Volume 665 Week 50 - Thursday 5 August 2010 
Volume 665 Week 50 - Thursday 5 August 2010 
[Volume:665;Page:13051] 
Thursday 5 August 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business Statement 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 The House will lift today for a 1-week adjournment. When the House resumes on Tuesday 17 August priority will be given to the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill the Tariff (New Zealand-Hong Kong China Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) Amendment Bill and other bills on the Order Paper. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I thank the Leader of the House for that short description of the next House sitting week. I offer him our thanks for the work that he is doing on planning the second week of the next sitting period where he is offering consultation with other parties on what the programme might look like. I thought after a particularly difficult session it might be a nice way to finish by saying I think he has done a very good job on that and we are genuinely grateful to him for it. It is a good sign. 
Also if you could indulge me Mr Speaker I ask the Leader of the House to pass on to the Prime Minister something that we omitted to do on Tuesday which was to also recognise his own appointment now as a right honourable member of the House. Mr Key campaigned for there to be a step change for the economy but he has been quite focused on a spelling change for his own name and we want to make sure that he is recognised for that. We did not get a chance to do that on Tuesday and we should have done that. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I thank the shadow Leader of the House for the initial backhanded comment. We simply say it comes as no surprise to us that on Thursday Labour is waking up to what it should have done on Tuesday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure how I would score that. 
Questions to Ministers 
Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Number of Houses Insulated 
1. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: How many houses have been insulated through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: It depends how you measure it. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There is some truth in that. I am pleased to advise the House that the first year of the Government’s Warm Up New Zealand scheme has been extraordinarily successful. A grand total of 57908 homes were retro-fitted in the first year of the scheme. What is most pleasing is that around 55 percent of the houses retro-fitted are occupied by people on low incomes. I acknowledge the cooperation of the Green Party in the administration of this policy. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Why did the Government introduce the Warm Up New Zealand scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government has funded the Warm Up New Zealand scheme because of the benefits that a well-insulated home has to the individuals who live in it to society and to the New Zealand economy on a wider scale. The Warm Up New Zealand scheme improves a home’s energy efficiency but more important it makes it warmer and much healthier to live in. That means fewer doctors’ visits fewer days off school and less time off work. The scheme has also been a welcome stimulus for the construction industry during an economic downturn. 
Chris Hipkins 
: In what proportion of those houses were quality or safety issues found with the insulation during the audit process? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Over the course of the last 12 months the incidence of safety issues has been on the decline. I am more than happy to release the entire audit figures to the member as I previously had. The most recent incidence of safety issues I understand is less than 1 percent. Those of course were all rectified because the installers were required to go back over all of their work when one of those instances was discovered. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why should the public of New Zealand have any confidence in the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart scheme when the audit found that one-third of the homes insulated had quality concerns? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: A quality concern may mean that there was rubbish left on the site. It may mean that some instructions were not left with a heating appliance. It may mean that in some cases they could not get in to install insulation because the gap was too narrow—I should not talk about narrowing gaps this week. I say to the member that I think that 57908 retrofits indicates a very high level of public confidence in the scheme. 
Employment Rate—Comparison with Australia 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 My question is to the Prime Minister and asks: does he stand by his statement that “the unemployment rate in New Zealand is actually higher than it is in Australia”? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have different wording on my question. I invite the member to— 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I apologise. I should have said the “employment rate” not the “unemployment rate”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
2. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “the employment rate in New Zealand is actually higher than it is in Australia”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE  
(Acting Prime Minister) 
: That is a very important point. I am pleased that the Speaker picked it up. The answer is yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which aspect of today’s announcement from Statistics New Zealand that unemployment has blown out to 6.8 percent supports his claim that the economy will grow aggressively out of recession and his expectation in March that unemployment will drop? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member set down a question about the employment rate and its relativity to Australia’s. I would like at least to have the opportunity to explain to him that the employment rate in New Zealand is 63.4 percent compared with 61.8 percent in Australia. It is better. On the unemployment figures that came out today there is no doubt that the Government would express some disappointment about those numbers. I also say to him that last December’s unemployment figure was 7.1 percent. That figure coming back to 6.8 percent in that relatively short period of time is encouraging. We have always said it would be a bumpy ride. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can employment in New Zealand be better than Australia’s when Statistics New Zealand revealed that 19000 Kiwis have lost their jobs while in Australia unemployment has dropped and 19000 new jobs were created last month alone? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member is doing what Labour has done a lot lately and that is choosing to select bits and pieces of figures all over the place. The question related to the employment rate; I have given the difference there. Let us now talk about the participation rate which is 68 percent in New Zealand and 65.2 percent in Australia. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that he got it wrong when he said in May this year: “We’ve now got the economy back on track.” given that over the past year 22000 Kiwis have lost their jobs and unemployment is still bouncing along at the trough of the recession? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Let me acquaint the member with the situation that existed in the later part of 2008 when we had four successive quarters of decline in the size of the New Zealand economy. The last four quarters measured have shown us to be growing. I do stand by that statement. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When GST is 50 percent higher in New Zealand than in Australia when the pay gap with Australia has increased by at least $23 a week since he took office and when unemployment is higher here than it is across the Tasman does that show National simply does not have a plan to build a stronger recovery? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Far from it. We have articulated parts of our plan on numerous occasions throughout the week. I would also say that when we have a growing economy a natural consequence of that ultimately will be more work and higher wages. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he believe that Labour’s decision to scrap the youth minimum wage has contributed to the increase in unemployment and in particular the increase in youth unemployment—a move that the Government could have reversed by supporting Sir Roger Douglas’ member’s bill to reintroduce youth rates? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It has been my experience always that if one earns less one is not as well off. I do not think that would be particularly helpful. 
Pork Industry Board—Fulfilment of Core Functions 
3. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: Is he confident that the Pork Industry Board is fulfilling its core functions of increasing the demand for New Zealand pork products and maintaining the confidence of consumers of pork products; if so why? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 It is attempting to do so but it clearly has some challenging issues that it needs to address. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he consider that the Pork Industry Board’s recent actions of taking legal action to stop the release of a new pig code keeping audits of pig farms secret and obtaining information on animal rights activists are likely to undermine consumer confidence in the Pork Industry Board and in pork products generally; if not why not? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Pork Industry Board certainly needs to be aware that the perception of some of its actions is not helping it in marketing its products. I think the board needs to be far more proactive about engaging with consumers about the benefits of New Zealand pork. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he confirm that as Minister of Agriculture he has specific statutory powers which are set out in schedule 2 of the Pork Industry Board Act to remove directors of the board if they breach any duty set out in schedule 1 of the Act? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I can confirm that under the Act I have some quite strong statutory roles but at the end of the day they are relatively limited in respect of the allegations that have been made against the Pork Industry Board over recent weeks. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Can he further confirm that the directors of the Pork Industry Board have a duty under the Act to act in good faith at all times and would he consider using his powers to remove directors if they were found not to be acting in good faith? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Yes and yes. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he consider that the Pork Industry Board acted in good faith when it sought to evade the provisions of the Official Information Act so that the results of a nationwide audit of pig farms could not be released publicly? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: As I stated to the member earlier any action by the Pork Industry Board in respect of its compliance with the Official Information Act is a matter that the member needs to take up with the Ombudsman. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did quite deliberately and specifically ask whether he considered that the Pork Industry Board acted in good faith on this matter. That was the question. It was very deliberately phrased and I would appreciate it if the Minister could answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister replied that the matter the member referred to is a matter for the board not for the Minister and because he is not responsible for that he does not need to express an opinion on it. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was asking whether he considered that the board had acted in good faith and it is relevant because the Minister can sack members of the board if they do not act in good faith. So it was quite a specific question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to answer in so far as he feels he can. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I certainly would not consider sacking any of the board members on the basis of the board’s compliance with the Official Information Act. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Does he consider that the board acted in good faith when it threatened to take the Government to court if it proceeded to release a new pig code of animal welfare that would call amongst other things for a phasing out of the use of sow stalls? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am unaware that the Pork Industry Board actually threatened the Government; I think at that stage it was threatening the process undertaken by the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. 
Sue Kedgley 
: What would it take for this Minister to sack or to make changes to the Port Industry Board given that the board has been steadily undermining consumer confidence in pork and has been exposed for repeatedly acting in bad faith? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I think that member has done everything she can possibly do to undermine New Zealand’s confidence in the pork industry of New Zealand. 
Sue Kedgley 
: I seek leave to table the Animal Welfare (Treatment of Animals Amendment) Bill which would phase out sow crates. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Has this bill already been tabled in the House? 
Sue Kedgley 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Income Gap Parity with Australia—Milestones 
4. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: Why when he replied “Yes” to whether he had targets or milestones to achieve income parity with Australia by 2025 will he not share those milestones with New Zealanders? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 In the answer I gave to the question that the member refers to I shared my first target. That target was to remove the millstones from around the neck of the New Zealand economy placed on it by the previous Labour Government. Today I would like to share two other targets. My second target is to assist the Government’s programme to undertake comprehensive economic reform of the New Zealand economy. A third target is to rebalance the economy towards export-led growth. If we are successful in achieving these targets we will achieve the Government’s milestone of achieving income parity with Australia by 2025. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he or his office give Steven Joyce answering on his behalf yesterday an answer that included the words “brush off”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is closing the wage gap with Australia the fundamental purpose of this Government? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The fundamental purpose of this Government is to make life better for New Zealanders. Closing the income gap with Australia over a period of time will certainly contribute to that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is closing the wage gap with Australia the fundamental purpose of this Government as the Prime Minister said it was? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: In the last couple of days we have had a number of specifics attributed to the Prime Minister that have been picked out of an entire speech or the outlining of a plan. Closing the income gap with Australia is very very important for this Government. It is a long-term aspirational goal and everything that we are doing in rebalancing the economy in reorganising the economy is aimed at getting a better deal a better life quality for all New Zealanders. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Does he know that 23 percent more Australian companies than New Zealand companies plan to lift their wage and salary levels this year and that double the number of Australian firms plan to increase staff levels and will this increase or decrease the wage gap with Australia? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not have responsibility for that sort of speculation. But I will say the suggestions made by Mr Mallard if they are correct simply serve to show what an extremely ambitious target the Government has and that we have to stick to the plan we have put in place to achieve it. 
Crime Victims—Support 
5. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What are the police doing to help ensure that victims of crime get the support they need as soon as possible? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 I am very pleased to report that today I opened a new national contact centre for Victim Support which has been set up at the Police National Headquarters here in Wellington. The contact centre will enable Victim Support to provide a consistent timely and professional response to calls for help from across the country. The police have a very close relationship with Victim Support and they are delighted to provide Victim Support with the office space and a communications system for the contact centre. The police also now have a dedicated national victim services manager who will be overseeing further initiatives to support victims of crime. The 0800 number for this is 0800 VICTIM. 
John Hayes 
: What are the latest results on how well the police are meeting the expectations of victims of crime and the wider community? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The latest 6-monthy Citizen Satisfaction Survey shows that the public continues to have a high level of trust and confidence in the police. I am also very pleased to see that the involvement of police in their communities has increased significantly since June 2008. Community involvement by the police is now recording at a rate of 67 percent compared with 58 percent under the previous Government. I would like to commend police for the great work they are doing in communities throughout New Zealand. I am very proud to say that our police are amongst the finest in the world. 
David Garrett 
: Does she support my member’s bill which would remove the heavy restrictions on what a victim of crime may say in his or her victim impact statement and allow anything as long as it is true and not defamatory? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have not read the bill. I am happy to meet with the member to discuss it but these matters will need to be looked at fully as I have not read it yet. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: E hia te orau o nga hua kua rirohia i raro i te Proceeds of Crime Act e tukuna ki te tautoko i te hunga kua tukinotia? 
[ 
What proportion of assets seized and unsold under the Proceeds of Crime Act go back to support victims? 
] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is not possible for me to give an exact figure on that because as the proceeds of crimes money becomes available it goes into the consolidated account. I am aware that right across many portfolios work is going on looking at what can be done for victims. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Ka ahatia te tautoko i te hunga kua ngaua e te hinganga o nga kamupene tahua-putea? 
[ 
What moves are being made to ensure that victims of failed finance companies are supported? 
] 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: For a start this Government has retained the Serious Fraud Office—which was scheduled for closure under the previous Government—and that is something that I think should give quite a lot of comfort to people. I am also aware that my colleague the Minister of Justice who is also the Minister of Commerce has been working very extensively in this area. Obviously it is very important to do whatever we can. At the same time it is an awful lot better than what the previous Government did. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for the delay. I thought I had heard what was being said and now I have confirmed what was said. When I was asking a supplementary question earlier there was an interjection from a member at the back that suggested that I and other Labour members should move to Australia. I think that that is not an appropriate approach to a member who is questioning the Government unless of course it is general advice for all New Zealanders from Mr Quinn. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure that the member is really serious about that as a point of order. I have heard the honourable member throw far worse interjections across the House than an interjection suggesting he should go to Australia. I am afraid that I do not see that as being a serious point of order. 
Drink-driving Blood-alcohol Limit—Public Support for Reduction 
6. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: Did he consider opinion polls about public views on cutting the blood-alcohol limit for driving and what role if any did it play in the Government’s decision not to lower that limit? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: We considered a range of factors and public support was one important consideration. But we also need to know the exact level of harm caused by drivers with a blood-alcohol level of between 0.05 and 0.08 milligrams. The Minister of Transport has said all along that road safety measures work only if they have the very broad support of road users. We want to be sure that New Zealanders understand the benefits of any change and accept it before proceeding as we have done with the cellphone rule with drug-driving provisions and illegal street racing laws. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When the Minister told the House that a broad level of public acceptance would be required before he would move on this matter of lowering the blood-alcohol limit was he aware of the Research New Zealand poll and admittedly an unscientific  
Close Up  
television poll of 17000 viewers both of which regardless of whether they were scientific or unscientific showed support for that measure in the 60-plus percent range showing that there is support in the community for lowering the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05 milligrams? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I have seen a broad range of polls with all sorts of different numbers. I think that if one analyses them all one will find that they are all about 50-50 on this issue. What I found interesting was that member’s press release today. He quoted some UK drug and alcohol expert Professor David Nutt who in actual fact has not been able to convince the authorities in the UK to lower the blood-alcohol limit. It is still 0.08 milligrams. That professor should concentrate on his own country. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What measures is the Government taking to crack down on drink-driving? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Last week the Government announced a package of road safety initiatives targeting drink-drivers and in particular repeat offenders and young offenders. The package includes a zero-milligram drink-drive limit for recidivist drink-drivers a zero-milligram drink-drive limit for drivers under 20 years of age much tougher penalties for dangerous reckless driving causing death the introduction of alcohol interlocks for repeat drink-drivers and serious first-time offenders. By targeting high-risk offenders namely those with a history of offending and young people we are confident we will make a significant impact. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Given that Professor Nutt is in the gallery today watching this expert Minister answer these questions in such a non-partisan way maybe he could explain to the country how any research— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was not an appropriate reference first to the gallery and second to the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is a perfectly fair point of order that the Leader of the House has made. There should be no reference to visitors in the gallery. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I apologise for that Sir. I also apologise for referring to the Minister as an expert. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: At least the member did apologise. I ask for a little courtesy while he is asking his question. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Can he explain to the House how research specific to New Zealand can be any different from the over 300 studies already done that compare a blood-alcohol limit of between 0.08 to 0.05 milligrams and what factors in New Zealand are so specific that they make those international studies irrelevant for deciding to move on this issue? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Very little data has been collected in New Zealand to do with those who are pulled over with a blood-alcohol limit of between 0.05 and 0.08 milligrams. We want to ensure that the New Zealand Police are able to collect that data because we need hard data to make any decisions in the future. It is also interesting to note that I saw a comment from a member saying “If we are going to change the limits there would need to be hard evidence.” I must say that that quote came from the then Minister of Justice Phil Goff in 2001. So once again we have Labour MPs not agreeing with their leader. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked the Minister what factors were unique about New Zealand—what factors. He has given us an answer saying that police do not have enough data. I am interested in what factors are motivating the Government to delay a decision on this matter. It is not a question of what statistics have been collected; it is a question of what factors the Government believes are different about New Zealand so that it cannot rely on the international data that is available. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In answer the Minister said that the Government believes that it needs more research on the difference between 0.05 percent and 0.08 percent blood alcohol and I presume he is saying that without that research it does not necessarily know the factors involved. It seemed to me a reasonable answer. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Does he accept that the delay in deciding whether to lower the blood-alcohol limit will cost lives on the road in New Zealand? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Unfortunately we lose lives in this country almost on a daily basis. The Government has made some very big broad decisions in terms of addressing alcohol concerns that the public has in New Zealand and that drivers have. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: What are they? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: I alluded to them just before I say to Mr Jones if he was listening. I welcome him back. The important thing is that we are addressing this. We want to collect this data over the next 2 years to ensure that any future decisions made and— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am no clearer as to whether delaying a decision on moving the blood-alcohol limit from 0.08 to 0.05 will cost more lives on the road. That is the only thing I am interested in; I am not interested in the other matters that the Minister is concerned about. It was a very short simple question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem is that it is a speculative question. How can the Minister know that? That is why it is extraordinarily difficult for the Minister to answer such a question in precise terms. He has no research so he tells us to indicate whether it will have an effect. That is why it is difficult for me to insist on any particular answer to that question from the Minister. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: If the Government is concerned about the community support for lowering the blood-alcohol limit and is concerned about whether there is support for it to do so will the Minister accept an offer from the Labour Opposition and from many other parties in this House for a non-partisan approach to the topic of the blood-alcohol limit and support the bill that I put into the ballot today in order to lower the blood-alcohol limit to 0.05 so that— 
Hon Members 
: 9 years. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Yes it was 9 years. That is correct. We are here today to try to make sure we can do something about this issue. The Government members can yell and scream during my question as long as they like but the issue remains and it needs to be sorted out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members are making it impossible to hear the Hon Darren Hughes’ question but I think the Minister got the purport of the question. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: It is interesting that we have had 9 years of the previous Government; I alluded to that before. Mr Goff said that it would need hard evidence and then chose to do nothing subsequently for the following 8 years. This member now wants to play party politics with this issue when that party has had a period in Government and done nothing. We have done more in the first 2 years of this Government to address road safety measures than Labour did in its 9 years in Government. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: On this occasion I have to accept that the member asked whether the Minister would support a bill that the member described that he would be introducing to the House. The Minister made no reference to the bill whatsoever. It would be helpful to the House if the Minister were to answer that fundamental question. 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: No. 
High Country—Rent Settings for Pastoral Leases 
7. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What measures has the Government recently taken to implement a fairer approach to high country pastoral leases? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 This week the Government announced a new system for setting the rents for South Island high country pastoral leases. The new approach will provide a fairer rent that is simpler to administer. It allows farmers to get on with the job of farming and looking after the high country rather than fighting bureaucracy. No longer will farmers be charged extra just because their sheep have a view. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What is the new approach that the Government is implementing? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The new approach will see rents for Crown pastoral land based on the earning capacity of each farm. This is a major change from the current formula implemented by the previous Labour Government which ignored income earning capacity and charged extra rent for views and amenity values. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What reports has he seen on the new approach to high country leases? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have seen reports welcoming the new approach as “fair” “rational” and “a refreshing contrast to recent times”. The most interesting though was a press release from the Labour agriculture spokesperson that called the Government’s policy a principled position and one that would be welcomed by farmers. This represents a huge flip-flop from Labour’s position when it was in Government which ignored income earning capacity and caused immense emotional and financial stress to those farmers. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Given the projections in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald  
that sheep and beef farmers are on the way to extinction and given his lack of leadership to fix the problem does this mean that eventually the return to the Crown as the owner of this land may be zero given the earning capacity calculation that he claims is so great? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I do not accept that sheep and beef farms are on their way to extinction and I can tell that member that I have done more in 20 months than his Government did for any farmer in New Zealand in 9 long years. 
Neurosurgery Services—Dunedin Hospital 
8. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he think neurosurgery services should be retained at Dunedin Hospital? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) 
on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: The Minister would take a lot of convincing that there should not be neurosurgical services in Dunedin. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Would he be prepared to turn his feelings into a guarantee now that neurosurgical services in Dunedin will be retained? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: That member knows that the Director-General of Health has convened an expert panel to address this issue. The Minister will not prejudge the result of that inquiry. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why did he shovel this issue on to his officials who shovelled it on to a committee that does not yet even have terms of reference instead of taking some action—any action—himself? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I would remind that member that under his morbid tenure as Minister of Health 30000 New Zealanders were removed from elective surgery waiting lists. He well knows that the Director-General of Health has convened an expert panel that is addressing this issue and it will report back in November. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points to make. First of all the gratuitous comment at the beginning of that answer I do not think added to it. The member Pete Hodgson was asking a question about something in his electorate. This is a good example of a local member doing his or her job at question time. The second point is whether that answer went any way towards addressing or answering the points Mr Hodgson was seeking. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point of order is valid in that the questioner did ask why the investigation was being carried out. He took a roundabout way to get there and some gratuitousness—I do not know whether that is the right way of putting it—in an answer is not unexpected when the shape of the question is quite the way that that one was. But the intent of the question was to ask why the inquiry is being conducted in the way that it is. Maybe the Minister could please answer the question in that light—why the Director-General of Health is conducting the inquiry if the Minister has that information. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Because he was asked to by the chief executives of the South Island district health boards. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Can he confirm that high-quality neurosurgical services have been provided in Dunedin since before he was born and why does he not now offer a straightforward guarantee that that proud history will continue? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister can confirm that Dunedin has had a high-quality service. But once again he is not prepared to prejudge the results of the inquiry. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he not consider that from time to time a Minister must step in—that is why we have Ministers in the first place—and that in this case that time has long and truly passed? When will he do anything—anything—to resolve this issue? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: That member would usually be the first to complain if a Minister overrode an official. But there is a perfectly satisfactory path to resolving this situation and once again the Minister will not pre-empt the results of that inquiry. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is the results of a poll carried out by the  
Otago Daily Times  
showing that a 97 percent— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Was this published in the  
Otago Daily Times 
? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: It was not; it is an online poll. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Secondly I seek leave to table a Facebook page that just under 10000 people signed up to in a few days regarding— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the Facebook page about? 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: It is called “Keep neurosurgery in Dunedin”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: The third document is a little more readily accessible but when you make judgment on it Mr Speaker please consider that it is very very funny. I seek leave to table today’s  
Southland Times 
 cartoon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not be doing that. 
Housing—Challenges 
9. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What are the current challenges the Government is facing with housing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I have to say the housing portfolio was left to this Government with significant problems. I am advised that over 20000 State houses are of the wrong size in the wrong place or in a state of significant disrepair. Additionally over 8 years despite the State housing stock growing by thousands the waiting list has stayed consistently at about 10000 families. It is clearly time to take a fresh look at that. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What is the Minister doing about the challenges that he has identified? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: A lot more than the previous Government. For starters we are helping to address the need. In the next financial year the Housing New Zealand Corporation will upgrade another 8000 State houses and acquire roughly another 280. We are also committed to the policy of income-related rents. But this Government is open to doing things better and we actually want to have the right houses of the right standard in the right places for those who are most in need. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What advice has the Minister sought on ways to address these issues in the longer term? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: In February the Minister of Finance and I established the Housing Shareholders’ Advisory Group to provide advice on the current state of social housing in New Zealand and report back with recommendations for improvements so that we can better meet the needs of the most vulnerable in our society and on the waiting list. This group made up of experts in social housing and property investment will be releasing its report tomorrow. We now want the broadest group possible from the housing sector to comment on it and to consider the challenge. I take this opportunity to thank the group for the work that it has done. I look forward to the release tomorrow of the report and to the consequential public discussion that will undoubtedly follow. 
Employment 90-day Trial Period—Prime Minister’s Statements 
10. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s statement on the 90-day scheme that “employers have generally acted responsibly and workers have been treated fairly”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes. The Prime Minister’s statement referred to the findings of the Department of Labour evaluation report which also noted that employers view dismissal as a negative outcome and actively try to avoid it. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague but we could not hear the answer. The microphone was not turned on in time for the Minister. Could she repeat her answer please? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister would not mind I would appreciate it if she could repeat her answer for the benefit of the House because it was hard to hear it. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Yes. The Prime Minister’s statement referred to the findings of the Department of Labour evaluation report which also noted that employers view dismissal as a negative outcome and actively try to avoid it. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the current law state that the 90-day trial period is voluntary and must be negotiated between the employer and employee in good faith; if so would it be acting irresponsibly for an employer to advertise a job as having a 90-day trial period before discussing the option with a prospective employee? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: It is clear that the 90-day trial period is by agreement with the employee. Unless employees want a trial period they do not have to have one but both employees and employers are subject to the provisions of good faith negotiations with that small exception in relation to the 90-day dismissal. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she therefore consider the numerous employers currently advertising jobs with 90-day trial periods online clearly without any discussion or negotiation with any prospective employee to be acting responsibly; if not what will she do about it? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Well clearly it is not compulsory for a prospective employee to apply for that job. But this policy is about giving opportunities to people who would otherwise not get them and giving them the chance to prove themselves. 
Allan Peachey 
: What reports has the Minister seen regarding fair treatment in the workplace? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have seen reports of a whistleblower branded “sad” and “incompetent”. I have seen reports of a woman rejected for work because of the job her partner did. I have also seen reports of a union worker sacked by the Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union because he belonged to the ACT Party. All three of those cases can be laid at the feet of the Labour Party and its supporters. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Further to her answer to the last supplementary question from Darien Fenton did she indicate it was her view that people who did not like jobs with an advertisement that indicated that a 90-day period was a requirement should not apply for them? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: What I indicated is that the 90-day trial period requires the consent of the employee and the employee does not have to agree to one. But if employees want to take up opportunities and be given the chance to prove themselves then I suggest that they do avail themselves of this very successful policy. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Given that the Government has now twice denied the public the right to have a say on the 90-day fire-at-will scheme—firstly by pushing the legislation through under urgency and secondly by voting down my member’s bill last night—will she guarantee that any extension to the 90-day law will get full select committee scrutiny so that employees who have been done over by unreasonable employers such as those that have been described earlier will have the opportunity to have their say? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Although that member is making some very misleading assumptions I can say that the extension of the 90-day trial period will be in an employment relations bill that will go through select committee scrutiny. 
Darien Fenton 
: I seek leave to table six job advertisements for a range of positions all of which stipulate a 90-day trial period as a condition of employment. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of these advertisements? 
Darien Fenton 
: TradeMe and Seek. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Kopu Bridge Replacement—Progress 
11. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: How is work progressing on the Kopu Bridge 1 year since construction began? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Transport 
: Excellent progress has been made on the State Highway 25 Kopu Bridge replacement project. Construction started 1 year ago. The anniversary was marked with the last of the four steel bridge beams that connect the middle span of the new bridge being lifted into place. These beams will support the concrete bridge deck. They will carry two lanes of traffic. In addition the manufacturing of the steel girders has begun in Auckland. As promised this project is delivering jobs and growth that would not have otherwise occurred. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How far ahead of schedule is work on the Kopu Bridge? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: Replacement of the Kopu Bridge was not scheduled to start immediately under the previous Government but we were able to bring forward the project as part of our $500 million jobs and growth plan. Piling and pier construction is under way in earnest and the project is on track for completion in the middle of 2012. The accelerated progress of this project follows other recent good news with the opening of the Manukau Harbour Crossing 7 months early the announcement that the southern half of the Newmarket Viaduct is to open 6 months early and the list goes on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure whether that had a lot to do with the question. 
Financial Advice—Minister’s Statement 
12. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement “if you know which websites to go to you can get access to high quality advice”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment)  
on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: Yes because under the open Government style of this administration huge amounts of high-quality public advice are placed on Government websites. 
Grant Robertson 
: How far has he taken this “government by Google” approach; for instance has he suggested to John Key that he do a google search for the words “economic” and “plan”—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the member. I could not hear the member’s question. I ask the Government backbenchers to be a little more reasonable please. I ask Grant Robertson to repeat his question. 
Grant Robertson 
: How far has he taken this “government by Google” approach; for instance has he suggested to John Key that he do a google search for the words “economic” and “plan” in the absence of one from the Government? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There is lots of good material on the web albeit I notice that on the Labour Party website under “Labour policy” there is absolutely nothing. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can he confirm that the Government’s mining policy was the result of Gerry Brownlee googling the phrases “big hole in the ground” and “when to stop digging”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Minister for Economic Development’s plan for growing the mining and petroleum industry is of huge importance. If I look at the confidence in that sector I am confident that he will deliver extra economic activity and growth. 
Chris Tremain 
: What advice has the Minister of Finance received on the growth in public spending on policy advice in recent years and how does it compare with growth in the economy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The advice is that Government spending on policy advice grew by more than 70 percent in the preceding 6 years whereas growth in the tradable sector over those same 6 years was zero and the overall economy grew in real terms by just 12 percent. This growth in Wellington bureaucracy is not sustainable and is the reason why the Minister of Finance the Minister for Regulatory Reform and the Minister of State Services have announced a review of that expenditure to ensure that we put the focus on front-line services. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can he confirm that Paula Bennett’s policy call for people to step up is based on a visit to the website of the movie  
Step Up 
 which is described as being “clichéd full of quite frankly terrible dialogue … and twists that you can see coming a mile off.”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What I can confirm about the Minister for Social Development and Employment is that the very popular policies she has initiated to help get New Zealanders through the worst recession since the Great Depression are having a hugely positive impact. Any constituency MP would know that programmes such as Fresh Start and a large number of others are playing handsome dividends. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is he concerned that there is a risk that seeking policy advice on the Internet may lead to the Government losing its entire budget to the son of a deposed Nigerian prince? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I can assure the member opposite that we will not be following the absolutely blank page of policy advice that is on the New Zealand Labour Party’s website. 
Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be now read a second time 
. This bill is part of the Future Focus initiatives that we campaigned on that were announced in March and that New Zealand wants. Future Focus will help people through a mixture of incentives and obligations. It reassures New Zealand taxpayers that we are spending their money carefully as only those who need help will get it. It is fair to both those who need help and those whose tax dollars provide it. 
This Government is committed to a welfare system that is fair sustainable and helps people in their time of need while not trapping them in a downward spiral of dependence. It is undeniable that in New Zealand we have too many children growing up in homes where the only income is a benefit for years and years. We want them to have aspirations we want them to have hope and we want them to have opportunity. 
Over the past decade New Zealand became complacent about benefit numbers. With a relatively good economy and skill shortages everywhere the Government really did not have to do anything much to see unemployment numbers fall as they did. But the unemployment figures hid the true story. An increasing number of people consigned to welfare long-term were effectively written off. John Key’s Government believes that everyone should be working if they can. They should be in full-time work if it is available. They should be able to have the sorts of opportunities the upskilling and the training that matters. 
Today we have seen the household labour force survey and unemployment is up at 6.8 percent. The unemployment benefit story over the last same quarter though showed that we were having some stability and that people were getting opportunities. In July alone we saw 6300 new jobs come into Work and Income but that does not say that it is easy for people at the moment. That is why we need to make sure we are putting the right supports in place. We are helping those people who need it most but we are backing them to upskill to get training and to look for work. 
I believe that the vast majority of New Zealanders want to work. But if someone has not worked for a long time or ever in some cases that person might need help encouragement incentives and even the occasional prod. This bill reinforces those expectations on people receiving a benefit. It is very clear about what New Zealand expects people to do in return for the financial support they receive. We expect those on the unemployment benefit to make every effort to find work. We expect someone on the domestic purposes benefit whose youngest child has turned 6 to be looking for part-time work. We expect someone on a sickness benefit whose doctor says he or she can work part-time to be doing so. Those expectations are reasonable. 
Those who are looking for work but cannot find it will not be penalised at all. [ 
Interruption 
] I say again for the benefit of the member opposite that those who are looking for work but cannot find it will not be penalised by these changes. In fact there are incentives in this bill that will support and help those people who are stepping up and want to do it. We have taken great care to be reasonable in implementing these work tests. We are making sure that the work is suitable for people who are looking. We are making sure that it fits in with them and their families and is close to home if it has to be. We are giving them those sorts of opportunities. 
If we have expectations of those who are on welfare there need to be consequences for people who do not play their part. It is reasonable to have rules about what will happen if people do not meet these expectations. If someone is not prepared to make the effort to look for work why should taxpayers continue to provide support? People will obviously continue to receive help if they are trying to find a job but not succeeding. But there are clear sanctions for those who do not make the effort to attend an interview get help for alcohol and drug problems that are stopping them from working or turn up for training courses. 
The Social Services Committee in its consideration of the bill recommended a number of changes. These changes improve the clarity of the bill in a number of places and I thank the committee members for the work they have done. I would like to address some of these changes. The committee has recommended that the name of the bill be changed to the Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill which is a recommendation that I support. I am pleased that the committee has recommended a name that reflects the bill’s intent. 
The bill introduces a work test for sole parents once their youngest child is 6. Just last week we learnt of an American study into the effect of maternal employment on child cognitive and social development. The study assessed the total effect on a child of the mother going out to work including factors outside the home. The study by New York’s Columbia University School of Social Work found that although there are downsides to mothers taking on work during their child’s first year there are also significant advantages such as an increase in the mother’s income and well-being and a greater likelihood that children receive high-quality childcare. 
The work test for sole parents is a key part of the Future Focus package. It reflects our desire to encourage people whose youngest child is aged 6 or more back into work. We believe this is in their own best interests the best interests of their children and the interests of New Zealand as a whole. We are bringing in some incentives to make work pay including changes to the abatement regime which we have not seen for many many years. Beneficiaries will be able to earn more and keep that money in their own pocket before it affects the amount they can receive each week. 
We are also focusing quite strongly our childcare resources where they are needed most. We are putting additional training and industry partnerships in place and working with sole parents to ease their transition back into the workforce when work becomes available. Already we have 17 employers indicating that they want to work with us and particularly with those women who are on the domestic purposes benefit and going into part-time work. 
The key to the success of this legislation being implemented will be that we work closely with employers and with those who are trying to gain skills and get experience so that they can enter the workforce. A key difference we see is I think the fact that I do not see these people as victims. I see them as survivors who have something to contribute to society. There are opportunities for them to step up and I will back them in that every time. 
The provisions in the current Act allow the work test to be delayed for 4 weeks following a child’s 6th birthday. This dates back to the last time a work test for sole parents was introduced. The select committee has recommended removing this provision so that a sole parent can be work-tested straight away. This makes sense as Work and Income will in any case be writing to all sole parents who are on the domestic purposes benefit 4 weeks before their child turns 6. As the committee points out this is enough notice. 
There are sanctions in this bill for those who do not take seriously their obligations to work towards getting off welfare. However we are making it easy to re-comply because this bill is not about punishing people. It is designed to get them to change their behaviour. If for example a beneficiary has been sanctioned for failing to turn up for a training course a commitment to attend will mean he or she complies as long as it is followed up with the actual attendance of course. For persistent offenders though Work and Income will be looking for actions rather than just promises. 
The committee also recommended that people should have only 4 weeks in which to re-comply following a first sanction for failing to meet their obligations. The setting of a time limit sends a strong message. Two of the submissions on the bill recommended that nurse practitioners be allowed to sign medical certificates for sickness beneficiaries. This issue has been raised on a number of occasions and I am happy that we are fixing it. It makes sense for the person supervising a person’s health care to assess his or her ability to work. The bill introduces a new requirement that people receiving the unemployment benefit have to reapply for it after 52 weeks and complete a comprehensive work assessment. 
Finally I again thank the select committee members for the work they have done for their thoroughness and for the advice which we have taken on some of the changes in the bill. I especially acknowledge the work of the chair Katrina Shanks and my colleagues on the committee. They have listened have sought advice from the officials who worked so closely with them and have made recommendations that I am pleased to take up. 
This bill is a sensible bill. It does not treat people as victims who cannot help themselves. It treats them as the true survivors and heroes they are. I believe in them and in their ability and I will back them every step of the way. Thank you. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to speak on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. The first thing I need to say is that it is disgraceful for the Minister for Social Development and Employment to stand in the House after having platformed herself as some sort of battling solo mother and martyr for solo mums out there and seek to take away things that she once claimed. She has already denied them the training incentive allowance and she is putting the boot in again to people who are already down and out. I think it is disgraceful. [ 
Interruption 
] 
I say to Mr Garrett that although Labour supports some provisions in the bill such as increasing benefit abatement income thresholds and the annual CPI adjustment of certain benefits it is fundamentally opposed to the provision on work testing and the discriminatory nature of the bill. Also of considerable concern is the Minister’s inability to adequately define welfare dependency which is the underlying reason for this bill. That point came up over and over again when we tried to get a definition out of the Minister. 
Labour agrees with the overwhelming majority of the submitters to the Social Services Committee who believed that many of the provisions in the bill are unwarranted. Many submitters believed that the amendments are a modern form of beneficiary bashing the likes of which they had not seen since the 1990s when National was in office. One reputable submitter a researcher believed that the bill was so flawed that it had no redeeming features and should be withdrawn. The Law Commission was also critical of the bill believing that it was in need of a major rewrite and should state citizens’ rights clearly. 
Labour has serious concerns regarding the proposed changes to the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit. Setting the limit on work hours at 15 hours per week is an arbitrary distinction that will disadvantage many beneficiaries. For example a person who is judged by a medical professional to be able to work slightly fewer than 15 hours per week would be eligible for the invalids benefit while another person who is judged able to work slightly more than 15 hours per week would be eligible to receive only the sickness benefit and thus would be on a much lower income. Given the minimal difference in capability to work between the two examples the proposed system would be obviously unfair. 
The proposed changes would also mean that someone with a newly acquired disability would be more likely to receive the sickness benefit than the invalids benefit and with it face increased pressure to find full-time work. For people who are struggling to deal with significant changes in their lives and who may or may not yet have access to necessary equipment that would enable them to work such as a wheelchair eligibility to receive the invalids benefit would allow them to put their focus where it needs to be—that is on adapting to life with a disability. To be forced on to the sickness benefit rather than the invalids benefit would be an unnecessary hardship. 
The submission from the IHC expressed the concern that people with intellectual disabilities particularly young school-leavers who are unable to find suitable employment will find it more difficult to qualify for an invalids benefit. They may instead find themselves on a sickness benefit and face unrealistic expectations about finding work. Many intellectually disabled people who can work need the invalids benefit as a safety net as they transition in and out of work. Changing the criteria for reapplying for this benefit will discriminate against intellectually disabled people and place undue financial and psychological stress upon them. 
Several of the major social service agencies that presented submissions to the select committee viewed most of the provisions of this bill as unnecessary. They believe that the Government’s concern about growing welfare dependency is not based on any evidence and that the current system is working well. Labour along with some of the submitters on this bill also believes that it makes little sense to continue with the changes proposed in this bill before the Government’s Welfare Working Group on welfare dependency has reported back with its recommendations for reform. 
Not one of the major agencies that work with domestic purposes beneficiaries and with those on the unemployment benefit supports the underlying assumption in the bill that the change will create a fairer benefit system with an unrelenting focus on beneficiaries entering or returning to employment. Rather the agencies believe that the bill will make matters worse for those on benefits and will drive even greater numbers to seek assistance from food banks and other voluntary service support organisations. 
Many of the voluntary services and support organisations that made submissions highlighted the increased workload that they are handling ever since National took office. One of the things that I thought was very interesting was the submission that came from Caritas the Catholic Church. It is concerned about the increasing pressure from this Government to support these people because the Government is devolving increasing amounts of responsibility to those organisations. The Catholic Church made it very clear that in its mind the State—the Government—has a responsibility to work alongside the church and similar organisations not to devolve responsibility to them. 
Labour believes that the provisions on work testing solo parents are fundamentally flawed. They show little appreciation of the demands of the parenting role on single parents and limit the ability of case workers to seriously consider individual circumstances on a case by case basis. They show little appreciation of the effect on single parents of having job responsibilities even when their children are at school. Labour believes that these pressures are not reduced because childcare responsibilities are demanding of single parents and often require full-time attention. They have been compared with the model of the two-parent household and on that basis the proposals in this bill reflect the presumption that all single parents with school-age children should be expected to take on employment. 
Labour believes that the current provisions of section 154(4) of the Social Security Act are sufficient to signal the importance of work if it can be reasonably factored into the care responsibilities of single parents. The irony is that in the maiden speech made by Paula Bennett now Minister for Social Development and Employment she stated that parents should have the choice “to work part time or full time in paid work or not at all or stay at home and raise their children.” However she seems to have changed her mind or perhaps when she made that statement she was talking about women who have a husband and the white picket fence and not those who are attempting to raise their children by themselves. 
Labour agrees with submitters that the proposals in this bill do not focus sufficiently on enabling single parents to prepare for the job market while they are single parents. There is evidence that when single parents are able to use the time when they have full-time parenting responsibilities to prepare for the job market by taking up educational opportunities they are able to come off the benefit and enter into sustainable and permanent jobs on reasonable pay. The effect of repealing the current provisions for a personal development and employment plan is that educational opportunities will no longer be considered. Labour is concerned that domestic purposes benefit recipients will be supported only if they choose to take on study at levels 1 to 3. The changes to the training incentive allowance already disadvantage recipients of the domestic purposes benefit who want to take on level 4 or higher qualifications. This bill will further disadvantage the recipients by acting as a deterrent to their enrolling in tertiary education programmes at levels 4 or higher. It will have a negative impact not only on the ability of those solo parents to develop themselves professionally but also on the children of those parents. 
Labour believes that these provisions demonstrate that the Government’s approach to single parents in this bill is punitive. No evidence has been presented on the Government’s belief that an unrelenting focus on work without taking into account the real demands of parenting will produce better outcomes for children and their parents. I think it is timely that today we saw the statistics on unemployment and saw the increase in unemployment that is happening in this country. It shows that the Government really does not have a plan it is doing nothing for those families and it is doing nothing to create jobs. Government members are saying that they will have an unrelenting focus on getting these people out into the workforce but they are doing absolutely nothing to build a workforce for them to go out into. 
Labour believes that the Government’s not having any targets for reducing the number of people on benefits through the provisions in this bill shows that it is proceeding from an ideological base rather than one based on good evidence and a real desire to improve the lives of children in single-parent households and enable single parents to prepare for a well-paying job when they enter the labour market. We will not be supporting this bill and we encourage everybody across the House to vote this bill down. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take this call and support the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill in its second reading. Firstly I would like to acknowledge our hard-working Minister Paula Bennett who is the member for Waitakere. She put a lot of work into getting this bill into the House and into the Social Services Committee. It is a bill that will make a difference to the people of New Zealand. I would also like to thank the officials for the hard work they put into our select committee and for the time they gave us. We continually sent them back for more and more information and they kept on coming back so I thank them very much for the hard work they put in; we really appreciated what they did to get this bill to the state it is in today. 
It is interesting being out in the electorate of Ohariu. People may think it is a slightly richer suburb and certainly there are areas that are well off but there are also areas that are hard up in that electorate. I have my office based in Johnsonville. I have many constituents who come into the office who have lost their jobs in the recession and they are finding it really tough. All they want is to get back to work and get their lives on track again. I have constituents who come in who have been on benefits for a very long period of time. They like this Government and I will tell members why. They come in and they say: “It is because you are a Government that is aspirational for us. You’re not going to let us stay where we are. We want to have some choices in our lives.” and that is what this Government is about. We are about allowing people to have choices in their lives and to get off the welfare system. 
I know that the Opposition struggles with the fact that people want to get out of the welfare system have some options and have a future for their families. They want to be a little bit aspirational; they do. That is why this legislation is something that New Zealanders are asking for. Let us put a focus on helping people get back into work. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: That member should be ashamed of herself. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: It is interesting that that member says I should be ashamed of myself for having aspirations. You should be ashamed of yourself for wanting to keep people on the welfare system— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member but I have let this go for some time now as I thought that the member might have come to order. Standing Order 103 says that when a member is addressing the Speaker: “A member on being called to speak addresses the Speaker and through the Speaker the House.” For the last minute or so this member has used the word “you” indicating that she is bringing you Mr Assistant Speaker into the debate when she should not do so. I think she needs to be brought to order. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is correct. I invite the member to continue and to not address her comments to the Assistant Speaker. I am here to chair this meeting not to be the subject of any comments on this bill or otherwise. 
KATRINA SHANKS 
: My apologies for that. 
It is very interesting that those Labour members sit over there and have no aspirations for New Zealanders. This legislation will address that. I will give members a few facts to just throw out there. Currently this legislation will affect 345000 beneficiaries including: 43000 domestic purposes beneficiaries who have a youngest child of 6 or over; 12000 unemployed beneficiaries who have been on the unemployment benefit for more than a year; 29580 sickness beneficiaries who have been on a sickness benefit for more than a year; and 85000 people who receive the invalids benefit. That is a big group of people that we are talking about. So that members can see the big numbers we are talking about I tell them that the cost of paying these benefits in the 2008-09 year was $4.8 billion in total $1.8 billion in additional support which includes hardship grants and accommodation supplements $1.5 billion for domestic purposes benefits and $586 million for the unemployment benefit. That is a huge amount of money that we are talking about which we are putting into a group of people who want to go out work and help themselves. That is what this legislation is doing. 
I will just touch on a couple of points to finish off in terms of what this legislation is doing. It says that if someone is unemployed every 12 months we want that person to go back be reassessed go through the criteria and be refocused again instead of just automatically rolling over on the unemployment benefit. We say that we would like those mothers on the domestic purposes benefit who have a child who is 6 years or older to go out and get a job for a minimum of only 15 hours a week so that they can still do the school drop-off and the school pick-up every day. But they can go out there and get a pathway towards getting some work and getting ahead in life. 
We all know that welfare is not a way of life; it is a really really hard way of living. We want people to live better than that. We want them to have a really good living standard and to go out and give their children the things they got when they were growing up as well. There are a whole lot of things that are in this bill that I will touch on in the second reading. Thank you. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 Labour members believe that people want to work. We believe that if there are jobs out there people want to work. The difference between National and Labour on this matter is that when National members talk about work it is aspirational. When Labour members talk about work we talk about real jobs real wages and giving workers a fair go in the workplace. But what have we seen today? Unemployment has gone up. There is no other way to say it. Unemployment has gone up from 6 percent to 6.8 percent. Maori unemployment has gone up. Youth unemployment has gone up. This Government is not creating a plan for growth to create jobs so that the people out there whom Labour back who want to work can get a job keep it and be treated fairly in the workplace. 
National members can talk about aspiration all they want but the proof of the pudding is in people getting real jobs real work and real wages. That is really at the nub of this debate. We cannot talk about reform of the benefit system if we do not understand the context of the economy at the time. There are no jobs out there so any reform of the benefit sector has to take that into account. The previous speaker Katrina Shanks made a contribution about the people on the domestic purposes benefit. I no more than others have seen the effects of the increasing numbers of domestic purposes beneficiaries at the community level. But let us be realistic. Domestic purposes benefit statistics have gone up. Too many of the people receiving the domestic purposes benefit are young mothers and that is of concern to me. 
I more than anyone else would love to see further opportunities for women who are on the domestic purposes benefit but some of the realities of their lives are not even recognised by members opposite. The plain reality is that if we looked at the domestic purposes benefit statistics and at the proportion of recipients who are young mothers we would see that more should be done to try to keep them in the education system and engaged so that their future prospects of employment can increase. There is no plan whatsoever from the Minister for Social Development and Employment—and she of all Ministers should know the issues—as to what she will do to improve that fact. Far too many of the people who receive the domestic purposes benefit are young mums. They need to continue to be engaged in education so that their future employment opportunities can improve. Sadly that is not happening. 
My colleague Carmel Sepuloni raised the issue of the training incentive allowance. When Labour was in Government it restored the training incentive allowance to 100 percent funding. This enabled the women who were attending foundation courses for free—most of them were funded through adult education or by the wananga or other training providers—to use the training incentive allowance to do level 4 - plus courses which improved their employment opportunities. I know of mums who accessed the training incentive allowance to do a law degree to do a management degree or to do degree-based courses that really transformed the opportunity for their little whanau to lead a sustainable and independent life. 
This Government took away that opportunity. All that it is providing is $500 for level 4 courses. Will that work? I think not because these days undertaking a level 4 course means making quite a significant investment. That will make hardly an iota of difference to the mums who want to transform the lives of their families and take on tertiary education. By the way it will be hard for them to get into universities and polytechnics under the tertiary reforms that the Government is promoting at the moment. 
I am most concerned at feedback through the select committee process from services like Presbyterian Support New Zealand. It said that the bill and specifically the issue of work testing ignores the distinctions between why people are on a benefit: whether they cannot find work they are not well enough to work or they cannot provide support and care for their dependent children and that there are valid reasons for different approaches to these different groups in terms of assistance. 
Presbyterian Support does not comment lightly on these kinds of issues. Its members have real-life experience. In fact they often pick up the pieces of a number of families who come through their doors at times of absolute desperation and need. They see the matrix of complex issues surrounding the most vulnerable in our society. I think the Government needs to be concerned when organisations like that start to comment on legislation that has not even passed human rights tests. It is discriminatory legislation that is being passed so we should be very concerned as a Parliament if we continue to head down a track where discriminatory legislation that affects the most vulnerable in our society is being highlighted by the services that pick up the pieces. What will the Minister do? 
The other point I want to comment on which the Social Services Committee considered is the issues around work assessment for sickness beneficiaries. When we look at this whole area we see again that it is complex. The people who go on to the sickness benefit have often come from full-time employment. When they were in full-time employment they had obligations like many other people: a mortgage bills to pay and things like that. For whatever reason they got sick at work were unable to access accident compensation—I have a constituent in just this situation—and had to go on to the sickness benefit. There is an immediate drop in income. My constituent had existing and fixed expenditure obligations and had to make some really critical decisions like selling the home because the sickness benefit could not pay for the change in circumstances. 
The bill says that sickness beneficiaries should be work tested and go and find a part-time job. That is all right if there is a part-time job out there it is all right if their condition is taken into account by their new employer and it is more all right if the beneficiary’s existing employer will accept a drop in hours so that the employee can be taken back on to work part-time. In the case that I am referring to the employer did not want to take the employee back so that person had to look for work with a new employer. It is not so easy to find a part-time job. The stress that is caused for people who have fixed expenditure like a mortgage or bills to pay can be quite damaging to their continued health and well-being. It can continue to aggravate their sickness. So I am concerned about the bill’s inability to take account of real-life issues and the types of challenges that beneficiaries face when seeking employment. That is a real concern to me. 
Finally I commend the one part of the bill that I think should be obligatory for all of those who are in receipt of a benefit and for all New Zealanders and it covers the issue of financial literacy. Ensuring people know how to manage their budgets can be a very empowering opportunity. The one concern I want to relay to the Minister in particular in respect of budgeting activities is that although beneficiaries can voluntarily ask the Ministry of Social Development for example to pay their rent and power as a result of its budgeting support I do not believe that finance companies should be a part of an immediate payment from the ministry. I believe that the ministry should take a greater role to ensure that if it knows that beneficiaries are getting finance from finance companies then greater hands-on case management is coordinated in line with the budgeting activities and the budgeting advice that they receive from the budgeting service. 
Finally I cannot see how discriminatory legislation can go forward in this manner. I believe that the context for considering such legislation has to take account of the fact that there are no jobs out there. It will be really hard for beneficiaries and from 1 October it will get harder. No one believes more than Labour that people out there want to work; the jobs are just not available. National does not have a plan to grow productivity for good wages and job availability so that people can get a job keep it and ensure that they get paid so they can put kai on the table to feed their whanau. Kia ora. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I have a sense of déjà vu about this Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill which the National majority on the Social Services Committee has reported back to the House with virtually no significant changes despite overwhelming opposition from the submitters. I think that only four of the 70-odd submitters supported this legislation. 
Hon Member 
: Four? 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Only four. All the experts involved in social policy development for the last 20 or 30 years have opposed this legislation with some going as far as saying that it should be thrown out. It was not even remedial; there was nothing we could do to make it fair just or appropriate for the needs of sole parents in particular and their children. 
Before I continue with our concerns about the bill I will acknowledge the work of the officials. It was a very difficult and fractious select committee process because these issues are very significant. They are about whether we treat children and their families with respect. The officials have to pursue Government policy. If Government policy is cruel and degrading then the officials have no choice but to be part of the development of cruel and degrading legislation which this bill is. 
Back in 1991 I was very active in the National Unemployed and Beneficiary Movement. I witnessed firsthand the effects of those twin attacks. I suffered as a person on the dole and later as a sole parent with a small child on the domestic purposes benefit. The previous National Government’s 1991 benefit cuts and the Employment Contracts Act came into effect at the same time. Those measures heralded 10 very long years of low economic growth high unemployment downward pressure on real wages and employment conditions and poverty—severe poverty—for anyone unfortunate enough to be on a benefit or a low income. 
Here we see National which claims to aspire to closing the wage gap with Australia doing exactly what the Australians have just confessed was a failed policy. National is attacking workers’ rights with measures such as this bill and the precise opposite of what it claims it wants to do will occur. This legislation will not close the wage gap with Australia; it will make it much much worse. Not only that it will increase further the gap between rich and poor in this country to an even more unacceptable level. 
I challenge the Minister for Social Development and Employment to tell the House why the Government is forcing tens of thousands of beneficiaries—many of them will have limited skills and a marginal capacity to work because of their illness or disability or they will be parents who want to be good parents and care for their children—into a labour market that cannot provide them with work. This bill will do nothing for those people. It is simply a matter of supply and demand: if more people are competing for the same number of jobs then real wages for everyone will go down not up. If the trend of recent employment rates revealed today in the June household labour force survey continues then we will have even more people competing for fewer jobs which will create even greater downward pressure on wages. 
This bill is a driver of poverty. This bill is a driver of low wages. This bill is a driver of child neglect. That is what this legislation does under Minister Paula Bennett. Policies such as these were a large part of the cause of the wage gap with Australia blowing out under the previous National Government. With bizarre back-to-the-future reasoning National is claiming that even though this plan failed and increased the wage gap in the 1990s somehow it can close the wage gap with exactly the same plan now. We know that this is ideological faith-based legislation. There is no evidence—no evidence—that any measures in this bill will achieve the outcomes— 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Faith-based ha ha! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Faith-based legislation is what it is. There is no evidence that it will do anything. We will look at the Australian example in a moment. 
I want to make the point that motherhood is a job. Motherhood is a highly valuable significant job that is never given the credit it deserves. The women and the men—the mothers and fathers—who are sole parents who are out there caring for and raising their children are doing an incredible job. What they do not need from anyone is the disrespect and disgraceful disregard that this legislation and this Government is showing them. Parents need support to continue the most essential job of raising our children to be productive and happy citizens of this country. That will happen only if they are treated like respected citizens of this country. This legislation does not do that. 
We in the Green Party do not agree with the “work first” ideology that says that any paid work no matter how menial it is or how lowly the pay rates and conditions are is better than no paid work at all. In fact we know that a significant contribution is made by those who are on benefits and who cannot work because of their circumstances. They make a huge contribution to volunteer labour in this country and that adds enormous value to the services that provide support for the people who need it. That is being attacked in this legislation as well. 
The punitive approach in this bill particularly towards domestic purposes beneficiaries coupled with the abolition of the training incentive allowance for tertiary education risks parents being moved off benefits and into low-paid temporary or casual work. The result will be an increase in labour market churn which will be exacerbated by the extension of the 90-day fire-at-will law. That will make it worse and make it even more insecure for families who need a much more secure base. As a consequence there will be significant negative implications for workforce productivity and wages. 
Parents are the best-qualified people to make decisions about what is best for their children and about how they should balance their childcare responsibilities. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: Ha ha! 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Paula Bennett laughs at the idea that parents are the best-qualified people to make these decisions. So much for the nanny State accusations made by National! Paula Bennett does not think that parents are the best people to decide. Paula Bennett says that she is the best person to decide. She knows what children need. She knows what solo parents should be doing. She knows what those children need in their childcare and how they should be raised so she will force their parents out to work knowing that if they cannot find work and if their case manager is not supportive then those beneficiaries could lose half of their benefit. A beneficiary’s children— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: But she won’t support them to study. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: She will not even support beneficiaries into study which in a recession is the most practical new thing that we can do. For people who have low qualifications in a very poor job market with high unemployment we should be supporting them into study. But not this Minister. This Minister will use punitive measures to attack their children and drive those families further into poverty. 
There are significant child welfare concerns about children being left at home alone if sole parents are forced against their better judgment to go out to work. Those risks to child welfare were identified in 2002 in the evaluation of the 1999 welfare reforms. That was the last time we applied work testing to sole parents. The 2002 evaluation clearly showed that there was a serious issue and that further work needed to be done on child welfare if that programme was to continue but there has been no further research. There is a very serious concern that the Government is undertaking these measures knowing that there is no evidence to show that it will achieve its objective. No evidence or work has been done to ensure that there will not be serious child welfare issues if sole parents are forced to go out to work. 
Leaving children at home alone is a form of child abuse; this is structural child abuse in my view. What will happen with those families and those children? The Minister can frown and shake her head but she knows as well as I do how difficult it is for sole parents to be able to take good care of their kids. Other members in this Chamber also understand very clearly what that life is like and know of the efforts that sole parents go to in order to make sure they can raise their kids well and take care of them. When sole parents need social support they go to the Government and ask for it and they get it. They get it they deserve it and they are entitled to it because it helps them to raise their kids well. But this Government will make that virtually impossible for those people—virtually impossible for those people. 
We know that this policy has failed in Australia. In fact just this year Australia relaxed its work-testing regime for sole parents to make sure that part-time study and volunteer work are also part of the package for social assistance. It is not just paid work in that package as this Minister is imposing here. Not only is there no evidence that these proposals will work but also where similar proposals have been put in place elsewhere there is evidence that they have failed. Everywhere else in the world is backtracking from these sorts of proposals. The issue is that if we guarantee the essentials then we can guarantee the opportunities for beneficiaries and their families. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou katoa e te Whare tatou e hui nei i tenei rangi. Kua tu ake tenei na ki te korero mo te taha ki a matou o te Pati Maori. I roto i toku ngakau kei te ki atu kei te hiahia te Minita ki te awhina i te hunga e rongo nei i te ngau o te rawakore o te hiahia ki te hoki ki te mahi. Engari tona whakatinanatanga kei reira tonu te uauatanga. I roto i nga pire ka tae mai ki mua i te aroaro o te Whare Paremata kei reira tonu etahi wahanga e ahua pai ahakoa pehea mai Reipa mai Nahianara mai. Ko te mate ke kei reira ano hoki etahi wahanga he ahua uaua ki te whaiwhai haere. Na runga i te aha? Na runga i te uauatanga. No reira ko ta matau ko ta tatau o te Whare nei he ata titiro ki nga taha e rua mena ae ranei he kaha ake nga painga ki era o nga mea ahua kino nei. Mena ko te tikanga o tenei pire he whakarite i etahi huarahi kia tangohia nga here o te Karauna i runga i te tangata he mea pai tera. He mea pai rawa atu tera. Engari tona whakatinanatanga penei i taku e korero nei kei reira tonu te uauatanga. 
Kua roa te Ao Maori e korero ana kare e tika ana kia noho here te Maori me ki ki te penihana ki te Karauna. Kua roa tera e korerohia ana kua roa tera e waiatatia ana. Kei roto i nga waiata a Tuini Ngawai kei roto i nga haka a Ta Apirana Ngata kei roto i nga korero a John Tamihere ma; ko ratou te hunga i ki atu i whakaatu mai ki te motu kare te Maori i te hiahia kia herea e nga taura ki te penihana otira ki te Karauna. No reira me pehea e taea ai te tango mai te here kia taea ai e te Maori te hoki ki te tiaki i a ia ano otira kia taea ai e te motu te tiaki i a tatau ano kia waiho ake te taha ki te penihana ki a ia ano me ki kia panaia ai ki tawahi. 
[ 
Greetings to us all the House those assembled here today. I rise to express the view of the Maori Party. My heart is saying that the Minister wants to help those experiencing poverty and who want to return to work. But the implementation is really difficult. There are some provisions in the bills coming before the House that are somewhat beneficial whichever way one looks at it be it Labour or be it National. The real problem is that there are provisions as well that are quite difficult to address. And why is that? Because it is difficult. We propose that we of this House should examine both sides to see whether yes the benefits outweigh those aspects that are somewhat bad. If the purpose of this bill is to consider ways of removing encumbrances placed by the Crown on the individual then that is a good thing—a really great move. But implementing it in the manner that I am saying here still presents a difficulty.  
Maoridom has long said that it is not right for Maori to remain tied to the State through benefits. That has been talked and sung about for a long time. It is in Tuini Ngawai’s songs Sir Apirana’s posture dances speeches by the ilk of John Tamihere and others; they were ones who revealed to the nation that the Maori people wanted to be unencumbered by systems like benefits and being a State dependant. So I ask how the Maori people can be unshackled so that they and the rest of the country can return to a situation where they care for themselves; and that matters relating to benefits be addressed by them or be driven offshore 
.] 
I think the aim of the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill is to create a shift away from State dependency into full or part-time employment. It is obviously a laudable aim and one that our people have often spoken about passionately. As I said from the waiata of Tuini Ngawai through to haka by Sir Apirana Ngata even right down to people like John Tamihere and others who have graced the halls of Parliament there has been a desire to be free of the so-called benefit of the welfare system that has held our people for a very long time. Although the aspirational goal of reducing State dependency is a logical one the economic downturn however has actually resulted in a greater need for social security which is significantly so for Maori people. Can that be realistically achieved if there is a shortfall in the employment sector? A big factor in obtaining and keeping work is the availability of jobs but the needs of the whanau remain the same whether or not the jobs are there. 
Right now the statistics tell us as recently as of today that the unemployment rate—for Maori in particular—is going up and up; thereby lie some of the issues we face. The fact that Maori are disproportionately represented in the beneficiary sector coupled with the downturn in the types of jobs our people expect to be employed in mean that the bill would probably be detrimental to Maori at this point in time. We do not deny that there is an issue there. The total numbers of main benefits for all ages excluding New Zealand Superannuation and the veterans allowance have increased from 293562 at the end of November 2008 to a total of 355858 at the end of February 2010—an increase of 62296 or 21 percent. The numbers of those of all ages on the unemployment benefit have increased from the end of November 2008 to the end of February 2010 by 40340 or by 168 percent. The answer should not involve forcing people who are already in circumstances of hardship to face more hardship but that is the dilemma at the moment. 
The primary focus of the bill centres on Part 4 “Amendments to the Social Security Act 1964”. From our perspective the key to the bill lies in the single focus of gaining employment which as I say is a laudable aim. The bill repeals section 60O(a)(ii) of the Act which states that a personal development and employment plan is “designed to support the economic and social participation of the beneficiary who developed it:”. The economic and social participation aspect of the old definition is dropped. Yet what do we do in areas where there is limited employment available as discussed by other members? Do we not want to create opportunities for development? What about volunteering or supporting other members of the whanau? What do we do if in the end all the ducks do not line up to follow I suppose the logical course that people will move and have the opportunity to move into employment? 
The primary purpose of the bill is to require that people receiving certain benefits who can work accept offers of suitable work as a first priority encompassing within its scope work testing for beneficiaries. The real concern for the Maori Party is the promotion of a punitive policy designed to penalise those who fail to gain employment. For instance beneficiaries who fail to meet their obligations will be subject to a sanction of a 50 percent reduction in their benefit. The bill determines that for a first failure the person’s benefit must be reduced by 50 percent until the person re-complies. If a person’s dole is reduced or suspended and the person is re-granted the dole the reduction continues to apply to the re-granted dole until the person re-complies. 
Of course it is not just beneficiaries who will bear the brunt of this policy’s effects. In fact the Child Poverty Action Group also warns that the changes proposed under the Government’s future focus legislation—which insists on 15 hours’ paid employment—will worsen child poverty if parents are unable to find jobs. It was stated just last week by the Child Poverty Action Group that “New Zealand’s children have borne the brunt of changes in welfare education and the labour market in the last 20 years. If we leave their welfare to a minimal safety net we gamble with their futures. Children’s needs must be at the centre of policy decisions—not a by product of an increasingly precarious and volatile labour market.” We say that the Child Poverty Action Group has a very valid point. 
In addition there is of course concern regarding the availability of part-time work and the 90-day probation period especially where solo parents are concerned. We are interested in solutions actually in terms of how we can contribute as a party that would turn round the fortunes of our people. For instance the Mississippi-based Choctaw Corporation employs more than 6000 people in tribally owned businesses throughout America. It owns a whole range of businesses including aerospace manufacturers motor vehicle and electronic assembly plants casinos golf courses theme parks hotels commercial real estate and US defence contracts. In doing so the corporation has been able to liberate its people from poverty unemployment poor educational achievement and benefit dependency to be one of the most vibrant and successful socio-economic Indian models of development in America. That is where as a party we want to head. 
Last week I was fortunate to attend an event at Te Rapa with Tainui Group Holdings. Some of the amazing initiatives there include a new mall at The Base the retail centre in Hamilton which will see $120 million injected into the Waikato economy and generate an estimated 770 full-time and 760 part-time jobs. Our preference would be that we support iwi in determining their own solutions—solutions that include the opportunities for wealth creation and employment alternatives—but we must not neglect our responsibilities either as iwi or the State in supporting those of our members who are the most vulnerable. Unfortunately at this point in time the Maori Party cannot support this bill. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise and speak in the second reading of the Social Assistance Future Focus) Bill and I recognise that the Social Services Committee recommended that the name be changed to the Social Assistance (New Work Tests 
Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill. I will comment briefly on a number of speakers from the Opposition who have raised points before me. Then I will talk about a couple of parts of this bill that I think are very important and that New Zealanders need to hear more about. The first speaker on the side of the Opposition in this debate—in fact the first Opposition speaker in this debate—Carmel Sepuloni showed us all of the reasons why New Zealand decided to change Governments at the last election. Ms Sepuloni’s speech—as with her party—was out of touch her speech lacked vision and it lacked aspiration and Ms Sepuloni told beneficiaries all over New Zealand that that was as good as they could get and that they should be happy with what life had dealt them. Ms Sepuloni stalked into this debate with her mock hyena print scarf and all she could do was talk about Minister Paula Bennett and she mentioned a picket fence occasionally. 
But the whole of her speech virtually was about the hard-working Minister Paula Bennett and I think that Minister Bennett is probably Carmel Sepuloni’s role model. I detected a little bit of envy there and can I say to those listening there is a lot to be envious of. She is a Minister who cares for New Zealand. She is delivering for New Zealanders but she is not delivering slogans or hype unlike the member opposite and the people of Waitakere recognise this. I hear the hyenas want their scarf back because the member opposite has given them a bad name. 
I will also comment briefly on the speaker from the Green Party and I cannot bring myself to mention her name after the horrible horrible things that she did and said in undermining the real concerns about child abuse in this country. She belittled the seriousness of the need to care for our children and I think she should be ashamed. She should wake up and do a bit of research to see what the difference is between what she is trying to suggest this bill is doing—and it is certainly not—and what child abuse actually is. I have yet to meet anybody in this House who is not appalled by the horrible statistics and incidents of child abuse in this country. I think what that member said is appalling. 
This legislation is about balancing obligations and support so that beneficiaries can achieve the best outcomes for themselves and for those who depend upon them. This legislation will support people when they are most in need it will encourage them to get back to work and act when they do not take responsibility for themselves. The legislation focuses on what people can do not on what people cannot do. 
I congratulate Minister Paula Bennett because she is delivering on a pre-election promise to reform the welfare system—something we campaigned on and that New Zealanders accept. I also congratulate Minister Bennett on believing that those New Zealanders who can work should work. I know that the Minister believes that it is not fair on ordinary hard-working New Zealanders if the people receiving benefits are not making every effort to get back into the workforce. This Government is committed to a system that supports people when they need it most but that also encourages people to get back to work as soon as they are able to. This Government wants people to take responsibility for themselves for their families and for other taxpayers. I have had feedback from people who have been on benefits and from those who still are and who echo those sentiments and actually want that as well. 
It is important to recognise that people who receive a benefit are able to do so only because others are going to work every day and are earning wages and paying their tax. We want people to help themselves and we will give as much support as possible to them in these tough times to make sure that that happens. 
This legislation does a number of things. It will introduce part-time work-testing for mothers on the domestic purposes benefit when their youngest child reaches the age of 6. It will also provide additional support to those families in the case of child support and care and assistance and the work testing will be reasonable and will take into account the importance of the security of those children. The legislation will also look at sickness benefit recipients. Where medically they are assessed as being able to do some work then there will be an expectation that they will be looking for that work. 
When it comes to the unemployment benefit it will be limited to 12 months. We heard from the ministry that at the end of this period of time in good time a letter would be sent to people who had been on the unemployment benefit for 12 months telling them that they needed to reapply. If they do so then there will be assistance and more talking given to them about why they have not been able to find a job and some of those issues will be talked through. I get feedback from hard-working people in my electorate who pay their taxes and who say that after a year this action is more than reasonable. I think we have the balance right but many others in this House and outside this House believe that a year is a very long time. I am not one of those. 
We have also recognised that there will be graduated sanctions for non-compliance with these work obligations. Instead of a straight-out cancellation this legislation is about working with New Zealanders making sure that they can have the skills that they are looking for work and that where jobs are available for them they realise it is up to them to go out and take those jobs. There will also be new criteria for hardship grants. That is right; contrary to what members opposite say hardship grants will continue. We have not heard that from the members over there. That is certainly not the message that those members are delivering when they are frightening and scaring some of the most vulnerable New Zealanders. There is a boost of income abatement levels in a number of areas where benefits are received—for those who are on the domestic purposes benefit the invalids benefit and the widows benefit and for the non-qualifying partners of those on superannuation and the veterans pension—to assist them to make them better off and to help them back to the workforce. 
Then there is training support. There is a study loan to support solo parents on the domestic purposes benefit to study again. Members opposite said that that would not happen but it is happening and I have mentioned the additional child support. 
It was a very difficult bill to see through the Social Services Committee. We had a wide range of views but I think the amendments and changes that have been made have got this legislation right. The information I get from the public is that they support it. I look forward to the next stage when we get to speak about this bill more. Thank you. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 For me this Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill epitomises a contest between two futures for New Zealand. One view for New Zealand which is advanced by this Government is a future in which we are urged to suspect that our less wealthy citizens are lazy and to be insistent that they would not be in that position if they had just worked harder and had not utilised the social benefits of a collective society like ours. Those adopting this view like the members opposite give to themselves the right to insist on their particular moral code to which they expect every other citizen to subscribe. When others do not adopt that particular code they see that as being eventually damaging and as keeping the poor in their particular place—a place from which they cannot move. 
That is the view that the Government holds as the support for everything else it is proposing. But that has always been the view of National Governments and subsequent Labour Governments have always had to come along and fix up the huge gaps and problems that National Governments have left behind. No doubt the next Labour Government will have to correct the effects of this National Government’s policies and redress the particularly punitive residual approach of its particular type of conservatism. 
Hon Member 
: Don’t be holding your breath for that. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: The member who speaks realises that that is absolutely true. 
A second view of the future is based on an intimate understanding of the independent nature of our society the society in which we live. In this society all citizens are valued their input into developing the human and social capital of our nation is understood and appreciated and no citizen is valued above any other. This maturity and compassion has been brought to policies that Labour has proposed for a long time and Labour has been following that view along with like-minded members of this House. However this debate has already begun to testify to the existence of these two views. Members on the Government side have been couching their view in the language of expectation and belief in using taxpayers’ money effectively but underneath all of that lies a firm belief a punitive belief in residual social welfare. 
The New Zealand welfare State which is what we have in this society was born out of the realisation that no matter how desperately a person wanted to work and earn sufficient income to sustain his or her family structural and other forces could always compound achieving that particular ambition. The violence perpetrated on the families of the poor by owners of capital—through poor work conditions poor wages and the withdrawal of work—have led many families to crime and relationship breakdown and to a gulf between rich and poor. The welfare State was the response to those inequalities and followed the realisation that no nation could take advantage of only financial capital; it also had to develop social and human capital which were partners with economic capital in order to develop a decent society. Therefore welfare policies were put in place and from the time that they were put together they served the citizens of this nation well. 
However welfare policies have had to be tweaked from time to time; they have always had to be tweaked. We remember well when Ruth Richardson a National Minister of Finance attacked beneficiaries and took a billion dollars from them—and it is vulnerable families who are beneficiaries. Then the previous Labour Government had to tweak the policy again to address the low wages of New Zealand’s working families through the Working for Families programme. Through a series of policies about the focus on work Work and Income has achieved tremendous results. 
I thank Katrina Shanks who is the chair of the Social Services Committee and the members of the committee. Katrina chairs this particular committee very very well and gives us all a fair go. I think that we as members of that committee worked quite well. Although members on the other side of the House are not generous in acknowledging the contribution of members on this side I shall acknowledge theirs. I also acknowledge the work of the officials. The officials do not have a pleasant job to do but they do it very well and I congratulate them and their department on providing straight advice and on getting the information required from time to time. They did their work very very well. 
The purpose of a select committee is to place the Government’s ideas before a group of parliamentarians served by its officials and the committee is where any citizen can come and really say from their experience and backgrounds what they like about the particular provisions of a bill what they do not like about it and what other advice they would like to give. We are required to interrogate them to listen to them and to use their advice to produce better legislation. But that did not happen on this particular occasion. As other speakers have said only a small number of submitters supported this particular bill and in fact I cannot recall who did. The overwhelming majority of submitters did not support this bill at all and gave some very very serious advice. 
One of the driving forces here is the notion the Government has that we need to reduce welfare dependency. We have asked the officials as well as the Minister to define welfare dependency but they have been unable to define it to anybody’s satisfaction. We have asked them time and time again; it is just not possible to do so. The officials are put in an unenviable position when they are asked to define it; I appreciate that. But the Ministers who proposed this set of ideas and the members opposite who are pushing it must come up with a definition and unequivocally and simply put it before this Parliament. I invite the next speaker to do that. The National members have not been able to define welfare dependence so I do not know what they are trying to address. In the absence of that definition all I can assume is that it is their particular ideology their particular form of conservatism that they are trying to push. 
Another point is that the Government is trying to push this legislation through even before its own Welfare Working Group has reported. But where is the sense in that? The Government has asked the group to look at welfare dependency and the group is spending a lot of time and money doing that yet major major changes are being made here to our welfare State and to the social provisions that affect our most vulnerable but the Government is not prepared to take the group’s report into account. In the end this is only a political process that the other side plays around with; it is not based on any evidence at all. Somebody should respond to the challenge put before the Minister by Metiria Turei who asked where the evidence was. It is interesting how members on the other side talk about evidence but produce nothing. 
The other point is to realise what the submitters are saying. It is very instructive that Associate Professor Michael O’Brien a former colleague of mine gave the advice to the select committee unequivocally that this bill should be removed and withdrawn; it had no redeeming features. The Minister should listen to that advice because that person is the professor of social policy who taught social policy to the Minister herself. It is absolutely clear that there are no redeeming features in this set of provisions or in the ideology or principles that guide them because they go nowhere. Presbyterian Support New Zealand also provided similar advice. There is nothing in there at all. The Human Rights Commission and the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services have both asked for this measure to be removed. 
I will speak briefly on the work test. For sole parent beneficiaries the work test is a form of abuse because it provides no understanding of what a sole parent does to bring up children from the hours of 9 a.m. to 2 p.m.. Somehow the parent is required to go and work then come home and provide ideal care for the two or three children that that parent might have. The work test is a rather nasty piece of work. It does not even define appropriate work nor does it acknowledge voluntary work. [ 
Interruption 
] Many of those women who are sole parents provide huge amounts of support particularly to our schools as Mr Macindoe would surely confirm. 
Finally there is the notion of beneficiaries having to reapply for the unemployment benefit. There is no need for that. Work and Income does a fantastic job at the moment triaging day in day out those who register for unemployment so I ask why they have to apply again after 1 year. What is it that Work and Income does not know about those beneficiaries? There is no need to do that and we do not need this legislation. Thank you very much. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow my friend Dr Prasad to debate the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. I acknowledge his genuine interest in these issues and his constructive contributions during our Social Services Committee consideration of the bill. I also want to pick up on a point that Dr Prasad was talking about a minute ago. He talked about a moral code and he inferred that members on this side of the House have an underlying sense that people on a benefit are lazy. I want to make it very clear that that is not the case. 
But when we talk about a moral code it is very important to remember that the Government has an overriding moral obligation to ensure that every dollar of taxpayer money that it spends is spent responsibly appropriately and fairly because it is not its money; it is money that comes out of the pockets of hard-working New Zealanders many of whom are on very low incomes and work long hours to earn that money. The Government has a strong moral obligation to ensure that it does not take one more cent from their pockets than is absolutely deserved. So it is for that reason that I am very pleased to lend my support for this very important bill that has come before the House. 
Reforming our welfare system to create incentives for those who can move off welfare and into work was a major campaign plank for the National Party in the 2008 general election. It was certainly a theme that resonated very strongly in my electorate as I knocked on the doors around Hamilton West. It is a policy that regularly continues to generate regularly favourable comment from those who take a close interest in how our society responds to the needs of those who for whatever reason do not have paid employment. 
Like our Prime Minister and our excellent Minister of Social Development and Employment I am firmly committed to preserving a compassionate fair and responsive welfare system in New Zealand. Tens of thousands of New Zealanders have suffered or will in future suffer significant setbacks or health problems and so on. I will always argue that a decent society should respond to their needs and circumstances as generously as possible. 
I acknowledge the contribution of my Waikato colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta who is a thoughtful member but I need to correct the point with which she concluded her speech. She inferred that those who genuinely seek paid work and are unable to secure it will be penalised under this bill. In her remarks at the outset of this debate this afternoon the Minister stressed that no such threat or concern exists. Genuine job seekers will continue to access the unemployment benefit which is of course exactly what it is there for. 
Opposition members on the select committee expressed concern that the bill will hurt New Zealand’s most vulnerable families and exacerbate the gap between wealthy and poor families. The logic of such an argument is seriously flawed. Yes it is possible that beneficiaries will be out of pocket if paid employment is available to them and they could reasonably be expected to undertake it but refuse to do so. But that will be their decision. I fail to see why hard-working low-income earners in my electorate should be required to bail them out. That is the inevitable consequence of healthy people of reasonable working age who do not have young children to care for during the daytime refusing to undertake honest paid employment. 
The Opposition members’ logic is even more off-beam when one considers that those who are on benefits and move into the paid workforce will increase their household income as well as enjoy the other benefits that accrue from increased independence and the self-esteem that regular employment generates. It is absolutely fundamental to this bill and to this Government’s intention that we want people to help themselves. We will give them as much support as is possible and necessary to make that happen. 
Let us look at the potential benefits of this bill. Over the course of a 4-year period it is estimated that this bill could result in a saving of $100 million. We have 9000 sickness beneficiaries at this moment who have been assessed as being capable of undertaking some part-time work. They would not be forced down into the mines for 50 hours a week; they would be undertaking some part-time work. The health benefits of undertaking that work are considerable and well proven. I say that 50000 more people will be subject to the part-time work obligations under this bill. 
Let us look at the figures. There are currently 345000 beneficiaries in New Zealand of whom 43000 are on the domestic purposes benefit with families with children over the age of 6. There are 12000 unemployment beneficiaries who have been on that benefit for more than 1 year. We are simply saying that they must continue to prove their eligibility for it and be available to undertake work when it becomes available. There are 29580 sickness beneficiaries who have been on that benefit for more than 1 year and 85000 receive the invalids benefit. Those are significant numbers in a country of 4.3 million people with an ageing population where there are huge demands upon the dwindling taxpayer dollar. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: What’s the target Tim? 
TIM MACINDOE 
: Many hard-working people in my electorate I say to Dr Prasad put in very long hours to care for themselves and their families. I am constantly impressed and humbled by their efforts and I am very supportive of them. Without their efforts we would not have the comprehensive welfare system that this country enjoys. 
I close by repeating the point that I started with. It is their taxes that they pay on their hard-earned wages that fund the system. It is our responsibility to ensure that every dollar we take from them in taxes is spent fairly and wisely. That is what the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill is all about. My constituents tell me it is exactly the right approach to take for a responsible Government that is charged with spending taxpayers’ money. I commend the bill to the House. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I acknowledge up front that for as long as I can remember and even before I was a member of this House New Zealand has been very poor at having fair reasonable and rational discussions about our benefit system. Too quickly we tend to descend into stereotypes wedge politics and discussions that can be interpreted as being no more than categorising the worthy and unworthy poor. I feel that all those debates are to the detriment of all of us but in particular to the children whose families are dependent on the State in some form. I am saddened to say that in lots of ways I do not think we have improved if this debate has been anything to go by. 
I have heard a lot of generalisations and assumptions during this debate. But I want to start from a principle that was mentioned by one of my colleagues the Hon Nanaia Mahuta. It is the simple premise that Kiwis want to work. Stemming from that premise come a lot of the obligations we have both as Opposition members and as Government members. 
If this bill were genuinely about getting Kiwis into work—which members on this side of the House believe all Kiwis wish to do—then it is our job to do three things. Firstly we must make sure we do all we can to use the levers of the State to create real sustainable jobs. That means doing all that we can whether it be working with business or looking at our monetary policy. We must do absolutely everything we can to create jobs. I have not seen enough of that from the other side of the House. 
The second duty we have is to make sure Kiwis have the right skills for those jobs. That is why the previous Labour Government looked very closely at creating a comprehensive skills strategy to make sure that we were meeting the demands of the business sector and of the new emerging economy and to make sure we had invested in those areas that were providing skills training for Kiwis particularly those who were leaving school without the necessary education and background to get into work in the first place. That is our second duty. 
Our third duty—and this is one that I think probably only this side of the House takes especially seriously—is making sure that once people are in jobs they have some basic rights while they are there but I perhaps digress. Nothing in this bill that I have seen focuses on those three elements those three premises those three criteria that we should be focusing on if we all do believe that Kiwis want to work. 
I want to reflect on the context in which this bill now finds itself. We have of course new information before us that tells us where unemployment is at in New Zealand and I think it is indicative of the fact that we have the wrong focus with this bill. Unemployment is up to 6.8 percent and we have heard discussion around that but I want to focus in particular on the fact that youth unemployment continues to grow. 
We have seen a slight decline of half a percent in unemployment for 15 to 19-year-olds and I point that out in particular for Sir Roger Douglas who still seems hell-bent on believing that these young people are not getting into work because of how much they are paid. I do not believe that is true. The situation for 20 to 24-year-olds is much worse. Since the last quarterly survey unemployment numbers have gone up by 2.6 percent and now sit at 13.7 percent. That is a total of 68200 young people who are not in work and the number of young people not in educational training is higher. The Government claims it has a plan and apparently this bill forms some part of it. I will go on to have a little bit of a discussion as to why I do not feel that that is the case. 
The Government also claimed that the Job Ops package would assist with the escalating unemployment numbers. But there are three problems with that package as it stands and they relate to this bill to some degree. The initiatives in the Job Ops package tended to focus primarily on young people who are already on a benefit. We know that anyone who is under the age of 18— 
Hon Member 
: Not true. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: By and large it did. That was how it identified the young people it needed to work with. It is an easy criterion to use. That is how the Government has interaction with young people who are not in work. It is perfectly understandable. But there is very little opportunity to find the young people who are under 18 years of age are not in education or employment and are not accessing a benefit because they are not eligible. These initiatives were crafted primarily for the ones who are easy to find. That is an area we need to work harder on. 
Also unfortunately anecdotally I have heard evidence that young people are being turned away more and more from the unemployment benefit. Some are being told they will be unable to access it unless they go on a Limited Service Volunteers course which is often held far away from their home. Instead they are staying where they are not accessing any support and still struggling to find work. Recently I heard from the Auckland City Mission that it is seeing an increasing number of young men in the under-24 age bracket who are not on a benefit but do not have work and are seeking food parcels in the Auckland City area. 
We also need to keep in mind that the whole package the Government produced was meant to be targeted at those whom the Government considered to be unskilled. One challenge I wish to throw to the Government is this: if it identifies a young person who is unskilled what is it doing to upskill that young person instead of just putting him or her into work? We have seen some demonstration of that through the Job Ops initiative. I have heard of people who have been unable to stay in those jobs and have been released from them. There is not enough survey work to tell us why that is but I would wager that it is because they never had the skills for the job in the first place. We would be much better off if we were replacing this bill with something that focused on that issue. 
I want to go through the main provisions of the bill and just touch on some of the individual challenges that we have been posing against each of them but I want the House to keep in mind the premise that I outlined at the beginning—that is Kiwis want to work. 
The first provision in the bill requires unemployment beneficiaries to reapply for their benefit every 12 months and undertake a comprehensive work assessment at that time. Again I hark back to the fact that if people are unskilled when they go on to the unemployment benefit and if the Government’s sole focus is on continually work-testing them to see that they are trying to get into a job where is the focus on upskilling those individuals to get them into work? We have seen the Government cap numbers for tertiary education so rather than assisting the Government is in fact making it worse. A work assessment does nothing to upskill an individual. 
The second provision is the introduction of a part-time work test for solo parents on the domestic purposes benefit once their youngest child turns 6 years old. My colleague Rajen Prasad did a really good job of outlining some of the challenges in relation to that provision as have some of my other colleagues. I do not feel the need to traverse that one again. 
Thirdly the bill introduces a part-time test for people on the sickness benefit who are assessed as being able to work part-time. I have to say that this particular provision does not sit with the reality of what any MPs working in their electorates—whether they are list or constituency MPs—will be seeing coming through their front doors. Any MPs worth their salt who are listening to people will know the reality. Many members will be listening to those who are on the invalids benefit and are facing the consistent threat of being moved on to the sickness benefit. Members will also be listening to people on a sickness benefit who are being work tested. 
I am seeing some extraordinary recommendations coming out of Work and Income. I have seen a woman with a fused wrist unable to lift her hand without severe pain being told in a work assessment that she should stack shelves for a job. I have seen much worse than that as well. I have seen individuals with severe brain injuries—in some cases individuals who have had brain injuries for 6 to 10 years—who have suddenly been told that somehow their situation has changed dramatically and that they should be working an extraordinary number of hours. Some of the assessments I have seen go beyond what would be considered reasonable by any individual and now we are entering into a phase where we already are seeing this happening. 
I wager we will see much much worse as a result of this bill. Again it flies in the face of the premise that Kiwis who are able to work want to work. These provisions do nothing to assist them into work. If these provisions are going to create jobs then I challenge the Government to tell me how and how many. The fact remains that we cannot sanction someone into a job that does not exist. People are losing their jobs because factories are closing down and unskilled work is decreasing in this country and this bill will do nothing to assist those people into jobs that do not exist. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa. Huri noa i to tatou Whare i tenei ahiahi. Tena tatou katoa. I am thankful for the opportunity to stand and make a contribution on the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill. I will start by complimenting the Minister in charge of the bill the Minister of Social Development who has had to depart the House. 
As speakers from both sides of the House have commented this afternoon any debate on social welfare will be fraught with emotion as it should be and quite oppositional views and it is not an easy area to change or bring reform to. The Minister has had the courage to do that while also putting up with insults as she goes about her work. So I commend her for her courage in leading work on the reform of this part of the social welfare system. As colleagues on this side of the House have said it reflects a campaign commitment that we made to reform the social welfare system as part of the context of a culture of aspiration. 
We do not think that a life on a benefit is any life at all. We think that the opportunity for New Zealanders to get into work to earn an income and to model for their children the norm of going out and participating in society and contributing to the workforce is aspirational and we want that for all New Zealanders. 
We underestimate the contribution that being in work makes to homes that have otherwise been completely dependent on a benefit. Dependency is a disease. I make no apology about stating it as starkly as that. Dependency on the State gives no life to families or to generations of families who find themselves trapped in a 2-week horizon. That is not the kind of life that I foresee as being well for my whanau for the communities I have been part and parcel of or for communities across New Zealand. As I have said life on a benefit is no life at all. 
My colleague from the Maori Party Te Ururoa Flavell made reference to some wonderful composers—Tuini Ngawai and Sir Apirana Ngata—whose songs poetry and narratives tell us how important it is that we have no dependence on benefits. They talk about it in comparison to the devil. That is the kind of linkage that our forebears have made in exhorting us not to be dependent on the State in any way shape or form. 
This bill reflects a principle of reciprocity. Yes we are committed to a caring and compassionate State. We are committed to helping those who are unable to help themselves. We are equally committed to respecting and honouring those people who are in work and whose taxes fund our compassion. This principle of reciprocity must be applied evenly. If we ask New Zealanders to give as we do then those who are receiving have an obligation to do as much as they can to move themselves into the category of giving. I support absolutely the reciprocal obligations that we are seeking here. I ask what is wrong with work testing a parent be it a mother or a father whose child reaches the age of 6. The horror with which this measure seems to have been greeted by members opposite pays no respect to parents who have children who are 6 or older or indeed younger and who are in the workforce already and through whose taxes we assist those who are not in work. Let us be fair. It should not really matter whether someone is on the benefit. If someone has a child who is 6 or older I think it is totally appropriate to apply a work test to see whether that person can rejoin the workforce. Again I point to the fact that this side of the House is committed to the idea that all New Zealanders have the opportunity to be in work. I do not see what is at all wrong with someone having been on the unemployment benefit for 12 months— 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: They’re committed to following their right-wing agenda even if it discriminates. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: It is easy as our colleague Jacinda Ardern said for both sides of the House to resort to stereotypes and throwaway insults. I do not believe that that has very much to do with which level of the continuum of politics or ideology that side of the House wants to throw out. I come from a community that experiences every day the consequences of State dependency—and they are not pretty consequences. I do not wish that to be the lifelong legacy for my relations who live in those communities. So I stand here speaking authoritatively on this bill because I know how important it is for people who are dependent on the State to have opportunities through the encouragement and support of a State that cares. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Only Hekia Parata knows beneficiaries. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: I tell Carmel Sepuloni that only I can speak about my own experience. I am the most authoritative on my experience contrary to that member’s view of her omniscience about everybody else’s experiences. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the member cannot continually interject if she is not in her own seat. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. As I said I can and will speak from my experience. I absolutely support the provisions in this bill because I think that they give greater hope than would otherwise be the case. We are a caring and compassionate Government and we are prepared to support people who need that support. We are— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: 20000 more unemployed—it’s a small city. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Look it is very easy for members opposite to throw insults when all the previous Government did was contribute to consigning people to lifelong dependency because of the saviour complex that that side of the House suffered under for so long. Unlike that side of the House we embrace and celebrate people having the opportunity to make decisions for themselves about themselves. This bill facilitates people to do that. 
I am conscious that my time is running out so before I sit down I want to particularly thank the officials. The officials had to answer very detailed questions from all members of our select committee and they did so by assiduously providing us with information that has allowed us to make what I think are very good decisions. It has resulted in a bill before this House that will help bring about the sea change that we need in New Zealand so that the culture of aspiration that this Government is committed to can be shared by all New Zealanders. I commend this bill to the House. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3 (Flavell Harawira Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Assistance (Future Focus) Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 1 (Turia); United Future 1. 
Noes 55 
New Zealand Labour 42; Green Party 9; Maori Party 3 (Flavell Harawira Sharples); Progressive 1. 
Bill read a second time. 
Name changed to Social Assistance (New Work Tests Incentives and Obligations) Amendment Bill. 
Appointments 
Independent Police Conduct Authority 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That pursuant to section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Ms Angela Irmgard Hauk-Willis and Ms Dianne Mary Macaskill as members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority each for a term of three years and appoint Mr Edward Richard Woods as a member of the Independent Police Conduct Authority for a term of two years. 
 The function of the Independent Police Conduct Authority is to investigate complaints alleging any misconduct or neglect of duty by a member of the police or concerning any practice policy or procedure of the police affecting the complainant. The authority is also responsible for investigating any incident involving serious bodily harm or death notified to the authority by the Commissioner of Police. 
Section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act as amended in 2007 directs that the authority consists of up to five members appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the House of Representatives. The authority is chaired by a High Court judge Justice Lowell Goddard. There is currently only one other member Mr Allan Galbraith following the resignation of Mr Mel Smith in December last year. The areas of expertise that Justice Goddard and Mr Galbraith contribute to the authority are central to the authority’s core functions as an investigatory body. The proposed appointments will balance those strengths with an additional capability in governance and strategic planning. The authority is able to have two full-time and three part-time members. I am proposing the appointment of three new part-time members to provide the most cost-effective governance of the authority. 
Ms Angela Hauk-Willis is a former deputy secretary of Treasury where she was responsible for all corporate and central operations Maori responsiveness and ethics and integrity. She had a leadership role in organisational change projects including a value-for-money review and the refocusing of the Crown Company Monitoring Advisory Unit often known as CCMAU. Ms Dianne Macaskill is a former chief executive and Chief Archivist at Archives New Zealand from 2001 to 2009 and a former deputy Government statistician at Statistics New Zealand from 1996-2001. Mr Richard Woods has been chairperson of the Environmental Risk Management Authority since April 2008. From 1999 to 2006 he was the director of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. In his previous diplomatic career he served in Rome Tehran Bahrain and Washington. He also served as ambassador in Tehran Athens Moscow and Paris where he was also a Permanent Representative to the OECD. He was made a Companion of the New Zealand Order of Merit in 2007. 
Under Justice Goddard’s leadership the authority will continue to be a rigorous and independent watchdog on police conduct. With these appointments the authority will have the range of management and governance experience required by a Crown entity board. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I rise to speak to Government motion No. 3 appointments to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. I signal that Labour supports the new appointments to the authority. We believe that the appointments will add to the significant experience and expertise that Justice Lowell Goddard and Allan Galbraith currently bring to the authority. 
Labour is committed to having a New Zealand police force that everyone all New Zealanders can have pride and confidence in. That is why it is important to have a robust and independent body to oversee the role and function of the police. Not long after I came into Parliament in 1996 the particularly sad issue in Waitara emerged: the shooting of Steven Wallace. At that time there was a lot of debate in this House by members currently supporting the Government around the independent nature of the then Police Complaints Authority. The debate was robust but above all—and this is probably the most poignant point that I want to raise in this debate—New Zealanders needed to have confidence that the Police Complaints Authority at the time was independent and was able to look at particularly emotional and emotive circumstances in a way that maintained a high level of independence in the investigations of police conduct. 
The Police Complaints Authority was established in 1989 following several years of debate about police accountability. That was sparked in part by the role of the police during the 1981 Springbok Tour. Prior to 1989 complaints against the police were investigated internally. Through most of its life the Police Complaints Authority comprised a single person with a small number of support staff conducting reviews of police investigations. Because of its reliance on police investigations the authority was perceived as lacking independence as I mentioned earlier. Recent changes including the appointment of independent investigators are reducing that perception. 
In March 2007 the  
Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct  
recommended a number of changes to the Police Complaints Authority including enhanced powers and improved communication with complainants. The previous Labour Government committed to implementing those recommendations. It made a start with the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 2007 which made five main changes. It clarified that the authority may investigate historical complaints relating to incidents that occurred prior to its establishment. It required the police to notify the authority within 5 working days on receipt of a complaint. It required the authority to provide a copy of its opinion and recommendations to the Minister of Police and to the Attorney-General in certain situations where it is not satisfied with the police response to a recommendation. It significantly increased the membership of the authority to up to five members and changed the name of the authority to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. 
I want to mention that although the then Labour Cabinet approved further changes to the Independent Police Conduct Authority the legislation did not go through because of the 2008 election but it is worth mentioning the proposals that were considered by Cabinet at that time. They included allowing the authority to undertake its own investigations of complaints about police misconduct in defined circumstances allowing the authority to conduct its own motion investigations into serious incidents or incidents of significant public interest amending the current secrecy and privilege provisions so that information gathering during the authority’s investigations can be used in subsequent proceedings giving the authority investigators the necessary powers to carry out their enhanced investigatory role enabling the authority to decide whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant a criminal prosecution where it has investigated the matter itself or directed and controlled a police investigation and allowing the Official Information Act to apply to the authority. 
The Attorney-General who introduced this motion on behalf of the Minister of Justice aptly pointed out the role and function of the Independent Police Conduct Authority and I will not go over that. However simply put an issue was raised by a member of the Maori Party with regard to the police collecting DNA samples from young people. That is precisely the type of issue should it arise with members of Parliament that would go to this particular body. I want to make that point because I have had a situation where not too long after statements made by a member of this House a parent came to me and asked me what to do. I immediately referred them to this authority to make investigations on that matter. 
In relation to the people who have been proposed Labour certainly supports the skill and expertise that Dianne Macaskill Angela Hauk-Willis and Richard Woods bring to the authority. We think they will fill the skill gap identified by the Minister Simon Power and we believe that their appointments along with the existing appointments will make a worthy contribution to ensure that New Zealanders can continue to have confidence in the role of the police. Kia ora. 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 Following the two previous speakers Christopher Finlayson and Nanaia Mahuta the Greens very strongly support the Independent Police Conduct Authority in its role. 
The setting up of the authority which followed on from the Police Complaints Authority has been a significant improvement. There was a huge backlog under the Police Complaints Authority—many years of backlog—and under the leadership of Lowell Goddard that backlog was cleared up. We pay tribute to the work of people like Mel Smith who has retired from the authority and also of course Allan Galbraith. 
The Independent Police Conduct Authority has been doing some very good work and I think it is important to have that control on police behaviour. We trust that the members being appointed to the authority will help very much to progress its work. We support the nomination of Miss Hauk-Willis whose background in the Public Service was outlined and of Dianne Macaskill who has a very distinguished career as well. 
The third nomination has created certain problems not only with the Greens but more generally with the public. There has been more questioning of the appointment of Edward Richard Woods better known as Richard Woods since it appeared on the Order Paper. I want to say straight off that I have found Mr Woods to be a very approachable very affable gentleman and I think he would bring that great asset to the job of sitting on the authority. People bringing complaints would feel quite comfortable with him. Certainly as the Attorney-General outlined he has a very long tradition of public service in different posts at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade more recently at the Environmental Risk Management Authority and also for a period as director of the Security Intelligence Service. 
It is his role as head of the Security Intelligence Service for the period 1999-2006 that has caused some question marks to arise in the minds not only of members of the Green Party but also of members of the public. It is not that we should not have a former Director of Security serving in such a role of course; nobody would exclude that. I think the question arises because it is important for the reputation of the Independent Police Conduct Authority that a broad range of the public has respect for the people playing that role. The Ahmed Zaoui saga went on for many years during Richard Wood’s tenure as Director of Security and there was a perception in a big section of the public that Mr Zaoui was not given a fair go and that the Security Intelligence Service resisted the very thorough and rigorous decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority that Mr Zaoui was a legitimate refugee. The complaint was often made that the Security Intelligence Service paid too much attention to how going along with the decision of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority—if it went along with it—would be seen by other bigger security services. That was reflected in some of the Security Intelligence Service reports of the time. That creates a particular problem. 
Another thing that was allowed to happen during that period was the maintenance of a Security Intelligence Service file on a sitting MP—namely me. The exact responsibility of Richard Woods for that of course we can debate. But those two issues together create a public perception that questions whether he is the best appointment at this particular time. I feel slightly reluctant to bring that up because we are dealing with the qualities of an individual but when the Green caucus discussed it we questioned his appointment. I think from my own point of view—in bringing forward these questions which are questions in the public mind—in this case I hope that the Greens are proved wrong. Even though we are reflecting the public questioning of this appointment we know that this motion will get through today and in a sense we hope that we are proved wrong and that Richard Woods will do a very good job. But because we have those reservations we cannot vote for the motion here today. Thank you. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I rise to speak in respect of the appointments to the Independent Police Conduct Authority and I congratulate the authority on the work it has done particularly under the leadership of Justice Goddard. She has brought grunt I think to the role since it became the Independent Police Conduct Authority not simply the Police Complaints Authority. She has brought a significant amount of strength and robustness to the investigations conducted by the authority. 
I note too that Justice Goddard has Mr Allan Galbraith as her deputy. Members will recall that he was the detective superintendent in charge of the investigation of the  
Rainbow Warrior 
 bombing and later he served as the police regional commander in the central North Island so he has spent several years as an investigator and as a leader managing investigations that were brought to the table then. 
I think too that the appointments proposed today very much add to the work of the Independent Police Conduct Authority and its specific concerns now not only around investigating complaints but also in terms of making inquiries of its own volition into the conduct and processes of the New Zealand Police. Some comment has been made about the appointment of Mr Richard Woods. From my research I feel entirely comfortable with his nomination and appointment and I believe that he brings a lot to the table as well. 
The previous speaker Keith Locke made mention of a couple of incidents in relation to Mr Zaoui and to Mr Woods’ previous role. I believe that that experience will benefit the Independent Police Conduct Authority. It may well be that in hindsight all of us may have acted in a different way or we may feel that all the information was never in the public domain or for Mr Woods’ own reasons which must remain private and kept close to his chest he may have acted in the same way again. 
Nevertheless I believe that the Independent Police Conduct Authority has a significant role within our community. It certainly adds to the public perception and understanding of police work and the very difficult job that the police have in carrying out their role on our behalf. Police work is something on which every member of society has a view and every member of society believes he or she knows how the police could act in a better way but only a few are prepared to put themselves on the line in the way that police officers do. 
I commend these appointments to the House. I look forward to offering the appointees my full support as a member of this House. Thank you. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I join everybody else in supporting the appointment of these people to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. I go where I am about to with some reluctance but it seems that the only proper place to raise this issue is here in the Chamber. I am referring to the delay in releasing the report on the shooting of Mr Halatau Naitoko 2 years ago. I have followed that case with interest because what occurred there disturbs me greatly. Perhaps it is a resourcing issue in which case having more people on the authority will facilitate the release of that report. It is improper to write to the Independent Police Conduct Authority to ask for an indication of when a particular report will be released. It seems to me that the only way one can raise disquiet about delays is by raising it here in the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Eric Roy) 
: I will just interrupt the member because I want to try to help him with this. The member is right; the House is the place to bring this up but there are a variety of debates like the general debate and a range of others. The debate here is contained around the appointment of members to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. It is not on the retrospective conduct of the authority. This debate is on a motion specifically about those appointments. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. Then I will simply conclude by saying that hopefully the appointment of further personnel to the Independent Police Conduct Authority will facilitate the erosion of the backlog that Mr Locke noted affected and sadly still affects a number of high-profile investigations. Thank you. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the motion before the House and the recommendations made to His Excellency the Governor-General on the appointments to the Independent Police Conduct Authority as outlined by the Attorney-General the Hon Chris Finlayson in his speech. These new appointments will add to the significant experience and expertise that Justice Lowell Goddard and Allan Galbraith currently bring to it. 
The Independent Police Conduct Authority carries out a very important function as a fully independent investigating body for complaints concerning the New Zealand Police. Labour is committed to New Zealand having a police force that all New Zealanders can have pride and confidence in and that is why it is important to have a robust and independent oversight body. 
The previous Labour Government made important changes to the authority to ensure that its integrity and independence were retained. We passed the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Act in 2007 which changed the authority’s name and its powers. The Independent Police Conduct Authority helps to ensure public confidence in the police by making the complaints process more transparent than it used to be. 
I support the view that the vast majority of police in New Zealand do a fantastic job. Certainly they enjoy a very good reputation. They are far more trusted by the general public than politicians. In my former professions I used to work very closely on specific occasions with the police. As the Asian affairs reporter for the  
New Zealand Herald 
—which was a long time ago—I worked very closely with its Auckland-based Asian crime unit. Later as a lawyer I worked cooperatively with police officers either as friends working together to help victims or as rivals arguing as opposing counsel on behalf of clients. In any event I appreciate that it is not an easy job and our police should be supported 100 percent for doing their job. But when things go wrong the public need to be assured that those things will be looked at examined and scrutinised in an independent thorough and transparent way. It is a matter of determining who watches the watchers. 
Prior to 1989 complaints against the police were investigated internally. That is to say when the issue of a complaint arose the watchers watched themselves. In 1989 the Police Complaints Authority was established following several years of debate about police accountability sparked in part by the role played by the police during the 1981 Springbok Tour. The establishment of the Police Complaints Authority was good but not good enough. Through most of its life the Police Complaints Authority comprised a single person with a small number of support staff and it conducted reviews of police investigations. Because of the authority’s reliance on the police themselves it was perceived as lacking independence. Recent changes including the appointment of independent investigators are addressing that perception. 
In March 2007 the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Police Conduct recommended a number of changes to the authority including enhanced powers and improved communication with complainants. The Labour Government committed to implementing those recommendations and made a start with the Independent Police Conduct Authority Amendment Act 2007 which made five main changes and my colleague the Hon Nanaia Mahuta outlined those in her speech this afternoon. The Labour Cabinet also approved further changes to the Independent Police Conduct Authority. However the legislation that was needed to implement those changes did not make it before the House prior to the 2008 election. Those further changes are very valid and relevant—for instance the proposal to amend the current secrecy and privilege provisions so that information gathered during the authority’s investigations can be used in subsequent proceedings and the proposal to allow the Official Information Act to apply to the authority. 
The Independent Police Conduct Authority is fully independent much like a court. It makes its findings based on the facts and applies the law accordingly. It does not answer to the police themselves or to anyone else over those findings. The authority is headed by a High Court judge and has three members in total who are appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of Parliament. Each member works full-time for the authority and has executive duties. A further two part-time members may be appointed to the authority to represent community interests. The authority has the same powers as a commission of inquiry to summon witnesses and gather evidence. The police are required to provide all of the information and assistance needed for the authority to carry out its functions. 
The Independent Police Conduct Authority is currently chaired by Hon Justice Lowell Goddard a judge of the High Court. Justice Goddard was appointed to the Police Complaints Authority in February 2007 for a 5-year term. When the Independent Police Conduct Authority was established in November 2007 she retained her appointment and became the chair of the authority. The other current member of the authority is Mr Allan Galbraith who has been the authority’s manager investigations since 2003 and he was appointed as a member of the authority in 2008. Mel Smith served as a board member until November 2009 but since then there have been only two members on the board. 
The Minister of Justice the Hon Simon Power has said that the areas of expertise that Justice Goddard and Mr Galbraith bring to the authority are central to its functions as an investigatory body. However the authority needs additional expertise in the area of executive management and corporate governance including knowledge of the reporting elements of a Crown entity’s responsibilities. It is therefore proposed that appointments are to be made of Dianne Macaskill Angela Hauk-Willis and Richard Woods to provide expertise in these areas. Previous speakers have advised the House of the background of the proposed appointees. I am very pleased to endorse their appointments and I wish them all the best in the future. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That pursuant to section 5 of the Independent Police Conduct Authority Act 1988 and section 32 of the Crown Entities Act 2004 this House recommend His Excellency the Governor-General appoint Ms Angela Irmgard Hauk-Willis and Ms Dianne Mary Macaskill as members of the Independent Police Conduct Authority each for a term of three years and appoint Mr Edward Richard Woods as a member of the Independent Police Conduct Authority for a term of two years. 
Ayes 110 
New Zealand National 58; New Zealand Labour 42; ACT New Zealand 4; Maori Party 4; Progressive 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 9 
Green Party 9. 
Motion agreed to. 
Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be considered by the Government Administration Committee that the committee present its final report on or before 3 December 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 192 and 195(1) (b) and (c). 
This is a great day for the arts in New Zealand. The Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill replaces the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act 1994 and the purpose of the bill is to streamline the governance structure of the Arts Council of New Zealand otherwise known as Creative New Zealand. Let me remind the House of the role the council plays in the cultural life of New Zealand. 
Grant Robertson 
: Please do. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: When Mr Robertson goes to a performance by Black Grace or the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and stays for the entire performance when he attends a Taki Rua or Auckland Theatre Company production when he supports his friends’ sons and daughters’ performances at the Smokefree Rockquest or when he attends writers and readers festivals or Style Pasifika he should know that those arts events are supported by the Arts Council. Those are just a fraction of the arts activities and organisations that receive support from that great institution. 
The council also awards bursaries and scholarships to help our best and brightest in their chosen field it partners with local authorities on community arts initiatives around New Zealand and it awards hundreds of grants each year through the contestable funding programme. It also administers major awards such as the Prime Minister’s Awards for Literary Achievement and the Michael King Writers’ Fellowship. The council’s decisions are made independently of the Government and are informed by assessments from fellow artists. I strongly believe in the arm’s length funding model because I do not think politicians should be making decisions about particular arts projects. 
Under the current legislation the governance of the Arts Council consists of a seven-member council. I acknowledge the great contribution of Helen Kedgley the sister of Sue Kedgley to the seven-member Arts Council; Te Waka Toi; the Arts Board; and a committee of the Arts Board the pacific arts committee. I have always considered that this structure was weird. It is cumbersome and it is top-heavy. A ratio of up to 28 appointed members for 55 staff is disproportionate. The four governing bodies are also a significant cost to the organisation and that diverts resources from Creative New Zealand’s core business: arts arts organisations and arts development. 
Other significant inefficiencies have been identified. The work of the council and the board overlaps. The council is expected to develop effective strategy and policy despite having no direct contact with the sector. The council is accountable for organisational performance even though it has no part in the board’s decision making. The lines of accountability between the Arts Board and management are not clear. The pacific arts committee’s status as a subsidiary if you like of the Arts Board also has complicated accountability arrangements. 
This bill addresses these shortcomings by replacing the current complex structure with a single board to be called the Arts Council. It will have 13 members who will be appointed for their knowledge of professional and community arts. Part 1 of the bill prescribes the new Arts Council’s functions powers and membership and it reaffirms the council’s independence from ministerial direction in relation to cultural matters. For the purposes of the Crown Entities Act 2004 the members of the Arts Council will constitute the board. 
The Arts Council will be responsible for determining strategic direction and priorities and for funding decisions. Under clause 7(1)(c) funding will be allocated to projects for professional and community arts including funding for Maori arts the arts of the Pacific Island peoples of New Zealand and the arts of the diverse cultures of New Zealand. The council will set guidelines for the allocation of funding and for community arts providers. Where appropriate the council will use peer assessment processes for the allocation of funding. It is to be emphasised that Maori are to be included in any assessment process relevant to Maori arts and Pacific Island peoples will be included in the assessments of arts of the Pacific Island peoples of New Zealand. 
Clause 10(4) of the bill stipulates that at least four members of the Arts Council will be appointed with regard to their knowledge of te ao Maori tikanga Maori and Maori arts and at least two will be appointed with regard to their knowledge of the arts of the Pacific Island peoples of New Zealand. These responsibilities reflect the Government’s particular responsibilities for tangata whenua and for the maintenance and promotion of Pacific Island peoples’ arts particularly for those nations where such a large number of their population now reside in New Zealand. 
Under clause 11(1) of the bill at least four council members representing Maori will constitute a committee of the Arts Council. The committee will give advice and make recommendations to the council on matters relating to Maori arts and it will carry out any other functions or powers delegated to it by the council. Under clause 10 of the bill the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage will appoint all 13 members of the council. The Minister of Maori Affairs will be consulted on the appointment of members who have knowledge of tikanga Maori and Maori arts and the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs will be consulted on the appointment of the members with knowledge of the arts of Pacific Island peoples. 
I believe that this new governance structure has very clear benefits. The responsibility for policy strategy direction and the allocation of funds will be contained within one body for greater efficiency. Fewer resources will be required and staff will be freed up to focus on artists arts organisations and arts development. Maori and Pacific arts will be represented at the council table with full participation in policy making and strategy setting as well as in funding decisions. The council’s strategy will be informed by the direct experience of funding disbursement and sector issues. There will be clear lines of accountability from the council to the Minister and between the council and the chief executive. A more streamlined structure will improve service delivery and I believe it will be less costly. 
Under the bill the powers and functions of the existing arts boards related to community arts providers and community arts councils will transfer to the Arts Council. Under section 10 of the 1994 Act the Arts Council must produce and consult on a strategic plan every 3 years. This bill does not continue that requirement with the reason being that under the Crown Entities Act 2004 the Arts Council is already required to produce a statement of intent. Stakeholders can expect to continue consultation through the annual letter of expectation from the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage. 
The Arts Council looked at various governance models during its review in consultation with former chairs of the council arts boards Pacific arts committees and related Government agencies. The Ministry for Culture and Heritage consulted Maori and Pacific arts organisations and also community leaders about their view and I have to say there was broad support for the proposals but concerns about representation of Maori and Pacific Island people in the new structure. I tried to address these measures in the bill in order to address those concerns. The select committee will of course provide opportunity for further feedback. 
I am confident that the governance model I have outlined today will improve the Art Council’s efficiency and responsiveness and ensure the best investment of resources for the benefit of New Zealand artists arts organisations and indeed the wider community. I hope that the bill will receive wide support as the changes it includes will deliver better value for taxpayer dollars and a more efficient service directory for an organisation that has done a great deal for New Zealand since a previous National Government created it in the 1960s. I commend the bill to the House. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to rise and speak on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. I acknowledge how well-dressed the Assistant Speaker is. I particularly admire his tie—a common thing on this side of the House today I see. This bill that the Minister has brought to the House is one that Labour is prepared to support going through to a select committee because we understand that a number of issues have been raised around the efficiency and the operations of the Arts Council or Creative New Zealand as it is commonly called. But our support for the bill is only for it to go to a select committee. 
We have a number of concerns which the Minister himself alluded to at the end of his speech about representation and about the ability of the restructured council to fairly represent the diversity of people in New Zealand and fairly represent the arts communities of New Zealand through this model. When the bill goes to Parliament’s all-powerful Government Administration Committee we will want to hear a wide range of submissions. In fact I will encourage the Government Administration Committee to go out and seek direct feedback from the Maori and Pacific communities and also from other communities in New Zealand particularly the growing Asian communities. It is worth noting that Creative New Zealand has a very difficult job in balancing up the different arts communities in New Zealand. It looks on paper as though creating a structure such as this will be efficient and will allow for more direct accountability but it raises questions about the ability to be representative of those different communities. That is certainly what we will be looking out for. 
Any change that creates efficiency in a Government body is a good thing but efficiency has to be balanced against the purpose of an organisation. The purposes of the Arts Council continue to be reflected in this bill and they are certainly ones that Labour strongly supports. The Arts Council has done as Mr Finlayson mentioned earlier some excellent things and funded some excellent programmes—many of them events and groups that were developed under the previous Labour Government and we are very pleased to see that those things are continuing. But the purposes and principles of the Arts Council are to recognise the cultural diversity of the people of New Zealand recognise the role of Maori as tangata whenua recognise the role of the arts for Pacific peoples and support participation and involvement in the arts and access to the arts. 
Another concern that we would also like to take up at the select committee is the role of the community arts councils. I appreciate the fact that the bill continues to provide for community arts councils at a local level but we need to make sure that the arrangements facilitate community arts councils being both directly accountable to their communities and representative of them. It would be fair to say there are some concerns around different parts of the community arts sector about whether this model will see the arts moving further away from local communities and more towards major towns and centralised into perhaps what some would call a Wellington-based mind-set. As someone who perhaps has a Wellington-based mind-set I can understand though why people— 
John Hayes 
: Or even no mind-set. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —perhaps in Mr Hayes’ electorate in the Wairarapa may look at some of the proposals and ask what is in them for the provinces. 
Obviously those concerns are heightened with the recent announcement by the Arts Council regarding the recurrently funded organisations. We look particularly at the theatre sector where we see that in the new arts leadership fund which has been put forward to replace part of the funding of the recurrently funded organisations— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: For discussion. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —or put out for discussion; I am sorry I say to Mr Finlayson. It is obviously a consultative process but there is quite a lot of concern about that in places like Palmerston North and Dunedin where it is quite likely that organisations will receive no recurrent funding. That will obviously be detrimental to those communities. At the moment the proposal tells us that there will be support available for three theatre companies only: one in Christchurch one in Auckland and one in Wellington. In fact that presents problems even in Wellington where currently two theatre companies receive recurrent funding. 
So there is concern about the direction of the Arts Council in terms of regional and provincial arts support. Anything that is done structurally as it is done in this bill that might exacerbate that problem is something that we will be watching extremely carefully. 
I hear two things from the arts community as I travel around New Zealand. There is some dissatisfaction with the way in which the arts are funded. Certainly in regional areas that has never been any different whoever the Government is. People who miss out on funding are always upset about that. But it is important to have a system that ensures that funding is spread around the country and people are concerned about that. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: And demography needs to talk. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Indeed. The other concern that people have is about the question of certainty and the ability to plan within the arts community. I think that is the chief concern of those people in provincial areas who look set now to miss out on recurrent funding. They may well be able to apply for the shorter-term funds that the Minister is proposing but that does not give them or their communities certainty about the future of arts funding. These are the issues that the select committee needs to take up in some detail. 
On the question of representation it is all very well to say there will be Maori and Pasifika representation on the newly reconstituted board but that is very difficult as many people in the House will know when boards like this are set up. It will put a great deal of pressure on the four members who are Maori or the two members who are of Pasifika origin. It will put a great deal of pressure on them to be able to represent those communities. I think we need to work through that issue in the select committee to see whether it will provide the kind of representation of those communities that we need. As I stated earlier we also have some concerns about other communities who are developing artistic profiles in New Zealand particularly Asian communities. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Ten percent. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Indeed. A number of us have attended Creative New Zealand - funded events involving the Asian community and I think most of us would like to see that develop more over time. It will be important that the reconstituted arts board is able to represent those concerns. There is also the matter of youth participation in the arts and of making sure that that perspective continues to be seen. Those are the issues that we will want to tease out. 
I want to mention the comment that the Minister made that the council will now no longer be able to— 
Jacqui Dean 
: Take the full 10 minutes. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: It is a very important issue I say to Ms Dean. The council will no longer have to put in place a 3-year strategic plan. It will use the statement of intent process. Again that is an issue in terms of certainty and planning and I think there is some justification for the council taking a longer-term strategic approach. Ministers and those who have worked in Ministers’ offices know all about the statement of intent process and it is not as perfect as it might be. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: In my office it is. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Everything in that Minister’s office is perfect. He has led a life of blameless excellence. I do not think it is sufficient for the statement of intent process to guide the work of the Arts Council. I think that the 3-year strategic plan process has been a good one and certainly Labour at this point will be seeking to have that reinserted into this bill. 
It is not always possible when we are at arts events as Mr Finlayson and I often are to be able to say we are covering all the arts. That is the thought that I will conclude on. It is vitally important that the Arts Council supports a balanced provision of the arts. Mr Finlayson and I will be going to a performance of the Orpheus Choir in a couple of weeks’ time here in Wellington and no doubt he will be attending many other events as he does. He may even find his way down to Bar Bodega to see some of the New Zealand music that is performed there or go to Palmerston North to see the Centrepoint Theatre. We need to continue to support a balanced provision of the arts in New Zealand and we need to ensure that the council that sits behind them is structured in a way that allows it to facilitate that balanced provision. That is what we will be seeking when this bill goes to the select committee. We will make our judgment after the select committee process as to whether we will support the bill going any further than that. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the first reading of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. I note the concerns of my colleague across the House about representation. I am sure that Minister Finlayson’s very wise choice to send the bill to the all-powerful Government Administration Committee will ensure that we have good discussion on issues such as representation. I know also that a member of our committee Kanwaljit Bakshi often raises the issue of Asian representation so he keeps those issues to the forefront. I know that he will make a good contribution to this bill. 
This is a good bill. It will streamline the provision of funding for arts in New Zealand. As a former practitioner of arts in the theatre I have been a beneficiary of— 
Grant Robertson 
: Which theatre? 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Quite a few actually. I could run through them but we will save those for another time. From my earliest performing days when I was based in Palmerston North at the Centrepoint Theatre and at the Children’s Art Theatre in Wanganui we would make applications to the Arts Council of New Zealand—as I think it was called then—and we would get funding for our various projects. It was valuable to me as a young performer enabling me to work professionally for a very meagre pay if I remember. However that did not seem to matter quite so much back in those days because the satisfaction of performing far outweighed what we were recompensed. In fact I would go as far as to say that no theatre job I have ever done anywhere in New Zealand has paid anything more than peanuts. Again that is not addressed in this bill but I just note— 
Grant Robertson 
: What about  
Play School 
? That paid well. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Television New Zealand was a different matter. I note it in the context of the commitment—I am making a serious point here—of performing artists in New Zealand. That is why performing artists who make the commitment to make performing arts their life and work—as I did for a number of years and I loved and valued the work I did—value the critical support of Creative New Zealand for that work; it remains the same today. With a streamlined unitary board coming out of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill I can see a much more comprehensive approach to enabling arts in New Zealand. 
In my brief contribution I will talk about community arts providers. I have also sat as a local government representative on a local community arts funding board. That is right down at the community level. I sat in the boardroom in Oamaru council buildings hearing applications for community groups to run community events to be funded by Creative New Zealand and the Creative Communities scheme. Those small community events from memory ranged from creative dance events at Teschemakers to productions up at Kurow. Applications were made for grants of maybe $500 or $600. That does not sound like a lot of money when we are sitting here in the Parliament in Wellington but the kinds of grants that are granted into small communities throughout New Zealand are significant not only for young performers who wish to make their way in the arts in New Zealand but also for community groups who love the arts for themselves. 
The Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage Minister Finlayson has brought a good bill to this House. I am determined that the all-powerful Government Administration Committee will give it its due. We will consider the issues raised by our Labour colleagues. I recognise and appreciate that they support this bill going through to the select committee. We will make a thorough examination of the bill and try to come to a consensus so that Labour can continue to support the passage of this excellent bill through the House. With those words I commend the bill to the House. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 Labour is supporting the passage of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill to the Government Administration Committee and that is appropriate. Arts are the mirror of our soul as a nation. It is rather like a man’s tie being a mirror of his soul and I compliment Mr Assistant Speaker Barker on his choice of tie. 
I note that this bill covers the arts sector which reflects our unique identity as New Zealanders. I must also note that it is a little sad that this legislation is not paralleled in the broadcasting sphere which is another window to our unique culture as New Zealanders. We do not see the unique identity of New Zealanders reflected in another bill before the Parliament in relation to Television New Zealand. None the less Labour is supporting any changes in efficiency that this bill is designed to introduce in respect of the arts culture of our nation. We support the bill being referred to the select committee and we will use that select committee process to put Creative New Zealand under the microscope. We want to see and ensure that the arts funding agency for our nation provides funding that reflects the principles of this bill. 
We have some reservations about the legislation. We have a concern that it might impede or even strangle some aspects of arts funding. We are very explicit that we want to see the maintenance of strong Maori and Pacific representation on the council and we are concerned that under the proposals this bill contains there will not be enough voices for those communities in the arts sector. Obviously we are concerned that the replacement of Te Waka Toi which has been a representative body for the Maori cultural and arts community will simply be enfolded into the Arts Council. We will look through the legislation at the select committee and we will question whether there will be sufficient representation not just for the Maori arts community but for those represented under the current structure for the Pasifika arts community and for the wider ethnic communities that often contribute so much to the cultural vibrancy that the arts now represents across our nation. We can think of people like Jacob Rajan and the series of plays that he has produced and delivered across this nation supported I believe by the previous Arts Council structure. It is really important that funding for those works is maintained under this reform legislation. 
Youth are not currently strongly represented in terms of the arts administrative structure. Youth of course can very often be the most innovative the most challenging and sometimes the most marginalised members of the arts community. It is important that we consider that they also need to have their voice heard in the administration of the arts in our nation. 
We are concerned that the legislation discontinues the current requirement of the Arts Council to present a strategic plan every 3 years although under the Crown Entities Act 2004 the Arts Council is already required to produce a statement of intent. If we do not have that kind of road map for the arts in terms of a strategic plan we have to ask where the direction will be coming from. If it is to come from the Minister then clearly we would have some disquiet about that. Those are the issues that we will be looking through in the select committee process. 
I want to talk for a moment about the importance of arts communities outside of the main centres of Wellington and Auckland as provided for in this legislation. I note for instance in my city of Christchurch how essential the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra is to the arts profile of our city. Indeed it goes wider than our city because people come from far and wide to hear the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra perform. It is a regional institution and it is a South Island institution. People drive from Nelson the West Coast and Timaru to attend a Christchurch Symphony Orchestra performance. We want to be assured that there will be embodied in this legislation strong voices for the arts of our regions because in the case of the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra it provides more than just a feeder service to the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra; it provides very much a home for talented people and a training ground for people who may go on to international distinction in the arts and they deserve to be recognised. 
Just last week I went with Labour’s arts spokesperson the Hon Steve Chadwick to the Court Theatre in the heart of my electorate of Christchurch Central. It was an eye-opener for me to see the nature of the facilities that accord a very fine theatre and a theatre with a distinguished record of productions for over 20 or 30 years now. But the way the Court Theatre delivers its productions is extraordinary. The theatre is in a building that has very cramped facilities. A clutch of rabbit warrens out the back are provided for administration staff and other staff. The stage is limited and does not have any capacity to revolve. Obviously funding is the key to the current state of the Court Theatre and many other theatres across the nation. Although we know we are currently in recession I want to be assured that institutions in my city of Christchurch will not be penalised by a top-heavy Wellington-centric or Auckland-centric Arts Council into the future. We must have thriving arts communities outside our two major centres to ensure that our national sense of self is reflected through the arts. 
If we go beyond the bigger centres including Christchurch we look to centres like Blenheim where I lived for 14 years and recognise the importance to a community like that of having a public art gallery. The Millennium Art Gallery was opened in 2000 by Helen Clark who supported it through the process of establishment. I add that my wife was a founding trustee of the gallery. It continues to provide a platform for the arts in the community of Marlborough. It contains not just the highbrow stuff. I was at the opening 2 weeks ago of an exhibition of photographs taken by Peter Bush. Across the walls of the gallery were photographs that he had taken since 1948 which I think was the year he covered his first rugby test match. He was accompanied at the opening by Keith Quinn. Here was quintessential New Zealand culture: two icons of New Zealand rugby were displaying their craft by way of photographs taken by “Bushy” and by way of the wonderful commentary of Keith Quinn. It was a magical event and it can take place only in an environment like a properly funded gallery with the capacity to do justice to the photographs and to have the lighting and curatorial staff that can put together an exhibition like that. They ran sessions over that weekend with “Bushy” and Quinn to allow people to engage with the photographer and the raconteur. We need to be assured that under this new Arts Council legislation smaller communities like Marlborough are able to continue to provide arts services to their communities. 
We are obviously looking at this bill in respect of the way it empowers the establishment of community arts councils and the fact that under this bill the Arts Council may be able to appoint territorial authorities to administer community arts councils subject to the consent of the authority. We question whether this process looks likely to encourage foster and stimulate some of the avant-garde kinds of arts that really end up making a huge contribution to and mark on New Zealand. 
I think of the Wearable Arts Awards which started in a back garden. Suzie Moncrieff had the idea in Nelson some 20-plus years ago. It began was supported by the local community and became not just a Nelson phenomenon not just a Wellington phenomenon having moved to the capital but indeed an international phenomenon. It was supported by the arts community firstly in Nelson and then here in Wellington. We should consider the benefit that it has brought to us as a nation in terms of the return on those early days of small support and investment through the arts funding structure at the time. 
We support this bill. We want to make sure that it continues the good work that the Arts Council has done. We particularly want to see that smaller communities and centres outside of Auckland and Wellington are represented fostered encouraged and able to deliver a platform of arts when this bill is passed. We will support it going to the select committee. We encourage the Government to be open in the process so that we can be assured that into the future New Zealand arts will continue to thrive as a mirror on our soul which we all know is very important to us and our own sense of being New Zealanders. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. He mihi nui ki a koutou. Before I start my speech on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill I mihi to the arts community particularly for the loss they experienced last week. I mihi to the whanau of Mahea Tomoana of Ngati Kahungunu who was a friend of mine. Mahea Tomoana and his wife Ngaromoana Raureti Tomoana are examples of artistic excellence. There is an ancient saying from Aotearoa “Where there is artistic excellence there is human dignity”. I mihi to those people; I know that it affected the whole arts community when Mahea died suddenly last week. I put that on the record because these artists have made such a contribution from that whanau to this House. 
I also acknowledge the importance of the Arts Council. I grew up in a family totally committed to the arts. My father and mother were actors in the Unity Theatre in Aro Street in Wellington and I grew up in a house full of literature full of drama and full of writing. I have been a lucky recipient of Arts Council grants for the fiction writing that I have done. I know how hard people struggle to get grants and I know how wonderful it is when one gets a small amount of money when one is a struggling artist. 
I am very happy to be speaking on this issue. Arts and culture is my portfolio—one of about 11. I must say I regret that I have little time as a list MP with 11 portfolios to attend arts events and participate in all the wonderful things that happen. They have to be fitted in between all the other things but every event I have been to has enhanced my commitment to the importance of things like arts councils and properly organised strategically managed funding. 
To return to the bill the Green Party has mixed feelings about the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. We have mixed feelings because of the mixed feedback we have had about the public support for it. We have had a range of feedback from the arts community about the restructuring of the Arts Council nationally and the community arts providers in the regional and local communities. We have decided on balance to support the first reading of the bill because it is a good example of a bill that may or may not improve the delivery of arts funding in Aotearoa. But we are keen to hear from the many voices involved from arts communities particularly tangata whenua and Pasifika arts voices and organisations. 
We have huge concerns around the proposed restructuring. At first glance the restructuring would appear to weaken the ability of tangata whenua to have a self-determining body deciding on the use of putea for Maori arts. The bill replaces Te Waka Toi and the South Pacific Arts Committee which were separate committees for Maori and Pacific artists. They have been separate up till now and had separate moneys from the Arts Council. As a party committed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi we looked at these proposed changes dubiously. Too often the concept of having four designated Maori members and two Pacific nations members in a council of 13 smacks of tokenism. 
We are not sure how this bill will work but we are prepared to see what the voices say at the select committee on this issue. As any of us who have been involved in Treaty work—and I have been for 20 years of my life—know when one is in a minority group that is dominated by the dominant culture it is harder to get heard and it is harder to get resources. So we have to assure ourselves that in the name of streamlining we are not destroying the valuable work that Te Waka Toi and the South Pacific Arts Committee did. 
As people have mentioned already in this House this evening there are other communities too that are not Pakeha but need to be heard. So often Pakeha assume that we are the ones who should speak for all but we cannot. We need to make sure that those voices are at the table—not in a tokenistic way but in a way that they will be heard. I heard the Minister say that clause 11 will address that for tangata whenua but it remains to be seen how the power balances will actually pan out. 
Speaking also about Pacific nations communities this island of ours Aotearoa is a Pacific nation. We float in Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa—the great ocean of Kiwa—and we have a Pacific bias. It actually affects all of us who have grown up here. We need to be really strong in making sure that those voices are heard. Much of the most stimulating amazing and interesting art—and I am on the Artworks Committee here in Parliament—comes from Maori and Pacific people. They have had to fight so hard for the money to be able to participate in the public life of the country. They have had to struggle just as they have had to struggle right across the board in every forum to get committees like Te Waka Toi and the South Pacific Arts Committee. We need to listen to their voices. 
We sought to hear from some of those voices and we have not had a clear message yet. We do not know whether we have not heard a clear message because these communities are happy with the streamlining or they have simply given up because they are deflated and alienated by yet another restructure. We do not know the answer to that question and we will not second-guess them. We know who we are and who we are not. It is important that there is a select committee process that allows us to encourage and stimulate all of those voices to be heard and to find out whether this restructuring—from two separate committees feeding into the main council to seats at the main board—will be a better result for them. 
I think it is really important to recognise that the arts community is huge and diverse. There are many many voices in it and it is not simple to sort out the funding. I recognise that the Minister is trying to uphold the importance the value and the resources of the Arts Council but if there is to be a fair and equitable result that will be better for everybody then we need to be convinced that this change is really valuable. We hope that the select committee will hear from the networks and we will encourage the networks to participate. 
Having been involved with arts for years I do not think that making submissions is their favourite thing—surprisingly! In fact a lot of us do not find it very fabulous so it may be difficult for them to feel confident that their style of communication will be heard and valued in this forum. It will not be about how much money they make; it will be about the expression of their voice. If we have an economic analysis we will know that one of the strengths of Aotearoa New Zealand—and one of the reasons why manuhiri come here—is the fantastic arts that this country produces. We have looked at the Arts Council restructuring and we are yet to be convinced although we are prepared to go to the select committee and see. 
Some of the other provisions are interesting. I have been talking to community arts providers and community councils; like many people I spent a lot of my time in small communities before I came to Parliament and I go back to a small community. It is interesting what those community arts organisers and networkers say. They say that this bill might be positive but it might not. They are looking for a clearer definition about who will get the money and how the restructure will be an improvement on the way things are currently managed. 
I also agree with comments about the loss of a strategic plan because these community arts providers can have their funding cut off if they do not meet the intent of the national body. If there is no long-term strategic plan for that body those community providers will be second-guessing. Anyone who has spent years doing funding applications knows that second-guessing is very difficult when one is in a town like Turanga-nui-a-Kiwa—Gisborne—or a town at the top of the Coromandel and is trying to work out what the Arts Council wants in those applications. What language is it looking for? What is the jargon? What is the buzz? We all know that if people do not use the right language they do not get the money. It is quite complex if there is no long-term strategic plan. 
They also raised issues about the main relationship being with local government and about the statement of intent. I was also concerned that many of these people said that this bill may be all right on its own terms but it does not address the key problems of bureaucracy that we are facing. We face a lack of strategic clarity and we do not know whether the direction will improve or change. We are playing a waiting game. 
Therefore the groups we have talked to in communities have had very mixed views. At the same time I have not heard an outcry. Often with bills if there is an outcry then we know for sure it is time to say no at its first reading. We have not heard that outcry yet although it may be gathering steam. We will see; we will certainly be interested in seeing it stimulated. Wherever we see a change to a structure that results in people being marginalised by the nature of their culture or where there is a potential breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi we have to ask questions. We have to ask whether it will really be in the best interests of Aotearoa New Zealand as a whole because it is as a whole that we will function best as an arts community. 
It is a highly competitive field. Many many people are used to doing everything on the smell of an oily paint rag or whatever their art form is and they have to struggle to get money. It is not easy stuff. If there is to be change and if we are to maintain artistic excellence and human dignity we need to have the clarity that goes with that. 
The Green Party debated this bill quite vigorously but we came down on the side of sending the bill to a select committee. Again I say that I am hopeful that we will hear a lot of voices on this bill because change for change’s sake will not necessarily improve arts funding. I hear the Minister talk about the wonderful work that the Arts Council has done in the past and that is true. It is a vibrant part of what it means to be in this country. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I do not think that I will surprise any members of the House by revealing that I am not a great patron of the arts myself although I did go to the ballet once about 20 years ago and I have been to one or two plays over time. But in the absence of that great patron of the arts our leader the Hon Rodney Hide I will do my very best to speak on the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. 
As members will be aware one of the things as a new member that I find most pleasing is when I am able to agree with other members of the House particularly on the Government side and even more so on the Greens’ side. I am delighted to say that until she lost me about 10 minutes in I found the speech of Catherine Delahunty refreshing. I found that I agreed with most of it until she lost me. The bit that I enjoyed and agreed with the most was the focus on Maori and Pasifika art. I think it is not unknown that I have a connection with the Pacific. At the risk of offending my colleague to my left Te Ururoa Flavell I say that I find Tongan dancing considerably more appealing than the local variant here. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Of course you would. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: It is not just my wife; it is— 
Catherine Delahunty 
: It’s a matter of taste David. 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Exactly—a matter of taste. 
I am very pleased that the emphasis appears to be going away from people whom I understand are known as luvvies—who are fond of obscure plays by a chap called Pinter and stuff like that—and more towards Pacific and Maori art which has a greater connection with our country. 
Clare Curran 
: What about Tom Stoppard? 
DAVID GARRETT 
: Oh he is an English fellow I believe. I have not had the pleasure of seeing any of his works. 
That was the good bit. Now I will revert to type just for a moment and say that we were very happy to hear—it was music to our ears in fact—the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage say that one of the things this bill does is reduce the number of luvvies who hand out the money. We are in favour of streamlining and reducing numbers so that has to be a good thing. 
I was very happy to find positive things in the Minister’s speech. From what I could follow I think I agreed with Mr Robertson but I suspect that he is more of a patron of the arts than me. As I said in respect of the first bit of Ms Delahunty’s speech I found myself very capable of approving of that. Having said that I will allow my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell to speak and I say that the ACT Party supports this bill with much pleasure. Thank you. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Assistant Speaker Barker. Kia ora tatou. I do not have too much to contribute because like my colleague David Garrett it is not as if I am an artiste but Maori performing arts—that is where some of the action is at. In fact last week we had the kapa haka competitions in Te Arawa. Te Arawa came second but that is all right; we came second. 
I want to make a couple of important points in respect of the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Bill. As we know and as I think the Minister pointed out this bill replaces the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa Act 1994 which established the council known as Creative New Zealand. Under the 1994 Act the governance structure is made up of a council of seven members and two boards: the Arts Board with seven members and secondly Te Waka Toi with seven members. This bill replaces the old structure with a single board to be known as the Arts Council of New Zealand Toi Aotearoa—the Arts Council. 
Catherine Delahunty alluded to one matter that we have a concern about although having said that with most first readings of bills we try to let them have some air. We let them go out for public debate and consideration. One of the issues we want to raise is around the make-up of the council and in particular I suppose the relegation of Te Waka Toi in terms of membership and status. 
This bill determines that the Arts Council will consist of 13 members who will be appointed by the Minister and that at least four members must be acknowledged as people who have qualified for appointment because they have at least a regard for or understanding and knowledge of Te Ao Maori tikanga Maori and Maori arts. Bearing in mind that Te Waka Toi has been an important part of Maori art and creativity for a period of time I will reflect on some of the discussion that has come back to us from the people who have been involved in this particular area. As someone who has been at least involved in the Toi Iho branding exercise as well as being involved in Te Waka Toi—and aside from what Catherine Delahunty said about not having much feedback—I can say that the Maori Party has had some feedback from some of the people involved. To be truthful many of them were trying to work out any benefits that might come from the change from having a Maori board of seven people serviced by its own unit of Maori staff to having a mainstream council where Maori are but four of 13 people who may form an Arts Council committee. 
Catherine Delahunty talked about the fact that the proposed new structure destroys a Maori icon and a successful positive arts model for and by Maori. It takes away a body that has its own whakapapa its own history that is identified with whanau hapu and iwi and urban Maori authorities significant Maori individuals tohunga artists and communities. So there is the rub. She said further that when she heard about the changes she believed that it meant that the vital and important entity of Te Waka Toi would be lost to us for ever and she could not see the reason for it. She was not at that point convinced that there was any good for Maori for New Zealand or indeed for the international communities that identify the Te Waka Toi brand with high-quality Maori art and culture. So there is an issue that hopefully will be considered by the select committee. 
The second issue is around the protection of Maori quality which Toi Iho the Maori brand was all about: maintaining the quality and authenticity issues. The feedback that we have had is concern about an inability of the Government to protect in particular Maori concepts and symbols. In fact we see many cases of them being misused misappropriated and mistreated. I cite the incident for example of a Maori face moko kit promoted on an American Halloween store website. I cite the incidents of the use of Maori designs by a person by the name of Philip Morris on cigarette packaging and a baker’s advertisement in which gingerbread men performing a haka are flattened by a giant bag of white flour. I cite the incidents of the copyright use of Maori names by the Danish toy company Lego and the use of the so-called Maori warrior in the Sony game. I also cite the designs that featured in  
Vogue 
 from Jean-Paul Gaultier’s collection in which the use of the moko is combined with images that from our perspective were culturally offensive—namely a female model with a moko is posing sitting with her legs open and the other images convey a theme of cannibalism. 
As soon as some of these images hit the headlines we know that Maoridom certainly waits and shakes and therefore we hope to find some mechanism that allows those sorts of images to be protected; in the past Te Waka Toi was that. We hope that there is some mechanism that protects those particular images where possible and we hope that in the select committee process those points are made to allow this to happen. With that I say thank you very much. Kia ora tatou. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 One of the lessons of life— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Rick Barker) 
: I regret to advise the member that it has gone 6 o’clock. 
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.