at some stage in the future is that there will be a process failure and there will be a problem arising in a quarrying operation and perhaps some type of tunnelling. There will be safety failure and we will have to come back and look at this legislation again and ask why we did not take the opportunity when we had it to make sure that we were covering off those people.I see that what the submitters were saying to the Government was that it would place an unreasonable regulatory burden on quarry operators. I have heard about regulatory burdens before. I mean was it not a regulatory burden to have health and safety in Pike River mine? Was that not one of the failures—that profit actually came before health and safety? Was that not one of the lessons that we should have learnt?The Government has gone on to acknowledge that it needs better regulation for health and safety yet it does not want it in this bill and it does not want it in the form of Part 2 of the bill which is mainly around industry health and safety representatives and site health and safety representatives. But what the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment is saying is that it intends to work with the quarry industry to develop a setof quarry-specific guidelines with a longer-term view to developing quarry-specific regulations.I hope we see that happening fairly quickly rather than in the longer term. I hope we are not in the situation of looking back at some stage and saying: “We had the opportunity while we were debating this bill as originally presented. Why did we not just leave it as it was? Why did we change it? Why did the Minister give in to the interests of some big business that was submitting to the committee at the time and cave in to their pleading that they should not be covered by this particular part of the bill?”.I want to comment too on Part 2B “Worker participation in health and safety in mining sector”. It is a very very important part of the bill and I think as other people have said that this is kind of the crux of the problem that we have had with our system in health and safety for a long time. Technically under the Health and Safety in Employment Act there is worker participation there are expectations that workplaces of a certain size have worker participation or employee participation systems. But the reality is that provided that an employer could show there was some sort of system on paper and it ticked a few boxes the test of employee participation was met. As we have heard from colleagues who have been arguing about the set-up of the board and the importance of a genuine worker voice that applies just as much to employee participation.I share Andrew Little’s concerns about the language around this a little bit. Rather than delivering the voice of workers to help protect their health and safety it is more about delivering the needs of business to protect health and safety. So we are still in this sort of tick-the-box regime. I think there are quite a lot of things there that could have been tightened up.I hope that when we see the health and safety legislation finally presented to Parliament—I think it is supposed to be later this year—we will see some learnings from this legislation from some of the contributions that have been made around this. But I do think we are missing an opportunity. One of the things we do support of course is the role of industry health and safety inspectors in underground coalmines. We have been calling for that. The Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union has been calling for that. We know—and colleague Damien O’Connor can attest to the fact—that these check inspectors as they are called were being called for way way back. A review was done into coalmining. There was a report recommending them. That was ditched by the then Minister Kate Wilkinson and that is a sorry part of the history of Pike River mine.However we are now in a situation where of course we are hoping that we have learnt the lessons of Pike River mine. I am hoping that we can persuade the Minister to adopt Andrew Little’s amendment to Part 2 set out on Supplementary Order Paper 388 which would expand the role of check inspectors to ensure that quarrying and tunnelling operations are included so that all mining activities that carry high health and safety risks are covered. I think this is a very sensible amendment and if the Minister of Labour will not consider it I would like to hear from him directly as to why he decided to change this bill—other than because of lobbying from big industries and big players outside the coalmining industry—when the bill as presented included quarrying and tunnelling operations.As I said Part 2 is a very very important part. There is a lot in it and I hope we get plenty of opportunities to comment. I hope my colleagues do as well. It does consider things like training of site health and safety representatives. Another good thing that I think was included by the select committee was an explicit requirement of duty on the employer to provide time off for health and safety training because that has also been aproblem. There is a specific requirement on an employer to do that. And the worker participation system under this bill must have a provision that increases or decreases the numbers of days of paid leave for health and safety training.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): It is not often I get up in the Chamber here and praise the Government for a piece of legislation but in Part 2 of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill I have to acknowledge that it is making real progress in spite of Part 1 not including as of right worker representation on the board of WorkSafe New Zealand. We have provisions in here that ensure that workers are able to contribute to workplace health and safety and that is good but let us not get all teary-eyed about this and think that the Government has moved on and is all for workers. In clause 27 the bill has in new section 19ZH and later in section 19ZJ a perfect balance. It is one that protects the employer’s right to instruct workers to go and work elsewhere if part of a mine or part of a workplace is shut down for health and safety reasons. So it can instruct them to go and work somewhere else presuming of course that they have got the skills and the health and safety training. But then of course the bill has rightfully—which is why I am saying that it is a balance—included protection here of site health and safety representatives in performing their functions and powers.I speak from some experience having been a shift delegate at a mine in Western Australia. I was responsible for shutting down the mine when it was too unsafe. When dust got to a point where we could not operate safely then I had to stop operations. It is not an easy job for any individual to stop operations—to intervene and say: “This is unsafe. We should stop work.” There is huge pressure not just from the employer the foreman or the leading hand but also from fellow workers who particularly if they are on a bonus system say: “Oh come on. Let’s get on with it. Look it’s OK—it’s not that unsafe.” The pressure comes from everywhere on the individual the site representative who is going to make a judgment on health and safety issues. So this provision in here does provide some protection from senior executives or from anything that might happen but you cannot actually legislate for what is peer pressure in such a workplace. That is why it is important to have very clear codes of practices and regulations of course supporting them. That is where the 1992 legislation fell down of course. There were promises of a code of practice—oh yes—and nothing eventuated.So we have as I say a balanced piece of legislation in Part 2 protecting both the employer who instructs the workers to get on and do something else if it is thought to be unsafe and the worker who intervenes to point out a danger and stop work or stop operations so that they are not unfairly or unduly discriminated against or penalised in any way.Moving on to the issue of inspectors as I said before the harsh reality of what we have learnt from Cave—sorry from Pike River. I have to say that was a Freudian slip perhaps. Cave Creek was another terrible disaster in my West Coast region where the Government had some responsibility. At Pike River we had as I say at the time of the disaster two mine inspectors. We have three now. I think any fair-minded New Zealander would say that that is not huge progress. [Interruption] Oh four sorry. There are three inspectors and there is the chief inspector of course who is basically tied to the office—Andrew Little: You’ve got to have a boss.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: Yes. Sorry the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour did correct me. There is one chief inspector and three inspectors. So while that person is tied up rightfully with the development of regulations and of codes with a huge amount of paperwork which was quite frankly inadequate 2 or 3 years ago—and I have to say that the person they have appointed is first class. He is absolutely firstclass and I know that he will follow through on all the recommendations of the royal commission if he is given a chance. He will also implement a very robust mines inspectorate if given a chance but he has not been given the resources. He I know is too professional to go out and criticise because he is a loyal public servant in the tradition of public servants and he knows his responsibility and he will carry it out but if he does not have the resources he too is going to be hamstrung just as the two inspectors at the time of the Pike River tragedy were hamstrung. They were totally frustrated.Clause 33 inserts new section 41A “Inspectors may issue prohibition notices in relation to mining operation”. That means that if they believe it is unsafe they can issue a notice. Indeed some ask why it did not happen at Pike River. In fact some ask why it did not happen at the Spring Creek Mine. I do not think we should forget about the reality that the Government’s own State-owned enterprise was operating an underground mine not too far from Pike River as the crow flies. It was shut down for 6 months after the Pike River tragedy—6 months without a tonne of coal being brought out—because the inspectorate had not been able to instruct that mine to maintain the standards that were needed for health and safety. The question I have in all of this is that if the inspectorate does not carry through with its duties if it is unable to do so who then is accountable for any failure? I have to say that today we ask the Government why it is not owning up to accountability in some form—it might be token in fact given the terrible loss of life—for the mistakes that were made through the Government’s own agency the Department of Labour. We have today asked why the Government has not considered it a fair and moral action to pay the families something in recognition of Government failure and in recognition of the families’ loss.So in setting up the inspectorate in Part 2 and providing inspectors and reinforcing them with the ability to close a mine if something is deemed unsafe should they fail to do so in the future—and God help them I hope they are never in that situation again—who then should be held accountable for that? The Minister dare I say it should be accountable if he or she does not find the resources to run a proper mines inspectorate. That was the case. We have got a reasonable expectation from the Pike River families right now that the Government on behalf of people should be held to account and that perhaps there should be a payment to them—not as any compensation; no one could compensate them for their loss—in recognition of responsibility and I think that the very least that could happen is that the Government should front up with that. Mr Chairman I know that we are not talking about that in Part 2 but we must ask the question that in implementing regulations and passing legislation if the bill has failed to be carried through with the intent that we have passed it with then who should pay a penalty or who should be held accountable for that? I have to say that we have seen none of that so far from the terrible failures at Pike River from the well-documented failures—Hon Judith Collins: The Minister resigned.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The then Minister of Labour did resign; I accept that. Yes that Minister resigned and Ministers have apologised but accountability goes beyond that Minister and the Minister who is interjecting has not been accountable for anything. Coming back to the bill here—the Minister did tempt me Mr Chairman. Can I say that in passing the legislation if the Minister bothered to read it she would see that we are passing over to inspectors obligations and powers that we expect to be carried through and if they are not carried through—if they do not do the job that we know is needed—then who should be held to account? If the resources have not been provided from the Government then the Government should be held to account. If there is tragic loss of life what should we say to and what should we do for those families? I say thatwe should make a payment to them and that Minister should front up and support that given that she is one on the front bench who has so far ignored that reasonable expectation.KEVIN HAGUE (Green): It is a pleasure to take my first call on Part 2 of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. I want to I guess echo some of the comments of praise that others have already made in this debate around some of the provisions of Part 2. There is no question that the provisions that are set out in Part 2 represent a very substantial step forward. Perhaps in an echo of the comments I made in respect of Part 1 about the triangle of safety here in Part 2 we actually see an aspect of that triangle of safety implemented through the reintroduction of check inspectors. This means that workers employers and the Government are all playing their parts in ensuring workplace health and safety. There is no question in my mind that those provisions will result in safer underground mines.So the question then arises about the change that the Government has made to the bill to remove tunnelling and quarrying from the full coverage of the Part 2 provisions. If those full provisions result in safer underground mines there is no reason to suppose that they would not also result in safer tunnels and quarries. The question then is what the trigger factor ought to be that would result in those enhanced provisions for workplace health and safety. Our starting point is that we should be doing what we can to make every workplace as safe as it can be. The rationale that has so far been advanced by the Government for excluding tunnels and quarries from those full provisions is that those particular kinds of operations do not pose the same hazard of methane explosions that an underground coalmine does. I submit to the Chair and to the Committee that that is not an appropriate trigger provision.The Greens believe that perhaps a smarter threshold condition if we are not going to apply these provisions to all workplaces would be to include those workplaces that actually contain multiple hazards of serious harm. That threshold would capture quarries it would capture tunnels and it would capture other dangerous workplaces—like the forestry industry for example. That would seem to me to be a more sensible application of this Committee’s time and decision-making power. Rather than narrowing down those workplaces where we would apply the conditions that make for the greatest safety we should actually be looking to elaborate and figure out what other workplaces are like this in the sense that they actually contain those multiple hazards of serious harm and applying these provisions to them also.That is important because of the report of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and the evidence that the royal commission heard about the kinds of factors that lead to the kinds of incident that occurred at Pike River. The royal commission made it absolutely plain that the methane explosion was just one point in a whole range of things that went wrong in the Pike River mine. The evidence that the royal commission heard from Dr Kathleen Callaghan which I have referred to previously in this Chamber sets out some of the work of Professor James Reason around human factors behind disasters—behind things going wrong. He actually talks about the multiple layers of protection and the Swiss cheese model. This model says that if there are holes in each of these layers—and there will be—then unless they line up things turn out OK. But in that Swiss cheese model if those holes do line up—and what Kathleen Callaghan said was that at Pike River there were multiple layers and multiple holes. So for example the law itself the regulations around health and safety Pike River Coal’s provisions and policies around health and safety the health and safety training for workers in that mine the actual actions of the workers and the decisions made by the board of the Pike River Coal company each represented a layer that could have provided safety for the workers and that could have eliminated risk but each ofthose layers had holes in it. What Kathleen Callaghan said is that in that sort of environment where there are complex risks and multiple hazards it is the alignment of the holes which cannot be predicted that represents a serious hazard. We should be doing all we can to avoid that.Doing all that we can means actually applying that higher level of health and safety protection in all of the workplaces where such hazards exist. So yes sure a quarry does not have the same risk of a methane explosion but it does have as we on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee heard the risk of very serious injuries and death and it does have those multiple workplace hazards that could be reduced or eliminated—the holes in the Swiss cheese closed—by the kinds of provisions that are in Part 2 of this bill. So why on earth should we not apply those same provisions to those other complex and dangerous workplaces in quarries and in tunnels?The fact that the Government has chosen to not do that suggests to me that the Government has failed to understand that really basic conclusion out of the royal commission report on Pike River. What it was saying was that it is not about just one thing going wrong; it is about a whole chain of failures at every level. If there is one thing out of that royal commission report that we should be doing it is to actually learn from that learn from those multiple failures and do all we can to reduce or eliminate those multiple hazards. Quarrying and tunnelling are indeed industries that have those hazards and as I have said there are many other industries also. For that reason the Green Party will be supporting Andrew Little’s Supplementary Order Paper 388. We believe that the coverage in Part 2 for quarrying and tunnelling should be returned to the bill because no good reason has been advanced for it not to be.There is a similar exclusion that now applies—or will apply—in Part 3 as a result of the Minister of Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper 374. I certainly would make the same argument in relation to Part 3—that we should be extending all of the protections that are available in this bill to all of these workplaces and that means reintroduction of tunnelling and quarrying alongside underground mining.Part 2 certainly advances the case of health and safety in parts of the sector but disappointingly it fails to grasp the opportunity that was provided in this bill and fails to honour the promise of honouring the recommendations of the Pike River royal commission report. Thank you.SUE MORONEY (Labour): Thank you for the opportunity to rise in support of Part 2 of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill but with reservations. I will probably speak to those reservations before I speak to the part of this—the part of this part—that I do want to fully endorse. The reservations do come hard on the heels of what Kevin Hague was just describing: the view espoused by the Government that quarries and tunnelling operations should not have the same provisions as underground mines.When I was listening to the submissions on this bill at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I heard some of the companies—not all of them but some of them—involved in quarrying operations and tunnelling operations come forward to say that their workplaces were not dangerous enough to need these provisions and a chill went down my spine I have got to say. I have heard underground mining companies over many years say exactly that about not needing the provisions that are actually in this part of the bill. Mining companies have for many years said that they should not have a check inspector regime. Of course they are not called check inspectors in this part of the bill but essentially that type of role is what is in Part 2 of this bill. I think we call them industry safety representatives in this legislation. But to hear the same arguments come out of the mouths of employers from quarries and tunnelling operations which are very dangerous—slightly different hazards but none the lesshazardous operations—was chilling because I am sorry to say that I have heard it all before. Those pleas were ignored at this country’s peril. I do not want to ever witness that again but I suspect we may well do.We heard from Ray Bianchi from the Northern Amalgamated Workers Union which represents most of the employees who work in quarries and in tunnelling operations. In much more colourful language than I can use in this debating chamber he described just how dangerous quarries are when explosives are being used to move big mountains of rock—of course a hazardous type of situation. As Kevin Hague has just said the complexities of hazards in those sorts of environments should not be underestimated because it is the nature of the holes in the Swiss cheese lining up that brings about these terrible terrible disasters. We know now—well actually we knew before but we know it in our hearts now—that if we do not mitigate the risks at every level of those types of operations then we are inviting disaster and we are inviting the sorts of tragedy that the people of the West Coast have endured.I am supporting Andrew Little’s Supplementary Order Paper 388 which brings back into this legislation tunnelling and quarry operations so that workers in those areas have the same degree of protections as those working in underground mines. I fear that if we do not do this—if we do not return to what the original drafted legislation said in this regard—we will make the same mistakes that were made that led to the Pike River mine disaster. So I want to urge all members of Parliament to think very carefully because their vote will be recorded on Supplementary Order Paper 388 and they will be held to account for any disasters that follow in my view. I will feel very pleased that my vote will be recorded in favour of returning tunnelling and quarrying back into this legislation.Before I came into Parliament my job—the thing I got paid to do for a living—was to train health and safety representatives at work. I am very very pleased to see now in Part 2 a full regime that will actually mandate health and safety representatives in the workplace in the way they ought to be. I encourage the Government to take what it has written in this piece of legislation and extrapolate that out to all workplaces in New Zealand because this does truly reflect the representative nature as it should have been.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I moveThat the question be now put.CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): There are many positive elements in this part Part 2 of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill. Certainly from my previous roles with the Council of Trade Unions and for a while on the Workplace Health and Safety Council I can see that there are significant improvements. As my colleague Sue Moroney just mentioned as she was finishing her contribution many of the elements are things that we do want to see across all industries and all workplaces.There are a few elements in Part 2B inserted by clause 27 that I particularly want to comment on. Part 2B “Worker participation in health and safety in mining sector” has some strong wording in its purpose. That is what I think is really positive about this whole part. The purpose of Part 2B is “to require the participation of mine workers in processes relating to health and safety in a mining operation so that—(a) all persons with relevant knowledge and expertise can help make the mining operations healthy and safe; and (b) when making decisions that affect mine workers and their work a mine operator has information from mine workers who face the health and safety issues in practice.”That is fundamentally important. That is saying that the people who do the job know best how to do it safely and that therefore they need to be part of making the operation safe and healthy. I think that is a really good strong statement. Of course this worker participation in this part has both the industry-level representatives also known ascheck inspectors and the site health and safety representatives. There are provisions around both.Again some of the particular elements I thought were worthy of note because I do think they are positive. One is the requirement in section 19Q(1) to have “a documented worker participation system that provides reasonable opportunities for the mine workers to participate effectively in ongoing processes for the improvement of health and safety in the mining operation.” Subsection (4) actually goes on to say: “If a site health and safety committee or a site health and safety representative makes a recommendation regarding health and safety in a mining operation the mine operator must either adopt the proposal or provide a written statement to the site health and safety committee or site health and safety representative setting out the reasons for not adopting the proposal.” That is pretty robust because in the event that something is not done and that is put in writing and then harm actually occurs there is a very clear record and really some culpability there. I think that that is positive.Throughout there are a number of provisions that are really positive. Again another one that I feel the need to mention is section 19RA which deals with training of site health and safety representatives. Subsection (3) states that “a worker participation system must ensure that every site health and safety representative who is an employee has sufficient paid leave to attend training reasonably required to attain the competency requirements …” for their role. Again they are very clear positive statements.Particularly of concern to me in the past has been rehabilitation of harmed workers. I think this has been picked up well in section 19V with the provision in paragraph (f) “to promote the interests of mine workers who have been harmed at work including in relation to arrangements for harmed workers’ rehabilitation and return to work.” This is often a very very difficult area. As we speak now there are many people out there who have been hurt at work and really struggle in this space. They struggle in terms of opportunities for rehabilitation and a return to work. It is an area where there is not necessarily the degree of support and representation required so the fact that that is explicitly stated in that form seems to me again to be a very positive element.One of the things that I do think is important is the reintroduction of the check inspectors. As others have said this really is about beefing up provisions and having in place representatives who are not associated with a particular site but gain industry-wide experience and expertise and have some quite significant powers.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes54New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 2 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 388 in the name of Andrew Little to clause 27 be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment be agreed to.Ayes53New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment not agreed to.Part 2 as amended agreed to.Part 3 Mines RescueThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We now move to Part 3 and this is debate on clauses 40 to 56 and schedule 4.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): Part 3 of the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill covers the new role and I think the more clearly defined role of the Mines Rescue Trust which has for a long time played a very important role in the mining industry. It has provided the training and the ready response force if you like for mines and mine disasters or mine incidents around the country. It is a very dedicated team. There is a core staff of only a handful of people. Working miners are taken off the job and provided with comprehensive training and they are available to be deployed to mine incidents whether on the West Coast or in the Waikato or in other places where there is mining going on.One of the things that came out of the Pike River disaster—and I certainly know this from when I was down there at the time with my union hat on—was that there was in the initial stages great concern about who was controlling the Pike River incident and whether or not the expertise of the Mines Rescue Trust was being properly deployed. This is no criticism because we can make observations and judgment in hindsight but the reality is that in the early days as that tragedy unfolded the police reaction to the Mines Rescue Trust was that they thought it was some sort of little society like some little sort of sports group or something that just happened to rock on up with these well-equipped well-trained mining folk ready to go into the mine. The trust was given frankly short shrift. This was commented on by the royal commission which said that the Mines Rescue outfit must be given a proper statutory definition—even though it had its own Act beforehand it must be given a proper statutory definition including of its duties and powers—and this bill now goes some way towards doing that.The Minister of Labour’s Supplementary Order Paper 374 provides some extra provision about what happens with an incident. It provides for the appointment of an incident controller and it provides for WorkSafe New Zealand to establish an emergency protocol. All of this is good stuff but I want to draw the Committee’s attention to something that I think is a problem in it. It was a problem that was addressed specifically by the royal commission—I know that it was the subject of submissions by various parties to it—and it is about the decision making during the course of the incident.There was a very great sense of frustration during the first week or 10 days of the Pike River event when those people from the various emergency services and the Mines Rescue Trust gathered at the mine site to make decisions but were prevented from doing so because the police at least and possibly even the Fire Service insisted on sending decisions back to Wellington to be made rather than making them at the site. The Department of Labour was the other one too or what was known then as theDepartment of Labour. It got heavily involved in the decisions but that slowed things down.My concern is that the proposed clause 54B on Supplementary Order Paper 374 provides in subclause (4) of that new clause for the incident controller to “consult other relevant persons or agencies including the persons and agencies described” earlier in the clause and that includes the Fire Service the police and anybody else. I draw the Committee’s attention to the comment made by the royal commission in its report about the decision making at the time. It talked on page 350 of volume 2 of the report about planning activities that must include risk assessment but it went on to say this: “Reviews of risk assessments should not go through several layers of bureaucracy as occurred at Pike River.” What was happening during the course of the Pike River incident was that every time people thought they should do something or a particular proposal was put forward about a course of action that would be taken there was then a risk assessment that had to be carried out on it. It was those risk assessments and the decisions that were being taken that were sent off to Wellington to the Police National Headquarters and the head office of the Department of Labour. That slowed things right down.So on that basis I am putting forward an amendment that adds a proviso to subclause (4) of the proposed new clause 54B. It allows the incident controller to consult—as they should do and indeed that did happen at Pike River—but adds “providing that such consultation does not impede the incident controller in making decisions in a timely and efficient way”. What is important of course as an incident like this unfolds is that decisions do have to get taken and we do not want the obligation to consult the other parties most of which will themselves have personnel at the incident to be sort of ankle-tapped by the fact that they are referring to their various head offices and taking risk assessments. I think that in one case one of the agencies involved was taking legal advice as this was all unfolding so there was a law office involved and giving advice as well. All of that slowed things down.I know from talking to some of the Australian experts who were giving advice from Australia in the early stages and who then came over to do what they call gagging the mine—filling it up with gas to put out the fire—that a lot of those folks were saying how difficult it was to get some very important decisions taken because everything seemed to be referred off to other places and parts of the country. So I say that I hope the Minister in the chair the Minister of Labour takes that on board and if necessary talks to the officials to make sure that in enacting this provision we do not impede future incident controllers in the way that those in charge of the Pike River incident clearly were impeded from taking decisions in a more timely and effective manner.We know that there was this model of crisis incident management that the emergency services at Pike River were following. It was untested and untried in an incident as big and as significant as Pike River. It has been developed. There has been debriefing by the agencies involved in that. This legislation once enacted will allow WorkSafe New Zealand to undertake much closer oversight of the development of those protocols. That is a good thing.Like many things in this bill there are some very good things but we do not want to sink the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar as they say on ships and elsewhere. We do not want to ruin what is a very good set of provisions by glossing over what I think is perhaps a minor oversight taken from reflection about the Pike River incident itself. So I urge the Minister either to consider that very carefully or to at least rise and take a call to explain to us and assure the Committee that this proposed new clause 54B will not impede good-quality effective and timely decision-making in an incident such as Pike River.After all as we know from that experience and indeed from many others time is usually of the essence.Once decision makers are empowered to make decisions and once the agencies are all there we do not want them to be obstructed by the need to hang about and wait for all their hangers-on and others who all want their 5 cents’ worth when that may not be necessary for the effective conduct and controlling of an incident such as this. So once again I urge the Minister to think carefully about it and to make sure that this good legislation—this new legislation which charts a new path forward when it comes to disasters in mines and potentially in other places in the future—is not let down by a provision that could obstruct good-quality decision-making.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I call the Hon Damien O’Connor.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour—West Coast - Tasman): No options Mr Chairman! Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Twenty years and 1 week Mr Chairman thank you. Can I just say that we have to welcome into the House the major amendment to or the replacement of the 1992 legislation. That is what we are doing here. The Minister of Labour was probably still in nappies when the legislation came into being in 1992 I would suggest. So it is important that he take note and understand what the environment was when the legislation the Mines Rescue Trust Act was passed in 1992.It was an environment where the Government was determined to suppress grassroots worker representation across the board. As we have seen of course the Health and Safety in Employment Act was totally inappropriate for the health and safety regime for mines. Indeed in spite of the Mines Rescue Trust Act providing support for the organisation through the years when the heat really came on and when the Act needed to be tested it failed.What we are doing here is putting in place the proper provisions as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy to give both authority and responsibility to the mines rescue organisation. I was fortunate enough to be invited along to the opening of the new facility the base for the Mines Rescue Trust which indeed is referred to in the legislation It has been opened up at Rapahoe just north of Rūnanga and will form a very well-resourced base for mines and emergency rescue training for not only underground miners but also tunnellers and people who up and down the country are putting themselves into high-risk situations.Can I follow on from my colleague Mr Little who referred to perhaps one of the most frustrating things that occurred in the aftermath of the initial Pike River explosion and that was the frustration of the miners who volunteered to be part of the mines rescue organisation. They train and they pride themselves on having the highest levels of skills and knowledge in underground mining and rescue conditions. They were blocked from participating in any kind of rescue by what they saw as a bunch of shinybums sitting up here in Wellington—people sitting here in Wellington in their little offices making decisions about what was best for the minute-by-minute operations that were occurring at the Pike River mine. That frustration should never be allowed to be repeated—never.The hesitation the ignorance the bad decision-making that occurred here in Wellington—sometimes for political reasons but for whatever reasons they were wrong—blocked the wisdom the experience and the commitment of those people on the ground. I do not know whether it was safe or unsafe to try any re-entry or to take any action. It is not for me to make the judgment. But the fact that those people involved in the mines rescue operation were blocked from any real participation was a frustration that I am sure will be spelt out in the book that has just been launched. I have started to read it but I have not had time to get through it. I know that it was a constant constant frustration.I did smile however when massive—of course—media arrived in Greymouth and wanted half-daily updates I guess from those people who were leading the rescue at the time. People knew of Trevor Watts and Miles Cutbush and Glen down there—they are I guess the heart and soul of Mines Rescue Trust. They knew that Trevor was involved or was asked for opinions. Of course there came the obvious need for someone who knew about the situation to front the media.By this time there were a whole lot of flash uniforms there were a whole lot of flash politicians and there were a whole lot of flash people fronting the media and Trevor was the one who had to do it. There was some trepidation and uncertainty about how it would happen and in true West Coast style—and I was so proud to be a West Coaster on that day—he fronted what was a very hungry pack of media and he looked straight down the camera and told them exactly as it was. There were no highfaluting terms or ideas or anything—he just told them as it was.That is the way the members of the Mines Rescue Trust operate. They are not there for the glory. They are there to support their mates who work day to day in a risky environment and from time to time will need help—hopefully never again at the level that was needed at Pike River. But there are incidents that occur. These people train to get their mates out and I trust them over any shinybum sitting in Wellington to make the judgment on the right thing to do in a mine incident. And what we have to do—Hon Judith Collins: They said they didn’t want to go in.Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: There is one of them sitting over there—classic. Can I say that these people need respect. This piece of legislation the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill gives them autonomy and I guess the authority to get on and do what they do best and that is to rescue people to help people who are in need and to train people so that they have the skills to work in this environment. This is a good part of this bill and I welcome the Government’s commitment to implement one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy and that is to upgrade the authority and organisation of the Mines Rescue Trust.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National): I moveThat the question be now put.Motion agreed to.The question was put that the following amendment in the name of Andrew Little to the proposed amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to insert new clause 54B be agreed to:insert in subsection (4) “providing that such consultation does not impede the incident controller in making decisions in a timely and efficient way” after “the incident controller must consult other relevant persons or agencies including the persons and agencies described in subsection (3)(c).”A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendment to the amendment be agreed to.Ayes53New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 11; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Noes64New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Amendment to the amendment not agreed to.Amendments agreed to.The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to Part 3 be agreed to.Part 3 as amended agreed to.Schedule 1The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to schedule 1 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 1 as amended agreed to.Schedule 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to schedule 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Schedule 2 as amended agreed to.Schedule 3agreed to.Schedule 4The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to schedule 4 be agreed to.Amendments agreed to.Schedule 4 as amended agreed to.Clauses 1 and 2The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to clause 1 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 1 as amended agreed to.The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 374 in the name of the Hon Simon Bridges to clause 2 be agreed to.Amendment agreed to.Clause 2 as amended agreed to.The Committee divided the bill into the WorkSafe New Zealand Bill the Health and Safety in Employment Amendment Bill and the Mines Rescue Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper 375.Bill to be reported with amendment presently.Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) BillIn CommitteePart 1 Amendments to principal Act with effect from day after Royal assentPHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): I would like to make an opening comment in the Committee stage of the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill. I want to begin by making some comments about the provisions in Part 1 of the bill and refer those listening tonight to new section 57AA inserted by clause 12.The bill as those members who have looked at it will know is divided into two parts. The first part contains a number of provisions that will come into force I think on the day after the Royal assent. The other provisions in Part 2 are designed to kick into life at a later point. I want to comment particularly about the issue of reviewable tenancies which is probably the major sticking point for Labour in this bill. It is the main reason that we are voting against this bill. We believe that the extension of reviewable tenancies to all Housing New Zealand tenants is a retrograde step. I want to comment on new section 57AA in clause 12 of Part 1 which gives Housing New Zealand the power immediately upon the Royal assent to impose these reviewable tenancies on all Housing New Zealand tenants.Back in mid-2011 when the Hon Phil Heatley was the Minister of Housing in the bad old days the Government changed the policy and extended to all new Housing New Zealand tenants the possibility that they would have their tenancies reviewed.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to report progress.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Members of Parliament (Remuneration and Services) Bill with amendment the Health and Safety (Pike River Implementation) Bill with amendment and that the Committee had divided it into three bills no progress on the Social Housing Reform (Housing Restructuring and Tenancy Matters Amendment) Bill and no progress on the Insolvency Practitioners Bill.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.57 p.m.