Volume 700 Week 77 - Wednesday 2 July 2014Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 700 Week 77 - Wednesday 2 July 2014[Sitting date: 02 July 2014. Volume:700;Page:19115. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 2 July 2014Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.VisitorsLesotho—Deputy Prime Minister National AssemblyMr SPEAKER: I am sure members would wish to welcome a delegation from the Parliament of the Kingdom of Lesotho led by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Local Government and Chieftainship the Hon Mothetjoa Metsing and would wish that he be accorded a seat to the left of the Chair.Hon Mothetjoa Metsing accompanied by Assistant Speaker Tisch entered the Chamber and took a seat on the left of the Chair.Questions to MinistersSchools Attendance Costs—Donations1.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Is he still committed to “ensuring our schools are working for all students” and is he satisfied his Government has done enough to ensure that every child has equal access to a low-cost public education?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Hon David Cunliffe: Can he confirm that the amount sought by schools in so-called voluntary donations has increased by around 30 percent since he took office and that parents are facing increasing pressure to pay these donations at a time when the education budget has been cut in real terms in four out of his six Budgets?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that donations make up about 2 percent of the money that schools receive. I can confirm that an additional $600 million is being granted in operational grants in the last 6 years. I can confirm that if somebody says to a school that you will get $100 a child but by the way the activity fee will still be applied the parents will end up paying exactly the same as they are today.Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable that schools are punishing the children of parents who simply cannot afford to pay these so-called donations by shaming them in ways such as giving out “donation paid” tags to children to attach to their schoolbags?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not think it is right actually that parents should be belittled if they cannot afford to pay a donation. But I go back to the primary point. It is one thing to say to a school “I’ll give you $100 for a child.” but if you leave the activity fee there all we know is that taxpayers are going to pay probably nearer $75 million in additional costs and by the way parents are going to pay exactly the same because like a normal Labour Party policy you have to read the fine print to work it out.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that answer does the Prime Minister have any proposals to limit either donations or activity fees?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is for the schools to set what they believe is appropriate. It would continue to be under Labour because under “Tricky Dave” they will still be paying their activity fee.Hon David Cunliffe: If it is parliamentary to use that phrase would “Slippery John” like to confirm why the education budget is 2.3 percent lower today than it was when he took office and is that why school donations have increased by 30 percent over his watch?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition would be better at counting because he is constantly having to count numbers in his own caucus. But $10.1 billion—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the first place the Prime Minister had not begun to address the question. In the second place he has no responsibility for the Labour caucus unlike his own Minister of Foreign Affairs.Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need assistance—no. [Interruption] Order! On this occasion the Prime Minister did address the question by disputing the figures that the member had raised in his question. Further supplementary? [Interruption] Order! The member the Hon David Cunliffe raised a point of order through the answer. The Prime Minister clearly wants to add further to the answer. The answer has not at this stage been too long and I invite the Prime Minister to complete his answer.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Thank you Mr Speaker. So going back to the primary point this Government is spending $10.1 billion in education more than has ever been spent on education in the history of this country.Hon David Cunliffe: Given that answer will the Prime Minister now adopt Labour’s guarantee of ring-fencing the real value of education investment so that New Zealand’s schoolchildren and hard-up parents are not pressured for so-called voluntary donations that have increased by a third under his watch?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The only thing that the Labour policy is guaranteeing is that taxpayers will pay an extra $75 million and parents will pay exactly the same. The member knows that because what will happen is every school in the country will charge more for activities. Every school in the country will look for other ways to raise money from their parents. In the end New Zealanders will pay more.Hon David Cunliffe: What would the Prime Minister say to the mother of two school-aged boys whom I met in Papakura who was working two jobs on a minimum wage to put food on the table for her family and cried because she faced the choice of working more hours and being worried her children would go further off the rails to pay for his voluntary school donation?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I would say firstly is that there are plenty of parents who for financial reasons do not make a payment towards donations and that is totally acceptable. Secondly what I would say to that family is that you will under a Labour policy pay more for your activity fee—so in effect you will not pay less. The third thing I would say to that hard-working woman is: “Continue as I am sure you do because you are in Judith Collins’ electorate to vote National because if you vote Labour”—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is sufficient.Government Financial Position—Debt Forecasts and Measures to Address2.CLAUDETTE HAUITI (National)to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to turn around the Treasury’s forecast net Government debt?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):The initial forecasts of Government debt prior to the 2009 Budget showed that net Government debt would soar to over 60 percent of GDP by 2023 and never come down. Under this Government’s management net debt is now expected to peak at 26.4 percent of GDP and fall below 20 percent by 2020. That is despite an extra $15 billion contribution to the rebuild of Christchurch. We have been able to turn round those earlier debt forecasts by spending taxpayers’ money more effectively—for instance in education where the extra money has gone on achieving better results not just on maintaining spending.Claudette Hauiti: Approximately how much less net debt does the Government expect to have on its books in the early 2020s compared with Treasury’s projections 6 years ago?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The difference will be significant including using money freed up from the share offer programme to invest in public assets. The Budget 2014 projections show that by 2023 net Government debt will be around 13 percent under the Government’s current policies. That is well below the forecasts from 2009 where net debt exceeded 60 percent of GDP. That means that in dollar terms it will amount to around $150 billion less debt for taxpayers by 2023 under this Government’s responsible policies compared with the policies we inherited.Claudette Hauiti: Having successfully completed its share offers as part of its wider programme to get debt under control—Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders require that questions are questions not unfounded assertions.Mr SPEAKER: Order! A correct interpretation of the Standing Orders is that a question should be a question so I invite the member to ask the question without the lead-in comments.Claudette Hauiti: Having completed its share offers as part of its wider programme to get debt under control has the Government observed any changes to dividends received from the share offer companies?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes. The share offer programme has increased the requirement for the floated companies to perform better and that is flowing into higher dividends than if the companies had remained in 100 percent Crown ownership. This is particularly noticeable with Genesis Energy. Despite selling just under half of the shares in the company the Crown expects to receive nearly twice as much in dividends from Genesis Energy this year than it did in the best years between 2001 and 2012 when the Crown had 100 percent ownership. The Crown is also forecast to receive more in dividends from Genesis Energy this year as a 51 percent owner than it received in 2012 when we were 100 percent owners. So with half the ownership it looks like we are going to get about twice the dividends. This is just one of the benefits of a very successful share-selling programme.Hon David Parker: Could I have the same figures in respect of that other State-owned enterprise Solid Energy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Solid Energy is not being sold because it is not viable to do so.Claudette Hauiti: What other benefits has the share offer programme brought to the Government’s finances particularly in helping to keep debt lower than it would have otherwise been?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The $4.7 billion raised through the share offer programme is meeting all discretionary capital spending over three or four Budgets. That has allowed the Government to have no new capital allowance in those years. That capital allowance would have had to be met through additional borrowing. I am pleased to see support in other fiscal packages accepting the Government’s previous measures to curb spending and control debt by using proceeds from the share offer programme to invest in new public assets. I was I have to say surprised to see that Labour and the Greens having opposed the assets sales for a number of years have budgets that rely on spending the proceeds of those sales.Prime Minister—Child Poverty Income Inequality and Diplomatic Incident3.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Metiria Turei: When the Prime Minister said “the much more pertinent question to ask is income sufficiency. Do people have enough to live on?” does he think that the 40 percent of all children living in poverty whose parents work have enough to live on?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What I do know is that those families receive Working for Families. They probably receive an accommodation supplement. As we know the 50 percent of New Zealand households who earn $60000 or less pay approximately $2.4 billion in tax and receive approximately $7.4 billion in benefits. So what I can say is that the Government is supporting those families as best it can and has done so under very difficult economic conditions.Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister saying that children whose parents work full-time and get their full suite of entitlements from Working for Families will have incomes above the poverty threshold because of those additional payments?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: They may do. To give you an example if somebody earned $40000 lived in Auckland and had three children then the very good question to ask is what the equivalent take-home pay or equivalent earnings of their next-door neighbour are if they have no children. The answer is $73000. So in principle I think the Government does give a fair degree of redistribution to those families.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree with the analysis from the Parliamentary Library showing that an Auckland family with two children working full-time on $15 an hour with their full Working for Families entitlements is still $132 a week below the poverty threshold?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table the research from the Parliamentary Library dated 1 July 2014 provided to me which shows—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The document has been described and it was utilised in the question. Leave is sought to table that particular paper prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is.Hon David Cunliffe: On what date was he his office or his officials first advised of the alleged sex crime by a Malaysian diplomat and what action did he then take?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was advised soon after the incident took place—so that would have been at some time in the latter part of May—that there was an incident involving someone from the Malaysian High Commission. I was not given details of it or that it was a sexual offence just that there was an issue with a member there. I was formally advised of all of the details on Saturday.Hon David Cunliffe: Was the Prime Minister advised that New Zealand Ministers or officials may have tacitly or actively sanctioned the use of diplomatic immunity by the Malaysian Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. On Saturday when I was advised that the topic was going to be in the Herald on Sunday I was advised that New Zealand had issued a third-party notice which is the formal notification for the fact that New Zealand wanted diplomatic immunity waived. I was advised that that was refused by the Malaysians.Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister consider it acceptable that children whose parents are working full-time and earning $15—well above the minimum wage—are still living in poverty and going without the basics or do these people just not exist for him?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well firstly the member was attempting to table a document that was 2 years out of date. Secondly I haven’t denied that there are people in New Zealand who are on low incomes. What I can say is that the Government firstly is working very hard to support the economy so that more jobs and more opportunities can be created. Secondly the Government invests heavily in education to allow people to move up into more highly skilled jobs. Thirdly I go back to the basic point: the Government has invested in the worst of economic times to ensure those most in need continue to get Working for Families payments income-related rents and a variety of other support mechanisms. New Zealand has for instance the highest minimum wage in the OECD as an average compared with the rest of the countries. It is 50 percent of the average wage. The Government is as generous as it practically can be at this time.Metiria Turei: In light of the research provided by the Parliamentary Library—yesterday Prime Minister—showing that families who work full-time for $15 an hour are still $132 a week below the poverty threshold what guarantee can he give those families and the thousands of children who live in those families that a family on $15 an hour now will be out of poverty through work within 2 years?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well the first guarantee I can give them is their household will not be $500 a year worse off because of the emissions trading scheme that the Green Party would bring in. I can guarantee them that they are far more likely to have a job because under a Greens Government they would not. Thirdly I can guarantee that family that their community would be safer because we are a political party that believes both in law and order and national intelligence agencies to protect those families unlike the Green Party.Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister finally take responsibility for the fact that the children of ordinary New Zealand families both those who work and those who are out of work are going without warm homes without proper food and without decent clothing because he has allowed them to fall impossibly behind and neither he nor his supposed team are working for them at all?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The reason the member is getting no traction in the public domain with that argument is New Zealanders know it is factually incorrect. If this was a Government that in the worst of economic times in the recession and the global financial crisis had cut the main support mechanisms for those families including things like Working for Families that argument might have some traction but in fact this Government did not do that. It borrowed the money. If this was not a Government that was working hard to ensure that New Zealand families have jobs I could accept that argument but in fact this Government has been very focused on that. If this Government had not insulated nearly 300000 homes—Dr David Clark: Where are the jobs?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well there will be one as Leader of the Opposition on—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This is a Government that has—[Interruption] And Grant is counting the days. Do not worry—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer has now gone on long enough but it is an example of what happens when we get interjections.Economic Growth—Forecasts Economic Inequality and Government Strategies4.Hon DAVID PARKER (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with Infometrics that after the Canterbury rebuild peaks the New Zealand economy will experience a “hangover” with slow income and GDP growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):I agree with Infometrics’ short-term forecast of wage growth of 4 percent in the economy the economy growing by over 11 percent in the next 3 years through to 2018 180000 more jobs over the next 5 years export growth averaging 4 percent per year private investment to remain elevated and a declining current account deficit from 2016. However I am more optimistic than Infometrics about long-term growth for this simple reason: this Government learnt the lessons from the mistakes made by the previous Labour Government particularly in respect of runaway Government spending when the economy was already growing. We are not going to increase spending by 50 percent in the next 5 years and put the export sector into recession so we are likely to have more sustainable growth.Hon David Parker: Does he now accept that unchecked residential housing speculation in Auckland and a narrowing of our export base shows that he has failed to rebalance the economy and is the cause of the weak growth that is forecast after rebuild peaks?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. On the contrary I think the export sector has put in a very impressive performance where even with a relatively high currency—in fact I think the highest 5-year average since the Second World War—it has continued to grow and be profitable and New Zealanders have had the strongest Kiwi dollar which can buy more goods than it has been able to in a generation. So I simply do not agree with the member.Hon David Parker: Does he agree that ongoing and increasing inequality in New Zealand including the lowest homeownership rates in 50 years and income gaps widening between wealthy and poorer suburbs in Auckland makes the economy unbalanced and out of whack which means it does not perform as well as it could for everyone?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. As the member will know he is wrong about the facts. Income inequality in New Zealand is not increasing on any measure. Across the country income inequality is not increasing. As for everyone benefiting from the economy that is why the Government had its $500 million families package in the Budget. But as we have small surpluses we want to make sure everyone can benefit from a stronger economy.Hon David Parker: Well then does he agree with the chief executive officer of that far-left institution Goldman Sachs that increasing economic inequality destabilises society or does he agree with Warren Buffett that income inequality which is rising around the world including in New Zealand is a drag on economic growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Goldman Sachs is not well known as an expert on inequality and certainly its comments may be applicable to the United States of America but they are not applicable to New Zealand where the regular statutory reports set up by the previous Government demonstrate that it is not the case that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Income inequality is flat to slightly falling over the last 15 years.Tim Macindoe: What steps is the Government taking to lock in the gains for the long term from New Zealand’s current growth?Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is another of those questions that contains an erroneous and incorrect assertion that should not be in a question according to the Standing Orders.Tim Macindoe: My question is quite deliberately linked to the primary question and is simply asking what steps the Government has taken. That is not an assertion; that is a question.Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon David Parker: —there is a loaded statement in the question about locking in gains—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the member takes his point of order I was just trying to get silence from behind him so I could actually hear it.Hon David Parker: If the question was as the member just recounted that would be OK but it was not. It included a loaded assertion that plainly we disagree with on the other side and it should not be in a question.Mr SPEAKER: This close to an election I am not surprised that there are issues of difference between the two sides. I will listen to the question again. As I heard it the first time before it was interrupted in my mind it was likely to be in order but I will hear it.Tim Macindoe: What steps is the Government taking to lock in the gains for the long term—Hon Members: What gains?Tim Macindoe: What steps is the Government taking to lock in the gains for the long term from New Zealand’s current growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Speaker—Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will hear from Grant Robertson.Grant Robertson: I was waiting to see whether you ruled on whether or not that question was in order. It clearly includes assertions and statements that are not statements of fact. I am also wondering why the member Mr Macindoe said that it related directly to the primary question which was specifically about Infometrics and its opinions and I am not sure that the supplementary question is in order at all.Mr SPEAKER: No I need no further assistance. This is getting to the stage where it is getting a bit silly. The member Mr Grant Robertson says it is not related to the primary question. When I consider where the question subsequently went to and the answers there is no doubt that this is a question about the economy in the future and therefore it is in order in that regard. I do not think this is a question that is out of order in any way and I invite the Hon Bill English to answer it.Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are plenty of steps but I am not surprised that 170000 more jobs and higher incomes are irrelevant to the Labour Party when you compare that to moa hunting. The Government is focused on further long-term investment in infrastructure—we will continue with that programme—continuing to grow and refine our skills development process so more young people arrive in the labour market ready to work in the skilled jobs of the future; and also dealing with for instance the balance of environmental and economic opportunities in our agricultural sector through the freshwater framework. These are just a few of the steps we are taking to lock in gains and I think they are more important than hunting moa.Family/Whānau Violence—Initiatives to Address5.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel)to the Minister of Justice: What justice initiatives has she announced to address family violence in New Zealand?Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice):Today the Prime Minister Minister Tolley Minister Turia and I announced a cross-Government approach to address the unacceptable rate of family violence in New Zealand. We will establish a Chief Victims Advisor to the Minister of Justice test an intensive case management service for high-risk victims establish a nationwide home-safety service to help victims who want to leave a violent relationship review the Domestic Violence Act explore options to allow prosecutors to comment on the failure of an offender to give evidence explore the possibility of a conviction disclosure scheme and offer more GPS monitoring of high-risk family violence offenders and mobile safety alarms for high-risk family violence victims. Research shows that 6 percent of victims experience 54 percent of violent crime. Better protecting victims of family violence will have a significant impact on reducing family violence in New Zealand.Scott Simpson: How will the justice sector initiatives complement the social sector initiatives announced today?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This Government is committed to doing more to end family violence. Justice sector and social sector agencies have been working together to develop programmes that improve the way offenders and victims are dealt with in the justice system and that also change attitudes and support communities to reject family violence. The Hon Tariana Turia as Associate Minister for Social Development has announced initiatives to mobilise and support communities strengthen support for young people’s healthy relationships raise awareness of and change attitudes and behaviours towards family violence develop an integrated approach to early interventions for alcohol and drug addiction and family violence and review the current arrangements for the delivery and funding of domestic violence programmes.Scott Simpson: How will the position of the Chief Victims Advisor to the Minister of Justice function?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have considered models of victims commissioners overseas and I have decided that the best model for New Zealand is to have a Chief Victims Advisor to the Minister of Justice modelled on the highly successful Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister. The Chief Victims Advisor will ensure that the Minister is informed of the needs and views of victims. The Victims Centre based in the Ministry of Justice will continue to operate as the agency responsible for coordinating victims’ support and victims’ grants. It will also promote the new Victims Codes. The Chief Victims Advisor will be expected to have a close relationship with the Victims Centre.Andrew Little: Why will the Minister not consider suggestions from the Law Commission to change trial procedures in sexual violence cases so that victims are afforded more protection rather than having defendants treated as guilty until proven innocent which her proposal to allow an adverse inference if a defendant elects not to give evidence would lead to?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well I completely disagree with that member’s assertion about the effect of an adverse inference being able to be drawn from a defendant who sits and listens to a victim having to state what has happened to them and be cross-examined and then sits there and says nothing. That is actually something that has been brought into the UK for some years which from the comments of judges and others to me has been highly successful.Hon Anne Tolley: How will the trialling of mobile safety alarms help police provide better protection to victims of domestic violence?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Some high-risk victims currently have safety alarms installed in their homes. However we know attacks often occur outside the home. Mobile safety alarms in the form of a bracelet or other device that can easily be carried or worn by a family violence victim are a much more effective tool to improve the safety and peace of mind of those who may be at risk. New Zealand Police will trial updated safety alarms including mobile alarms with GPS technology that may be used anywhere with a cellphone signal. This trial will run for 2 years from early 2015.Carol Beaumont: Why was the leading NGO in the domestic violence sector the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges not consulted or even briefed about the justice initiatives announced today?Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are actually many very significant and leading advocates in this area. It is very important as a Government that has worked with these agencies over many years that having received their views we now come out with our policy.Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry I can see that you are not looking forward to the point of order but the question asked by Carol Beaumont was specifically about the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges. The Minister did not address that part of the question.Mr SPEAKER: No I am sorry but the Minister did. The question asked about why—in the opinion of the asker—the leading NGO was not asked and the Minister responded immediately by saying that there are a number of organisations involved. On that basis I am ruling that the question was addressed.Diplomatic Incident Malaysian Official—Briefings and Waiver of Diplomatic Immunity6.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert)to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: When did he first become aware of allegations that led to a Malaysian diplomat being charged with assault with the intent to commit rape and burglary and what actions did he take?Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs):On Saturday 10 May I was advised that on 9 May a Malaysian diplomat had been arrested in relation to alleged serious offences and that the ministry had formally requested that diplomatic immunity be waived in order for charges to be proceeded with. This advice was provided to me because of the prospect of media inquiries. No steps were called for from me. The prosecution was a matter for the police and the immunity issues were dealt with by the protocol division of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.David Shearer: Is the Malaysian Foreign Minister correct in asserting that Malaysia was willing to waive diplomatic immunity to allow the diplomat to face trial in New Zealand and enable a young New Zealand woman to receive justice; if so why did he not take him up on that offer?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have both seen the reported remarks of the Malaysian Foreign Minister and spoken to him last night and it is his position that his Government would be prepared to consider providing immunity. I have indicated to him that that was a matter for the New Zealand—Hon Members: Waiver.Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Sorry?Hon Members: Waiver.Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Oh sorry—a waiver. That is a matter for the New Zealand Police to consider. I want to make it also very clear that having been provided with advice on 10 May I was not aware that the immunity that was sought had not been waived until Friday of last week.David Shearer: Does he feel that his contradiction of the Malaysian Foreign Minister’s account of offering to waive immunity in front of the world’s media and then his blaming his officials for his lapse have damaged New Zealand’s excellent relationship with Malaysia?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: No. I can report that New Zealand’s relationship with Malaysia remains robust and strong. Until I saw Minister Anifah’s remarks yesterday I had no reason to believe that the information provided by officials to both me and the Prime Minister was incorrect. It was only when I saw Minister Anifah’s comments that I decided to undertake further inquiry to see how he had been under the impression that the outcome that occurred here was acceptable to the New Zealand Government.David Shearer: Given that the diplomat charged had been home in Malaysia for over 6 weeks when the story broke is it not true that if this issue had not been raised by the media he would have quietly swept it under the carpet and never mentioned it?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: If the member is suggesting that it would have been very desirable indeed for the ministry to have told me that the waiver of immunity sought had not been granted then I very strongly agree with him. I did not know until last Friday. I should have been informed.David Shearer: Given according to the Prime Minister today that he did not formally advise the Prime Minister earlier than last Saturday about the alleged assault by the Malaysian diplomat does he not think that he has failed in his duties as a Minister of Foreign Affairs and to the young woman concerned?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have made clear to the media today that I think there are two respects in which this matter is unsatisfactory. Firstly what should have been a clear and unambiguous communication of New Zealand’s desire to see the immunity waived seems to have been clouded by some informal communications which I saw for the first time last night and I have asked the chief executive to look into those matters in an appropriate way. With regard to the advice to the Prime Minister and to me it was incomplete. The advice that we had given to the news media and the New Zealand public was incomplete for that reason and I have taken that matter up separately as well.Family/Whānau Violence—GPS Monitoring of High-risk Offenders7.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney)to the Minister of Corrections: What recent announcements has she made on how technology can be used to better protect victims of domestic violence?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections):Today the Prime Minister the justice Minister Minister Turia and I announced that the Government will be introducing new legislation enabling a greater number of high-risk domestic violence offenders to be subject to GPS monitoring. Unlike offenders released on parole current legislation prevents the Department of Corrections from electronically monitoring offenders who have served a sentence of under 2 years in prison or who are serving a sentence of intensive supervision even if they are considered a high risk to their victims. The changes outlined today mean that the Department of Corrections will be able to apply to the court to use GPS to monitor high-risk offenders serving these sentences enabling the department to better manage these dangerous criminals and provide a greater level of protection to victims.Mark Mitchell: How will GPS monitoring protect victims of domestic violence from their offenders?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Offenders on GPS monitoring are subject to strict conditions that limit their movements. Each offender has exclusion zones established where they cannot enter. For an offender convicted of domestic violence this could include an exclusion zone around the victim’s home or around the place of work or perhaps both. Offenders on GPS are under 24-hour monitoring and if they enter an exclusion zone an alarm is sent to the monitoring team. This allows immediate action to be taken including the assistance of police if necessary. The Department of Corrections currently uses GPS monitoring for high-risk violent and sexual offenders on parole including a few who have been convicted of domestic violence. The changes announced today will allow this cutting-edge technology to be expanded to a greater number of dangerous criminals.Diplomatic Incident Malaysian Official—Briefings and Waiver of Diplomatic Immunity8.JAN LOGIE (Green)to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Was he made aware of the wishes if any of the woman at the centre of the assault with intent to rape charges laid against a Malaysian diplomat regarding his return to Malaysia; if so when?Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs):No but it is the longstanding policy of the New Zealand Government to formally request the waiver of diplomatic immunity conferred by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations in such cases.Jan Logie: Why was the first question he asked of officials not about whether the woman wanted the alleged offender to face trial here and does he agree that his failure to consider her early on contributed to officials allowing Malaysia to extricate the man thus potentially denying the complainant justice?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: It is I think a presumption in New Zealand’s policy of seeking the waiver of diplomatic immunity that victims will want to see this matter and other matters brought to trial in this country. That is the whole basis of our policy. With regard to this particular case I was not kept up to date with the developments that occurred when the Malaysian Government responded to the request.Jan Logie: Was this issue not of an important enough nature that the Minister would remember to follow up and ask what happened?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As I made clear in an answer to an earlier question matters relating to prosecutions are for the police. The issues around the waiver of diplomatic immunity are for protocol officials to transact. I think the day when we see Ministers getting involved in the prosecution process or the immunity waiver process will put us on a very slippery slope.Jan Logie: Since the victim told the police from the start that she wanted the man prosecuted in New Zealand will the Minister immediately request an extradition of the alleged offender so that she does not have to go to Malaysia to give evidence which the police have told her might be her only chance to see justice done?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Firstly I sought and received an assurance from the Malaysian Foreign Minister that the board of inquiry process which is effectively a court martial in Malaysia would receive all of the material provided by New Zealand Police based on their interviews with the victim which is something that I welcomed.Hon Phil Goff: What about the extradition? Are you seeking an extradition? You were asked that question.Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am sorry. I should have answered that question. The matter of extradition is not one for the Foreign Minister or any other Minister. It is a matter for the police to follow up and I have drawn this matter to the attention of the police so that they can consider that course of action.Hospitals—Redevelopment Projects9.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth)to the Minister of Health: What investments has the Government made in health services for Taranaki?Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health):Last week we opened the new $80 million clinical building at the Taranaki Base Hospital. With six new operating theatres this new facility will help meet the current and future needs of the region and make it easier for Taranaki residents and the district health board will be able to provide more hip knee and other elective surgery for the community. The new development will ensure that the 109000 people living in Taranaki continue to receive better faster and more convenient health care into the future.Jonathan Young: What other investments has the Government made in regional health services?Hon TONY RYALL: The Government has established a very strong programme of regional investment in public health facilities. In the last 6 years we have spent around $1 billion on projects for district health boards including an $83 million revamp of Rotorua Hospital $67 million at Whakatāne Hospital $41 million at Whangarei Hospital a $27 million east wing redevelopment at Tauranga Hospital and of course we have recently announced the $67 million new Grey Base Hospital on the West Coast.Schools—Government Funding and Parental Donations10.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka)to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied that schools receive sufficient funding to deliver the New Zealand curriculum?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Yes. The Government is fully funding the delivery of the school curriculum. Over the last six Budgets we have increased operational grants by more than $600 million which has been in line with inflation and which is made as a cash grant to schools for them to use as they decide. The Government is now investing $10.1 billion in Vote Education—the highest ever. We have also invested nearly $700 million in digital learning infrastructure and this year a further $284 million in new school buildings. Parents have paid extra when they particularly want something different and on top of the curriculum as part of their children’s schooling and that is a conversation that parents should have with their boards. School donations are not compulsory. If a school community does not agree that a donation should be requested then parents can make their voices heard. If they decide they do want it it is unreasonable for other taxpayers to foot the additional bill.Chris Hipkins: Has she discussed the matter of school donations with the Minister of Finance Bill English who claimed in Opposition that without parental donations schools were screwed and who has done absolutely nothing as Minister of Finance to do anything about it?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have had several very helpful discussions with the Minister of Finance about what we are doing in education and over the last 3 years—and certainly over 6 years—we have seen that budget increase from $7.5 billion to $10.1 billion.Chris Hipkins: Why have parental donations to schools gone up to nearly $100 million a year under this National Government if the funding is keeping pace with the rising costs of educating kids?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Parents are highly aspirational and as reported by schools themselves the donations that are made across the country amount to 1.8 percent of all funding into schools.Chris Hipkins: Has she seen the comment from former Principals’ Federation president Paul Drummond who stated: “No school is collecting donations to make money. They have to balance their expenditure … donations are critical and the margins for schools are tight. Their discretionary spend is becoming less discretionary and more necessary.”; if so why after 6 years in office has the National Government done nothing to ease the pressure on schools seeking supposedly voluntary donations from parents?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have not seen that particular comment by Mr Drummond but I cannot see how raising Vote Education from $7.5 billion to $10.1 billion—the highest ever—constitutes doing nothing according to that member’s numeracy.Chris Hipkins: Has she seen the comments from Mount Maunganui College principal Russell Gordon: “Donations are important because they help us bridge the gap. For example last year we spent over $160000 on computer technology and the government only paid $30000 of that. We are living in a world where students live and breathe technology so they have to have a modern learning environment.”; if so once again why are parents being asked to stump up more and more of that money while the Government does nothing about it?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I have not seen that particular comment either but what I do know is that we have invested—Chris Hipkins: She doesn’t read much.Hon HEKIA PARATA: Well I do not spend my time trawling newspapers; I spend it looking at the evidence and what the evidence says is—[Interruption] Yes I am sorry that that is a surprise to members of the Opposition. That is why we have spent $700 million—$700 million—on digital technology infrastructure alone. We have already got nearly 500 schools connected and all the rest that wish to be connected will be by 2016. That is the best any Government has ever done in investing in and raising technology across the board for all schools. I am proud of us.Food Labelling—Health Star Rating11.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National)to the Minister for Food Safety: What recent announcements has she made regarding food labelling?Hon NIKKI KAYE (Minister for Food Safety):Last week I was pleased to announce New Zealand’s intention to adopt a new Health Star Rating food labelling system. The voluntary system has been developed as part of the Australian and New Zealand Ministers’ food forum and will help New Zealanders make healthier food choices. The system uses up to five stars to indicate the level of nutritional value of a food product. It will be able to be used on packaged food products for retail sale in New Zealand. Today we have announced the launch of an online star rating calculator tool and style guide through the Ministry for Primary Industries website. I have been very pleased with the companies that have indicated they are going to adopt this system.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What are the benefits of having voluntary food labelling such as the Health Star Rating system?Hon NIKKI KAYE: There are a number of benefits for consumers and businesses. Having nutritional information on the front of packaging will make it easier for busy shoppers to make healthier choices. Overall nutritional ratings will also enable shoppers to choose healthier products and compare them with similar products. This system will also encourage companies to reformulate their products to make them healthier. That is good for New Zealand.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What responses has she seen to the introduction of the Health Star Rating food labelling system?Hon NIKKI KAYE: I have seen significant support as a result of this announcement. The Heart Foundation has said that the star rating system “provides a ‘win win’ situation for public health organisations consumers and food industry groups.” I have also seen a supportive statement from the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council saying: “The star rating system on food packaging will be another important guide to make it easier for shoppers to identify more healthy choices”. I am also very pleased to see that Sanitarium has announced its intention to adopt the new system across its entire product range and it is my understanding that several other major food production companies are also considering adopting this system.Earthquake Commission—Claims Filed on Multi-unit Dwellings12.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First)to the Minister responsible for the Earthquake Commission: Is he satisfied with the progress of the Earthquake Commission in the settlement or disposition of all claims in respect of multi-unit dwellings arising from the Canterbury earthquake; if so why?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery):I thank the member for his question and recognise him as one of Parliament’s foremost experts on multi-unit dwellings. The Earthquake Commission has worked through 21000 dwellings in multi-unit buildings. Of these two-thirds have been resolved including 4100 repaired under the Canterbury Home Repair Programme. For almost all of the remaining properties the commission has a detailed clear path to settlement. Seventy-two of the most complex properties are being managed in conjunction with the insurers to determine the best way to repair entire buildings where some claims are with insurers and some with the Earthquake Commission. The problem has largely occurred through neglect of conveyancers over years to recognise the importance of body corporate rules.Denis O’Rourke: Can the Minister tell us what proportion of all of the claims relating to multi-unit dwellings have been settled or completed?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Two-thirds.Denis O’Rourke: Where the units of individual owners in multi-unit dwellings are assessed by the Earthquake Commission as being under the $100000 cap but the damage claimed is greater than this and when the cost to repair the building as a whole may exceed the total of the Earthquake Commission’s assessed damage for all individual units together why in so many cases is the commission resisting a realistic total sum for repairs?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Earthquake Commission is an insurer just like any other insurer and when you get situations that would see damage on one side of a party wall under the cap but damage on the other side of the wall over the cap in recognition that in order to repair the under-the-cap property you have to damage further the over-the-cap one naturally there is going to have to be an unders and overs arrangement between the Earthquake Commission and all of the insurers. In many cases inside a single multi-unit block there will be multiple insurers. The member knows this; it has been explained to him many many times.Denis O’Rourke: What does the Minister say to the people who are caught in the trap of an inadequate offer by the Earthquake Commission where it insists that units are under the cap and who are then expected to pay tens of thousands of dollars to engineers and assessors to do the commission’s job for it as well as pay lawyers’ fees and other costs in order to get the Earthquake Commission to acknowledge its real liabilities?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is an interesting proposition to put to us but I want to explain it to the member like this. Where there are a number of units all joined together but with separate letterboxes there may be separate insurance bills going into each of those letterboxes and there will therefore be separate contracts on each of those properties. Where the Earthquake Commission has a liability less than $100000 those properties can go into the repair programme and 4100 of them have done so so far. So what the member is outlining is a situation that should not exist. If he has details of those properties let us know.Denis O’Rourke: What actions has the Minister taken to ensure that a rigorous quality control regime is in place so that the assessments relied upon by the Earthquake Commission are fair and realistic for multi-unit buildings?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If they were not fair and realistic then they would be progressively handed back to the commission by the private insurers. What the member is not fairly representing is that if you have for example a building with—as I know of in one case in Christchurch—43 units in that structure with 13 different insurers alongside the Earthquake Commission sometimes it is difficult to sort those things out. But I have to say that there is a cooperative atmosphere and we are getting through them. As I say out of 21000 two-thirds are settled and most of them have a clear path now and there are 72 difficult properties remaining with a lot of work going into them. I need to report to the House too that these dwellings were not even easily recognisable by the policies that they had. That failing goes straight back to the lawyers who conveyed them inappropriately.Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is a very long answer but it does not even get close to answering—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] The member can resume his seat. The question was also quite a long question and it has been addressed by the Minister. Does the member have a further supplementary question?Denis O’Rourke: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You did not allow me to ask—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will be lucky to stay for the balance of the afternoon. The member raised the issue about whether the question had been addressed. I have concluded quite clearly that the question was addressed. I am inviting the member if he has a further supplementary question to ask it now; otherwise we will move on.Denis O’Rourke: Why was the Earthquake Commission not better prepared before the earthquakes so that the complex issues around multi-unit dwellings could be promptly and fairly dealt with when an earthquake such as that which devastated Christchurch occurred?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: If the Earthquake Commission had had just one cover on a multi-dwelling property that would be a fair proposition. But as the member knows as these properties have been conveyed from one owner to another over a period of years body corporate rules have been ignored by the legal fraternity. Multiple insurers have coverage and therefore there are multiple Earthquake Commission claims on a single property. That is exactly the problem we are trying to work through. It is typical of a lawyer to just tell us what is wrong and forget about the fact that lawyers were largely responsible for the problem.Hon Ruth Dyson: Will he give a guarantee to the people of Canterbury that they will not be forced to accept a disputed cash settlement imposed so that the Earthquake Commission can meet his deadline that all claims will be resolved by the end of this year and does he still stand by that deadline?Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There is every effort being made to reach settlement on claims. At the moment as the member knows all claims under $15000 are cash-settled. People have an option where their claims are between $15000 and $20000 to go into the Canterbury Home Repair Programme but many people with the encouragement of a lot of other leaders in the community are going to private providers. You see the ads in the paper almost every day. Those people are choosing to cash out but my information is that no one is being forced to accept a cash settlement.Urgent DebatesDiplomatic Incident Malaysian Official—Negotiations Regarding Waiver of Diplomatic ImmunityMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Shearer seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s negotiations on diplomatic immunity for a person accused of assault with intent to commit rape. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The Minister of Foreign Affairs last night spoke to the Malaysian Foreign Minister to clarify any misunderstanding following a Malaysian Government press conference yesterday afternoon. Having very carefully considered this application I have decided to err on the side of allowing a debate. It is important that the public has confidence in the way diplomatic immunity is exercised in cases involving such serious charges.However I remind members that the particular case that has been accepted is the Government’s negotiations regarding the waiving of diplomatic immunity; it is not the matter that is still before the courts. The particulars of the charges brought ought not to be referred to. Although I have discretion under Standing Order 112 I have not been asked in writing to exercise it. There may yet be a trial. Therefore I intend to be vigilant in ensuring that the House rules are followed to the letter. I call on David Shearer to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.DAVID SHEARER (Labour - Mt Albert):I move That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. Today we heard from Murray McCully that he is not even going to guarantee that he will extradite or ask for the extradition of a Malaysian diplomat to come back to New Zealand and face the charges that have been levelled against him. He has let New Zealand down.Today Mr McCully apologised to John Key for his bungling of this case. He has apologised to the wrong person. He should be apologising to the woman concerned who is not getting justice in this case. She is the person who has allegedly suffered an attempted rape and burglary of her home. She was followed home and suffered that indignation. He should apologise to her because his Government failed to stand by her when she most needed that. He did not stand up for her rights. He did not listen to the advice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He did not seek clarification about what had happened to her and the case of this Malaysian diplomat. He stood up only when the media finally got hold of the story. What sort of confidence can the New Zealand public have in a Government that stands up only when a story gets into the media and it says “Oh sorry we’ve made a mistake. We’ve screwed up.”? That is not good enough. That is not what we expect from our Government.Mr Speaker I want to thank you for allowing this debate to go ahead because it is a debate that cuts right to the heart of what New Zealanders expect from their Government. They have not got what they wanted. They have not got what they have deserved. Instead we have seen a lot of shilly-shallying about and that is not the end of it. Not only has this Minister failed to stand up for this New Zealander this young woman concerned but the bungling and ineptitude continues. It continues on and on and on.Let me just explain. The Malaysian diplomat in question was brought before the courts on 9 May—9 May; not the end of May as the Prime Minister spoke of today. He has not even been aware of the full account.Hon Phil Goff: He doesn’t care.DAVID SHEARER: He does not. I do not believe he does. I think Mr Goff is right. I think he is completely indifferent to what has been going on.But what do we know? Let us set out the case. A Malaysian diplomat as I said was brought before our courts on 9 May facing serious charges against a woman in Wellington. That diplomat allegedly committed a crime but he left and went back to Malaysia on 22 May. Nothing was said. Nothing was said about this alleged crime until last Sunday when it finally broke out in the New Zealand Herald. It finally broke out in the New Zealand Herald and then the Government started talking tough. The Government started talking tough. Mr Key said he wanted that diplomat brought to justice. Oh good on you Mr Key! What happened in the 6 weeks before that? What happened from the very time that he learnt about it on 10 May? Nothing. Nothing happened. It is a little bit like a tree falling over in the forest—if you do not hear about it it never existed. That is exactly what this Government wanted to have happen: for it to not exist.Then the Government started talking tough and John Key said he wanted that diplomat returned to New Zealand. He said it was wrong for the Malaysian Government to invoke diplomatic immunity. Mr McCully himself jumped in on the chorus. He jumped in on the chorus and started talking about the fact that he does not believe that this diplomat—at that stage nobody knew who the diplomat was and where he came from. He did not want that diplomat to have name suppression. He thought that name suppression should be lifted.Well what we find out is that the Foreign Minister of Malaysia quite rightly stood up as a point of principle—we have a good relationship with the Foreign Minister of Malaysia—and he did the right thing and fronted the issue at a press conference in front of the world’s media. The entire world’s media was watching. I know because I have been following this on the internet. This was reported right across the world. What did that Foreign Minister say? He said that his officials had been told by the New Zealand Government that it was willing to accept the fact that the Malaysian Government had offered a waiver of immunity. So the Malaysian Government was actually quite prepared—quite prepared—to have that diplomat charged here in New Zealand. The Foreign Minister went on. He said that he thought that the New Zealand justice system was a little bit like their own that our justice system was a fair and good one and that the man would get a fair trial.That is not what Mr McCully then came out and said about what the Foreign Minister had said. Straight after that press conference Mr McCully came out and showed us two documents. One document on 10 May straight after the man was charged asked for the Malaysians to waive diplomatic immunity and allow this man to be charged in New Zealand. The next document was a document from the Malaysian High Commission back to New Zealand saying that it wanted to invoke diplomatic immunity and that the man would leave on 22 May. Between that time however some discussions had gone on.But those two documents—think about this. The Malaysian Foreign Minister has just come out and said that they were prepared to waive diplomatic immunity and had been told by the New Zealand Government that that was not necessary and so therefore they had brought the diplomat home. The Foreign Minister had said that in front of the world’s media in front of everybody in the world. Then Mr McCully comes out and says: “Oh no the Foreign Minister’s actually wrong. We asked for them to waive diplomatic immunity and the Malaysian Government refused it.” He contradicted the Malaysian Foreign Minister in front of the world’s media—an incredible embarrassment.Three hours later—this was last night—Mr McCully came out again and said that what actually happened in the interim period between those two letters was that in fact there were some discussions that went on between our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Malaysian foreign ministry and that may have led to some ambiguity. This is an outrage. Murray McCully wanted to show that he was right and was prepared to put everything else at risk including our relationship with Malaysia. Now we are on the back foot. Now we are on the back foot having to accept that actually Malaysia and the Malaysian Foreign Minister were right and we were actually in the wrong.But is this not typical of Mr McCully? Is this not typical of Mr McCully? First of all his first reaction his modus operandi is to not front. Do not go out do not say anything. So journalists last night were wondering what had gone on but Mr McCully would not front. Secondly the second thing he does is selectively put out some documents. So he put out these two letters that contradicted the Malaysian Foreign Minister and made the situation ten times worse than it was. Then finally the third part of Mr McCully’s modus operandi is that when you finally do front blame the officials. It is never your fault; it is always the officials’ fault. Now we are tunnelling down to the deputy head of protocol whom Mr McCully is scraping the bottom of the barrel to blame for the mistake. Well it is about time that Mr McCully stood up and accepted responsibility for the bungling that his ministry has inflicted on New Zealand.A young New Zealander has been overlooked to cover up Mr McCully’s butt. That is what has happened here. We have sacrificed somebody who has every right to expect justice from this Government and has been deprived of it. The final point is he does not even want to go out and ask for that diplomat to be brought back to New Zealand to face charges. This is unacceptable—completely unacceptable. We have a person a New Zealander a young woman who deserves justice. We have a foreign Minister who is not willing to stand up but instead is trying to butt-shove and get documents out of the way as quick as he can and blame everybody else except himself. Thirdly when he does try to cover up with those documents he brings the Malaysian Foreign Minister’s integrity into question and we have a diplomatic situation on top of that.It is an absolute disgrace that New Zealand has not stood up for its own people. The Government has not done right by our own citizens. We should always—always—stand up for New Zealanders no matter if the issue is in the public arena in front of the public spotlight or not. In this case the Government has demonstrably failed.Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs):That there have been some shortcomings in this case is something that is not denied by members of this side of the House but the member who has just resumed his seat David Shearer does himself no credit by dealing in such an intemperate fashion with what is such an important matter. First it might be useful to the House if I were to outline the facts as they are known to me.The incident that is at the heart of this matter occurred on the evening of 9 May of this year. A diplomat a serving military officer from the Malaysian Embassy was arrested by police and there was some confusion about the matter because steps were taken by the police that probably should not have been taken without the waiver of immunity. There was a discussion I know involving Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade officials the next morning to establish whether immunity applied in this case or not. I was informed on 10 May—the Saturday—that an arrest had been made involving a Malaysian diplomat and was advised that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade as is its customary practice had sought a waiver of immunity as is conferred under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. I was fully satisfied that those were appropriate steps. The nature of the advice that came to me was to enable me to deal with any media inquiries that might occur not to solicit any approval or action on my part.Can I say to members opposite that they are being either wilful or foolish in making assertions that Ministers in any Government should get themselves involved in the prosecutorial process or in the consideration of a request for waiver of diplomatic immunity. That is something that Mr Shearer and others have tried to put abroad in the last day or two. Let me be very clear about this: the day we see Ministers become engaged in decisions in process about prosecutions and the day we see Ministers get involved in determining which diplomats might be the subject of a request for immunity or not is a very sad day in a country that prides itself on promoting the rule of law. Indeed can I point out to members opposite that just a few weeks ago they were dining out on some allegations against one of my colleagues asserting that he had been involved in a conversation with police about a prosecution matter and here we have those same members of Parliament asserting that my crime is that I did not interfere in a prosecutorial process.What is very clear is that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade did exactly the right thing by lodging a third-person note asking formally for the Government of Malaysia to waive the immunity that was available to this individual under the Vienna convention. Mr Shearer criticises me for making those documents available. Well let me respond to that. The third-person note is a rather anodyne document—one that simply outlines in diplomatic language the formal request for their Government to waive the immunity that was available. The response that was received by our Government is again an anodyne document declining it. There is no question of embarrassment of any sort in releasing those documents. There was clearly last night an appetite amongst some commentators and members of the news media to check that we had in fact had the exchange that the Government had informed the media we had had. I had no objection to those documents being released and I am sure that the Malaysian Government has no objection to those documents being released.Let me fast-forward a little bit to what happened subsequently. Last Friday for the first time I was made aware that this diplomat had gone home to Malaysia and that the waiver of immunity that had been sought by the New Zealand Government had not been granted. Mr Shearer and others have suggested that I should have known earlier and that I should have done something about it. As to the first part I agree with Mr Shearer. I agree with him very strongly that on a matter of this sort I should have been informed by the ministry. There are a number of formal ways in which that should have occurred because this is a matter of significance. A New Zealand complainant who has been the victim of an alleged serious assault was clearly going to be denied the right to see this person brought to trial in New Zealand if the waiver of immunity was not granted. That is a matter of significance and it should have been brought to my attention.It is also blindingly obvious that if this person was brought to trial by way of a court martial in Malaysia or indeed if anyone had followed up on these events domestically through the police or elsewhere it was likely to become a matter of media interest anyway. So the idea that somehow the Government might be part of some cover-up is frankly ridiculous. What has clearly happened here is that there has been a shortcoming in the ministry in failing to inform its Minister and other Ministers that this formal request has formally been declined by the Malaysian Government. I agree with Mr Shearer and others that we clearly should have been told and we were not.Can I say to those who think that this is an incident that occurs only once in a decade or something of that sort that sadly we do from time to time receive these matters—David Shearer: Not an attempted rape Murray. God how often does that happen?Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have actually been asking exactly that question; I have got quite a lengthy list. It is also the case that sometimes these requests are declined. In every case I would expect the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to draw these matters to the attention of its Minister. As to what should happen after that that is a question of judgment but what I say is that Ministers cannot take steps if they do not know and in this case I did not know and I should have known.Last night I was confronted with a situation where the Malaysian Foreign Minister was making public comments in Malaysia with every good intention that did not match with the statements I had made in the New Zealand media. I had been quite clear and I had advised the Prime Minister so that he was quite clear of the New Zealand policy which is that we would in all of these cases seek a waiver of the immunity available under the Vienna convention. That is the position we have adopted in the media over the last few days. When it became clear to me that Minister Anifah whom I know and have worked with for some time was under the impression that the outcome in this case was one that was acceptable to the New Zealand Government I thought I should make some further inquiry.It concerns me very greatly indeed that the Malaysian Government might be under the impression that the formal steps we had taken were not the only options that were acceptable to us as an outcome in this case. I had not given any mandate beyond that and none had been sought from me so I started to search the files which were eventually I must say made available to me. Immediately upon drawing the conclusion that our stewardship of this issue had some shortcomings attached to it I made a statement to be clear about that with the New Zealand public and the New Zealand media.I want to try to portray as accurately as I can what I did see in those files because there were a number of exchanges; in particular a meeting on 12 May between New Zealand officials and Malaysian officials and there was also some email traffic. Firstly I must say—and I do want to emphasise this—that the third-person note that the New Zealand Government forwarded to the Malaysian Government very clearly stated our desire to see this person be able to stay in New Zealand to stand trial for his alleged crime. That formal request is there. It was also clear to me that there were a number of informal interactions both oral and email that had the nature of blurring that information. It was clear to me that officials had engaged in informal communications over some of the complexities in this case—and I will not comment on those complexities—in a manner that would have enabled the Malaysian Government to draw more inferences from the discussion than I felt comfortable with. In short I am saying that the officials who advised Minister Anifah that the Malaysian decision would have been one that was satisfactory to the New Zealand Government had been given a basis for making those statements.I am very confident that Minister Anifah in making his decision did so with the very best of motives believing it was possible that New Zealand would accept the outcome of Malaysia declining the request. It is very clear that the chief of the defence force in Malaysia had a very strong desire to see this person put on trial by way of a court martial and if any members present doubt the severity of that I think they need to learn a little bit more about Malaysian military law.I was also comforted to see Minister Anifah state very clearly that he was open to an extradition application if New Zealand was not satisfied with the process. I say again to Mr Shearer and others that that is not something that Ministers initiate. We do not initiate extradition proceedings. Police independent prosecutorial authorities who have conducted the work and who are able to make an assessment make those applications. The New Zealand Police I am sure will give consideration to whether such a step is warranted in this case.Finally I just want to say this. Minister Anifah made it very clear to me that he regarded the alleged actions of this official as tarnishing the reputation of every Malaysian diplomat who serves in New Zealand or anywhere else around the world and his Government will leave no stone unturned to hold this person to account. I want to place on record my very considerable confidence that Minister Anifah is a man of his word and stands firmly behind those commitments. I am also saying that in this case there are clearly grounds if the police want to to initiate the extradition proceedings that Mr Shearer and others are urging should be initiated and Minister Anifah has indicated his preparedness to grant such extradition.This is not a situation where I can say I am satisfied with the steps that have been taken. The victim here is due an apology and her family is due an apology because what should have been a straightforward application that was supported by straightforward informal communication by the ministry for which I hold responsibility—it did not carry out its business in that straightforward fashion leading to a response that is out of line with the wishes of the New Zealand Government and I am sure the New Zealand people. It has also been the case that some of the assurances the Prime Minister has given in public have been given without the full knowledge of the informal communications on the file. I have taken responsibility for that. I have indicated to the Prime Minister that I am deeply apologetic for that reason and I have done my best to set the matter straight to set the record straight at the first available opportunity.This is not a series of events that we can look back on with great pride but the important thing is to secure justice for this victim and her family. There are some avenues available for us to ensure that that occurs. They all involve us engaging properly with the Malaysian Government. That is a duty that I take very seriously and one that I will pursue over the days ahead.JAN LOGIE (Green):I rise with some trepidation actually to speak in this urgent debate because it is about real lives. There is a young woman who is at the heart of this and I wish to give absolute respect to her experience while being very sensitive around the legal issues in this debate. I also feel a responsibility in this House to convey some of the anger that I am seeing reflected in the community in response to how the debate and the discussion have been happening around this. It is a very sensitive issue and an issue that is reflective of much wider public concerns around what I think I could characterise as rape culture in this country and a concern that the response by this Government has been reflective of a rape culture and has actually fed the beliefs that justify and continue that culture.I would like to just go back to some of the core points. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has finished his speech just now talking about his apology to John Key about the Prime Minister not having the full information and about how the victim is due an apology. I would like to note in this House that the victim is yet to receive an apology. The apology to the Prime Minister has come first before the apology to the victim. Wrong has been acknowledged yet that victim at the heart of this situation is still to come up to the top of the priority list for this Government. That young woman was told only the day before the defendant was leaving the country that he was not going to face charges in New Zealand.We heard from the Minister in response to my questions during question time that he had been told by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that it would apply for a waiver and then the Minister just I guess assumed that that was happening. The Minister has also told us that this is a once-in-a-decade type of event. My question is again to the Minister: you say you should have known and you did not know so why did you not ask? This is a once-in-a-decade event. They have come to you—Hon Murray McCully: No it’s not.JAN LOGIE: Minister those are your words you are now disputing. I guess that sums up some of the confusion we are getting from you on this issue because that is what you said and it is a rare event. They have come to you your officials and told you that this is the process and you did not even bother to check in to find out what happened. If a Government was putting victims at the heart of our responses if we were putting violence prevention at the heart of our responses that question would have been asked. Before that question was asked I would suggest Minister that you would have told the officials in that initial briefing that you because as you said—Mr SPEAKER: Order! You must leave the Speaker out of this debate.JAN LOGIE: Sorry Mr Speaker. The Minister would have informed the officials in that briefing that he expected them to do everything possible to keep the man here to face justice because as the Minister said in question time you had the assumption that that is what the victim wanted. Well if you had that assumption you should have called—Mr SPEAKER: Order!JAN LOGIE: The Minister should have called the department to take every means possible to make sure that happened and the Minister should have followed up—a simple phone call. What happened with that? How did that conversation go with the High Commission? Are they happy to waive it or not? I think that is the least that this country could expect in terms of putting victims at the heart of our processes rather than just providing lip-service to them.I would also like to note that in this situation and because that did not happen this young woman has been told by the police that she may well have to go to Malaysia to provide her evidence.Hon Anne Tolley: That’s one option.JAN LOGIE: That is the information she has been given by the police in New Zealand. We know how tough our court system is here in New Zealand. We know how brutal a process it is to give evidence in these cases. Everyone in this House knows that. Imagine putting ourselves in her place of having to go through what we can only assume is a comparable system in another country in another cultural context with another language involved and with no family support—not being able to go home at night put on the kettle and have a cup of tea and try to cope with what you have been through. If we were putting victims at the heart of our processes there is no way we would just fob this off as a side issue—that this may be what is required of this young woman—because that is not doing justice to our supposed commitment to survivors or victims of sexual violence.I would now just like to take this wider because I do know that there are some quite deep concerns about some patterns that are arising. Every country in the world is struggling to get on top of violence against women and children. It is a global problem we have to take it seriously and we need a whole-of-Government response if we are going to do it. In New Zealand we are hearing about family violence initiatives today interestingly enough. We heard last week from the Minister of Justice that it was going to be a few weeks before she announced her family violence initiatives. It was interesting to see it in the House today while we were asking these questions having been brought forward.Hon Anne Tolley: It wasn’t brought forward for heaven’s sake!JAN LOGIE: Well that is interesting. We were told it was going to be later Minister and it is interesting—Hon Anne Tolley: No you weren’t.JAN LOGIE: Yes we were. So we are now seeing this happening today while these questions are coming up. It is interesting. Although the Government is saying that this is a core priority for it just in the last short period we have seen a Minister resign because he had interfered on behalf of an abuser by calling the police on behalf of somebody accused of domestic violence. Now we are seeing a Minister who says that he should have known but did not know and never thought to ask around the situation of a victim of domestic violence in a diplomatic situation. We have also seen the case in the Ministry for Primary Industries where a senior director has been appointed to a position with a history of having been disciplined for sexual offending without any notice having been given to the staff and without any necessary information around whether that person appointed to that position had done any kind of personal development work to be able to change their values and behaviours to make them safe in that workplace considering that the previous offences had happened within a work context.We are seeing this pattern of the Government saying on the one hand that it takes this seriously yet across ministries we are seeing the core leadership missing the fundamental point and not connecting the dots that unless we actually make this a core priority in all of our work we are not going to start reducing the violence. In fact we will be and we are creating the environment and the culture that enables it to feed and grow. Unless victims know that they will be listened to and that their needs are respected and put first in all of our systems it is difficult for them to come forward and it is difficult to get justice. I think that this Government needs to be held to account for the choices it makes on whether it sees this as a whole-of-Government problem or just a one-off incident that the Minister does not even need to follow up on.ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to also express our grave concern about how this whole matter has been handled. A very serious crime has allegedly been committed against a young 21-year-old woman in this country and it would appear that this Government has wished to just brush it under the carpet and allow it to go unaccounted for hoping that the media and the public of New Zealand would not become aware of it. However the media did uncover it and it has now been fully put out into the public. Also again the media has gone to the High Court and had the suppression order overturned to ensure that the name of the individual who is alleged to have committed this crime is known.It is concerning that there seems to have been a litany of errors by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and also by the office of the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister himself in terms of handling this. It is somewhat concerning that still today on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website listed under foreign representatives accredited to New Zealand this individual Mr Muhammad Rizalman bin Ismail still appears as an accredited diplomat in this country.John Hayes: Big deal.ANDREW WILLIAMS: So the first thing I would suggest to Mr Hayes sitting over there in the back seat and to Mr McCully would be that perhaps they should suggest that out of respect to the young 21-year-old woman that individual’s name is at least taken off the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade website in the meantime. The very least that they could do is get on with that. When you look back at the time frame of this whole incident the Minister said this afternoon that this occurred on 9 May 2014—that was a Friday evening—and he was informed on Saturday 10 May. However he did not have any subsequent discussions briefings or updates from the ministry until last Friday 27 June—7 whole weeks. From one Friday when the offence was committed it was 7 whole weeks until the Minister then got a subsequent full briefing last Friday which occurred only because he got wind of the fact that the media were on to it. That is most disappointing.Any Minister who is aware that a serious crime has taken place in any ministry regardless of which ministry it is should be on top of his game. The Minister should have been ensuring that the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was keeping him fully informed on developments. He does not have to interfere he does not have to get involved and he does not have to intervene politically but he should have at the very least ensured that he was receiving regular briefings on how the matter was proceeding. Had that been the case we probably would not have seen the indecision and the ambiguity that has apparently gone on which has allowed the Malaysians to infer something out of the discussions—the unofficial discussions—so that they now feel that they are somewhat aggrieved that the chap is wanted back in New Zealand in order to face the consequences and the proper police questioning.So we have been left in this sort of no man’s land of very indecisive decisions being made by the ministry by the Minister and also by the Prime Minister as well. The Prime Minister has not been on top of his game in this respect. He should have been up with this. This is again one of the many instances of a National Minister not properly informing the Prime Minister and in turn—as happened with the Government Communications Security Bureau as happened last year with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and as has happened with other ministries—the Prime Minister not making sure that his Ministers are properly keeping him briefed and informed.I am somewhat disappointed by this whole diplomatic situation with Malaysia. I am the deputy chair of the New Zealand - Malaysia Parliamentary Friendship Group. Melissa Lee is the chairperson of that group. We both established that group about a year ago. I did that because my brother is buried in Terendak Camp in Malaysia. When he was killed in Viet Nam his body was flown to Malaysia and he is buried there. So I have a close connection to Malaysia. I have visited Malaysia on a number of occasions in order to visit his grave so I have a close affinity to Malaysia. I know that over many many years the Malaysians have had a close relationship with New Zealand going back to the Colombo Plan. Many students come and visit here and are educated here including many leading Malaysian politicians who have studied here and have subsequently gone back to being leaders in the Malaysian political system. So we do have a longstanding relationship with Malaysia and it is very strong. So this whole incident and the way that it has been handled by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and by the Minister of Foreign Affairs is somewhat disappointing because it very much undermines that whole relationship and stability of the friendship with Malaysia.However having said that I am also somewhat disappointed in our police. This was a serious crime and I believe once again that perhaps the police should have been far more proactive in terms of ensuring again through the Minister of Police that the Ministers round the Cabinet table were informed of this situation to make sure that they were aware that this was a potentially serious political situation and also a serious crime against a New Zealand citizen. That did not occur and again one does wonder—and we do often have questions raised in this House and around New Zealand—what level of political interference goes on within our New Zealand police force so that things are kept under the radar and so that there is no political fallout from it.However I would also through this House urge the Malaysian High Commissioner to New Zealand—whom I have met on a number of occasions Her Excellency Ms Zahid. I am somewhat disappointed that she has not perhaps taken a greater role as a woman—as a woman—and as a head of a mission in this country to ensure that this incident was properly investigated and that the perpetrator was properly brought to justice in this situation. I would call on the high commissioner to do what she should do as a woman in a situation like this and ensure that the young 21-year-old woman has her rightful justice and her day in court here in New Zealand so that the New Zealand judicial system can properly take account of this.I am not doubting that a Malaysian military court of inquiry would be thorough but I do not believe it is fair for a young New Zealand woman to be put through the situation of having to provide evidence through the New Zealand Police to then ensure that her situation is properly represented in a far-off country through a military tribunal. I think it is only fair that this matter is brought to justice in this country. I would implore the high commissioner the Minister of Foreign Affairs and indeed the Prime Minister to say that we are humans here and we are honourable. The honourable thing is for this gentleman to face a proper judicial process here in New Zealand and to be properly held to account for his actions.We hope that this is the last time that we have to have a situation like this with Ministers going AWOL. It is such a shame that so much time is being spent by both the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Trade on jet-setting around the world to try to get a seat on the United Nations Security Council. They are spending hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars of New Zealand taxpayers’ money to try to get a seat on the Security Council while back at home the basics of humanity the basics of ensuring that we live in a civil society where such crimes are not perpetrated on our society and on our citizens are not being upheld. I think those Ministers should perhaps spend a little bit more time overseeing their ministries and overseeing what is happening and functioning within their ministries and a little bit less time in the first-class cabins of 747s and other aircraft around the world on the junket trips. They should spend a little bit more time back in New Zealand making sure that New Zealanders are also protected in terms of foreign affairs and trade on our home patch.New Zealand First registers its strong strong disappointment in the way that this whole situation has been handled. We would like to see it resolved very very swiftly and expeditiously.Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Tim Groser and I understand that this will be a 10-minute call.Hon TIM GROSER (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs):I think that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has outlined the facts as we know them in a clear way. I will not attempt to replicate his explanation of the facts. But I think we can already draw some conclusions about matters that are actually crystal clear and matters where we have to accept that events are unfolding. All the information is not in front of us and people should be just a little hesitant about reaching hard and fast conclusions at this stage in the process.When I think about what I might put under the heading of “certain facts are already crystal clear” let me start with the issue of concern for the victim. This is of central importance to all members of this House; we all understand that. This is of central importance to this side of the House to this Government and to the Minister’s consideration of the most appropriate steps to be followed. The allegations lie near the absolute height of gravity of offences that can be levelled against anyone in our country. We take this enormously seriously and we are deeply concerned as we would be in any situation where similar allegations were made not only about the situation of the victim but the very real and understandable desire for justice which has lain at the heart of a number of issues of great importance to our society over literally a hundred years or more. So the idea propagated by one member that somehow this shows indifference is bordering on the insulting—bordering on the insulting. We take this concern for the victim with the utmost seriousness and we will do whatever we can to ensure through proper procedures that the victim gets justice in this case.The second reality is that already people are firing bullets far far too early at the New Zealand Police. As a citizen of our country I have developed enormous respect for our police over many years—the incredibly difficult pressures they are put under and the conflicting demands made on them. I along with I am sure a vast majority of New Zealanders hold our police in very very high regard and the central fact is that this matter was investigated by our police officers. I do not know the details around it understandably but this matter was investigated immediately. I am informed that support services were put round this young victim immediately when the police became aware of it. Charges were laid. The idea that the New Zealand police force has somehow fallen off the pace is I think completely wrong. People should sometimes just keep their mouths shut before the facts are known to them and before putting out absurd allegations against honourable members of the New Zealand police force which in this case has followed exactly—so far as far as I can tell—the procedures that any of us would want it to if it were a member of our own family involved in this.The third reality is a complex one. It revolves around the entire practice of diplomatic immunity. Of course there is a whole series of conventions that flow from that including declaring people persona non grata and reaching agrément for ambassadors and it all plays into a very complicated part of international relations. This goes back over literally centuries of bitter experience. There is the need for countries that may be even literally at war to have in place procedures that protect envoys from the interference of the political process through a quasi-judicial process. Although this gives rise to grave difficulties of interpretation as in this case the underlying practice that all countries have accepted is that this is a very special place where you would want to keep politics and the judicial process quite separate. The idea that the Minister should somehow become some operating police officer in his—or had it been somebody else her—right is completely ignorant of the underlying need to follow the very strict procedures that have developed over literally centuries of bitter experience.Different countries have different interpretations in terms of their interests and how they apply these cases. I know that in the case of the United States so grave is the concern over decades or 100 years I think of US State Department policy about the danger of judicial processes being manipulated that in cases where even the most flagrant abuse by its own diplomats has been at least alleged it will always—always—invoke diplomatic immunity. It will never ever grant a waiver. It is a matter of State Department policy and as far as I know it has been a permanent policy position for at least as long as I can recall.With New Zealand we take a slightly more nuanced position in terms of our own diplomats serving overseas. Not only do we expect them to obey the laws of the other country but my understanding is—and I do not have the details on this—I believe that there have been cases where we have waived diplomatic immunity and allowed the prosecution of certain people to take place. I think it has been very rare and I stand to be corrected but that is my understanding. Most certainly on very minor matters involving for example traffic infringements such as minor speeding events it is standard operating procedure—I can assure the House having worked for the diplomatic service over decades—that you are expected to pay the fines as if you were an ordinary citizen of the country to which you are accredited.So there are different interpretations of this but ultimately we have to respect the choice of the Government concerned on how to interpret these conventions that do lie at the absolute heart of international relations and the role of envoys to prosecute matters. Literally as I said even when there is war going on between States we need to maintain avenues and countries have learnt the importance of ensuring that their envoys do have diplomatic immunity for precisely those reasons. This of course understandably gives rise to outrage in a case like this where there is no question of the national interest of Malaysia being involved. But this has meant that very clear procedures are laid out that are designed to protect the process from political interference and the Minister has done absolutely the right thing by letting the process work.It seems—it seems—that bits of that process have not worked correctly. That is why my understanding is that the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade has apologised to Mr McCully and a review of the procedures being followed is under way. But the idea that this means that the Minister should have been personally executing this procedure himself is quite the wrong conclusion to be drawn from this situation.The third reality relates to our relationship with Malaysia. The proposition that I have heard through the airwaves and in some of the media today that this has “damaged our relations with Malaysia” is unfounded. We have an incredibly close and productive relationship with Malaysia. We will continue to have a close and productive relationship with Malaysia. The very fact that the Minister of Foreign Affairs was on the phone to his Malaysian counterpart indicates that that relationship is very strongly in place. This is a highly respectable country. I am not like the previous member going to start to lecture the Malaysian High Commissioner on what she should or should not do.I believe that the Malaysian system is a robust system. We will watch now with great interest to see what unfolds. But in the light of the very clear statement of the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs that this serious—very serious—offence calls into question the integrity of the Malaysian diplomatic service albeit the military arm of the diplomatic service it is something that members should take note of. We will watch and see how the procedure unfolds in terms of what we assume will be a court martial. Although I am not familiar with the penalty regimes of the Malaysian court martial system the thought just occurs to me on a personal level that should the allegations be proven it may well be that the person who allegedly perpetrated this may even regret the decision not to be tried in New Zealand. We will wait and see.Events are unfolding. All the facts are not before us at this stage. We know that it is the responsibility of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade through his offices to keep the Minister informed. Clearly the Minister considers that that obligation has not been fully lived up to in the circumstances. So we will watch this and the key point I wish to finish on is the very clear and I would have to say encouraging statements from the Malaysian Minister of Foreign Affairs that further legal procedures including extradition are not being ruled out.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Just before I call the honourable member I advise that it is a 5-minute call.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour):Thank you very much Mr Assistant Speaker and because it is a 5-minute call I may have to speak more quickly than usual because there is quite a lot to say about this.First of all there is a young woman here in New Zealand at the heart of this matter who deserves an apology. That is the first thing that this House needs to be mindful of. Secondly I want to go to the issue of diplomatic immunity and whether there has been any interference with police procedures. In my view there has been none. There has been no interference in police procedures. There are things as the previous speaker Tim Groser has outlined that are done under foreign affairs protocol and international convention but I will come to those in due course as well.One fact that is clear is that a 35-year-old man who has now been named was arrested in the Wellington suburb of Brooklyn on 9 May after he followed a 21-year-old woman. The following day he was charged with assault with intent to rape and burglary. So he has been charged. Then he claimed diplomatic immunity and skipped the country. This has happened before. I remember an occasion when a diplomatic staffer—I think he was under the influence of alcohol—killed a New Zealander with his car. He immediately applied for diplomatic immunity and skipped the country.New Zealanders do not like it. New Zealanders do not like it when people are not brought to justice for alleged crimes. I do not wish to stray into the judicial process but the point here is that diplomatic immunity with all its convention and its history is not a carte blanche for every diplomatic staffer to career around the country without regard for the laws of that host country. Every diplomatic staffer understands that. Every diplomatic person understands that.I feel for the Malaysian High Commissioner. I feel for Malaysia in this. They will be mortified. They will be mortified at this man’s alleged behaviour. But for the Malaysian Government to have received mixed messages from New Zealand about whether we wanted immunity waived whether we thought there was a sufficient trade-off by subjecting the man to a military court martial in his own country is the fault of this Government. This is the fault of the Government and this is what we are railing against. How could mixed messages possibly have gone to a country with which we have had a longstanding very strong and deep relationship?We understand the justice processes in Malaysia; they understand ours. We respect each other’s justice processes but for them to have been given the impression that we would forgo justice in our country for the young woman at the heart of this alleged crime in exchange for a court martial process in Malaysia should not have occurred. The Minister should have been getting weekly briefings on this. There has been a 6-week gap between cup and lip in this case—a 6-week gap. Why was this not coming up in weekly briefings—in weekly briefings—to the Minister? And for the Minister to confuse this issue with the case of Maurice Williamson is absolutely specious.There are things that can be done and are legitimately done like applying for a waiver of diplomatic immunity that should have been done in a clear-cut way in this instance. It has been done before; it can be done again. So let us not have any of that silly nonsense of pretending that Ministers are interfering with police process. We understand what the police process has been. We would like to see justice effected for this woman here in New Zealand.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I just advise that the next member also has a 5-minute call.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):It is a pleasure to take a call on this very serious matter that is before the House today. Firstly I have to say that listening earlier to one of the speeches from the Green Party I felt that we were being dished up a very large serving of sanctimony and I repudiate and utterly reject any suggestion that this Government buys into is party to or supports in any way the sort of rape culture that the member Jan Logie referred to. The very suggestion is not only absurd it is obscene and I think members on this side of the House were utterly disgusted by that suggestion.I spent a year working as deputy chief of protocol in our Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade so I am reasonably familiar with the technical matters and I will get to those shortly. But first I want to say that I along with other members of the Government stand utterly behind the young woman who was allegedly attacked in her own home. New Zealanders have a right to feel safe in their own homes in particular and in our communities in general. I think that this Government has done a number of things to improve for instance the access by victims to the different support services that they can benefit from and also thanks to the work of the Minister of Police Anne Tolley and others to make sure that we are preventing crime and domestic and violent crime and sexual assaults in particular.There has been a little bit of misunderstanding I think in the media on some of the technical matters. Minister Groser was absolutely correct when he referred to the centuries of hard-won experience that are the reason why we have diplomatic immunity and all of the other different protections that are afforded by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The Vienna convention as it is currently codified came into place in 1961—the same year that the New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 came into effect in this country and which provides for the current offences under which Mr Rizalman bin Ismail would have been charged had immunity not been invoked.But I think it is important to point out that aside from the issue of immunity from prosecution there is also an additional issue. It is addressed in the note that was sent by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—its note verbale or its third person note No. 125 of this year—in which it also asked the Malaysian Government to consider revoking personal inviolability which is provided under article 31 of the Vienna convention. This refers to whether the gentleman could be arrested detained held in custody or prevented from leaving this country. He was not expelled from New Zealand. He was not declared persona non grata. And in their third person note the Malaysians decided to invoke inviolability as well as immunity—response No. BP04 of 2014—which is available for members of the public who may be interested in the media. It is available on the New Zealand Herald website. It does outline exactly that—that they chose not to drop immunity or inviolability. That means that unfortunately that person is not able to be kept in New Zealand and not able to be tried in New Zealand. But like others I too hope that the person who is at this stage only alleged to have committed those offences does face the full force of the Malaysian justice system and the Malaysian military authority should that person be found to have committed those offences should they be found to be guilty.Lastly I just refer briefly to some comments that were flung across the House and that alleged ministerial responsibility in this matter. There was a press statement put out by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I want to put on the record that I am proud to have worked in that ministry but I also have the utmost regard for New Zealand officials who are doing a very good job for this country both offshore and back in Wellington. However the statement of the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade makes it very clear that in this case there were failings.There were two failings in particular that Mr Allen refers to. He says that he is initiating a review process within the ministry “to reassess our policy and procedures for handling similar situations”. The ministry is likely to appoint an independent reviewer to do this work. The review will focus on two areas in particular: firstly whether informal communications with the Malaysian High Commissioner left open the possibility of a different course of action to be expected from the New Zealand Government; and secondly that the Minister was not sufficiently informed of events. So although it is true that we need to back up our officials it seems that there were failings and these need to be investigated and hopefully resolved.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour - Mt Roskill):An alleged attempted rape and a burglary by somebody who is a diplomatic representative of their country is a rare and extraordinary event in New Zealand. I know that when there was news that that happened the Minister of Foreign Affairs would have been notified immediately. The Minister of Foreign Affairs would have been notified immediately and he would have talked to his Prime Minister Mr Key. I know that because I have served in that position for many years. Mr McCully would have been told immediately and Mr McCully’s response would have been I imagine the same as any of his predecessors on either side of the House. It would have been: “This is a serious event. I want you to keep me informed on an ongoing basis about this matter as it evolves.” That is what Mr McCully would have demanded of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and what it would have readily provided him with ongoing information about.I simply do not believe that Mr McCully could have said: “Oh yeah alleged rape burglary foreign affairs representative—yeah you guys handle it. Don’t bother me with it again.” That is what Mr McCully was claiming in this House. He was claiming that once the request for a waiver of diplomatic immunity was lodged he never heard anything more about it. Whose responsibility is that? The primary responsibility is with Mr McCully. A serious crime capable of a sentence of 10 years is committed by somebody who has diplomatic immunity and Mr McCully says: “OK you’ve gone for a waiver. Now don’t bother me with that again.” That is appalling.John Hayes: Just not true.Hon PHIL GOFF: That is appalling Mr Hayes. That is not worthy of a Minister who is doing his job properly. The letter was fine. The letter sent by the ministry was fine. What was not fine was the lack of follow-up by the Minister. What we have is an extraordinary indifference and perhaps incompetence on the part of the Minister in that he never followed through on that. Not only did he not follow through on that but as of yesterday he was prepared to release a letter from the ministry to Malaysia and a Malaysian letter sent back to New Zealand and say: “Look we tried to get a waiver of diplomatic immunity and it’s the Malaysians’ fault because they wouldn’t give it.” This is what Mr Key said. I listened to the radio all over the weekend. Mr McCully and Mr Key each time said: “We went for a waiver. They wouldn’t give it to us. It’s their fault.” Here it is from Mr Key in the New Zealand Heraldon 1 July yesterday: “ ‘New Zealand’s very strong preference was that he would have been charged. Effectively that sending country stopped us from doing that’ he told reporters.” There you are. That was the Prime Minister saying it was Malaysia’s fault; it would not let us seek a waiver of the diplomatic immunity.The report goes on: “The Government made a show of hauling in the diplomat’s head of mission to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs last night ‘to make it clear how seriously it views this situation’.” There we are. We have our foreign affairs Minister and our Prime Minister blaming another country because they were not prepared to lift the diplomatic immunity that would allow this man charged with serious offences to be heard before a court in New Zealand to give the victim in this case the chance to hold that offender to account and to see justice done. Then we had the statement from Minister Anifah Aman. This came out yesterday. He is the Foreign Minister of Malaysia. This is what he says in a point-by-point account of what happened. Point six: “ ‘At the same time the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia was prepared to waive diplomatic immunity of the accused to enable prosecution under New Zealand law against him to proceed.’ ” That in definitive terms is a statement by the Malaysian Foreign Minister that Malaysia said to New Zealand: “If you want us to waive the immunity we will and the man can go through the normal court procedures.”Prime Minister Key and foreign affairs Minister McCully misled this country in saying it was the other way around. Was McCully so poorly informed that he did not know what his ministry was doing? Was he so indifferent to the plight of the woman who was the victim that he did not bother following it up? What explanation can National give us for that gross incompetence and indifference by the foreign affairs Minister? I have waited all afternoon to hear an explanation; I have not heard an explanation yet.This is what else the Foreign Minister of Malaysia said: “But during discussions on May 12 the New Zealand side offered an alternative for the accused to be brought back to Malaysia. It was never our intention to treat the matter lightly.” It was not the Malaysians demanding that he be given immunity; it was the New Zealand foreign affairs ministry either under the direction of its Minister or because the Minister was not sufficiently concerned to direct them that was offering to send the man home. We had a weekend of our Prime Minister and our foreign affairs Minister blaming the Malaysians for their own incompetence and indifference. Not a word is heard from the National side because that is the truth. That is the truth.Point eight in what the Malaysian Foreign Minister said: “With the agreement of the New Zealand side the accused person and his family returned to Malaysia on May 22 [2014].” If our Government our foreign affairs Minister and our Prime Minister had wanted to see justice done for the victim all they had to do was take up the offer of the Malaysian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and that would have happened. They did not care. It was not important. It was better to sweep it under the carpet and not worry about any consequences afterwards. Well if it was a misguided attempt to avoid embarrassing the Malaysians it has backfired completely. What does the Malaysian Foreign Minister now think of his counterpart in New Zealand and the Prime Minister of our country misrepresenting the position of their country when he was prepared to do the right thing and say that if this man was alleged to have committed that offence we have confidence in the justice system of New Zealand and we should let him face that justice system?I know that under my watch and under the Prime Minister I served that would not have been treated in that way. Helen Clark would have been focused on the issue. She would have been asking for daily reports. She would have had empathy with the victim. She would have insisted that the offer of the Malaysian Government be taken up so that this matter would be handled in the way that any other criminal offence in New Zealand would be handled. This Government let the victim down. Murray McCully says he will apologise to the Prime Minister for not keeping him informed. He should apologise to the victim because it is the victim whom this National Government through its indifference and incompetence has let down. It is not good enough. It is not good enough and it is not good enough for this House once again to see a National Minister of Foreign Affairs blaming his officials when something goes wrong.Murray McCully knows that the officials cannot answer back. He has done it before. John Hayes knows that he did it over the botched restructuring of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. I have had a gutsful of a Minister of Foreign Affairs who is paid to take responsibility for the actions of his Government not taking that responsibility. You never blame your officials Mr Foster-Bell. You were an official you know that. You would have deplored—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: The member knows he would have deplored a Minister who blamed his officials and that he should do so now.John Hayes: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The speaker on the other side of the House should not be drawing you into the debate.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Thank you.Hon PHIL GOFF: I am not drawing the Assistant Speaker into the debate; I am saying that the negligence of that National Government has let down New Zealand has let down the victim and has damaged our relationship with the Malaysian Government. We have seen the poorest form of ministerial behaviour that you can possibly see in a Minister who is blaming his officials when he should take responsibility. He is the Minister. He is the person who let the victim down. He is the person who should be resigning.JOHN HAYES (National - Wairarapa):A sickening aspect of politics is the sanctimonious comments from Jan Logie in the House this afternoon and those from Andrew Williams. They are based on no knowledge whatever of the issues of diplomatic immunity. I could go on to the Labour Party and have a little discussion about David Shearer who is trying to turn a very nasty alleged event into political capital as the last speaker Mr Goff has done on that side of the House. The debate this afternoon has been nothing to do with the young victim of this alleged crime and everything to do with putting an event into the public domain not for the victim but for a private party political purpose. Some facts are clear. The concern for the victim should be absolutely paramount. We should be deeply concerned by the allegation and the importance that justice must not just be seen to be done; I think all of us in this House want to see it done. The victim deserves justice.It might help to say a few words about what diplomatic immunity is and I say that as a former high commissioner ambassador and diplomat for this country. I have used diplomatic immunity on occasions when I have been offshore in some shall we just say difficult countries. Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity that ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under law though they can still be expelled. It is an agreed international law and it is set out in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations from 1961. Diplomatic immunity allows Governments as my colleague Tim Groser said to maintain a dialogue and a relationship even during times of armed conflict. As Mr Groser also said many countries refuse to waive immunity as a matter of course but it is possible for a diplomat’s home country to waive immunity. I remember being in Saudi Arabia at the time that a Chilean diplomat was charged with drunk-driving causing death here and every head of mission at that time received a letter from Prime Minister Lange making it clear that if a New Zealand diplomat infringed the law of his host country diplomatic immunity would not be invoked.Diplomatic immunity usually is used only when a person’s role is as a diplomat. For example it is not generally invoked if there is a crime unless perhaps one was accused of spying. But a home country may prosecute an individual if immunity is waived by a Government so that the diplomat or the family member can be prosecuted because there is a case to answer and it is in the public interest to prosecute them. Diplomats are representatives of nations with a tradition of professional civil service. They are expected to obey regulations governing their behaviour and they suffer strict internal consequences if they flout local law as has happened with colleagues of mine over the years in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and with colleagues I have worked with for example from Australia. None of us is perfect in this world and all countries have had their problems. Diplomats are not exempt from the law in their own countries so prosecution can also be undertaken by the sending State. Mr Groser made some interesting points about that and said we should stand back and wait for events to be dealt with and not carry on like barking dogs about an issue that few of us here have the facts about.The Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is very explicit. Diplomats who have privilege and immunity are obliged to respect the law and the regulations of the receiving State. I have every sympathy for the victim in this case. I have faith in the police. I have absolute faith in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and my ex-colleagues there. I accept the apology of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade which has been published today. I have every sympathy with the people of Malaysia because they have been let down by one of their own but it was an individual letting them down not the whole country and I feel sorry for them. The ministry has fallen well short of the expectations of the Government on this occasion and we take this failure very seriously. I passed greetings to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade this morning as he moved through Bowen House to see the Minister of Foreign Affairs. Unfortunately the way the ministry dealt with this issue left some ambiguity around our position which was that the accused should face justice in New Zealand as John Allen has said. This is a very sad occasion and I extend my condolences to the victim but I have every faith in the robustness of our system to deliver the right outcome on this occasion.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): The time for this debate has expired.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Junior Whip - Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There is a 5-minute call that has not been taken in this debate.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): It is a 10-minute call and the member has used up nearly 7 minutes of it so the time for the debate has expired.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Junior Whip - Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There have been nine calls on this debate. An urgent debate allows for 10 calls. One of those calls has not been taken. I believe it is a 5-minute call.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): I have been advised that the urgent debate was to have eight calls—that is what I have been advised.JAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip - National):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. After the debate started the National Party decided to combine two of the 5-minute Government calls to make a 10-minute call. So the time was still the same. That was discussed and negotiated with the Speaker.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): That is as I understand it.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.General DebateMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader - Green):I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. John Key told families today in question time that under another 3 years of a National Government they can expect to keep on struggling with their daily lives while he makes sure that the privileged few continue to improve their lot. On 20 September I will be asking New Zealanders for their party vote because we must change this Government. Party vote Green to change this Government. We must not allow another 3 years of a National Government that puts our kids and our environment at risk.New Zealand children are being cheated by John Key and the National Government. At every turn over the last 6 years with every report that has been produced and with all of the evidence that has come before this House families have still been falling behind. More and more children are living in poverty under John Key than ever before and yet John Key will stand in this House and pretend they do not exist. Those 45000 children whom Treasury lost last year still do not exist for John Key. John Key denies that inequality and poverty are growing denies that struggling families are facing more and more difficulties just to pay the rent and denies that these additional 45000 children have been living in poverty since he took office.Today when I asked him about those families he blamed me in part for them and worse still he blamed them for their circumstances. They should be grateful he implied that he did not cut Working for Families. They should be grateful he did not cut Working for Families he said. They should be grateful that national debt is greater now because of them. He is blaming New Zealand families for the plight they are suffering. A working family with a couple of kids and parents on $15 an hour that is getting the accommodation supplement and getting Working for Families is still living below the poverty line in this country—they are $132 short a week. National is driving New Zealand families backwards and silences those families by blaming them for their circumstances.We need a Government that looks out for every child. No child should be living in poverty in a rich and progressive country like New Zealand yet child poverty is a national disgrace. Child poverty is a national crisis. No family should be left living below the poverty line when a parent is working full-time and getting above the minimum wage yet that is the case for 40 percent of New Zealand’s poorest children. What happened to our New Zealand values of a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work? What happened to the values of taking care of our neighbours so we are all doing well not just the very privileged?John Key and his National Government have abandoned those values that were delivered to us by our parents our grandparents and their parents before them. Today he refused to assure New Zealand working families that they would not still be in poverty in 2 years’ time. He refused to ensure that the rewards of the economy would be fairly shared with all New Zealanders. That is not an unreasonable thing for New Zealanders to ask for—that the rewards of the economy as it continues to develop as we slowly come out of the global financial crisis as things slowly improve should be shared fairly with all families. Yet when asked today whether he would guarantee that families that are currently working full-time for more than the minimum wage but that are still living below the poverty line could expect that their circumstances would improve he refused to guarantee that to them.John Key has abandoned those families. The National Government which does not like to hear this truth has abandoned these families. That was made very clear today in John Key’s answers to my question. If New Zealanders want our inherent values as a community to be returned to the centre of our decisions as a Government and as a Parliament a fair share of the bounty of this country to be distributed to and shared amongst all of our families and a country where every child is doing great no matter what their family’s circumstances then we must throw this National Government lot out on 20 September.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (National - East Coast):A few months ago I stood very gingerly in the middle of the road from Gisborne to Wairoa at a place called Shaws Cut on State Highway 2 which is just north of Nūhaka and cut the ribbon on the last of about six or seven new passing opportunities that this Government has funded—$4 million of passing opportunities on that road. One of the New Zealand Transport Agency staff approached me and said: “Minister I just want to thank you very much.” He said “The plans for these passing opportunities have been developed they have been costed they have been ready to go and they were stuck on the shelf all of us knowing that they were going to make that road safer they were going to make that road more efficient for motorists”—Jacqui Dean: Saving lives.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: —saving lives—“but of course they never reached the threshold and they were put on the shelf until that day when there was some extra money and you and your Government and your Minister of Transport got us that extra money. I just want to say thank you. And by the way” he said “there are another couple left on the shelf.”So imagine my delight on Sunday at our National Party conference when the Prime Minister got up and announced extra spending—$212 million of extra spending on regional roading—and that two of my passing opportunities were there in the first five. I was delighted. This is an example of new money from the Future Investment Fund creating assets out in our regions. I know that the Opposition hates it because we are out there in the regions and we understand what works.Secondly I was delighted when I heard that a bridge that is well known in my part of the world is featured in the next six projects. It is called the Motu Bridge. It is a one-way bridge on State Highway 2. When the Hon Gerry Brownlee was in Gisborne just a few weeks ago he said to me: “God everyone talked to me about the two-laning of the Motu Bridge and how it had to happen and how they wanted the money to do it.” So there it was announced by the Prime Minister on Sunday—a two-laning of the Motu Bridge. I can tell you there were champagne corks popping all over Gisborne at that announcement. But hello I read in the paper that the Labour list MP is not welcoming this Motu Bridge investment.Chris Auchinvole: Who’s this?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is someone called Moana and—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! The member’s full name please.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is someone called Moana Mackey and she is claiming that that money $3 million should have been put into the uneconomical rail line instead of the Motu Bridge. Well actually what she forgets is that it is going to cost $3 million to $4 million every year to keep that subsidy to keep that rail line going. Instead we have $3 million-odd going into the two-laning of the Motu Bridge. She went on to say that she could not remember the last time she actually had to stop for another motorist and she wondered why the Government had not come up with a decent plan to create real wealth and grow jobs in the region.Well funnily enough not long after she was in the paper saying that I saw an email from a local grower. He said he had noted that she had never had a problem. Well he makes the point that Dr Ganesh Nana who has been in our area quite a lot and works for Business and Economic Research had said that getting produce from provincial New Zealand to market efficiently is the best form of economic development spending you can have. And for once I agree with him. This grower went on to say: “Apart from the obvious the difference between the Toyota Prius that Moana Mackey apparently drives and a 50-tonne truck is the time and energy it uses getting up to speed or up to an efficient velocity. To have to stop or slow to a standstill at any point literally costs money getting back to speed—worse if you’re about to embark on a 7-kilometre uphill steep gradient. This means you have to travel the whole hill two or three gears lower which is heaps less efficient because you couldn’t maintain momentum at the bottom.” This grower is an example of the misunderstanding from that side of the House about what creates jobs and efficiencies in produce in our regions. So Moana is driving—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order!Hon ANNE TOLLEY:So Moana Mackey is driving in her little Prius and does not have a problem on the bridge but the guys who are getting their produce to market in order to create wealth know the problem.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour - Rimutaka):The Labour Party has a positive plan for New Zealand. While the National members over there are crowing about spending more money on roads they cannot find more money to spend on kids’ education. That says everything about this National Government’s priorities. It is vitally important that we invest in the future of our country through an investment in education. This Government is ignoring the enormous pressure that schools are under financially the enormous pressure that teachers are under and the enormous pressure that parents are under. This Labour Party as part of our positive plan for New Zealand will do something about that. We are not going to turn a blind eye to the fact that schools’ funding is not keeping up with the rising cost of educating children.Today David Cunliffe and I went to Fergusson Intermediate School out in Upper Hutt and we announced that a future Labour Government after the next election will abolish school donations in all those schools where they are willing to accept an extra $100 per child per year in exchange for not asking for donations. Almost all decile 1 to 7 schools will be better off not asking parents for donations and taking the extra $100. It will massively alleviate some of the pressure that those parents face. It will remove the stigma from the children whose parents cannot afford to make the donation. It will ease the pressure on those schools so that they can get on with what they are there to do what they are passionate about doing: educating kids.This is a Government that has got its priorities all wrong when it comes to education and I tell you what we are going to change the focus on 21 September when a new Labour Government takes office. We will reject the narrow focus of the education system that this Government is trying to indoctrinate into the system based on last century’s needs for education. We will make sure that every child in New Zealand is taught a broad and balanced curriculum so that they have the skills they need to thrive and prosper in the 21st century. We will not go labelling teachers as failures in the way this Government wants to do with its low-trust model of education. It seems to think that all teachers are out there to do their very best to fail kids. I actually think every teacher who goes to work every day wants to do the best by kids and the biggest thing that is letting them down at the moment is that they are not being supported in their job with enough resource from the Government to meet the increasing needs that students are arriving at school presenting.The Labour Party acknowledges the enormous pressure that schools are under to meet an increasingly diverse range of student learning needs and we are going to do something about that. We are not going to ignore the snowballing mountain of special education needs that are going unattended by this Government. We heard more reports today that specialist support for students with learning needs is being taken away—another set of reports came through today of yet more support for kids who need it the most being taken away. This Government said that it is going to keep measuring the problem—it is going to measure and assess kids more and more so it can target the resources where they are needed. Instead what we are seeing is that the Government is taking resources away from the kids who need them so it can spend more time measuring. It is constantly focused on measuring and it is not putting any extra resource into the kids who most need it. Well we are going to turn that around. We are going to make sure that those kids get the support that they need—Hon Tau Henare: When is that?CHRIS HIPKINS: When is that? It starts on 21 September I can tell Tau Henare when this National Government is going to get voted out.New Zealanders are going to see the positive vision that Labour has for this country which puts education front and centre of our programme to make sure that we are investing in the future of this country. Every dollar that we spend on education every dollar that we spend giving kids the best possible start in life is a dollar that we are investing in the future of this country.Hon Tau Henare: What happened to you?CHRIS HIPKINS: I got a very good education and I want to make sure that every child in New Zealand gets the type of good education that I was fortunate to receive.I know that a lot of kids at the moment a lot of parents at the moment are struggling. Parents are struggling to contribute to their kids’ education in the way that they would like to. They cannot find the money that they would like to be able to give to their local school so that it can deliver on educating kids in the way that it wants to. The Labour Party is going to do something about that. This Government is ignoring the fact that parents now contribute in the form of voluntary donations nearly $100 million a year. In a supposedly free State education system parents are being asked to contribute by way of donations of nearly $100 million a year. This Government has got its head buried in the sand if it thinks that school funding is enough to keep up with the cost of educating kids. It simply is not. The Labour Party is going to do something about that. We started today and there is more to come.JACQUI DEAN (National - Waitaki):I was so pleased to hear that Anne Tolley’s electorate of Gisborne is going to be gaining a two-laning of the Motu Bridge. I was really pleased to hear about that initiative announced last weekend at the National Party conference. Our Prime Minister John Key recognises the importance of economic growth in the regions. I knew exactly how pleased the Hon Anne Tolley was at the announcement of the Motu Bridge because 3 years ago I was in exactly the same situation when the Hon Gerry Brownlee announced the funding for the Kurow bridges project over the Waitaki River.The reason I was so pleased is not just that it was a $20 million project in my region benefiting the township of Kurow; it was the something like 150 jobs over a period of a year and a half and all the attending expenditure that went into the Kurow township and up and down the Waitaki Valley. But it was not just that I was pleased about. It was not just the fact that there was going to be a cycle lane separate from the traffic on these also two-laned bridges over the Waitaki River which would mean that the cyclists on the Alps 2 Ocean Cycle Trail were going to be able to cross the Waitaki safely. No it was not just that and it was not just the fact that the stock trucks and the transport and the tractors were going to be able to get over the river safely and get commerce from the farm to market. It was not just that either. Probably more important than anything else was the fact that our school buses could cross over the Waitaki River safely transporting our children into our wonderful schools in the Waitaki Valley which have been so well supported by this Government through a huge investment in education.So what have they had up the valley? They have had an investment in rural broadband so now our kids in our small rural schools in our small towns in the South Island and my region of Otago have the best technology available to them. They might be remote by bus and they might have to travel an hour or more to school each way every day but they can learn anything. Not only is broadband making a difference in their lives but the different style of teaching these days means our kids are learning in a very modern environment and that is thanks to Hekia Parata and the work she is putting into schools.But there is more—there is far more good news for my region of Otago. There are the national cycleways. I have already talked about the separate cycle lane over the Waitaki Bridge. Here is a small pop quiz for my colleagues: how many cycleways are there in the Waitaki electorate? Come on—guess. How many?Chris Auchinvole: How many? Two?JACQUI DEAN: Is it two? No it is not two. Is it three? No it is not three. It is four. There are four cycleways in the Waitaki electorate. Why does that matter? Because the first and arguably the best the Otago Central Rail Trail back in 2011—and the figures will have gone through the roof by now—was returning $12 million into the local economy. That is significant.Chris Auchinvole: How much?JACQUI DEAN: $12 million. That was back in 2011. So just think back: in 2014 that was one rail trail. In another 5 years let us almost double that perhaps because things are going so well. Add in another three developing cycle trails and you can imagine the cumulative impact that these cycle trails are having on regional development in Otago.Unemployment is running at 3.9 percent. It is one of the lowest rates of unemployment in New Zealand and that is because there is so much Government intervention in the Otago region and in the Waitaki electorate that we are just going gangbusters. Growth is at around 3.9 percent. I would have to put it down to the initiatives that this Government is putting in for a productive economy through the Business Growth Agenda. There are something like 350 separate Government initiatives to grow the economy and grow jobs in our regions. I have talked about several of them but wait—there are many many more.Let us talk about the Sustainable Farming Fund. Let us talk about the Sheep Industry Transformation Project which is being put in place to transform the sheep meat industry—sorely needed and very welcome.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First):As our inboxes on this side of the House get absolutely swamped with emails on aged care it is really time that we take a call on aged care. At every Parliament we get petitions on this very important issue—on the disparity between district health board facilities and privately owned rest homes. In view of the importance of this aged-care sector and the ageing population New Zealand First is calling for a national strategic plan—not a National plan but a strategic plan—where we look at the future of aged care.Some time ago PricewaterhouseCoopers published a report. It identified that the aged-care industry was underfunded by 20 percent. In New Zealand First we made a commitment to address this funding deficit and we were responsible for the additional $587 million that went into the aged-care residential sector in 2006 and 2007 under the New Zealand First - Labour confidence and supply agreement.In New Zealand First we strongly support pay parity for caregivers who work in rest homes along with caregivers who work in district health board facilities. It is absolutely essential. The current situation is deplorable. Caregivers working in rest homes are paid over $100 a week less than caregivers doing the same work for district health boards. Caregiving is not an easy job in any way. Physically and mentally it is totally exhausting regardless of the facility so pay parity is absolutely essential for these workers.Back in 2012 the Prime Minister said: “In reality it’s one of those things that we’d love to do if we had more cash and as the country moves back into surplus.” Well this year the Prime Minister rides into the election campaign on the back of a rock star economy. If this is the case is he going to use some of the money from asset sales to increase residential care funding for the residential aged sector so that the people who actually paid for those assets can be looked after by decently paid caregivers?Who does the Government believe is more deserving to receive the benefits of a surplus economy—multinational companies who make movies and aluminium or caregivers who look after the elderly? New Zealand First is again committed to fixing this blatant unfairness. The priority for any extra funding should be targeted towards pay parity for rest home caregivers.We applaud the introduction of interRAI—we know that it is a great assessment tool—as the information collected should lead to better policy development and implementation but again interRAI is an added job for rest homes and caregivers. New Zealand First agrees that the Government should be covering the costs of interRAI as these costs arise from Government regulation.We also support an examination and review of palliative care. It is increasingly falling on rest homes to administer this function. Rest homes must be given extra resources and funding for palliative care in their facilities. New Zealand First is committed to the residential aged-care sector and we want to see some changes in the wages paid to private rest home caregivers as well as those in district health board facilities. It is not good enough that there is this huge disparity and we want to see this eliminated. It needs to be. It has stayed that way for far too long. Thank you.DAVID BENNETT (National - Hamilton East):It is a pleasure to take this call in the general debate. The members over there need to listen and learn what a good Government does for the country of New Zealand. This good Government delivered this weekend the infrastructure that our regions have been seeking. I see our regional members of Parliament here ranging from the great provinces of Taranaki and Waikato to the deep south which all benefit from these great proposals. They realise the importance of what was announced in the weekend for their communities and for our country going forward.Su’a William Sio: You’re only doing it because local government is starting to get angry with you.DAVID BENNETT: What? What did you say Mr Sio? No no—you have nothing to say. Those regions have been given $212 million for regional State highway projects. Let us list them. Let us see what they are. The five projects are the Kawarau Bridge in Otago—that is a great place is it not down there in Otago—the Bluff to Rough Creek realignment in Canterbury the curves realignment and passing lane in Northland the State Highway 35 slow vehicle bays in Gisborne and the Normanby Overbridge realignment in Taranaki. I am sure we are going to hear a bit more about that later on. Those five projects will be fully investigated and designed to address current safety and productivity issues. They are projects that will deliver great results for those regions in our country going forward.We have also committed to six other projects: one in the Manawatū-Wanganui area the Motu Bridge in Gisborne—Andrew Williams: You said that.DAVID BENNETT: No no this is a different bridge. This is a different one. This is a different bridge. There is also the Ōpawa to Wairua bridge replacements in Marlborough the Taramakau road-rail bridge in the West Coast the loop road in Northland and the Mount Messenger and Awakino Gorge corridor in Taranaki. That last one is really important for the regions of Waikato and Taranaki. It links both our strong agricultural and growing industrial regions together and is something I know that members from that region have advocated long and hard to see happen. I think it is a testament to the strength of those members and their work that we see the Mount Messenger and Awakino Gorge corridor in Taranaki come to life through this Government. This is good stuff.Then we have looked further into some projects that could be in the future and that is the Port of Napier access package the Nelson southern link and the Rotorua eastern arterial. These are roads that cover the breadth of New Zealand from the north to the south. They cover from the east to the west. They are the roads that link our country together and make it a stronger place to be. I think that is an important part for this country going forward when you look at the economic growth that has been experienced in New Zealand in recent years. Put on top of that the transport packages that you have seen announced for Auckland in the Budget—that strong transport package there. The large investments that we already make in local road maintenance are there. There are funds that are already there.Hon Tau Henare: That’s right.DAVID BENNETT: That is right Mr Henare. The Accelerated Regional Roading Package just announced is something we should take with great credit and great support going forward.The Labour Party the Green Party and New Zealand First cannot accept these projects. They simply cannot accept them and they will not support projects like these which are in the best interests of the regions going forward.Andrew Williams: What about the Gisborne rail line?DAVID BENNETT: You want to talk about the Gisborne rail line New Zealand First? Well let us see New Zealand First come out with the money. Have you promised that? No it will not promise it. It cannot promise it. It does not promise it. Labour over there has got a lot of hollow promises as well. But we all know that transport policy in the Opposition is dictated by one person and one person alone and that is Julie Anne Genter. There will be no transport policy coming out of the Labour Party or New Zealand First because Julie Anne Genter says what goes for the left. They will follow her and there will be no roading projects under the Labour-Greens Government if there ever was one.When we look at the Waikato for example it is crucial that we have these roading projects and the Waikato Expressway is a major project. I know that my good friend and colleague here Tim Macindoe and I are very pleased to see that National is committed to making that a reality unlike our Opposition.DARIEN FENTON (Labour):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I have to say it is just as well that Labour has a positive plan for New Zealand that goes beyond a few roads. We have got a positive plan that is about decent work and decent jobs. Yesterday this piece of information was released and it is the Hays worldwide recruiting experts’ report called Temporary Workers: A Permanent Solution? A final solution—the 84000 jobs that this Government boasts about growing last year. I bet there is not a member opposite who can tell me whether they are well-paid secure full-time jobs. Is there? No I did not think so. I bet they cannot tell us whether they are part-time casual temporary or contract jobs either. Can you? No of course not. How many of those jobs are so miserable and where the hours and wages are so pathetically low that a worker cannot make a living let alone pay donations to schools. Thank goodness again that Labour has come up with a plan for that.This report is very interesting. It shows that 64 percent of employers use temporary or contract staff and 18 percent intend to increase the use of temporary or contract staff in the coming year. It also says that the demand is going up so 35.8 percent said that their demands have increased. Well they are increasing the numbers of workers they are using on a temporary or contract basis. And 83 percent say that temporary or contract workers constitute up to a quarter of their entire workforce—a quarter of their workforce. So that means that 25 percent of all jobs in New Zealand are temporary. The members opposite may not understand what a temporary workforce looks like. A temporary job is one where you are employed by a labour hire company and you are sent off—you are loaned—to go and work for another company. You might have work for a day you might have work for a week or you might have work for a month if you are lucky but then it is gone and you are back to the dole queue. Many of the jobs that are being added to the New Zealand economy are those kinds of contingent insecure jobs—temporary and contract jobs. That is about 635000 workers in New Zealand are in that kind of insecure work. This Government is doing nothing about it. What it means for those workers is worse conditions less security less say and they are more vulnerable.There are all kinds of new devices being used for temporary work. Some employers employ workers quite legally on fixed-term contracts—they are allowed to do that—to replace a worker on extended leave or parental leave. That is fine; everybody knows what the deal is there. But what is not fine are the temporary work arrangements that are employed through labour hire firms to replace good well-paying permanent jobs. We are seeing that in manufacturing. We are seeing it in fish processing. We are seeing it in food services in banking in construction and in the Public Service. We are seeing it even in teaching. The teaching profession is riddled with fixed-term contracts. This is a Government that claims it cares about kids and about kids’ education. How can they be having good education when people do not know whether they have got a job from one week to the next? It is seasonal work. It is casual work. It is growing and it is being ignored by the National Party. So it boasts about jobs but these are not good jobs. These are not good jobs where people can earn a living and feed their families. What is more National plans if it is re-elected—and God forbid—to implement its employment law changes which it could not get through thanks to John Banks.This is another example of a recovery that is not delivering for New Zealanders and why we are seeing an increased gap between the haves and have-nots and a growing income gap between the top 10 percent and the rest of us. This is bad news. This sort of report this Temporary Workers: A Permanent Solution? kind of report is something that the Government should be ashamed of. It is bad news for secure and decent work in New Zealand. Temporary workers have no rights to ongoing employment and no defence against arbitrary dismissal. Contractors have no employment rights at all including no minimum wage no holidays and no rights to protection against unfair dismissal.JONATHAN YOUNG (National - New Plymouth):Well it is good news for the regions from this Government. I have to say that there is only one person who is unhappy in Taranaki—maybe two—and that is the Labour MP for Rongotai. The Labour members come out and say “This is what we need. This is what we want. This is what the people of Taranaki deserve.” And when we get it they are very sad. I cannot believe it. It is not about the people; it is about them. That is what it tells me. This Government over nearly 6 years has seen the GDP of Taranaki grow by nearly 50 percent. That has got a lot to do with our business-facing policies it has got a lot to do with the encouragement we have given and it has got a lot to do with the fact that this Government sees that building infrastructure is important.In just a number of days or a week or two coming up we are going to be starting a roading project in New Plymouth. Let me tell you that when people came to me and knocked on my door person after person week after week asking what was going to happen about the Waiwhakaiho project and the bridge I said that New Plymouth had had a Labour Party MP for 15 years. I asked what had happened during that period of time—absolutely nothing. They brought to me newspaper clippings that said that this bridge is an issue going back to 1969. Is that not amazing? Is it not unbelievable that a Government in that period of time which had surplus after surplus after surplus neglected infrastructure? Not only did it neglect infrastructure but we know there are issues around economic growth development and also road safety.This Government has been working hard and we have a region that is being rewarded for its hard work and contribution to the New Zealand economy. That is what a lot of people say in my region: “Here we are producing 3.9 percent of the nation’s GDP from 2.4 percent of the people. We work hard and we bring great benefits.” That is true. This Government has been very very supportive of Taranaki.Just last week as the Minister of Health Tony Ryall announced today we opened the brand-new Taranaki Base Hospital servicing 110000 people from the north to the south and from the east to the west. It is a great hospital that does a great job in supporting and bringing excellent state-of-the-art modern health care.We have a new police station in New Plymouth which the Minister of Police Anne Tolley came and opened last year. It is a fantastic police station. I went there on the open day two weekends ago and there I was greeted at the entrance by the area commander as he was greeting every person. Hundreds and hundreds if not a thousand people maybe even more went through that day. I asked all of the policemen and women how it worked and whether this space worked. They said that they loved it that it was absolutely fantastic and that they have a relationship with corrections. It is the first time I think Minister that that has happened here in New Zealand. They said that this relationship with corrections is working fantastically. They have a really great relationship and it is working well. So what we are seeing is excellent men and women who are protecting our community and enabling people as they go through the corrections system to come back into our city and find employment and a place where they can be reintegrated.New Plymouth and Taranaki are doing very well. I am very pleased to stand here after being the local MP for 6 years and say that we continue to have good news in our region. I am sure that my colleague the Hon Chester Borrows will talk about what is happening down in his part of this fantastic province.One of the great announcements we had last weekend was about the work being done on Mount Messenger and the Awakino corridor—the gorge there. Some people say that what we should have is a tunnel straight through that area. I asked a colleague of mine a friend who does tunnelling and they said that that would be the biggest roading project in the country—JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):It is my pleasure to take a call and speak in this general debate and endorse the comments that have been made by my colleagues around the importance of investing in our future—we focused a little bit with our education spokesperson on some of those issues today—which I think are in stark contrast with the comments made by Government members who have spoken primarily on issues around roading projects. Look no one is going to argue that ensuring that our regions have decent infrastructure is important but the Government is basically replacing what it stripped away and basically replacing what it has taken away from some of those regional areas.I want to reflect a little bit on the other form of investment that we need for our future and that is investing in our past.Hon Anne Tolley: Eh?JACINDA ARDERN: Oh we seem to have forgotten that arts culture and heritage is part of our policy area that I cover as well—children prisons corrections arts culture and heritage. Heritage has become one of those issues that for the region of Canterbury has unfortunately been sidelined in recent times. Obviously there have been a number of competing priorities for that region the first of which has been—rightly so—housing. But we have needed the Government during that period to multitask in order to ensure that we have the retention of an integral part of Canterbury’s tourism their sense of place and one of the things that has drawn so many to that city which has been the gothic revival style of architecture that exists in that place. We know that there are economic gains to revitalisation of our heritage areas. In fact an expert on the economics of historic preservation from the United States came out to New Zealand not long ago and talked about the fact that for some of their main street programmes for every $1 of investment they leveraged $18. So there is a spin-off to that kind of investment.We have seen really good examples—the restoration of the old Government building the Heritage Hotel. That is a category 1 building. The private owner worked collaboratively to ensure the restoration of that fantastic space. Contrast that with the loss of the beautiful Majestic Theatre building in Christchurch which as far as I can tell was removed not primarily for safety reasons. It was demolished under section 38 of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act because the Government had transport plans that meant a widening of the road and meant that that beautiful piece of infrastructure was removed.I think it is time that we listened to what was said in the Heritage Quarterly recently where it said: “Naturally safety must be the primary concern but we are at a point where the remaining buildings are not considered a significant risk or can be brought up to standard.” We have lost 47 percent of heritage buildings in the Christchurch central business district.Jacqui Dean: That’s because we had an earthquake.JACINDA ARDERN: We are 3 years on and no longer are these buildings being removed solely because—these are not buildings that fell down in the earthquake. Many of them are ones that are being demolished under the extraordinary powers that were granted to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority at that time but it is time that we reconsidered the way that we deal with heritage in that city. It is time that we reconsidered those war-time powers. It is time that we actually had a plan for the heritage infrastructure of that region. Labour is focused on a revitalisation plan for Canterbury. We have talked about housing and we have talked about transport. Tomorrow morning we will be talking about our thoughts on heritage for that city and how we can invest in the past in order to preserve something beautiful for our future.Heritage is not the domain of simply the last generation. Heritage is something that we need to keep focused on for the next generation so that we can build our sense of identity of place whether it be in Canterbury whether it be in our small provincial regions or whether it be in my city Auckland which has decimated so much of its historical features. Tomorrow Labour looks forward to building a plan for heritage and preservation in Christchurch and looks forward to showing our positive vision for that region.Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts):I too get to my feet to say that it is good news in the regions. I know that those people on the other side of the House may not be all that happy about it but in South Taranaki we had some real good news on the weekend around the realignment of the Normanby Overbridge. That is a big thing for us. I know that people in South Taranaki are pretty good at political memorials. Not too many years ago when a certain Minister of Education closed a number of schools around Taranaki a big sign appeared on the side of the road that said “Open season on Mallards”. After last week’s announcements about the realignment of the Normanby Bridge it would not surprise me at all if some big round bales were got together and a huge effigy of Gerry Brownlee was built beside the Normanby Overbridge.The Normanby Overbridge has been a death trap in South Taranaki for 20 years. It has claimed 21 lives over 20 years it has been a blight on our landscape and on State Highway 3 and all that has been done over a number of years is to move the speed limit and put a few signs around it. It has never ever been good enough. Just a few years ago land was bought alongside the railway line so that the road could be reconfigured to take away the need to travel over this overbridge. There were three bridges constructed in the 1920s. They were all identical. One of them has been completely realigned but the other two continue to be traps for motorists. We had the land we had the plans but we did not have the dough. A series of incidents around the country had detracted from the Government’s ability to be able to construct this bridge—such as the earthquakes such as Pike River such as the collapse of South Canterbury Finance etc.—and meant that these projects had to be prioritised.I was absolutely ecstatic to find out on the weekend that that bridge is going to be started next year. It is done at a time when as the previous speaker Jonathan Young said there are other road projects happening in Taranaki that have been given the same priority—albeit in South Taranaki we think that road safety is a little bit more important than a bottleneck. It is good to see that it has happened.The word from the other side is that that is an election bribe. Apparently it is an election bribe when you find some money to do away with a death trap. Well if ever I saw an election bribe it was coming up to the 1999 election.Chris Auchinvole: Oh what happened?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: What happened then Mr Auchinvole was that the then would-be Prime Minister the Leader of the Opposition at the time—Chris Auchinvole: Who was that then?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: —Helen Clark—flew by chopper to a little place called Ruatītī with the then would-be Associate Minister of Transport Harry Duynhoven and stood on another bridge. They stood on another bridge and that was a bridge that superseded one that had collapsed. There was a death on that bridge. It is known because a beekeeper fell through that bridge and was killed. We know that the farmer was a man called Berryman. The Leader of the Opposition at that time a couple of months before the election pledged that post-election should Labour be in Government Labour would then negotiate with Mr Berryman around costs—the costs that he had incurred having been charged before the court having had his home burnt down and emergency services being unable to get there and the losses that he had incurred. Labour made big promises prior to the election and yet in 9 years in Government it did nothing. It made one offer that was to be negotiated but it refused to negotiate having stood in the election campaign and said that the Government should be negotiating with Mr and Mrs Berryman to put this right. In 9 years the Labour Government did not. I am pleased to say that one of my first accomplishments as the member for Whanganui was to go to Cabinet and ask it whether it would sort out this issue and it did. So to have the other side of the House talk about election bribes last weekend when that is their history is huge.Another good point to make is this: we know that the flea on the tail of the dog in the next Government if Labour was ever that next Government would be the Greens. What we know about the Greens is that they hate roads. They do not want to build any roads. This Normanby Overbridge would never be built if a Labour Government ever got elected and that is the message for the people of the Whanganui electorate.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour - Mt Roskill):We have just heard the National backbenchers prattling on about roading projects. They never mentioned the $100000 that they have just finished spending on a bridge that they have renovated which they are now going to pull down and replace with another bridge. I think that shows something about the fiscal responsibility of the National Government.Hon Anne Tolley: Just shows how little you understand about the process.Hon PHIL GOFF: But I say to the Minister of Police that instead of listening to her pork barrel politicking about her own electorate I want to come to a topic that is intimately involved with her portfolio of policing.In the last couple of months in the Auckland region that I represent we have had a number of tragic murders including the killing of two members of our ethnic communities. Blessie Gotingco was murdered after being abducted on the way home from work walking from the bus stop to her family home. [Interruption] Well the Minister can laugh about it and put it down. I happen to think that that is a tragedy for that family as indeed is the other case of Arun Kumar a Henderson dairy owner who was stabbed in the neck and murdered in front of his wife in his dairy just a fortnight ago.Members of the ethnic community have come to me in the last couple of weeks because they say that they are at the front line of criminal offending in New Zealand. They are the people who drive the taxis they are the people who staff the shops such as our dairies around the clock and they tell me very clearly that their concern is about the complacency of the Government in terms of their right to feel safe in their communities and on the streets. They say that when they go to a National Party member of Parliament they get told the one thing: “Oh crime’s coming down.” Well I am sorry but you know when your husband or your father or your son has been murdered to have the Government say: “It’s all right crime is coming down.” really does not wash.Hon Anne Tolley: No MP has said that to them.Hon PHIL GOFF: Actually Minister I looked up your own figures from April of this year. There were 360000 reported criminal offences—360000 reported criminal offences—in the last year. And what has that Minister done about it? I will tell you what she has done. In every Budget since National was elected the real spending on policing has declined.I went to the Parliamentary Library. I wanted an independent analysis of what has happened to expenditure on policing. Do you know what it told me? It said that since 2009 spending has been cut in real terms by $114 million. That is $114 million less to spend on policing and on keeping people safe. In the last year it was down $42 million—$42 million. No wonder Inspector Greg O’Connor says publicly that this year policing at the front line will become harder for our men and women in blue. That is what Greg O’Connor said.I asked that Minister in the Law and Order Committee: “Have you cut the number of police in the last 2 years?”. “No.” she said and then I got this letter. It is a written answer to the same question from the same Minister. Do you know what has happened in the last 2 years Minister? You have cut the number of sworn deployed constables by 80—80 fewer policemen and policewomen are on the street now than there were 2 years ago.Then I asked a question about community policing stations because in Henderson they say: “You know with these kids who are out of control and have been causing problems for months if not years what we really need is a community police station.” What is the National Government doing about community policing? It has cut it by 16 stations in the last 2 years—three in Manukau East in the last year alone. It has cut St Lukes Blockhouse Bay. It has cut Mount Albert. That does not even include stations like mine in Mount Roskill which has been temporarily closed for how long? For 2 years it has had a sign on the door of the station saying: “Temporarily closed to the public.” because those members do not have the guts to front up and say—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Hon PHIL GOFF: —“Actually we’ve closed the station.” That is the dishonesty of it Mr Speaker. They have cut spending on policing in real terms. They have cut spending on the police in terms of percentage of Government expenditure. They have cut spending on the police in terms of a percentage of GDP. They talk tough about law and order. Their trouble is that they do not walk the talk. That Minister’s administration of her portfolio is frankly a disgrace.JOANNE HAYES (National):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. As the last speaker in this debate I stand to support my colleagues on the outstanding work that this National-led Government continues to do for this country when it comes to economic growth. When we came into Government the cupboards were bare. Actually they were more than bare; we found bills that needed paying. [Interruption] Yes in 2008 the previous Government had left office and left a growing debt behind it—shame on you—in a so-called time of surpluses for this country. So how did the previous Government stuff up so badly? I know: it did not have a plan and that party still does not have a plan today.In addition to this there was the global financial crisis the Christchurch earthquakes and the Pike River mine tragedy followed by the Rena and recently the Christchurch floods. Yet through all of this it was this National-led Government that has remained resolute in its mission to do the things that matter most to New Zealanders as we continue to build a brighter future for everyone. It is a mission that this National-led Government set in 2008 and one that has been recently swiped by the Opposition because it has nothing left in its tank.Iain Lees-Galloway: Ha!JOANNE HAYES: Yes. It is a mission that has seen the emergence of a growing economy planned by a carefully crafted financial plan—Iain Lees-Galloway: We’ve got a few more ideas than roads.JOANNE HAYES: —listen listen—underpinned by a strong Business Growth Agenda an agenda for New Zealand to build a more productive and competitive economy.So where has this economic growth come from? It has come from the regions—the regions of course—and our aim is for all the regions to achieve their potential. Most have experienced strong growth and most have lower unemployment rates. Just look at the South Island. Unemployment is at 3.9 percent. That is low. But that is not the only thing we are doing. We are getting our regions moving through our roads of national significance and the regional roading projects. That is a total investment of $600 million. This will help the regions to lift production and transport through these regions will be made much safer with our Safer Journeys strategy.But this is not the only thing we are doing. We have got ultra-fast and rural broadband which allows the faster and more efficient digital and electronic communication so the isolation issues faced by those in the rural sector have been minimised. This Government is encouraging oil and gas exploration and we are doing this with our environment in mind. Taranaki is a great example of such a region which we have just heard about before from the member from Taranaki. It has benefited from oil and gas exploration—40 percent of its GDP comes from oil and gas exploration. There are not many Taranaki people whom I have met who are sad about the region’s economic growth from oil and gas. Just imagine the potential benefits for the Otago and West Coast regions.The Government’s Youth Guarantee and increased apprenticeships plan see more opportunities for our rangatahi to work in the many trades areas where employment abounds. Just look at the opportunities in building and construction in Canterbury. We are rebuilding Christchurch in all ways from the central city development plan to the social housing accord. Christchurch stands on the precipice of great things as the opportunities it presents in growing the Canterbury regional economy go without saying.But let us not forget one of our key regional economic growth areas: tourism. We have combined this with fitness and well-being in our national cycle trails. Not only do we get fit but we get to see places that we would not have been able to see in a car or a bus. We get to smell regional economic growth people in the rural sector in our native forests and in the grand expanse of Central Otago but the best part about this is that everyone wins. Our gains in regional economic growth will be lost if the policies of the left are allowed to get in there. Introducing a carbon price five times the world price and having a capital gains tax on every productive business and farm would go a significant way towards stopping economic growth.This National-led Government is working for all New Zealanders. Our economy grew by 3.8 percent in the year ended March—the third-highest in the world’s developed economies. Growth is forecast to be 4 percent. We have a plan we have a hard-working and diverse team and we have the most outstanding leader in our Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key a leader with international respect from our global leaders. He is the man of the people—the only man to lead this country into the future.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Estimates DebateIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 1 July on the Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I can advise the Committee that the two votes that were unavailable for consideration yesterday—Vote State Services and Vote Sport and Recreation—are now available. They will be considered in the order of seniority of the responsible Minister.Vote Social Development (continued)Vote agreed to.Vote DefenceRICHARD PROSSER (NZ First):At the commencement of this debate you made the observation for the edification of the Committee that votes would be debated in descending order according to the rank of the Minister. It is rather telling—rather revealing one could say—that Vote Defence is languishing way down the order at No. 10. It is not even on the front bench. In a bygone era not so very long ago in actual fact only about 30 years ago—hardly a previous geological age by any reckoning—defence was regarded as a matter of great importance. Ministers of Defence were regarded as senior Cabinet Ministers. This very serious and important portfolio was entrusted to a Minister of experience and standing—a Minister ranked no lower perhaps than fourth or fifth in the Government. But this is no longer the case. It is not a reflection on the importance of defence; it is a reflection on the fact that this Government appears unable to understand that importance.That lack of understanding is illustrated clearly by the wholly inadequate level of funding allocated to defence by this administration. The Government trumpets the quite mythical $500 million that it claims is additional funding afforded to defence in the Budget. The reality of course is that it is $500 million over 4 years and it will go only part of the way to replacing the roughly equivalent amount that it has pruned out of defence over the past 2 years. It is sleight of hand—give with one hand and take with the other. Two percent—that is the level of expenditure that New Zealand First would like to see allocated to defence—2 percent of GDP. It is not a massive slice of the pie—2 percent to ensure our sovereignty 2 percent to secure our borders 2 percent to protect our exclusive economic zone and our fisheries resource to contribute to the security of the region and to support the efforts of our regional partners and allies. Two percent is the figure Australia is working towards and Singapore has already long since exceeded it. But not New Zealand; no.Under this Government the defence expense is less than 1 percent and from that paltry sum the Government claws back revenues in the form of GST road-user charges and a capital charge that relates to the cost of servicing expenditure on major projects and acquisitions and then of course depreciation. The actual amount of funding the New Zealand Defence Force has to work with is even more miserable. The defence of the nation is the first responsibility of Government and less than $1 in $100 is manifestly insufficient as a measure of the importance of this truth.Then what the Government spends money on what it does allow defence to actually procure and operate fails to reflect the realities of the world we live in. There was never any such thing as the benign strategic environment. In the real world there are still wars and conflicts. In the real world nations are not always nice to one another despite the existence of the United Nations. Diplomacy is a wonderful thing but only a fool would presume that people and nations could rely on it alone. There are times when it is also necessary to wave the big stick.As we debate the Middle East is dissolving into chaos yet again. Iraq and Syria are embroiled in civil conflict. Russia and Ukraine are facing off. The South China Sea has several potential conflicts threatening to spark up at any moment. North Korea is testing new missiles. Japan is talking openly about arming herself with nuclear weapons.In the midst of this mêlée New Zealand stands blissfully unconcerned. We have no force in the air force notwithstanding that it is possible to drop a Mark 82 bomb on the beach at Kaipara from an Orion retrofitted with a bolt–on hardpoint. Hallelujah! The Orions can drop bombs. They cannot jink or dogfight or avoid air-to-air missiles defend themselves from ship-launched anti-aircraft missiles or even hunt submarines any more like they were originally bought to do but they can drop old 20th century free-fall iron bombs. We are safe—not! Are the air force Orions also going to be fitted with infrared search and track or data links or Paveway designators so they can drop smart bombs as well I ask the Minister? Or are we relying once again as has been the policy of this Government and the one before it I might add on the hope that we will not ever have to use any of these things in anger.I ask the Minister but the reality is he probably does not know what any of those things are. Defence is a side interest for this Minister at best. His real passions are finance and foreign affairs. Those things are admirable and necessary—granted. But it would be nice at the very least to have a Minister of Defence who cared enough about defence to argue in Cabinet for a credible-sized slice of the pie. On the subject of admirals the navy is down to one frigate because the other one is tied up in Canada having an extended refit. It will be out of service for more than a year for the duration of which New Zealand will have one ship to patrol a maritime territory covering one-sixth of the Pacific Ocean.Hon Phil Goff: And they can’t crew the inshore patrol vessels.RICHARD PROSSER: Quite right Mr Goff. There is one ship. The refits to Te Kaha and Te Mana will amount to around half the cost of replacing them. I ask why this maintenance is not being done in Whangarei. Why is this Government not trying to get more bang for our defence buck by growing the ability of domestic engineering to take on such tasks? We could be building patrol ships here. We could be and we should be investing in developing a shipbuilding industry here in New Zealand anchored on the requirements of the military and from there being able to construct everything from coastal freighters to fishing boats. Instead we have a navy cobbled together from imported civilian-standard vessels based on designs for ferries and coastguard boats and the like. The two poor tired and old MEKO 200 German frigates are being flogged to death because they are two ships being required to do the work of four.In the 1950s and 1960s New Zealand maintained an operational fleet of six frigates. It was a core capability and for a nation of 2 million people with no exclusive economic zone it was entirely affordable. What has changed? What has changed about the reality of the world we live in since those days apart from the fact that it has become less stable and less safe? Our population has doubled and we have a vastly larger chunk of ocean to look after. We could be forgiven for thinking that the navy’s tasking requirement now calls for something closer to eight frigates than two but that reality does not appear to have worked its way through the collective skulls of this Government which disregards the need for credible defence relegates it to 10th on the Cabinet priority list and bases its decisions on financial considerations that have nothing to do with defending the nation and everything to do with making bottom lines look good.We have no combat aircraft nowhere near enough of a blue-water navy and an ever-shrinking army that is perilously close to not being able to properly support the SAS let alone mount an operation on the scale of Timor where we sustained a battalion on rotation for more than a year. The New Zealand Defence Force simply does not have a sharp end any more and because of that—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on Vote Defence not Vote Defence Force. There are two separate votes here. The member is straying into Vote Defence Force. I just bring him back. This is about defence not the defence force.RICHARD PROSSER: Because of that it is becoming increasingly difficult to recruit and retain enough good people to maintain core capabilities. Simply throwing money in the wrong directions within the context of an ever-decreasing budget is not the way to approach defence. We need to address the very real issue of pay and conditions and acknowledge that our people are underpaid in relative terms.But money alone will not fix this problem. At the heart of it there is a lack of understanding of what motivates people to join the military. They do not join for money. George Orwell said: “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” That is why they join. Good men and women join up because they are motivated by a desire to fight the good fight. They are motivated to fight the righteous fight to protect the innocent and to stand in defence of the nation. To do that they need a military that is the sharp end that is resourced and that is intended to operate as a credible force but this Government just does not get that. That is why Vote Defence is so pitifully insufficient and meagre and why defence expenditure is so woefully misdirected.New Zealand First in a position of influence over Government will set this matter to rights. We will resource defence properly and we will give it back the focus and breadth of tools that it needs. This is a dreadful Appropriation Bill and the election cannot come soon enough. Thank you.Vote agreed to.Vote Defence ForceHon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill):Eight months ago the Cabinet external relations and defence committee produced this minute that I have got in my hands. It had been kept secret and confidential until such time as the Government was forced to reveal it under the Official Information Act. Why was it kept secret? Because it reveals this point: “New Zealand now has the smallest number of personnel deployed to international peacekeeping operations in almost 20 years.” The number of New Zealand men and women who are superb peacekeepers whom we have deployed today is 77—just 77.When I was the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the Minister of Defence it numbered up to 800 and was generally in the 300 to 500 range. This minute in its last point urges the Government to take an active approach to considering contributions to international peace support operations. Why? Firstly it is the right thing to do for New Zealand as a good international citizen. But also New Zealand is putting itself up to be a candidate for the United Nations Security Council and what do we say about our good international citizenship—that the best we can mount to help international peacekeeping operations is 77?I wondered about this. because I know that the Government from this minute wanted to have more people out in the field. So why did it not? Well the answer was given in the estimates questionnaire where I asked the question about deploying overseas. And do you know what the Minister of Defence tells me? He says there is a risk that you could not deploy New Zealand service personnel overseas in a peacekeeping operation for more than 12 months. For 9 years we had 400 to 500 people deployed on these sorts of peace missions Minister and you have run down the Defence Force to the point that we cannot have our very good peacekeepers deployed for more than 1 year. That is a disgrace.One reason—and this comes out of the Auditor-General’s comments on the Minister’s handling of his portfolio—is that between 2009 and 2013 the number of Regular Force personnel has been slashed by 1200. That is a 15 percent reduction in our Defence Force personnel. But it is worse than that. It is worse than that because when that Minister did what the Auditor-General accused him of doing—breaking the social contract with the Defence Force personnel—we reached 24 percent attrition in the Defence Force. It was 24 percent in vital trades and in vital ranks and it takes years 7 to 8 years to replace people with the skills of those who walked away from the Defence Force.That is why our Defence Force cannot mount a decent peacekeeping operation—because that Minister by destroying the morale of the Defence Force in 2011-12 and by cutting the Defence Force budget for personnel has reduced it to the point that it cannot deploy for more than 1 year.But it is not simply that. There has been botch-up after botch-up. When the Minister of Defence gets to his feet I want him to comment on why the army court martialled a brave Special Air Service soldier who had served in Bosnia and served three times in Afghanistan for stealing army equipment when they could not find any equipment missing. They could not find any equipment missing and that has just been overturned—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That matter is still before the courts and it is best not to refer to it.Hon PHIL GOFF: No it is not.Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: It is.Hon PHIL GOFF: Speaking to the point of order.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will hear the Hon Phil Goff.Hon PHIL GOFF: I was passed the Military Court of Appeal decision from the court by a party to the court because the suppression order has been lifted. It is in the public arena however much the Minister might try to suppress it.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I will need to seek some guidance on this. I do not have the answer and I will ask for some guidance from the Clerk. [Interruption] No I need to seek some guidance on this matter. I am informed that three of the four charges were dropped but there is still one that has not been so on that basis I would ask the member to move on on the Defence Force and we will leave that matter as it is.Hon PHIL GOFF: Speaking to the point of order the fourth charge was not appealed by the soldier concerned though the military court of appeal said that the army should consider withdrawing it. But this matter is not live before the court. It is not under a suppression order.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): OK. Well look just give me one moment while I just make sure that I have got my advice correct. All right I have some advice and the advice is that we can continue in the same vein.Hon PHIL GOFF: Well I would like the Minister to explain to the Committee why the army court martialled a solider for the theft of equipment that was not missing. The Minister will know that that soldier spent $15000 of his own money on buying equipment. It may well be that he passed back his own equipment and sold equipment that was the army equipment but there was no intent of theft and the military court of appeal damned the judgment that had been made in the first instance.Do we have so many brave and experienced SAS soldiers that we can court martial them effectively humiliate them and drum them out of the military only to find that the military court in the first instance got it wrong? That was a botch-up.The second botch-up: why is it that people working full-time for the air force at Whenuapai can set up a private company and tender for the equipment that they are working full-time on? And why is it that that matter is before the Auditor-General? That is another scandal waiting. The third thing is Babcock. Why did Babcock in its key performance indicators hit the lowest level five out of five which is designated unacceptable for 6 months? Why is it that the Defence Force is doing so badly that it is having these problems?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence):Looking to what we have just heard from both the New Zealand First member Richard Prosser and Phil Goff you would not believe that there has actually been so much great progress in the Defence Force. We are talking about the Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill here: $535 million over the next 4 years going into Vote Defence Force.Chris Auchinvole: How much?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is $535 million. That is something to really celebrate quite frankly.Hon Phil Goff: That’s less than I spent on the NH90s for God’s sake.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am very disappointed with Phil Goff because no matter how nice I am to him I cannot get him to take a bipartisan approach and support our serving men and women. It is very very sad.Look what I can say to him is that he really has been misleading—I would like to say—there around the PKO the peacekeeping operations paper. He knows that the reason we have got relatively few people out on deployment at the moment is that we have people who have come back from Afghanistan from East Timor and from the Solomon Islands. The situation is very different from when he was the Minister. On 8 September 2008 there was a headline in the New Zealand Herald relating to Phil Goff’s tenure as Minister which said: “Can’t fight can’t sail can’t fly”. We have had to turn that round.What we had in 2010 was the first defence white paper in 13 years. What that did was set the policy for defence. We said: “Look it’s fiscally pretty constrained times. We’ve got to be very clear about what we need the Defence Force to do. Primarily it obviously has to maintain the integrity of New Zealand’s borders and be able to operate in our exclusive economic zone. It has to be able to deploy into the south-west Pacific in cases where there may be security emergencies or where there may be humanitarian assistance and disaster relief issues they have to deal with and it has to be able to make a contribution further afield.” So the policy was set but what we knew was that there was a funding gap there. We knew what capabilities were needed to deliver on that policy and we followed it up with the release of a capability plan which we have just refreshed recently and released just 2 weeks ago. But we had this hole of well over half a billion dollars which was going to roll up into the 2020s to a massive deficit of money needed to fund the sort of capital equipment that the Defence Force needs.So we went away and the officials from the Ministry of Defence and the New Zealand Defence Force did an excellent job at looking at all the capabilities that the Defence Force has—about 220 of them. They costed them all. They arranged them into 11 capability sets to deliver on the policy. At the end of that we had a very clear view of what capabilities were needed for the Defence Force to actually deliver the effects that the Government needs it to. We went to Cabinet and said: “Look this is the policy this is the strategy this is the capability we need and now we need this funding.” As a result of that in this Budget we have got this over half a billion dollars’ worth over 4 years. That is something that Phil Goff really should be celebrating. He is being disingenuous to say that we cannot deploy a defence force on a continuous rotation. We can; we can do two at once just like he could when he was Minister. The same problems that have been there around you know critical trades sustaining these deployments have always been there. They were there when Phil Goff was there. The key point is that we are able to sustain these deployments.As for the New Zealand First member he wants eight frigates for the navy. What he did not mention was that it was actually his leader Winston Peters who cancelled the third frigate. I know he would be very eager to go and attack any country ending in “stan” but actually that is not realistic in the current world. So when you look at it we have got a situation where we had no new money in defence for many many years. We had to make the best of what we had at the time. We redeployed resources from the back of the office to the front.Hon Phil Goff: Who paid for the NH90s?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Ah! Phil Goff has mentioned the NH90s—$770 million. He has forgotten though that you do not just buy the helicopter; you need to be able to afford to run it and you need to have people to go in it. Phil Goff ignored that completely. He has now left us to carry the slack.He talks about morale and attrition. Attrition in the Defence Force is now lower than when he was Minister. It is now 11.6 percent. Morale is now at 85 percent. So 85 percent of personnel in the New Zealand Defence Force rate their morale as good or better. I can tell you that that is a damned sight higher than the Labour caucus’ morale.Hon Phil Goff: No no no not true—satisfactory.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes it absolutely is. That is 85 percent. So actually what we have done is turned round a lot of the damage that Phil Goff caused when he was Minister.But the one thing I really do wish is this. You know Phil Goff is always welcome to come along to any defence event; I always acknowledge him. But I wish he would just behave the same way in the Chamber as he does at those events.Vote agreed to.Vote State Services agreed to.Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade agreed to.Vote Official Development Assistance agreed to.Vote Sport and Recreation agreed to.Vote CorrectionsJACQUI DEAN (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee):I am very pleased to stand up and take a call on Vote Corrections. In fact I forgo the opportunity to speak on another extremely well-performing department and that is the police department to have an opportunity to speak on corrections because I want to extend my congratulations not only to the Minister of Corrections Anne Tolley but to the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections Ray Smith on turning round over the past 6 years—and I know the personnel have changed a little over that time but those are the people at the helm now—a service that is very very strongly focused on reintegration and rehabilitation.If I look back to when National first came into Government and look at corrections we used to see corrections officers occasionally along Lambton Quay in their ghastly green ill-fitting uniforms. That is what they had for a number of years under a Labour Government. I remember seeing the women officers walking along Lambton Quay wearing their uniforms with pride but clearly their uniforms had not been cut for the female figure. In fact what they were having to do was wear uniforms that were not fit for purpose. Well no wonder they had extremely low morale within the corrections service. The very first thing that the Minister of Corrections at the time did was give them a new uniform a new uniform that not only was fit for purpose but also engendered the feeling of pride and for the first time in many years under this National Government corrections personnel were not the scapegoat. They were no longer the people who were blamed for anything that went wrong in corrections.In fact the culture has changed so significantly that all we ever see when we go on prison visits are men and women who are professional and have absolute pride in their work. They absolutely know they have been backed by their chief executive and their Minister and they have the strongest focus. They say it in their literature. They say it in their book on reducing reoffending by 25 percent. They say that their absolute goal their ultimate goal is to reduce reoffending. Well what a change—what a change. What a sea change that has been over the past 6 years under this National Government. We have people who take pride in their work and have an absolute focus on reducing reoffending.That is based on some pretty significant research that shows that when offenders are released back into society which of course they must be within months or even weeks from their release from prison or in starting a community-based sentence they then reoffend pretty quickly. So it might be a matter of days; it might be a matter of hours. There is a tendency to reoffend. But also there is research that clearly demonstrates that treatment programmes provided for within corrections facilities can change the attitudes of prisoners and the beliefs of prisoners and they can also teach them skills to cope on the outside. So based on that knowledge based on that understanding based on the great morale and great leadership in corrections we now have a modern corrections system that is absolutely focused on tackling drug and alcohol abuse. Most prisoners who go into prison have issues around drugs and alcohol. We know that. We are providing more rehabilitation to every prisoner and we are beginning to show with the prison muster and the rate of reoffending which is dropping that those rehabilitation measures are working.We have more interventions by probation staff. Probation staff are talking to corrections staff and talking to the police and together with that combined effort those interventions are keeping prisoners from reoffending. There is now an out-of-gate service in our corrections facilities. No longer do you have the day when prisoners finish their sentences and literally walk out the gate and are left to their own devices. Now strategies and plans are put in place to keep the prisoners safe to keep them from reoffending and renewing that useless worthless cycle of crime reoffending and going back into the corrections service.One of the most memorable occasions I have seen over my time involved in law and order was at the women’s prison in Wiri where we went into a working kitchen and spoke to a number of the women prisoners. They had huge pride in what they were doing. They were not only catering for the construction crew for the men’s prison in Wiri but also learning great skills that were transferable to the outside. Those prisoners were looking to a life that did not involve crime any more.Vote agreed to.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Vote PoliceJACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I appreciate the opportunity to speak briefly to the estimates debate on the police. I want to start by pointing out that in all of our debates on the Budget the Labour Party has been quick to highlight that our hope was for a Budget that would set out a strong vision for work for family and for housing because those are all of the areas where we desperately need a strong vision for New Zealanders. But underneath all of that of course are the fundamentals; the things that of course central government is involved in. Justice and law and order underpin whether or not our families feel secure in their homes and their communities.One of the things that I feel frustrated by in the police portfolio is that the Minister of Police has started to take for granted I think that the basis on which she funds police is her determination as to where the crime rate sits. Of course crime in New Zealand is recorded crime. The rates that we use that we talk about are all based on whether or not the general public are phoning in and reporting crime to the police. In order for people to continue to do that it relies on people feeling like that is a worthwhile venture that their report will be responded to and that they will get some kind of either attendance by police or some resolution to the issue that they have raised. So it does become a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the police do not attend someone is less likely to report and therefore it looks like your crime rate is going down.We raised this at the Law and Order Committee during the estimates with the Minister. She claimed that my view and to raise this issue was very last century. I thought that was curious given it is an issue that members of the public themselves have raised. She claimed for instance that for property offences of course someone would phone in and report something because they require it for their insurance claim ignoring completely the fact that we actually do not know how many New Zealanders have contents insurance. In all likelihood I imagine members of our poorer communities may be less likely to have contents insurance and yet are more likely to be preyed upon when it comes to things like property theft. So I do not believe Minister that it is a strong foundation to argue that based on all of those premises and the crime rate we can therefore reduce our resourcing of policing.In fact it is not just in the operational budget because in this Budget we have seen a decline in the police budget by $40 million. It is a $40 million reduction—and that is on top of frozen budgets and cuts—in operating expenditure for the police. The Minister tried to claim that it was not actually a cut in funding; the Government just was not putting in the extra boost it put in last time. Let me explain what that extra boost was. It was a supplementary appropriation. Mid-year the Government realised that it had not given the police enough to do the job and so it had to put a little bit of extra sneaky money in through supplementary appropriations. The Minister claims those are costs that we will not be facing again. They were basic costs like redundancy—redundancy that was occurring mind to try to get police costs down.We are in a vicious cycle with our police at present and we can see the impact it is having. Example one is ageing police cars. We have now 71 vehicles that failed their warrants of fitness in the last year and 58 vehicles have done over 200000 kilometres. I have heard of police vehicles breaking down on the job. These vehicles are a key part of the police doing their job. Not only is it an ageing fleet they have got fewer cars since this Government came into office.Example two we are seeing the police having to make cost-cutting priorities between drug squads and reallocating people to child protection teams. Those are not two areas that you should pick and choose between. Demand does not lift and drop when it comes to serious organised crime and child protection. In fact if anything both of those areas are escalating and we need to maintain our focus on both.Finally staffing numbers—they are lower now than they were even 2 years ago. This was the Government that in 2008 promised New Zealand a ratio of one police officer per 500 people. The Minister conceded at the select committee that they have given that promise away. They no longer retain that commitment. Why? Because apparently everything is going swimmingly. Ask New Zealanders whether they think crime is going down. Ask them. I think they will tell you that from this high-profile serious violent crime we are seeing it certainly has not.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police):I would be very interested if we did indeed ask New Zealanders whether they thought that crime was going down because public trust and confidence in the police is at an all-time high. The reality out on the streets is that New Zealanders do know that things are going extremely well. Crime is at a 35-year low. You do not make up those statistics. You cannot fiddle them. That is the reality. Road fatalities are at a 60-year low—down down. Trust and confidence in the police are up. In fact when you have a look at the engagement survey that the police have an independent company do for them staff engagement is at an all-time high.So the police have never ever been in a better space. They are better resourced they are better focused they are better managed and they have a better Government backing them every inch of the way. They have come through 4 years of massive change. They did it themselves. It was not driven by the Government. They knew that they had to come out of 20th century policing into 21st century policing.A lot of what we are hearing from the Opposition about numbers and about police officers sitting in police stations waiting for people to come and report crime is very last century. The modern police officer is in the right place at the right time with the right tools and the right information. When we talk about them being in the right place we talk about them being out on the streets where people can see them. Foot patrols are up by over 150 percent. We are having police out on the streets 150 times more. They are being seen by people in the right places at the times when crime is happening. The police are now focused on preventing crime rather than responding to crime. That does not mean that if you are in trouble you cannot call the police but they say that policing is more about it being better to prevent crime happening in the first place than to respond to it and try to resolve it afterwards.When we talk about them having the right tools look at the smartphones and look at the iPads that this Government has rolled out. There are 350 extra police officers’ worth of technology that they can use. They are showing us how over the next 5 years to 10 years we are going to see a transformation in the way that evidence is kept and presented. In fact I have seen it already such as using FaceTime to record a drug deal going down. There are amazing things that the police are finding that this new technology will enable them to do.When you talk about equipment now they can start with the most important tool that they have which is their tongues. You watch police go into some very dangerous situations and the first thing they try to do is talk someone down then they have their batons then they have pepper spray then they have Tasers and finally every police car now has access to a Glock and to a Bushmaster rifle.The police know this Government backs them. We are backing their district command centres which allow district commanders to look at where the need is right across a whole district and to move his or her resources around as the public’s need dictates. That is modern policing. That is not 20th century policing; that is modern policing. We are allowing the police to get on and manage themselves so that we have in this country one of the most effective police forces in the world. We are the envy of many other police forces in the world and we should be getting behind our guys instead of trying to criticise these statistics and the work that the police are out there doing. We should be backing them and saying that they are a tremendous group of people who are out there working with victims as the focus and preventing crime before it happens. I am proud to be the Minister of Police.Vote agreed to.Vote Serious Fraud agreed to.Vote Conservation agreed to.Vote HousingPOTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):Kia orana. This morning I spoke with my electorate office. That is not unusual you would argue and no it is not but I spoke to my electorate office this morning about what is happening in housing and particularly about what is happening with emergency accommodation in Christchurch. I do that from time to time. The team down there lets me know what is going on. We keep records of people who come into the electorate office looking for assistance with housing particularly emergency accommodation providers. Today my team told me—and I am just going to quote from the email they sent through to me today—that currently there are no emergency housing units available in Christchurch. Further it went on to say that the Salvation Army is full and has waiting lists but cannot move people on to permanent housing.We all know that there is an issue with housing in the Canterbury region including affordability and affordability of rents. Our rents have moved over $100 a week in the last year. We matched that to census figures that came out from One News a few days ago that said there have been 700 more people living in temporary dwellings and overcrowded houses since the quakes. The census data also goes on to tell us there are 2200 people in Christchurch living in temporary accommodation up 50 percent from 2006 and 700 people living in mobile homes and makeshift shelters. Overcrowding has climbed with more than 25000 people living in crowded households.We in Labour say that there is a better way—that the answer actually lies in building more homes. To be fair the Minister of Housing has done some work in this regard. The Christchurch housing accord with the Christchurch City Council will bring some affordable rentals back into the market. But when I questioned the Minister—Hon Ruth Dyson: About time.POTO WILLIAMS: That is right; it is way past time actually Ruth Dyson. When I questioned the Minister at the select committee estimates discussion he could not tell me how many more affordable rentals the accord would bring and nor could he tell me when they were likely to start construction. This Minister has really proved to be slow in many areas. His own figures show that of the 700 new Housing New Zealand Corporation homes he promised to build a year ago he has built only 29.From the Ministry of Social Development we know that of course the number of people who are on priority waiting lists for Housing New Zealand Corporation homes at the last count was over 500. But of course we do not know what the new figures are because the Minister for Social Development has not been able to provide us with any figures since they moved the accessibility criteria to the Ministry of Social Development in mid-April.The Minister of Housing likes to quote consents as a measure of progress and I would just like to share some information about that as well. I have to say to be fair that Christchurch is currently experiencing the highest number of consents ever. Well what a surprise that would be!Iain Lees-Galloway: Why?POTO WILLIAMS: I wonder why! I think they are supposed to be building houses are they not? The average number of consents for the period the National Government has been in office though is 1647. Let us compare that with the historic average of 1926—this is annually—and compare it with the average of 2012 over the years 1999 to 2008. This obviously goes to show that we were starting from some deficit even before the quakes hit. That is significant because we are starting from way back past left field before we even consider how much we need to do to get us to pre-quake levels.The Minister says that the Canterbury region has to put up with housing unaffordability for at least another 5 years. So for 8½ years people in Canterbury will see their accommodation costs eat up more and more and more of their income. There is a better way.ALFRED NGARO (National):Kia orana Mr Chair. Meitaki. I rise to take a call in this estimates debate in regard to housing. I want to acknowledge my colleague over there Poto Williams who talked about the issues of Christchurch and Canterbury. The lessons from the Canterbury earthquakes are informing our work programme which is also focused on the provision of safe healthy and high-quality homes and buildings. I just want to acknowledge some of the lessons that have been learnt from that as well.I think what is important is that housing policy is one of the greatest challenges of our time. It matters because most of our Kiwi families know that the equity in their home is their greatest asset and that it has become increasingly difficult for families to buy and own their own home. I know that for myself. It was not in fact until my late 30s that my family and I were actually able to buy a home. I know how challenging and how difficult it is and the difficulty of that even in these times. That is one of the reasons that this Government has embarked on a comprehensive package of reforms that will make homes more affordable and reshape New Zealand’s approach to housing as well.I also want to talk about some of the things that we are doing with regard to those reforms. One of the things we have done is the immediate suspension of anti-dumping duties through the Budget night legislation—duties on plasterboard wire nails and reinforced steel bars—for 3 years from 1 July. The zero concessionary tariff is to be reviewed after 5 years and covers around 90 percent of the materials in a new home. It is expected to save $3500 in the construction of a standard home. What I do know is that for me for instance coming from a construction background as an electrician—in fact I could be one of the few tradespeople in Parliament—when constructing homes the cost of construction becomes critically important. One of the things I do know is that when you compare the cost for instance of building in regard to square metreage the costs in New Zealand are around $2200 per square metre in comparison with Australia’s which are around $1300. So if we can reduce those costs we know the difference that that can make; hence the issue of suspending tariffs is quite an important one. We know the savings that that can make is around $3500 in the construction costs of homes.The other thing we have done is put $64.3 million into new operating funding new capital funding for social housing needs and functions for the Ministry of Social Development. So the social housing sector also becomes quite critically important. We know that in areas like Maraenui and Pōmare and also over in Tāmaki even with the struggles they have had they are very important.Meka Whaitiri: Do you know where Maraenui is?ALFRED NGARO: Yes I do know where they are. I know that for instance the Glen Innes housing project started off from going down to Maraenui and seeing what was happening there—the work they had been doing in regard to engaging communities about the issues of housing. So that was really important as well. There are those of us who do engage with communities as well. So what we did learn from that is the importance of engaging in communities—in particular around the social housing sector. We know the importance of the role of the social housing sector; hence the reason we have engaged with it.A great project that has happened in our community—and you might not know about it Ms Whaitiri—is in Māngere. You might not know where it is but it is in Māngere. There is a project called the Matanikolo Housing Project. It is a Tongan project that is partnering with the Tongan community. They have this partnership where they have been able to build 22 homes so now the Tongan community has got this partnership with Lifewise a social housing provider along with the Government. In that partnership there is $4.3 million—Hon Ruth Dyson: How many times have we heard the same old story?ALFRED NGARO: Yes you can go like that but guess what? For all that talk here is a little bit of action that is really happening. And guess what is happening? This Tongan community is saying for the first time that it has got a sense of participation and ownership in dealing with the housing issues for its community. It is a great project making a difference.Meka Whaitiri: It’s too slow.ALFRED NGARO: Well it may be slow where you come from but I tell you what: where we come from over there in Māngere they are absolutely celebrating it. They are asking when the next project is. They are asking this Government when the next project is so that we can partnership together. They have the land and they need some opportunities. So our partnership with the social housing providers is absolutely making a difference. See that is the difference between this Government and that potential Government over there.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū):I came down to the Chamber to listen to that excellent contribution from my colleague Poto Williams but having had to sit through Alfred Ngaro’s—how do I describe it? It was “inciteful”—it was an incitement to disorder listening to the bland platitudes the justifications of that member. That is the member who claimed to come from Glen Innes in Auckland but he has been the worst—the champion the apologist who justifies the disgraceful behaviour of Housing New Zealand kicking out the elderly kicking out the disabled from homes they have lived in for decades. He is the apologist for that sort of awful behaviour that even a select committee unanimously criticised Housing New Zealand for. That member has been the apologist for that kind of behaviour. He stands there justifying the policies of this National-led Government which has done nothing about the housing affordability crisis. That member stands up there like a pious vicar justifying the complete failure of the National Government’s housing policy.There are no winners in the current housing crisis. Let us look at it. In Canterbury the near-criminal negligence the failure of this Government to actually get the residential rebuild going has seen fewer than 1000 of the 12000 to 15000 houses that are needed after the quake actually built after 3½ years. Mr Ngaro the party that you stand up for and justify in this Chamber is responsible for rents going up by more than 40 percent in Canterbury and people living in sleepouts and sleeping in cars. That is the policy that you are proud of. In Auckland this Government has presided over skyrocketing house prices. In the last year in Auckland house prices on average have gone up by $72000 because of this Government’s total failure to do anything meaningful about a dysfunctional failing housing market.First-home buyers all over the country have been locked out of the dream of homeownership by loan-to-value ratios of a 20 percent minimum deposit. If you are earning the median wage in a place like Ashburton or Masterton of something like $28000 and you are paying tax on it it is impossible to save the $60000 $70000 or $80000 deposit that you would have to have to even get in the door to talk to the bank manager about a mortgage. But Alfred Ngaro would not know about that; he would not care about that. He is too busy justifying the failure and inaction of this National-led Government.In the regions because of this Government’s failure to crack down on speculators people are losing equity in their homes. In Southland in the last year the average house price has gone down by $22000. There is no housing crisis in Southland. It is because of the failure of this Government to do anything about speculators in Auckland that people in Southland—the other half of the population who do not live in Auckland and Canterbury—are paying the price of that Government’s failure of a housing policy.There are 285000 kids living below the poverty line. More than half of those kids are living in substandard private rental accommodation. But the best this Government can do about it is a lame pilot scheme of its own State houses that it is too weak-kneed to ensure are properly insulated and are warm and dry. Instead of doing something about the private rental market where those kids are languishing in cold damp homes and ending up in hospital every winter Nick Smith tries to look like he is doing something by announcing a pilot scheme.Alfred Ngaro talked about a comprehensive programme on housing. There is nothing of the sort. What has this Government done in housing? The only thing it has got is a lame housing accord in Auckland that has resulted in zero new houses being built a year after that policy was announced. Not a single new house has been built in the special housing areas as a result of that Government’s housing accord in Auckland. What a total waste and a failure.The Government has been talking about reforming the Resource Management Act to speed up the consenting of residential development for the last 6 years. We have got something like 7 House sitting days left before the House rises and it looks like it probably will not even pass the legislation on reforming development contributions. It has announced that it is not prepared—Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier):Well we have just witnessed the first election debate for the seat of Te Atatū between Mr Phil Twyford and Mr Alfred Ngaro. In that debate we did see some anger from Mr Twyford so I think given that he is actually standing in a seat that is very much for the workers—and we are going to pitch an electrician a craftsman versus an administrator—it is going to be a very interesting battle in Te Atatū. But I want to focus on the positive work of this Government—I very much want to focus on the positive work of this Government.The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. There are members interjecting on each other who do not have the floor. It is not permitted in the people’s House.Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: Housing New Zealand provides decent affordable housing to those who are most in need and when they need it. It owns or manages 69000 properties across New Zealand housing around 200000 people.Today I want to acknowledge three people who have worked their guts out over the last 9 years for my electorate in Napier. They are sitting in the gallery tonight: Tania Wright Vicki Sanders and Sharon Coates. They have been my electorate agents over the last 9 years. Unfortunately they cannot come to my valedictory speech in a few weeks’ time but I just want to acknowledge the massive massive work that they have done over the last 9 years and throughout that period. Much of that work has been done with Housing New Zealand and serving people who have walked in our door irrespective of whom they have voted for—that is not a question we ask when you walk into my electorate office. They have been serving those people helping them when they are in tough situations and in a time of need and working very closely I might add with the fine people at Housing New Zealand. They have had to deal with many of the changes that this Government has instituted over the last 3 or 4 years.There have been some necessary things that we have needed to do with Housing New Zealand. The facts are pretty simple. There are three things. Firstly the demographics have changed significantly in terms of the requirements—what is required in terms of the houses and the composition of those houses. Families have changed in terms of what is required. So what we have been supplying through Housing New Zealand has not stacked up with those demographics.Secondly the quality of the housing in some cases—and in suburbs the likes of Maraenui—has been appalling. If you look at the one-up one-down homes the side-by-side homes that sit in that suburb many of them that have not been pulled down still remain cold wet damp and mouldy. They are a disgrace quite frankly and need to go or be changed. The third thing which has been the tough call that many in the House have struggled with but that we believe we need to get on top of is some of the outcomes that proliferate around the cluster of those homes that are wet and damp and terrible. Some of those outcomes are not pretty. Many in the likes of Maraenui have very strong gang affiliations. That perpetuates all sorts of outcomes including low employment low aspiration and high crime levels even amongst and within the community itself. In fact some of the highest crime levels in the country occur most repetitively within the lower socio-economic parts of the community. We make no excuses for looking to change and to make changes. We are doing that.I have got to say I was proud just a few weeks ago to take the Prime Minister into Maraenui and to take him to seven new homes that have been built in that wonderful suburb—seven brand new homes. They are pitched right beside some of the one-up one-down homes—the cold wet and damp ones—that are now fortunately not occupied any longer because they do not deserve to house people. But next door there are seven new homes and they achieved a six-star rating. To put that into perspective a new standard home built to current standards gets three to four stars. The one-up one-downs next door achieve only one star. They are a recipe for disaster for illness for sickness for bad health and for all sorts of things. Next door there are now seven homes which is the kind of stock that Housing New Zealand is now out there growing around the country with double glazing on the windows and insulation. I visited them as they were being built. They have massive insulation on the ceiling.Vote agreed to.Vote Communications agreed to.Vote EnvironmentMOANA MACKEY (Labour):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. I am very happy to take a call on Vote Environment and also the climate change aspects of the environment vote. I think it is fair to say that the environment is going to be one of the major issues of this election campaign. We have a Government that has a stated target of doubling agricultural exports by 2025 but at the same time tells us that it wants to see no further degradation of waterways. Well I am sorry I say to the Minister for the Environment but those two things do not go together. They cannot both happen. What we have is a Government that is happy to oversee further degradation of already very polluted waterways in pursuit of an economic target that will inflict massive environmental damage. It is a short-term sugar fix for people and farmers right now that will potentially mean that future generations will not be able to farm land in the same way that they do right now and that future generations will not be able to benefit from the enormous environmental wealth on which our economy is based. That is what this debate is about. It is about sustainability.It is not about whether or not we farm; it is about how we farm and where we farm because what we know is that we are having land types with extremely vulnerable soils being converted to dairying—lands that leech nutrients very quickly into waterways that are already overallocated and already polluted. This Minister says that is fine. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment did a report earlier this year where she talked about land use changes. For the first time she brought together two modelling tools that are well-known and that are very credible so that we could see what land use changes would look like in 2020 and therefore extrapolate from that the impact on waterways. What that showed was that with the settings the Minister has suggested for the National Objectives Framework within the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management the 2020 worst-case scenario that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment laid out in her report would not be stopped at all. There is nothing in that National Objectives Framework that would stop the worst-case scenario from happening.That is of deep concern to a country that is not only hugely reliant on a healthy environment—because I think Government members do not realise that without a healthy environment we do not have a healthy economy. It is not a trade-off between the two. We must protect our environment because without it we have no economy. It is as simple as that. It can be done. As I said this is not about whether we farm; it is about how we farm and it is about where we farm. That is a discussion that we should be having instead of unfortunately a proposed National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and a National Objectives Framework that will not stop further extreme degradation of our waterways.Labour has said that we will strengthen the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. We will bring back the national policy statement that we suggested when we were in Government. We do not want to see any further degradation of our waterways and we want to see remediation of those waterways that are already polluted. But that is not what this Government wants to do.So to compound it what the Government has decided is that we need sweeping Resource Management Act reforms. Apparently it is the Resource Management Act that is holding everything back. This is despite the fact that since 1991 our economy has grown 75 percent—since the Resource Management Act was implemented. It has hardly been held back by a piece of legislation that simply requires that the environmental impacts of economic activity are taken into consideration and managed. That is what the Resource Management Act does. That is what it is designed to do. It is not and was never meant to be an economic development Act yet that is what this Government wants to turn it into. The Minister says it is failing. That is despite the fact that our economy has grown by 75 percent since the Resource Management Act was introduced. Our population has grown by 25 percent since the Resource Management Act was introduced.I note the most recent survey of local authorities in terms of their performance on the Resource Management Act and bear in mind the Minister says this is a broken system that needs to be fixed. Do you know how many of the 34000 consents that were processed in the last financial year that was reviewed—and these reviews are done every 2 years—were processed on time? Ninety-seven percent were processed on time. Do you know how many were approved through this system that the Minister is trying to convince New Zealanders is holding our economy back? Ninety-five percent were approved. How many were appealed? It was 0.7 percent. How many were declined? It was 0.27 percent. I think you would struggle to find another piece of Government legislation that is working as well as the Resource Management Act.Labour agrees that process improvements can always be made to the Resource Management Act and we have no issue with that but we need to leave the basic fundamental values—the heart and soul of the Resource Management Act—alone. We have 20 years of case law that has been developed. If the Minister thinks that destroying 20 years of case law is going to provide certainty then she is absolutely off her rocker. It will do nothing more than provide huge uncertainty and environmental degradation. She has not actually shown or proved in any way that there is a problem that needs to be fixed.The Supreme Court has come to the rescue. In relation to the recent New Zealand King Salmon case the Minister had been saying: “Well the problem is you see the values and the hierarchy of principles in the Resource Management Act are being given a higher purpose in law than the national policy statements and planning documents like regional plans and district plans. That’s the problem so we need to amend Part 2 of the Resource Management Act.” Well Minister you do not need to because the Supreme Court has just completely turned that on its head and said that no that is not the case. In fact those planning documents where they use directive language do have precedence over Part 2 of the Resource Management Act. So rather than the Minister saying that these are technical changes that will bring the Resource Management Act into line with case law case law and the Minister are now heading very quickly in completely opposite directions—completely opposite directions.The Minister’s other argument is that the Resource Management Act is a sacred cow apparently—a sacred cow—that Opposition members are saying should never be touched. How ridiculous! I asked the Parliamentary Library to do a search. There is no other piece of legislation since 1991 that has been amended as many times as the Resource Management Act. Barely 18 months have gone by without a Resource Management Act amendment bill and that is appropriate. What we need however alongside it are the national policy statement and planning documents which can guide the Resource Management Act streamline processes and provide far more central government guidance. The Supreme Court has now given those planning documents a supremacy that is extremely helpful.I want to quickly come to the issue of climate change before my time runs out and just say I am so disappointed with this Government’s performance on climate change. This is actually about futureproofing our economy. We have to do this. This is not a “nice to have”; this is something that we have to do. We have to transition away from our heavy reliance on fossil fuels. The longer we leave it the more difficult it becomes the more expensive it becomes and we miss the amazing opportunities that are out there right now. There are countries around the world that are crying out for low-carbon solutions and crying out for low-carbon goods and services. This is our natural area. This is our natural strength and what are we doing? Nothing. In 2007 John Key said that we need to be ahead of the game on this that we need to realise that we will become trading pariahs if we do not bring agriculture into the scheme and that we need to capitalise on the enormous potential and opportunities for New Zealand as a country that has—or used to have—an enormously high reputation in this area. We are being overtaken by countries like Denmark which is seeing these opportunities and rapidly advancing towards it for the betterment of its economy.The National Government says that it wants an emissions trading scheme but it does not want a price on carbon. That is utterly ridiculous. Why would you have an emissions trading scheme the sole purpose of which is to price carbon if you did not want a price on carbon? Then the Government makes up some ridiculous figure that it will cost $500 extra a year to have a proper price on carbon. That is utter garbage that is being made up. Do you know what? If the Government had transparency around carbon pricing and stopped the price-gouging that it knows is going on by electricity and fuel companies which would drop the price of carbon actually the overall cost would not be that much to businesses and households at all. Of course what we are doing is incentivising low-carbon products by giving them a price advantage. That is the point of a price on carbon. The Government has allowed cheap units to flood into our emissions trading scheme collapsing the price of carbon and damaging our forestry sector. That is the one sector that did all the heavy lifting over the last 6 years. The only reason that we came out positive in the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol and did not face a massive bill was forestry. Our gross emissions kept going up. We were just planting enough forests to more than mitigate that.Well in 2020 those forests come down and because of the Government’s climate change policies we are not replanting the forests. We will face a massive massive bill. If there is a post-2020 agreement there is a real risk that it may be unaffordable for New Zealand to enter that agreement—that is if we do not do something about planting more forestry and reducing our gross greenhouse gas emissions right now. Can you imagine how devastating it would be for our reputation if the mess that this Government leaves is so bad that we have to equivocate on whether or not we are able to enter into a post-2020 agreement? The Government’s climate change plan is 0.4 percent difference from doing nothing at all.MAGGIE BARRY (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee):I rise to speak on Vote Environment in the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill and I speak with great enthusiasm about our environmental and conservation measures. The last speaker Moana Mackey outlined very clearly the great philosophical void and enormous divide that exists between our two parties. I am passionate about the environment. I work for a Government that is also passionate about the environment and does excellent and remarkable things to safeguard it. That is why I joined National. That is why I approve ultimately of all of the activities that our Minister for the Environment Amy Adams and our Minister of Conservation Dr Nick Smith have put in place.Let us take a few of the proposals and achievements that we are putting through over the next little while and there are a lot more to come. Expect some big announcement about fresh water and ensuring good water quality in the lead-up to this election because that is something of an absolute priority. I agree with what the Opposition members say—it is a priority. Where we absolutely disagree is the way we want to achieve it. We are not about rhetoric. We are not about mad words that promise lots and deliver nothing. We are not about peddling things that are absolutely impossible to deliver. You cannot manage what you cannot measure. We measure it we look it and we make policies that really do ensure that our freshwater resources which are precious are replenishable. They are not unlimited though; we need to look after them.There are no quick-fix solutions to the problems with our waterways. There is no magic Labour wand or Green wish-it-were-so policy that will change the inevitable. What we have done as a Government is to address the substance and to put together packages and clean-ups that will lead to a more productive and sustainable use of our freshwater resources not only for our farmers whom I am sick of hearing being demonised. Dirty dairying—really and truly you start to lose the will to live when you hear the way that people try with captions and slogans to demonise and vilify one group in society. People are trying extremely hard to come up with practical solutions. That is something that happens when you have a Minister for the Environment who is also a farmer because she understands and knows the practical day-to-day realities of actually running a farm and dealing with it.Let us look at some of the reforms that we have established to date. The Land and Water Forum—what an extraordinary thing. Imagine getting all the enemies of the environment climate change and conservation all in one room and that they talk together. In the 9 long years of the Labour Government it was considered to be an incredibly unlikely scenario and one not even worth trying. By 2009 we had formed the Land and Water Forum and as Dr Nick Smith has done and has put some extraordinarily good work into we have managed to maintain a level of collaboration where you do get together people who want the same thing which is the betterment of our environment. They come to the table and they give a little and they gain a little and they get the job done. That is what the Land and Water Forum has done.Let us look at the stakeholders and the way they have done the groundbreaking research. There probably is not actually time for me to go into the Land and Water Forum’s achievements in any great detail but look at the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. That came in in 2011 and it gave councils a clear pathway and a national direction for the first time on how to set limits to achieve water management objectives. You need to be able to look at this sensibly and to take the emotion out of the argument and that is what has been done. The development of that National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management provided a robust scientifically backed set of attributes to help communities plan to meet their particular objectives. Hold the front page—it is not that difficult an idea but it is a concept that the Opposition parties seem unable to grasp. Maybe it is just politics but we put that to one side because the environment matters to us.We have put about $101 million recently on to water clean-ups and have committed a further $350 million which is a fivefold increase in funding and that is just for lake and river clean-ups. This is where it counts and this is where it matters. Put the empty rhetoric aside. In the latest Budget a further $12 million in extra funding will be spent over the next 4 years again to help councils and communities come together to plan and make decisions about their own problems—looking local and using local solutions and working together with that breadth of knowledge. I have seen it recently with the Kaikōura (Te Tai-o-Marokura) Marine Management Bill. We had a collaborative approach there which has been done over—oh I do not know—15 years in total but very seriously for the past 7 years. That is a workable solution that was ultimately embraced by the Greens and by Labour and the Supplementary Order Papers and the debate I guess when the bill comes back to the House will settle any points of difference. We believe as a Government—this National John Key-led Government—in collaboration and it works with the environment.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Vote Environment for 2014-15 totals over $313 million and 61 percent of that relates to the Ministry for the Environment’s climate change responsibilities and my colleague Kennedy Graham will comment on that. But 39 percent of the vote is for other aspects of environmental management and a significant chunk of that covers fresh water. The Ministry for the Environment gets $14 million to provide advice and implement tools for water management.We live in a country that is shaped by more than 180000 kilometres of rivers. Some of them are deep and swift and others like the Waimakariri have wide beds that spread into many strands on the plains. Some like the Tarawera start in lakes and others have their headwaters in the snowfields of the Southern Alps. We New Zealanders love our rivers. They inspire us with their beauty and power as places to go fishing and kayaking as a source of kai or for their own sake. Nine high-profile New Zealanders including musicians Tiki Taane Maisey Rika artist Grahame Sydney photographer Craig Potton and comedienne Michele A’Court and 2000 other New Zealanders have signed an open letter to the environment Minister calling on her to get tough on water pollution. New Zealanders want the Minister and her ministry to introduce strong standards to protect water quality and reduce the pollution load that intensive land use puts on our rivers.I understand that tomorrow the Minister will release the Government’s final decisions on the National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. That national policy statement is the major policy document under the Resource Management Act and it influences how our rivers streams lakes and aquifers are managed and how councils control land use that affects water quality. But National has no plan for clean rivers. Under this Minister and this National Government the Ministry for the Environment has proposed weak national bottom lines for water quality that will allow more water pollution. We have got high limits on pollutants such as nitrogen and faecal coliform. Why? So that irrigation and dairy intensification can continue to expand.Hon Christopher Finlayson: Why do you talk such nonsense?EUGENIE SAGE: Mr Finlayson is interjecting. Mr Finlayson last November when National released the proposed changes to the national policy statement they were widely criticised. The Fish and Game Council said the national bottom lines for water quality would allow New Zealand rivers to become some of the most polluted in the OECD. It described them as an abject failure that in its words legitimised the worst farm nitrate pollution we have in New Zealand now and allowed water pollution to increase by five to 15 times over current levels.Shane Ardern: Who said that?EUGENIE SAGE: It was not just the Fish and Game Council; it was also the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. She said that the National Objectives Framework did not go far enough to address the most widespread pervasive and immediate pressure which is the rapidly increasing nutrient loads from land use change.In the last 5 years the amount of irrigated land in New Zealand has increased by an area the size of Lake Taupō and Lake Te Ānau combined. An extra 60000 hectares in Canterbury have been irrigated covering an area the size of Lake Taupō. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Parliament’s environmental watchdog wants the Government to increase the measures in the national policy statement so that regional councils regulate land use change to prevent more nutrient leaching more faecal contamination and more water pollution. But National prioritises irrigation development and intensive land use over rivers that are clean enough to swim in. There is no limit to the novel food products and the jobs we can create if we use our intelligence if we focus on research and development and if we add value to the milk we currently produce but there is a limit on the number of dairy cows we can put on the land. The Green Party recognises this; National does not. In areas like Lake Taupō we have reached that limit.More than 90 percent of the 7000 submitters on the Government’s proposed changes to the national policy statement called for a health standard that ensured that rivers were clean enough to swim in. The Green Party would introduce standards that provided that. When the Minister announces her changes tomorrow I would love to see a change in that standard to ensure that our rivers are clean enough to swim in but given that National prioritises irrigation I doubt that we will see that.Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment):It is a great privilege to take a call on Vote Environment in the estimates debate for this year. I think that the National Government can stand here incredibly proud of what we have done in the environment space in the last year. I am happy to go toe to toe with anyone in this Parliament on our actual record. Leaving aside all the hand-wringing rhetoric and the tired old clichés and the thinly veiled hatred of farmers that those members hide under their rhetoric in actual action on the ground this is a Government that has delivered in every single component that makes up the environment portfolio.We have heard a lot about fresh water but what I can tell you is this. This is the Government that put in place a National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management. This is the Government that is going to introduce for the first time nationally required bottom lines. This is the Government that required regional councils to make sure that water quality is always maintained or improved. This is the Government that spent five times what the previous Government spent on water clean-ups. This is the Government that required for the first time metering of large irrigation consents. This is the Government that is putting this country on a path to cleaner better more sustainable fresh water.But here is the difference. This is also a Government that recognises that New Zealanders want jobs they want a high standard of living and they want all the things that the taxes from our productive sector pay for. So we are not going to do it in a way that kills the golden goose. We are not going to slam the door on business. We are not going to demonise anyone who commits the unforgiveable sin of actually running a business being profitable and creating a job. We are going to say: “Let’s do it in a way that achieves both.”Unlike the Labour speaker Moana Mackey who said that you absolutely could not have clean water and increase agriculture we do not accept that. We believe that you can. In fact we know you can. We have seen it happening. New Zealand farmers New Zealand business people and New Zealanders as a whole are the most innovative the most clever and the most creative people in the world and they are already adapting and they are already showing that you can absolutely farm in a way that is more profitable that is more successful and that significantly reduces their environmental impact. That is what we back and that is absolutely what we are going to see happen. [Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): Order! Sorry to interrupt the Minister. It is happening again. Members who do not have the floor and who interject on each other because they have a disagreement—that is not permitted in the people’s House. If you want to interject then you can interject on the speaker on my right but not on each other.Hon AMY ADAMS: That same approach of talking one game and then not following through is seen throughout Labour’s approach. So let us look at the Resource Management Act. Again we heard Moana Mackey railing against this but here is what I would say. If the Labour Party wants to go to the electorate on a platform that there is nothing wrong with the Resource Management Act bring it on. Bring it on because I can tell you that every single public satisfaction survey that is done on how the public find our services across national and local government consistently rates the Resource Management Act not only as a fail but as having the lowest rating of every single service. So if Labour wants to campaign against us on the basis that the Resource Management Act is working really well and we are happy with it I welcome it.Again here is the difference. We understand that our planning laws absolutely have to protect our environment. They absolutely have to care about the water the soil and the air that we all enjoy and need in order to live. But also we recognise that people care about jobs houses and infrastructure. Labour suggests that our planning laws are not even allowed to make reference to the importance of land for housing or the importance of creating new economic growth opportunities and it then has the audacity to come to this Committee and say: “Where are the jobs and what are you doing about housing?” when it has blocked every single opportunity in this House to back us on sensible reform that would put things like housing infrastructure and natural hazard management—that is all we want to put in it—right at the heart of the Resource Management Act. But according to the Opposition you are allowed to ask only whether there will be any negative impact. That is all you are allowed to ask. Never mind that people actually need houses to live in. They need houses to live in and this Government recognises it.Let us have a look at the exclusive economic zone. Here is another great example right? The exclusive economic zone. What happened under Labour and the Greens? They drilled as many holes as they wanted out there and do you know what the process was? Their energy Minister signed it off. That is it. That was the entire economic and environmental assessment—one energy Minister signed it in his office. Under the National-led Government we have for the first time a strong environmental impact assessment before anything can happen in our exclusive economic zone. And for all the people on the Opposition benches who screamed that this was some sham rubber-stamp process how is that looking now? We have a strong independent very detailed oversight of anyone who wants to operate in our exclusive economic zone. Yes we do want to see development but only if they can meet that very high threshold. It is a high bar—Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green):Tēnā koe Mr Chairman. This is a Government whose 2014 estimates contain a time bomb of fiscal deficit over the next two decades through a failure in carbon budgeting. This is a Government whose climate change policy is a mess. It has paltry targets with no plan to attain them. It has weak policy settings so emitters have no incentive to change and that I say to the Minister for the Environment will kill the golden goose. But even worse is the failure to convey to the taxpayer the fiscal costs that its climate policy will impose on future generations. The emissions trading scheme under current settings aspires to manage fiscal risk primarily through forestry and the harvesting of trees is therefore fully priced. But the impact of the emissions trading scheme on other sectors is softened by compensation the gifting of units and the exclusion of an entire sector that makes up half of our emissions.In 1992 New Zealand undertook to reduce emissions. Since then its emissions have soared and are projected to continue to do so out to 2050. What is the fiscal effect of that? New Zealand has committed to three emission targets: 2008-12 2020 and 2050. By drawing straight lines between these targets the Government sets a primitive kind of national carbon budget. It calculates the annual emissions within those lines and then compares the limits with the projected emissions to find the excess. For the period 2013-50 Treasury projects that under current policy settings excess emissions will total around about 1 billion tonnes of emissions. Net emissions will more than double the Government’s target in 2050.One way or another this excess has to be paid for. This Government refused to enter a binding commitment under Kyoto II so we face no financial penalty if we fail and exceed our 2020 target but after 2020 there will certainly be an international carbon price of some kind and it will rise fast. It cannot be otherwise. The British climate commission assumes that international prices will rise from about US$50 to US$150 a tonne during that decade. There will be a binding obligation on emission limits by then and a financial penalty of some kind for exceeding them. At US$25 a tonne the external carbon budget deficit for New Zealand will amount to maybe US$30 billion. Imagine the fiscal hurdles for the next generation when we might be paying up to six times that price.In 2 months voters choose which party will govern for the next 3 years. They have two considerations: security for themselves and a future for their kids. This is a Government that flaunts a reduction of current account deficit next year and ignores the future. But the fiscal debt from current climate change policy will be simply horrendous—a major financial haemorrhage in the 2020s. Because our accounting methods are inadequate this is hidden from the taxpayer and the voter. The principle of carbon responsibility is lost on this Government. The Public Finance Act requires the Government to manage fiscal risk with prudence. How is the public going to judge the Government on that basis?This is a Government that misrepresents the facts to the public. Over the past month it has derided the Green Party’s proposal for a carbon tax claiming that our tax would be five times the global price. What pure rubbish! There is no single global price; there is a range of international prices. So how does the Green price level compare? The Green proposal is for US$22 a tonne for carbon dioxide and US$11 for biological emissions. So how does this compare with international prices? Well there is China Quebec California and France at US$10 then there is the UK at US$16 Australia at US$22 Finland at US$48 Switzerland at US$68 Tokyo at US$95 and Sweden at US$168. So our proposal sits very comfortably within the carbon price range overseas. This is a Government whose estimates along with its spin are misleading tendentious and dangerous.Vote agreed to.Vote Primary IndustriesHon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries):It is great to take a call in this debate on the appropriations. I want to say what a fantastic year it has been for primary industries. Just in the last couple of weeks we have released a document the Situation and Outlook for Primary Industries 2014 which records that our primary sector is in boom times—a nearly $38 billion return. Is that not fantastic?Andrew Little: Why are you ripping off farm workers?Hon NATHAN GUY: Andrew Little chips in. He would not know one end of a cow from the other even though he is standing in the New Plymouth electorate. Labour does not care about the rural communities. I want to take Andrew Little and Labour and the Green Party through why the primary sector is so vitally important to the New Zealand economy. As I was saying $38 billion was returned from our exporters in our primary industries this year. Is that not fantastic? Dairy is up to around $17 billion. Meat and wool are up to and through $8 billion which is fantastic and is forecast to return 22 percent out to 2018. Then of course we have the forestry sector. There are boom record times for it—$5.1 billion. Horticulture is going strongly with $3.6 billion in terms of its exports. It is forecast to go to $4 billion by 2016. And we should not forget about our seafood exporters who do a fantastic job of producing a quality product that goes all around the world at $1.45 billion.But of course we cannot have a big-growth target of doubling our exports to $64 billion by 2025 without focusing on protecting our primary industries and that is why I am excited about Vote Primary Industries. It is strengthening the core systems for biosecurity and for food safety. We are putting more resources into our overseas footprint. I want to talk specifically about biosecurity because it is my No. 1 priority as Minister for Primary Industries. We have doubled the funding since 2000 in biosecurity and there is more funding in this Budget. What we have also done is roll out 12 new X-ray machines. We have trained more front-line quarantine inspectors—125 were trained in the last 18 months including new dog detector teams. What we have also done is introduce Government-industry agreements and we have had the first signing of the deed with the kiwifruit industry.What we have also done in just the last few weeks is announce $65 million for a new biocontainment facility at Wallaceville in the Hutt Valley. It has gone down fantastically well with those in the primary sector because they know that we need to have our testing regime up to international best practice. They know that $20 billion worth of animals and animal product exports is the result of our farmers and the fantastic work that they do. This is the insurance premium and policy for the next 30 years for our primary sector—to know that we have world-leading and best-practice scientists doing the testing for exotic animal diseases.The other important thing is of course that we have the opportunity to grow Māori agribusiness in New Zealand. We did a study about a year and a half ago that confirmed that 1.5 million hectares in New Zealand is Māori freehold land and the opportunity for Māori to work closely with the Government to lift their overall performance is huge. We are talking about $8 billion in terms of export returns and we are talking about 3600 jobs.The Green Party and Labour do not like talking about irrigation because they do not believe in it. They do not believe in rural communities. They do not believe in jobs and exports but we on this side of the Chamber do. We believe that irrigation is good.David Shearer: Subsidies.Hon NATHAN GUY: We believe that irrigation is good and I will tell you why. Mr Shearer might be interested in this because he would not understand rural communities. There are 400000 hectares of land that could be under irrigation that is not under it currently and the size of the prize here is $4 billion. The other important thing about irrigation is that it is good for the environment and the reason it is good for the environment is that you take the pressure off the aquifers. You can store water—we collect and store only 2 percent of the water in this country; the other 98 percent goes into the streams and rivers and heads out to sea—and we have got numerous cases up and down the country particularly in the South Island where as a result of irrigation rural towns have been repopulated and schools have benefited as have businesses and the New Zealand economy.SHANE ARDERN (Chairperson of the Primary Production Committee):Thank you for the opportunity to contribute in this debate. It is interesting to follow on from the Minister for Primary Industries who talked about the opportunities coming from irrigation. If you had been listening earlier to the debate on the estimates for environmental portfolios you would have thought that this was going to be the end of the environment in New Zealand when in fact the opposite could not be more the case if you look at science and of course we are asking people to look at science—which is a step too far for more or less two-thirds of the Opposition as far as I can tell.We are asking people to look at actual scientific evidence and the reality is this. When irrigation was developed in the upper part of the South Island in the Kaikōura and Nelson regions during the late 1970s and early 1980s large amounts of land were developed for viticulture. So I guess what we are saying is that those grapevines should go and that land should revert back to what was there prior to the pinot and the sauvignon blanc being planted and then we would be in a much better position because the automatic presumption is that if you irrigate land it is all going to go into dairying. That in itself would not be a bad thing because there is plenty of technology now to mitigate the types of environmental effects that they talk about. In fact if they had gone to the Fieldays—and I invite the Green Party to look at this technology—and had a look at some of the new innovation that was on display there in regard to environmentally sustainable use of land and water they would not hold this Luddite position that they have.So let us just have a look at what actually has been achieved in the dairy sector in the primary industries area in the last wee while. The Dairying and Clean Streams Accord—87 percent of the streams rivers and lakes and 90 percent of the races or access ways for cattle have now been fenced and bridged. No other industry has achieved that in that time. Ninety-nine percent of dairy farms have nutrient budgets. I am not asking those who are in the Chamber to understand what that means but what it basically means is that all nutrients that are applied are budgeted for and calculated against what is used. It is not very hard to understand. There is a warrant of fitness system for dairy effluent management which is controlled both by the regional councils and the dairy companies that they supply. Dairy effluent non-compliance is less than 10 percent nationally and coming down. It is substantially reducing each year.There is research for reducing greenhouse gas emissions based on science once again and New Zealand’s investment in this area is world-leading. Why do we not hear the Greens or Labour touching on that from time to time? Dairy companies are implementing stringent criteria in terms of their supply regimes.Why do we not hear from the Labour members who I know are passionate about increasing wages about what has actually happened in terms of dairy worker wage limits or wage rises in recent times? Why do we not hear about the stories of young couples now in that sector who are earning $130000—what they call the total value package? Why do we not hear about that? The majority of them in the larger operations in a mid-management position are earning that money and more and some are earning up to $300000 and $400000. When do we hear about that? When does the Green Party talk about that?Why do we not hear about the massive investment that is going on in local communities in philanthropic ways through the likes of milk in schools for example—that is one starting point—as well as all the local investment that goes on in small towns and communities in regard to philanthropic activity? It is all driven on the back of investment in our primary sectors.Why is it that we constantly hear the negative carping in the background from our Opposition? Why do we not start celebrating the areas that we are good in? Why do we not get over the fact that we are an agricultural nation and we depend on our agricultural sector? Seventy-two percent of our export earnings come from the agricultural sector. I cannot help it if two-thirds of the members in this House do not like that—I cannot help it—but it does not change the fact. If they do want to develop something else to replace it please do. But let us not pretend there is some silver bullet. This is a sector that will grow the New Zealand economy faster than any other sector.DAVID SHEARER (Labour - Mt Albert):I want to say that this is the first year I have not been to Fieldays. I have been to it for the past 4 years. I can tell you that the same thing happens to me every time I go there. Somebody will come up to me and say: “You know we in the rural sector always do better under Labour.” They always say that. I am telling you this is what people say. I say to them: “Well why don’t you vote Labour?”. “No no I still vote National.” I do not get it but anyway that is what they tell us.There are a lot of people who have been sitting here if they have not gone to sleep listening to the last two speakers and who are in front of their TVs waiting for that cold spell to come up New Zealand. They are thinking about whether they will have to turn up their heaters a little bit more in order to stay warm. A lot of them are thinking: “I’m not sure whether I can afford to do that.” The power prices they know have gone up 20 percent—20 percent—in the last 4 years under a Government that said it was going to bring those power prices down. That is four times faster than inflation—four times faster than inflation—that power prices have been going up.Here is the interesting thing about that. When Labour was in power—and yes I agree that power prices went up then—the demand for power was rising at an ever-increasing—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are actually on Vote Primary Industries.DAVID SHEARER: Are we? I thought he was talking about energy.Hon Nathan Guy: We use electricity though.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!DAVID SHEARER: So you want to put the motion do you?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Yes so the member has just lost a call unfortunately because we are on Vote Primary Industries and I think the member was—DAVID SHEARER: Can I carry on on primary industries in relation to energy?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You can talk about primary industries. Otherwise you have just lost the call because what you have done is you have actually taken a call. I am happy for you to continue but you must relate it to primary industries.DAVID SHEARER: The thing about these power prices going up is that it is affecting farmers right across the country. In every dairy shed in every processing plant these farmers are being affected by electricity prices going up at four times the rate of inflation. It is not just the urban areas; it is the rural areas. It is affecting the farmers who are the backbone of this country. They are being hit harder than anybody else. This is Economics 101. When demand falls prices should fall but instead farmers all across New Zealand throughout the rural sector are paying more for their electricity than they ever have before.Hon Simon Bridges: Let’s be honest. You wouldn’t have a clue.DAVID SHEARER: Do not interrupt me Mr Bridges.Hon Simon Bridges: Let’s be honest.DAVID SHEARER: Let us be honest? That would be a change—that would be a change—because today all we have heard is the exact opposite of that. Your Minister of Foreign Affairs stood up and told a whole lot of rubbish about what has been going on.I come back to the rural community. Farmers deserve to have transparency around their power bills. They want to know how much of their power being delivered is being charged to them from the electricity companies and how much is being charged to them from the lines companies. In that member’s area many of those lines companies are coming to people and saying that they are paying too much when it is actually the electricity companies in those members’ electorates in those rural areas that depend so heavily on funding.What have we got? We have got falling demand and rising prices that are hitting the farming community right across New Zealand. Sixty percent of our power is coming from hydroelectricity generated in some of those farming and rural areas—60 percent of power is coming from there. We have paid for those dams over and over and yet we are still paying far more for our electricity than just about anywhere else in the Western World.We are just asking for a fair deal—we are just asking for a fair deal. People are sitting at home right now watching this debate on television thinking twice about turning up their heater in order to stay warm and knowing that if they do their power bill will be through the roof. I feel for them because this Government has raised those prices four times faster than inflation at a time when demand for electricity is falling. If you know anything about economics that is absolutely wrong. Thank you.STEFFAN BROWNING (Green):I rise to speak on Vote Primary Industries mostly in response to hearing what seemed to be waffle from the Government side. I was going to speak on food safety because of the shortfalls in food safety and the many things that that Minister for Food Safety is not doing—and should be doing—in her role but we will come back to that.The Minister spoke clearly about his priority in biosecurity and I commend him for having that as a priority. But what I am not seeing is real delivery in biosecurity. What we are seeing are things that make us still very very nervous in terms of incursions into this country. Inspections are way way too low. Containers once were inspected right round them. Containers are now maybe inspected on four sides of them and then it is random enough at that although it is based on an improving system through the joint work of the Customs Service and Ministry for Primary Industries.The problem is that we then allow retailers wholesalers and importers to inspect their own containers and how crazy is that when those same people have a conflict of interest? They have got a vested interest in having the goods out of that container and out on to the shelves in shops and things. If they see something are they going to report it to the Ministry for Primary Industries? And even then is the Ministry for Primary Industries going to do a decent job?I have mentioned to the Minister before about theileria a particular strain of theileria. This Government allowed this cattle disease to get loose which is costing millions and it will cost millions for ever because it allowed the disease to get loose and to spread. At the same time Government members were chortling that they are ready for foot-and-mouth disease should it come here. That was a prime example of what they might have used to actually test their systems. They have no reason to be confident. New Zealanders have no reason to be confident that they can really control foot-and-mouth disease should it come here.I am pleased there is more and more work being done on it and the report expresses that. But there was a prime opportunity to jump on a very—how shall I say—effective protozoan parasite in cattle and use that as an example. What have we got the National Animal Identification and Tracing system for if you could not use that for animal controls and to get on top of that pest? That happened within this Parliament and this Minister has to share some of the blame for that. That one is just one.But one that also concerns me is another part—the genetic engineering in some laboratories. That is where we think genetic engineering should be but there was a breach—and the breach was back in early 2013—of a genetically modified fungus out of Lincoln University. But it is the Ministry for Primary Industries that has the responsibility for monitoring and making sure these facilities are working within the constraints of their conditions. We have been chasing the information on the report of the investigation on that for so so long and the Minister has ducked and dived and tried not to supply it. I wonder why? The report showed that for 3 years Lincoln University had inadvertently got GE fungus and was even potentially putting it out into apple orchards and Pinus radiata nurseries in this country because it has been poorly supplied by AgResearch.It is the Ministry for Primary Industries that has failed in monitoring and keeping an eye on that. Can we trust the Ministry for Primary Industries and the current Minister and this current Government to be doing better than this? We still have not got the final report on this released. Have we got confidence? No we have not got confidence because they have not been able to supply the report to the people who are caring about it the people who are very very concerned. The research was fine. The research had good intent.Vote agreed to.Vote Commerce and Consumer Affairs agreed to.Vote Energy agreed to.Vote LabourANDREW LITTLE (Labour):It is a great pleasure to take a call on this very important part of the estimates. It was frankly a bit rich when the various farming or former farming members opposite stood before the Committee under a different vote a short while ago to boast about the great achievements in the farming sector and the great wealth being generated in that sector for this great country of ours. But they did not mention one thing about the role that the Minister of Labour played in ensuring that farm workers on the minimum wage now get paid less than the minimum wage for 1 week out of every fortnight on their “12 and 2” work roster.What a disgraceful action by the Minister of Labour. What a shameful thing by this Government. Government members say they like the rural sector. They say they look after people in the rural sector and in the provinces. They do not give a damn about the hard-working people—the hard-working people who are out there early in the morning doing the milking doing the hard graft on the farms putting up the fences getting a tractor out doing the feeding-out in the bitter cold weather that we have at the moment. This Government does not care a toss about those people and it quite happily reduces their wages because it wants to please the big wealthy rich farm owners. Well it is shocking. It is shocking and it is the farm labourers who are turning up to the offices of Labour MPs saying: “What gives? What’s going on?”. What possible law could there be that allows a Minister at the stroke of a pen to take $100 a fortnight off hard-working farm labourers? What a shocking thing.Well the truth is this. We might have a Minister of Labour but we have an appallingly dysfunctional labour market at the moment—46 percent of hard-working New Zealanders cannot get a pay rise in a single year alone and 49 percent of employers in a survey last week said they will not give a pay rise to their staff this year. And yet members opposite sit in the chair they stand opposite and they crow about the great economic growth. It was 3.2 percent a year about 3 months ago. Now it is up to 3.8 percent. Who knows how big it will be in a couple of months’ time when they are on the hustings.But here is the catch. We have a great growing economy—some people are doing well; some people are doing extraordinarily well—but 46 percent of hard-working New Zealanders cannot get a pay rise and the Minister does not care. The Minister does not care. He is the Minister of Labour. One of his prime responsibilities is to make sure that we have a wage-setting system and that people are fairly rewarded. That is what we expect in a properly functioning labour market. But we have a Minister who does not care that half the workforce cannot get a decent pay rise and that half of employers are saying they are not going to pay any more. So we are in a pretty diabolical situation.We know that the income gap is getting worse. We know that inequality is getting worse in this country. We now have the lowest level of homeownership since 1951 because people cannot afford houses. Housing affordability is not just an issue about house pricing; it is about wages and incomes and wages and incomes in this country have been getting worse and worse for a larger and larger number of people. It is getting worse.We have a labour inspectorate under this Minister that with this Budget is stretched to breaking point trying to keep up with the breaches and the non-compliance amongst employers in this country. It tried to do a blitz on farms. It was a random blitz on various farms and do you know what it found? There was 93 percent non-compliance with the basic minimum statutory standards of employment—93 percent. Then we have a Minister who bends over backwards to encourage farming employers to pay $100 a fortnight less than they would otherwise have to pay. No wonder the farmers think they have got carte blanche to not comply with the basic minimum standards of our employment law. That is the culture of employment standards in this country today. We have a Government that cuddles up to that licks up and down farmers who want nothing more than to pay their farm labourers less and the Government wonders why it gets 93 percent non-compliance amongst the farming community.Everything this Government has done when it comes to employment and labour market regulation makes it harder and makes it worse for working people to get ahead and to get a decent pay rise. Every law that this Government has promoted and passed in the last 6 years has made it harder for working people to get ahead and to get a pay rise. It started with the silly 90-day law. One-third of employers have now signed up to it two-thirds cannot be bothered with it because they know it is bad law they know it is bad practice and they know it is dumb and there is no employer who can point to the fact as this Government claims that they have created a job as a result of it—not a one.Law changes like that do not create jobs; all they do is make life harder. There are good responsible and sensible employers saying: “Of course we want to be able to take people on a trial basis but we know that to do that responsibly we should do it under the probationary law that is still on our statute book.” We know that that law requires the employer—a responsible fair and sensible employer—to provide feedback to treat the worker as if they are actually a human being and to treat them with respect unlike the 90-day law which does not.When the Government surveyed workers who had been employed under the 90-day law it could not find a single one who said that they had got any feedback at all on their so-called trial period because what was blatantly obvious is that those workers were not being trialled in the job. They were not being trialled; they were just being manipulated and exploited and kicked out the door as soon as the employer decided they no longer wanted them or needed them. That is the standard that employment law has come to in this country.The Minister bends over backwards to make it easy for employers to rip off their workers. He is a Minister who does not care frankly about basic employment standards. He is a Minister who does not care about freedom of association. He is a Minister who does not care about freedom of choice—which workers are meant to have according to the international agreements we have signed up to—to belong to or form a trade union. This Minister and this Government do not care.So that is why things are getting worse for workers in this country. That is why they are looking around saying: “How on earth is it that this Government could get here and be allowed to mistreat so many workers for so long?”. It is time to bring that to an end.I want to turn briefly to health and safety because that is very important to this country as we all know. We have all learnt a terrible and tragic lesson with Pike River and this Government has taken on the task to reform and revamp our health and safety laws. It is a pity however that in the spirit of this Government bending over backwards to help employers it could not bring itself to make WorkSafe New Zealand a tripartite organisation. It is meant to be modelled on the similar organisation in the UK which is truly tripartite but this Government could not bring itself to do that. It was just one step too far. So when we look at WorkSafe New Zealand we know that it needs to be properly supported. It will need more inspectors if it is to do its job properly and it will need to work pretty hard to get employers on board to deal with worker participation making sure that workers have a proper and fulsome say on health and safety issues in the workplace. That is the only way they are going to get safe—working collaboratively cooperatively and sensibly with their employers even though some employers are resistant to it. Even though some employers do not want workers to have a real say on workplace health and safety we know that the only way to reduce the atrocious record that has built up in this country is to make sure that workers can have a say with impunity and without fear and have a real say on how health and safety is managed in their workplace and in their environs. That is absolutely essential.If there is any shortcoming in that regard then we will have to fix that up. The shorter answer is this: when it comes to labour market regulation and the institutions responsible for overseeing it we can do better—we can do better. Unfortunately—or perhaps fortunately; I do not know—it will not be with this Government. It will not be with this Government if we want to improve our performance lift wages for all New Zealanders and make sure that all people get treated fairly and properly at work so that they can have a good constructive relationship with their employer based on true collaboration and cooperation and on a genuine mutual respect so that their choices and the way they choose to bargain and negotiate with their employer have to be respected by that employer.That is what the legal framework must deliver so that we have a good fair system which fairly rewards and treats people fairly. New Zealanders expect nothing less neither do we and that is why we on this side of the Chamber will be delivering that. New Zealanders have been waiting 6 years for it.Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour):What a speech of petty point-scoring from the Opposition member Andrew Little. It absolutely missed the big picture and the great reforms that this Government has taken forward for workers and employers alike over the last several years. Talk about the language we are hearing from Labour people at the moment. Talk about not giving a damn or a toss. It was not as bad as David Shearer who swore on national radio this morning. My delicate ears could not take the kind of language we are getting from these members. It is clearly showing the stress that they are under.This Government is doing a whole lot of good in this area and it has a very proud record. Let us go through some of the things that we have just heard from Andrew Little about the minimum wage—[Interruption] Well yes. Actually if we had not done that we would be casualising and condemning the workers he says he cares about. We were returning things to the status quo and making sure that workers on farms got the fair go that he says he cares about. I say “petty point-scoring” because we have seen press releases on some really good things that this Government has done for workers from those members and from the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and it is very disappointing indeed to see that kind of attitude. We have seen a lift in the number of labour inspectors through the Budget so it is hard again to know why Andrew Little is saying the kinds of things he is saying. We have seen minimum employment standards—a discussion document gone out—where we are seeking to significantly lift things so that there are criminal penalties where there is exploitation of workers and so on.What did we see from Labour and the unions? Petty point-scoring. They could not focus on the absolute good despite the fact I might say that the Council of Trade Unions came into my office with the Employers and Manufacturers Association calling for the very changes I then made. They went on Radio New Zealand National and criticised me. Well I say that is petty and it would be great to see the Labour Party stand up for some good reforms that this Government is doing which if Labour was honest with itself it would support.Look at the Employment Relations Amendment Bill and the changes that this Government wants to make. It has gone through the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. There were moderate changes and yet all we get is the scaremongering from that side. We heard about the 90-day trial periods. Well what we did not hear Andrew Little say was that a third of employers—small-business owners in this country which is what this country is made up of—said that they took on people whom they would not have otherwise and they gave people a go. That is real change. That is real difference. A third of employers gave a job to people who would not have otherwise got one and I say that that is pro-employers and it is pro-workers.Frankly it is very disappointing to see the sort of left-wing attitude we get from the Labour Party and the Green Party—oppose oppose oppose rather than be constructive on these issues. Again they try to find any angle on the health and safety reform to criticise it. “Well it is not tripartite and it is not this.” Well it is and I differ on that matter from Andrew Little. But let us all agree on this: this is the biggest health and safety reform this country has seen in at least 20 years. There is significantly more funding into a well-resourced regulator. There are significant law changes coming. If I was to be cruel to the Darien Fentons and the Andrew Littles I would say that we have seen serious reform from this Government when actually over 9 years of Labour nothing happened—nothing happened. I think we actually need to face the facts on that on some of these issues.To Mr Little I say: “Well if you care about workers Mr Little what do you say to the 7000 oil and gas workers in Taranaki with a party that flip-flops on issues without a skerrick of evidence like the Māui’s dolphins?”. We expect to see scaremongering over there from the Green Party on that but to his credit David Cunliffe finally got to the position—the right position—that there has not been a single Māui’s dolphin harmed from oil and gas exploration over the 40 years that that has been going on in Taranaki. We have seen protests and we have seen calls from Labour candidates for me to be sacked. David Cunliffe to his credit finally got to the right position. Well I wonder whether Tāmati Coffey is going to be calling for him to be sacked. We in this party care about workers. We have done really good reforms. It is just a shame that Labour and the Greens cannot bring themselves to support them.DENISE ROCHE (Green):I rise to take a call on the Vote Labour appropriation. It is kind of appropriate that I do that today given that yesterday there was a major celebration from The Living Wage Aotearoa New Zealand Campaign which celebrated the 20 businesses that have signed up to pay their workers a living wage of $18.80. I think that is something that we should celebrate because the only way that workers are going to be lifted out of poverty is through decent wages and through employers modelling the behaviour that we would like to see other employers adopt.I note that the Vote Labour appropriation outlines the target for the number of interventions aimed at ensuring the minimum standards of the employment legislation are adhered to and the Minister of Labour referred to that. It is a crucial task and although he may say that the Government is reviewing the minimum standards the fact is that they are being breached all the time. Previous speakers have referred to this as well. What is happening is that the labour inspectors are managing to get some inspections done but they are woefully underfunded. We do need more of them because there is a lot more they could be doing. The majority of inspections that they did in the agricultural sector which they reported on in April showed that most of the minimum employment standards were not being met.I looked at the “Fencepost Jobs” page on the Fonterra website today which actually is still advertising for jobs of 65 hours a week with 3 days off in 10 days. These are not the sorts of jobs that we want people to have. We want people to have jobs where they can actually afford to live and where they can afford to provide for their families without having to rely on the taxpayer to increase their ability to provide for their families through Working for Families which just acts as a subsidy to employers to keep wages low. That is what Working for Families has become. I have also seen jobs on “Fencepost Jobs” for 55 hours a week and when I looked at the salary that works out to be $13.66 per hour.This is unacceptable. This is absolutely unacceptable. The Government’s response to this kind of thing was actually to introduce and change the regulations under the Minimum Wage Act which meant that workers could work long hours under the minimum wage and have it spread out over 2 weeks. It is shocking. The Government’s regulatory regime is shocking. What we have seen from this Government is the exploitation of young people through the introduction of youth rates. We have seen the introduction of less job security than ever before through the introduction of the 90-day trials where workers can be sacked for absolutely no reason whatsoever in their first 3 months in a job.I remind the Committee that the bill that was set to reduce and undermine collective bargaining and take away minimum job security the Employment Relations Amendment Bill has now stalled. That was a miserly bill. It was not a moderate change as was suggested by the Minister of Labour; it was an attempt to undermine workers’ rights to the nth degree. It does not create jobs Mr Bridges because it does not create jobs when you force wages down. There was of course full employment under slavery because the pay was so low.The fact that the Employment Relations Amendment Bill has been stalled is a great thing. It is great that we will be able to change the Government and ditch that legislation away from the Order Paper after September. In the meantime it is the only thing I will probably ever thank the Hon John Banks for.The reason we support the living wage is because we believe that workers should be able to provide for their families and live in dignity. There are 285000 children living in poverty in New Zealand. Two out of five of those children have a parent who is working. More parents than ever before are working several jobs just to make ends meet. The cost of keeping wages low and of not lifting those 285000 kids out of poverty is $6 billion to $8 billion a year. We the taxpayers all pay for that as well but it is not recorded in a budget line anywhere.It is unreasonable that while there have been overall—Vote agreed to.Vote Food Safety agreed to.Vote ImmigrationDr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour):Thanks for the opportunity to take a call on Vote Immigration. I ask the question: is our immigration system working well? I ask whether the system is working well in the case of Sanil Kumar. Sanil Kumar was a young man from Fiji who came here on a work permit. He was diagnosed as having end-stage renal failure was given dialysis and was waiting for a kidney transplant. He was forced to leave and go to Fiji and he died within a very short time of returning there.The Associate Minister of Immigration has conveniently refused to answer questions in this House on this particular case. What she has been citing is that she did not have a privacy waiver and therefore she could not possibly talk about this case at all. But she knows very well that a privacy waiver does not apply to a deceased natural person. That is excluded from the Privacy Act. In any case if the Associate Minister and the immigration system in New Zealand had done their work diligently they would have reached a different decision given the facts as any Labour Minister of Immigration would have done. A Labour Minister of Immigration would have reached a compassionate decision on this particular case and this young man would be alive today—but he is not.So why is the system under this particular Minister working in such a flawed way? Let us look at the facts. The facts are that this young man as I said was working here he had end-stage kidney failure and he started receiving dialysis. His family—two first cousins—began the process of being donors the family began raising the funds and they raised the $130000 required to receive—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Dr Prasad this is an estimates debate on immigration. The member must tie that back to the estimates on immigration. It is not a debate about a medical condition or what has happened to a person. You must tie it back to immigration.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Well there is something happening in the funding of the immigration system that does not allow it to actually make the kinds of decisions it should be making. The Minister is hiding behind the privacy waiver. In this particular case were the agencies funded well enough to provide her with the right kind of advice? The Minister is hiding behind this fake notion that she wrote to me to talk about the funding of this particular case. She says that she took the unusual step in this case of writing to me and saying that I was making inaccurate statements.The Minister did not write to me. The Minister cannot produce any evidence. However the Minister did send me a copy of a letter that she had sent to David Cunliffe which says that there was a $36000 debt that Mr Sanil Kumar had for the dialysis treatment he was receiving. So I guess the funding of health and immigration is so bad that $36000 is the price of a life for this particular Government. The Minister did not write to me about that. In fact what I did say about the funding in this particular case was that there was no cost to the immigration system.I knew that this family had come to a payment agreement and had said they would pay the debt. Indeed they started paying this debt. The uncle had taken over this debt—a New Zealand citizen with a good job a good family and a good home in west Auckland. That family would have paid this particular debt but indeed the Minister still made the decision on the basis of that. That was the first basis for the decision. Yet the statement about there being no cost to the State was absolutely true in this particular case.This particular immigration decision was made based on a report that was received by immigration about dialysis being available in Fiji. Well that report is also worth considering in its detail. What is it about the funding of the immigration system that it does not give this Minister enough resources to actually work out the risk that is in her own report—a report provided to her by experts in health about an immigration decision she has made? The report writes very clearly about dialysis available in Fiji. It says that—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Yes it is about the costing about the funding of immigration and the decisions about this—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): We are not interested in actual procedures in Fiji.Dr RAJEN PRASAD: Well I am trying to bring it within this particular area. I am certainly suggesting that the funding of immigration is not good enough. It is not adequate to allow this Minister to make these decisions. That particular report made it very clear that this young man risked death if he went to Fiji. Three months would be funded. Then he would find a donor. If he did not find a donor in 3 months he would be taken off dialysis. It says here that he would have a few weeks to prepare for his death. This Minister did not have the expertise did not take the time to have a look at the decision and did not analyse the risks and yet she made the decision that this young man had to return. The decision was made on two bases. One was the amount of resources the funding this was going to take—that it would cost our system too much—and the other was that dialysis was available in Fiji.The cost was being met by the family in New Zealand and that is a fact. They had signed up to it. As far as dialysis in Fiji was concerned there was no analysis of where it was available or how he would get it and yet the decision was made. So here is this young man who went to Fiji. The last thing he said to me as he was leaving the airport—and it is reported on television—was: “I believe this is a death sentence.” This was a 30-year-old man who was in all other aspects fine—a kidney transplant would have fixed him. He could have returned to Fiji and lived with his family but this Minister made this particular decision for reasons that are unknown. Now the Minister is saying she does not have a privacy waiver—she is hiding behind that.Well a privacy waiver is on its way to the Minister. It will be available and I want to see what else the Minister will bring out for this particular case. The privacy waiver is on its way. There is nothing else to be released. This decision was made on the basis of $36000 worth of debt which was being paid for and on the basis that dialysis was available in Fiji. All the risks were mentioned in the report but the Minister refused to consider that.Where was the harm? Where would have been the harm to New Zealand if we had allowed this young person to stay if our system had been generous enough to let him stay? There is blood on the hands of those who made this decision and they ought to actually come out and explain at least to the family. So far they have hidden. They have hidden under this notion that we do not have a privacy waiver. Well a young man need not have died. At least we would have given him a fair crack at it with a kidney transplant in New Zealand. Believing that there was a kidney transplant available in Fiji or that Fijians might send him to India was such a long shot and the Minister knew that. It was absolutely a long shot.Even the report produced by the Ministry of Health was a report based on a paper somebody gave at a conference. They did not even speak to anybody about what was available. It was a paper somebody had given at a conference some months ago. There are so many holes in this particular decision made by this Minister that the Minister ought to explain. It is typical of the kinds of problems there are in the immigration system today.People tell me that the system is aimless. Decisions are not being made consistently in the immigration system. Two people applying with exactly the same background and even having gone to the same school for the same kinds of job offers are receiving very different decisions. There are many many cases now of the immigration system being so culturally idiotic that they will go and do interviews of families of partners trying to come to New Zealand—this is New Zealanders going overseas marrying coming back and their partners applying—and such a monocultural approach is being taken to assess them that they are being denied access to New Zealand.Decisions in the immigration system are being made by people who are driven on the basis of numbers—the numbers of decisions they have to make. This system is broken. This system needs fixing and this Minister ought to take responsibility for this case and for the system and indeed try to redress many of the problems that are there. Thank you.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration):Dr Prasad commenced his intervention on Vote Immigration in the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill questioning whether our immigration system is working well. Well I can advise him and the Committee that it is working a heck of a lot better than it did when that member’s party was in power. When we came into office in 2008 the immigration system was in an absolute shambles. There were thousands of applications pending. The timeliness and quality of the decision making was poor. The Pacific division was in complete disarray. The Christchurch office was making its own rules and then changing them.I find it quite disgraceful for that member to politicise the tragedy of the Kumar family in the way that he just did. He accuses the Associate Minister of Immigration of hiding behind a privacy waiver. That member got a privacy waiver and then put selective and incorrect data out into the public arena but refused—refused—to intervene and get the Associate Minister to the position where she could tell the whole story about that case. It is disgraceful that that member would continue to politicise that tragic situation when he knows that under the Labour Government from 1999 to 2008 the decision-making landscape was replete with inappropriate decisions that unfortunately had negative outcomes for Pacific residents with health issues. To come into this Chamber and say that this Government has blood on its hands is an absolute disgrace. I challenge that member to be very careful what he wishes for because if that privacy waiver is ever given to the Associate Minister and the full story of that case is told he will be very very embarrassed indeed and will probably be quite pleased to be leaving this House. But I say this: the privacy waiver is a long way too late for that family. I do not believe even if it is now given that it is in anybody’s interests least of all the Kumar family’s to continue to litigate the facts of that case after Mr Kumar’s passing. It is a disgrace and that member should be ashamed.It is not surprising that immigration policy has been very much at the forefront of the discussions around this Budget. I am very proud of this Government’s track record on immigration. The Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman came and spent 3 years cleaning up the mess that was left and Nathan Guy and I have inherited a much much sounder Immigration New Zealand with better timeliness with a better quality of decision making and—what is very important to me—very good feedback from its clients about the quality of that service. It is important to note that immigration is quite ubiquitous. It extends into all areas of Government policy. I think that when one looks at the National Government’s four priorities of responsibly managing our finances delivering better public services building a more competitive economy and rebuilding Canterbury immigration has an underpinning role to play in all four of those goals.There is no doubt that we are in a global contest. We are in a contest for skills for foreign investment for international students and for tourists and the degree to which we succeed in that contest is very much a part of the policies processes and technologies that we use to deliver a good immigration service. Under Vision 2015 which is very much underpinned by successive Budgets including this one there has been quite a transformation away from bricks and mortar and a branch-based structure. When the service and the application processes are put online we will see what I am confident will be a much much more efficient application process where case officers can concentrate more on the quality of the application than on chasing around after paperwork. I think that is an important difference and it will also achieve the Government’s goal to have at least 70 percent of transactions with the Government online.But I want to move to two specific areas and indeed the main one does underpin the Government’s objective for the rebuild of Canterbury. The Minister of Labour Simon Bridges and I have jointly announced over $7 million of new funding to support the Canterbury rebuild by protecting vulnerable workers and ensuring safe workplaces and fair workplaces. I think this is very important. I have become somewhat concerned at the risk that migrant exploitation although low could grow particularly in the Canterbury region as the rebuild commences. There is no doubt that we are going to need to rely very heavily on migrant labour to assist in the rebuild. The Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment has invested heavily in skills and training and we will see our young New Zealanders becoming qualified and being at the front of the queue.Carol Beaumont: Obviously not enough given the reliance on migrant workers.Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That is right. It is not going to be enough. We understand that. I think both sides of the Committee accept that although there were great opportunities for young New Zealanders—job seekers and trades trainees—to participate in the Canterbury rebuild given the pace and scale of the work that is required we are already and will in the future increasingly rely on foreign migrant labour to assist with the rebuild. So it is important to me that those workers understand their rights and obligations and that employers also understand that they need to treat their workers fairly and that there are sanctions for not doing so. That is why the Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) before the House will significantly increase the penalties for the exploitation of lawful migrant workers and I am disappointed to note that the Labour Party and the Green Party are not going to support that bill. The important thing about migrant exploitation is prevention. I have been working hard in the migrant community to ensure that people have the confidence to speak up knowing that in this country the rule of law can be obeyed. I am confident that with the extra resources that we are putting in through Budget 2014 we will be able to do that.The other part of the new money that came out of Budget 2014 was for the refugee resettlement programme. It has not had an increase in funding for some years. It is important to me that we ensure that the settlement outcomes for our refugees are as good as they can be. The review in 2012 that led to the refugee resettlement strategy identified that just 43 percent of quota refugees are in full-time paid employment 5 years after they arrive in New Zealand. That is just not good enough and that is why we reframed the settlement strategy around work as an important indicator of good settlement outcomes. I think with this extra funding we will certainly be able to do that.One of the most disappointing parts of Budget 2014 was the oblique reference in Treasury documents to strongly positive permanent and long-term migration being misunderstood by the media and by certain elements in this House as somehow an immigration bow wave coming through into New Zealand. Nothing could be further from the truth. Positive net migration is being largely driven by New Zealanders not leaving and more New Zealanders coming back. Indeed the residence programme has seen a reduction of over 20 percent in resident visas in the last 6 or 7 years. But it is important for people to understand the difference between net migration and immigration and even members of this House still do not with some of their confusing interventions.I think we have dramatically turned round the performance of Immigration New Zealand. I am very pleased with the way in which that department operates. It is important that we have policies that are not too loose—nor too tight for that matter—and that are skills-focused but fulfil our humanitarian and family reunification obligations. I think they do that and I am very pleased with their performance.Vote agreed to.Vote Lands agreed to.Vote Senior Citizens agreed to.Vote Women’s Affairs agreed to.Vote Courts agreed to.Vote Revenue agreed to.Vote Pacific Island AffairsHon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs):It is a pleasure to take a call in the estimates debate as the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs. It is a pleasure because I am excited about the future of Pacific people in New Zealand. The Opposition continues to talk down to our people. It continues to focus on the negative. It continues to treat us with utter disdain. But I have more faith in Pacific people because I know what their aspirations are and so does this National Government. I recently did a tour of the country holding fono across this great land to take the pulse of Pacific people. From Invercargill to Ōtāhuhu from Levin to Dunedin from Porirua to Avondale without exception the response is that we as Pacific people are aspirational for ourselves our families and our communities. We want high-paying jobs. We want achievement in education. We want accessible quality health care. We want to live in communities where we feel safe and secure. These aspirations have not changed since my dad migrated to this country in the 1950s. These aspirations likely will not change when my children start their families in the future.So how do we measure up as a Government to these aspirations? Members opposite ask how and I am going to detail exactly what this Government has done. There are currently 105900 people Pacific employed. That is up 7900 or 8 percent in the last 12 months. We know we can achieve those aspirations when we are in higher-paying jobs. Average weekly earnings have gone up 14 percent in the last 5 years. Treasury also estimates that there will be 170000 more jobs by mid-2018 and Pacific people will be taking a large chunk of those jobs. We also know that our aspirations are better served when we are educated. This Government invests $1.5 billion into early childhood education each year. Early childhood education participation was up to almost 90 percent in 2013. The number of Pacific teachers in early childhood education has increased 30 percent under this National Government and—Kris Faafoi: What’s your unemployment percentage? No we won’t hear that will we?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: —total enrolments in early childhood education Mr Faafoi providing Pacific services is up 12 percent since our National Government took hold of the Treasury benches. This is a fact that Mr Faafoi will like: Pacific achievement in National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 has gone up 16 percent since National took power. He should be ashamed of the 55 percent level that Labour members were stewards over in 2008. And how about the 75 percent who are now completing their tertiary studies? Labour should be ashamed of the fact that it was 60 percent when it was in power. The number of Pacific students gaining tertiary qualifications under National has risen 65 percent Mr Faafoi—65 percent. There were over 12000 in 2012.We know that this Government is committed to Pacific families and that is why our Government released Pacific materials for Incredible Years. It is why our Government has increased paid parental leave to 18 weeks. It is why our Government has given free general practitioner visits for under-13s. The Pacific people I talk to are pleased about the investment in front-line services. They are pleased about the investment in police. It is no surprise therefore that we have the lowest crime rate in 35 years.Finally it gives me great pride that the budget of the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs has gone up 16 percent in the last year.Alfred Ngaro: 16 percent.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Sixteen percent—that is right Mr Ngaro. It is now over $10 million. Mr Sio will be interested because it is 28 percent higher than what it was under the Labour Government. Labour should be ashamed of its record on Pacific people. It should be ashamed of its stewardship of the Treasury benches—Su’a William Sio: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just wondering—the Minister is making a lot of assertions and claims—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): That is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order! No no this is a debate. They are debating points. [Interruption] Look I will handle this. Point of order—I will take Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga.Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am happy to table my speech. It is all the facts—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No no that is not—[Interruption] The Minister will sit. That is not a point of order either.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Yes and it is a very serious point of order. I noted that as you stood to rule on the point of order the Minister in the chair Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga held on to your arm in an attempt to get you to sit down. That is absolutely outrageous and unparliamentary. I know you would take no notice of him even if he is a slightly larger man and taking a bullying demeanour but I think the Minister needs to be told that that sort of behaviour is just not appropriate.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I thank the member. I did not notice the Minister holding my arm—[Interruption] Order! I am making some comments here. I did not notice the Minister holding on to my arm and I am sure it was not intentional but you never know. The time for this debate has actually expired so we now move to the votes.The question was put that Vote Pacific Island Affairs Vote Customs Vote Statistics Vote Māori Affairs Vote Internal Affairs clauses 1 to 10 and schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the votes clauses 1 to 10 and schedules 1 to 5 be agreed to.Ayes63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 3; United Future 1.Noes52New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 9; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Votes clauses 1 to 10 and schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2)In CommitteePart 1 Amendments to preliminary provisionsHon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Internal Affairs):I just want to take a very brief call on the provisions of Part 1 of this bill the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) because it has been some considerable time since it has been before this House. It was in fact introduced in 2007 to make some minor technical amendments to the Gambling Act which was passed in 2003. Members will know that the Gambling Act is a very large and complex piece of legislation. Over the decade or so since it has been in operation a number of issues have emerged that need to be tidied up because practice has changed or different situations have come into effect. There are large sums of money at stake here and as a result it is important that we get a good system and that the proceeds that are raised from gambling go where they are meant to go.I have tabled Supplementary Order Paper 454 which for the most part responds to a number of court cases that have taken place since the Act’s introduction all those years ago. These cases highlight parts of the Act about class 4 gambling that are not necessarily clear and the Supplementary Order Paper amendments address this by providing a measure of clarification. The Supplementary Order Paper makes clear the powers available against breaches of the law by gambling licensees—for example the amendments to powers held by the Secretary for Internal Affairs include spelling out the ability to suspend or cancel licences for errant behaviour that occurred as a one-off at some point in the past. The Supplementary Order Paper also specifies the obligations on licensees after they are licensed which include such duties as maximising the returns to the community from the gambling in question. The obligations are drawn from the criteria that need to be met when the relevant licence is first applied for.The Supplementary Order Paper also contains a few minor and technical amendments some of which correct drafting errors in the original legislation. In particular there is a useful clarification of the requirements concerning the calculation of net proceeds by societies that run gambling operations. This refers to correctly reflecting the depreciation of gambling assets—typically gaming machines that are owned by societies. There is also an adjustment to the membership arrangements of the board of the New Zealand Lotteries Commission to bring the commission’s membership capacity into line with similar Crown entities.I note that the Green Party has also tabled Supplementary Order Paper 84. That Supplementary Order Paper makes far more significant alterations to the Act including expanding territorial authority powers over gaming machine venues and changes to the definition of “authorised purpose” so that racing stakes can no longer be permitted. The Government will not be supporting this Supplementary Order Paper. Not only does it not conform to the intent of this bill to tidy up the Act to allow the statutory regime to operate as originally intended; it also goes way beyond where I think the general public mood is at the moment. In fact the changes in that Supplementary Order Paper are very similar to many of the specific amendments that were included in the Māori Party’s Gambling (Gambling Harm Reduction) Amendment Act which was passed in 2013.All of these measures have been the subject of many submissions to the Government Administration Committee. The Government has been through those and went into an extensive process working with the Māori Party on that amendment Act to reach common ground on some of the specific changes. The amendment Act was supported in part by the Government at that time. Some of the amendments that are now in the Gambling Act duplicate those that are in the Greens’ Supplementary Order Paper. This includes a requirement to return gaming machine proceeds to the area where they are generated and the ability to introduce technology in gaming machines to minimise harm. Other reforms are included in the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 3) which I recently introduced and that is the appropriate mechanism for making more substantive changes to the Act rather than in a technical bill like this.I was going to go through and summarise very briefly the content of Part 1 but I note that at this late hour and in the interests of making some progress—Hon Trevor Mallard: No no you’re not going to make much progress tonight. You might as well do it.Hon PETER DUNNE: I said “making some progress”. I am very happy to just stand aside at this point and return to the bill at a later stage to allow for the debate to flow. I know this is a gripping measure. Members have waited a long time for the opportunity to debate this bill and I am sure that there will be if I judge by some of the comments so far a very spirited involvement in the debate in the remaining minutes before the Committee rises this evening.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour - Hutt South):A few of us were wondering why this Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2) rapidly came up the Order Paper to become an urgent matter when it had not been so important for the Government ever since the election in 2008. In fact if one looks at members opposite I think Colin King might have been here when it was introduced—Peter Dunne obviously—but I cannot see anyone else in that corner of the Chamber who was actually a member of Parliament at the time the legislation was introduced and that shows a certain lack of urgency.But then I recognised the fact as to who has now got the portfolio and who wants to get a bit of publicity because he can feel Ginny Andersen—the hot breath of Ginny Andersen—heading towards being the member for Ōhariu. That is because what we have discovered in the phone calls that we have been making is that the people of that electorate are no longer biddable. They know about Peter Dunne’s disgraceful behaviour over a period of about 18 months. They know about his leaking. They know about the leaking that he did of the Government Communications Security Bureau report. They know about his disgraceful behaviour with regard to animals which has become clearer and clearer and what the Minister in the chair the Hon Peter Dunne is trying to do is to get back in the good books in his local electorate by picking up a very good piece of legislation that was in the name of the Hon Rick Barker.Well I see it is still in the name of the Hon Rick Barker. The Hon Rick Barker has not been a member of this Parliament since 2011. What a lazy lazy Government. The Minister with all these months and months and months could not get his twink out twink out a name on the bill and write his own name there. With all the time the Government has had to consider this legislation the Minister the very lazy Minister who is in charge of the bill who I can see is tweeting away now—I hope it is better than some of the tweets he has done in the last couple of years—Chris Hipkins: Be careful.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well I think the Minister is obviously and it is very clear from the extensive phone calling that the Labour Party has done—[Interruption] Well Mr Chairman Part 1 of the bill deals with the purpose and the interpretation and new section 5 “Extended meaning of ‘conduct’ ”. I think we can focus in this particular area looking at the Minister on the extended meaning of “conduct”. The extended meaning of “conduct” is something that is very appropriate to consider with this particular Minister because what happens in this particular area after the interpretation clause—and I must say that the changes to the interpretation provisions are absolutely massive.I do not think I have ever seen such a thorough piece of work on an interpretation clause as has been the case with my honourable former colleague Rick Barker. The changes in the interpretation clause of the bill go through a number of pages. In fact they run through to page 10 of the printed bill where in clause 6 there is new section 5 substituted which repeals the previous section 5 and deals with the extended meaning of “conduct”. In this particular case it is in relation to gambling rather than to the other sort of conduct that one might focus on at the moment but it does involve any of the following activities. It involves “organising using managing supervising and operating (but not playing) gambling or gambling equipment:”. So it is not the person who is actually doing the gambling but the people who are involved in running the gambling.Progress to be reported presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Appropriation (2014/15 Estimates) Bill without amendment and progress on the Gambling Amendment Bill (No 2).Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.