Volume 707 Week 23 - Tuesday 28 July 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 707 Week 23 - Tuesday 28 July 2015[Sitting date: 28 July 2015. Volume:707;Page:5325. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 28 July 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Karakia.VisitorsRepublic of Korea—Parliamentary Delegation National AssemblyMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I am sure that members would wish to welcome a parliamentary delegation representing the National Assembly of the Republic of Korea led by Mr Hong Il Pyo who are present in the gallery. [Applause]Amended Answers to Oral QuestionsQuestion No. 12 to Minister 23 JulyHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): E te Mana Whakawā tēnā koe. I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I gave to oral question No. 12 on Thursday 23 July.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is none.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: On Thursday 23 July in response to a supplementary question from Darroch Ball regarding an interview I undertook with Television New Zealand’s Q+A programme I said: “I did never ever answer any question in regard to Serco and I have had no conversations with them about any social services.” I have now had a chance to review the transcript from my interview. In that interview I was asked two questions that cited Serco as an example of a private company that delivers social services and I did answer those questions. My apologies. I repeat however I have had no conversations with Serco about the delivery of social services in New Zealand. I was making the point in the interview that I would be open to the private sector delivering some social services if it can be shown it delivers better results. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order!RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on that statement just then and to look back at Hansard for last Thursday. This is precisely why we raised the point of order at the time and precisely why Darroch Ball sought your permission or the House’s permission to table that transcript because it would have made—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. That is not a point of order; that will lead to disorder. I will not see the tabling of transcripts in this House. If members want to seek further information they have the ability to do so. The point of tabling is not to make a political point; it is to further inform members—[Interruption] Order! I am speaking to the honourable member Ron Mark. The point of tabling is to provide further information. If that information is freely available then I will not be putting the leave.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have a separate point of order to that and that is regarding the personal explanation process where the Minister is giving a correction. My understanding is that the process has always been very clear: that Ministers correct what was in error and then leave their corrections at that. They do not then go on to elaborate the point that they were trying to make which is an abuse of that process.Mr SPEAKER: The member is correct. Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Leave is given by members in the expectation that the explanation given will be coherent and brief explaining the point. I think on this occasion the Minister went on slightly longer than the Minister needed to but that is for the Minister to call. The House then reacted accordingly. But in future to seek the right to make a personal explanation is a privilege of the House and I would expect any member seeking to make a—[Interruption] Order! I would expect any member making a personal explanation to respect that privilege.Ron Mark: Point of order.Mr SPEAKER: Is this a fresh point of order or is it in any way relitigating what has just been covered? Because if it is I will treat it very very seriously by Mr Mark. Think carefully before you raise—Ron Mark: Two points—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just want the first point of order. I am advising the member before he starts that if it in any way relitigates—[Interruption] Order! I am just warning the member that if it in any way relitigates—[Interruption] Order! I think the member had better sit for a minute so I am just absolutely clear. When I reviewed transcripts of last week there were numerous times when a particular member continued to relitigate points of order. That in itself leads to disorder in this House. So I am giving not only Mr Mark but all members a warning that if they attempt to relitigate by raising perpetual points of order I will treat it very very seriously and be asking members to leave. Does the member have a fresh point of order?RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is this. Under the Standing Orders that Minister had plenty of time to come and give this statement prior to the lifting of the House on the Thursday. I would ask you to reflect—is it appropriate that we then wait all the way through to the Tuesday when the Minister herself could have corrected that error in accordance with the Standing Orders—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have heard enough. It is for a member to decide; when they discover the information they must do so at the earliest convenience. I am not privy to deciding or knowing when the Minister decided that answer was not correct. It possibly could have been done Thursday afternoon—that is true—but that is not for me to determine. The member came into the House at 2 o’clock today sought leave to make a personal explanation and permission was given by the House.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Again—[Interruption] Order!Rt Hon Winston Peters: I do not need a warning.Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat—the member will resume his seat. Again I want to be fair to the member because if he is asked to leave I do not want him complaining that he has been asked to leave the Chamber. If it is a fresh point of order I am only too happy to hear it but if it in any way attempts to relitigate where we have got to since the House started at 2 o’clock I will deal with it severely. A fresh point of order—the Rt Hon Winston Peters.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It would be rather obvious—and this point of order is to do with the sequence of events—that there was a contest as to the veracity of the matter. A member was denied a chance to table the document. That would have put the Minister’s staff and the Minister on alert. But by 10 o’clock—by the close of business that night she had not done so. That is what the point of order is about. It is the way that a ministerial statement or an explanation like that should be done and the time frame in which it should be done. She was on alert to do that. She did not do it.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is exactly relitigating what I have just said. I now ask the member to leave the Chamber. I ask the member to leave the Chamber.Rt Hon Winston Peterswithdrew from the Chamber.Questions to MinistersHousing Market—Foreign Ownership of New Zealand Properties1.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I don’t want to ban foreigners from buying residential property”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes I stand by my full statement which was: “We do not support a ban on foreign buyers. We think that’s neither justified nor likely to be terribly effective. For the most part countries don’t have bans but where they have had them we don’t think they’ve worked very well.”Andrew Little: Will he sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement a deal that this House and the public have not been allowed to see if it makes it impossible to stop people from the US China Japan and elsewhere buying our houses?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is a little behind the eight ball because the reason that a ban may not be applied to a Chinese buyer of a residential property in New Zealand is as a result of Labour writing the most favoured nation provisions in the China free-trade agreement and the ratification of the Korean free-trade agreement. It is a shame that Labour did not think of all this 8 years ago.Andrew Little: Will he sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement if it prevents his Government or future Governments imposing taxes that apply only to offshore housing speculators?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will appreciate that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement is currently under negotiation so those issues have not been resolved. But I am confident that future Governments of New Zealand will have plenty of tools in the tool box when it comes to applying taxes if they so wish to do so.Andrew Little: How many homes have been sold into overseas ownership since he said he was concerned about Kiwis becoming tenants in their own land in 2010; or does he not know?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know.Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Prime Minister received confirming that banning foreigners from buying residential property does not work?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Last week I received a report from Australia and I quote: “The double-whammy of the lowest interest rates since the 1960s and an investor frenzy has seen Sydney’s median house price smash through the magic AU$1 million mark for the first time.” The report goes on to note that Sydney’s median house price is now higher than London’s and fast approaching New York’s. Investors now have a record 62 percent share of Sydney’s housing market loans. This is the market that theoretically at least bans foreign buyers—something that clearly does not work.Andrew Little: Why is he refusing to listen to the overwhelming public demand for a ban on overseas investors buying our houses and forcing prices out of reach for first-home buyers here?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We have a far more scientific way of doing things on this side of the House than looking at whether a name is Chinese and deciding they are the bad guys. As I said the reason why we would not be able to ban a Chinese person buying a—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Prime Minister. I cannot hear the answer with that level of interjection.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The reason why they are making that much noise is they know what I am going to say. The reason why you cannot try to ban a Chinese person is that Labour wrote it into the law. [Interruption] Yes you did. Oh yes you did.Tim Macindoe: Has the Prime Minister seen reports in support of the Government’s approach to international investment and trade?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. Yes I have seen two reports. The first one said and I quote: “I am a rabid free-trader. I believe in free trade. I am part of a party that has been pro - free trade and has initiated many free-trade agreements including China.” The second report offered the opposite view. It said: “You may have heard my colleague describe himself as a passionate free-trader. Well I could not describe myself in that way.” The first report was from Clayton Cosgrove; the second report a few minutes later was from Clare Curran—underlying the deep divisions within the Labour Party. And that was the tone of their—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! Both sides need to tone down their level of interjection.Question No. 2 to MinisterQuestion not asked.Economic Outlook—Reports3.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy and what do these reports show?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): On Friday Statistics New Zealand published merchandise trade data. Merchandise exports in the year to June totalled $48.5 billion—up $2.8 billion or 6 percent on the same period 2 years earlier. The figures indicate that overall exports to China increased 2.9 percent in June compared with the same month a year earlier. That happened because gains in the export of non-dairy produce such as meat and fruit outweighed the impact of a decline in the value of whole-milk powder exports to the world’s second-largest economy.David Bennett: What other reports has he received that indicate that the economy is expanding at a solid sustainable rate?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Part of the report from Statistics New Zealand was that the annual value of fruit exports reached an all-time high of $2 billion in the year ended 30 June. That is one of many non-dairy sectors benefiting from the reduction in the exchange rate and flat to falling interest rates which are underpinning continued moderate growth in the New Zealand economy. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I just need to ask for a bit more cooperation from the left-hand side otherwise I am going to have to ask somebody to leave.David Bennett: What factors support a positive outlook for the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: A number of factors are supporting the growing economy: strong inwards migration including for the first time net inflows from Australia to New Zealand; a stable fiscal outlook; continued growth of the construction and services sectors; and New Zealand’s high labour force participation. Of course all these factors are subject to the usual risks that an open globalised economy faces but just because some of those risks eventuate some of the time it does not mean that the economy is not continuing to grow. We are on track for moderate sustainable growth of 2 to 3 percent.David Bennett: Has the Minister received data about international visitor arrivals?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes because tourism is currently either our largest or second-largest export depending on which month you measure it in. Data published last week showed that international visitor arrivals numbered 177000 last month and that is 9 percent higher than in June 2014. This of course is very positive for people with jobs in industries that are servicing our international guests. The downward correction in the Kiwi dollar will underpin the competitiveness of our tourism industry which I repeat is either our largest or our second-largest export industry and looks to be doing fairly well.Health Minister—New Zealand Health Strategy4.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Health: When was he or his office first briefed on the contents of the draft New Zealand Health Strategy?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Last November I asked officials to commence work on refreshing the New Zealand Health Strategy which had not been updated since the year 2000. Since that time I have met regularly with officials to discuss the direction of the strategy. Following extensive engagement and input from a wide range of stakeholders I received the first written draft of the strategy on 3 July.Hon Annette King: In light of that answer when he decided to update the New Zealand Health Strategy did he have any discussions with the Director-General of Health on what needed to be reviewed including funding and governance arrangements for district health boards?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I talk to the director-general about a wide range of subjects and of course funding going into your first Budget as health Minister is going to form a core part of those discussions. What else would one expect?Hon Annette King: How could he be unaware of proposed changes to district health boards’ structures and funding when his Director-General of Health—not a third party as he claimed—had firstly been briefing him on progress since the beginning of the month and secondly district health board chairs and chief executive officers had been given the recommendations in the leaked reports 2 weeks ago?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member is confusing three different reviews there. Basically the funding review and the stolen capacity and capability review are reviews commissioned by the Director-General of Health. So they are his reviews; he receives the recommendations. He was about to brief me and then of course the report was stolen by Mrs King’s contact.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to the last remark that the member made. I have no contact who stole any documents. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The way forward to settle the House is that I am going to ask the Minister to withdraw that remark but personally I did not think it was in any way a reflection on the member herself. But can I ask the Minister simply to withdraw that part about a stolen paper.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No—Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I withdraw.Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.Hon Annette King: If he is now ruling out any changes to district health board governance arrangements why did he allow papers to go out with proposed changes he did not agree with say he had not read the report and then blame the Director-General of Health calling him a third party? I mean is that incompetence or laziness?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No that is completely incorrect. The director-general was not called a third party. If you want to know what incompetence and laziness is it is a Minister who doubles the budget and does 2000 fewer operations who culls 30000 patients from waiting lists and who sends 760 people to Australia for cancer treatment—and that Minister was Annette King. [Interruption]Hon Annette King: No that is not going to save him either. Is he now taking a whole-of-Government approach to sensitive issues by getting the communications manager from the national cyber intelligence office of the Government Communications Security Bureau to issue rebuttal lines to the media for his Director-General of Health or is neither the Minister nor the chief executive officer capable of fronting difficult issues?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Obviously that is a ridiculous statement. What I am focusing on is repairing the damage done by Annette King’s $150 million district health board deficit which she left behind and which we have now got down to about $50 million.Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an email from Cherie Blithe from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet at the national cyber intelligence office who sent the email to Radio New Zealand—Mr SPEAKER: Order! It has been described. I just need the date of it.Hon Annette King: Yesterday.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular email dated yesterday. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Trans-Pacific Partnership—Potential Outcomes5.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “New Zealand is never going to sign up to the TPP unless we believe it is in New Zealand’s best interests”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.James Shaw: Is it in the best interests of New Zealand’s $32 billion information and communications technology sector that the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement requires changes to the Copyright Act that would disallow reverse engineering of software for interoperability purposes?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Given that the deal has not even been concluded yet I cannot go into the individual parts. What I can say is that the overall statement from the Government stands true. We are not going to sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement unless we believe that it is in the best interests of New Zealand on the balance of benefits. But I would have thought that the opportunity to have free trade with the United States Japan Mexico Canada and other countries puts us in a very very strong position.James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was in relation to New Zealand’s $32 billion information and communications technology sector.Mr SPEAKER: I heard the question and the essence of the answer that I heard from the Prime Minister is that he cannot really comment on that because the matter is still under negotiation. That addresses the question.James Shaw: Does he agree with the lawyer for Vattenfall the German nuclear power company currently suing the German Government that if countries do not want to be sued by multinational corporations they should not sign up for agreements containing investor-State dispute settlement mechanisms like the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No New Zealand has had investor-State dispute resolutionin successive free-trade agreements including in the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement signed by the previous Labour Government. The important part is having safeguards included in that.James Shaw: If as calculated by the Parliamentary Library the benefit to New Zealand’s dairy sector is only $37 million a year by 2025 or 0.01 percent of GDP while the cost to Pharmac from patent extensions is up to $50 million a year will he still sign the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: This is the problem with the Greens’ economic analysis and research. You are using the Parliamentary Library to model something that even I do not know the details of yet. So guess what? If you put rubbish information in you get rubbish information out. Actually the member who has done a little bit of this stuff in his previous career is way better than this. He would never have done this for a client.Andrew Little: Does he stand by today’s statement about the Trans-Pacific Partnership and prescription drugs that “patents will run for a little bit longer and that means the Government will have to pay for the original drug as opposed to the generic”; if so can he guarantee that this will not mean higher costs to taxpayers for subsidised medicines higher costs to patients for non-subsidised medicines or a risk that some medicines will no longer be subsidised due to the increased Budget pressure?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can guarantee that consumers will not pay more. I think that it is highly unlikely actually that the Government will have to pay any more through Pharmac. But on the basis that it had to pay a tiny bit more the Government would fund that increase because actually what would end up happening is that the Government would earn a lot more revenue through tax revenue. That is why David Shearer Phil Goff and David Parker—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is not necessary for the answer.James Shaw: What specifically would it take for him to walk away from the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If I did not believe that the deal was in New Zealand’s best interests.State and Social Housing—Tenants Declining Properties6.BARBARA KURIGER (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for Social Housing: What work is being done to ensure social housing is available for those most in need?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing): The Government’s social housing reforms are all about ensuring that there are more social housing places to meet the needs of vulnerable families. We have introduced reviewable tenancies so that those who can afford to move on from social housing can do so and make room for someone who is more in need. So far 185 people have moved including 11 who have bought their own homes. We also have housing support products that help people who are wanting to go on to the waiting list with bond and moving costs so that they can go into private letting and also for those who are moving out of social housing. We are now looking at work to address the reasons why people on the register turn down social houses.Barbara Kuriger: How many people have declined an offer of a social house?Hon PAULA BENNETT: In the year to October 2014 4155 offers of a social house were declined by people on the register and 3081 people declined properties. Some declined multiple properties—for example 31 people declined a house four times and two people declined seven houses each. Twelve percent of those declines or 498 people were made without good reason.Barbara Kuriger: What kinds of reasons does she consider are good enough to decline the offer of a social house?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not think that people should be declining houses because they do not like the colour of the door or because they do not like birds chirping in the trees next door or because there are children playing on the street outside the house and they might ask for money. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is the very last warning that I am giving to the particular member on my left.Hon PAULA BENNETT: But these are all reasons that have been given. I absolutely accept that there are valid reasons for turning down a house such as wanting to keep your child at the same school or not wanting to live near a gang or a P house. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Will the Minister finish her answer.Hon PAULA BENNETT: Every time someone turns down a house that they are offered without a good reason it creates significant delay and means that it takes longer to get a family who really are in desperate need into that house.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Complete your answer and sit down.Hon PAULA BENNETT: That situation is not fair and I am looking to do something about it.Economy—Employment7.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his reported statement that the slow-down in growth this year had come at the right time in the electoral cycle?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. I do not know whether I actually used the word “slow-down”. I think I said that it was because the economy is a bit softer. But that was alongside statements to the effect that we do not want to be a political party that as soon as it sees any market or global turbulence starts talking about spending more borrowing more regulating everything and keeping foreigners out which is what the Labour Party has done in the last month.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer is he concerned that there are still 146000 people out of work 11000 more than at the time of last year’s election or is that OK for those New Zealanders to be doing it tough because it is at the right time in the electoral cycle?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure what the member is referring to. The number of people on benefits continues to drop. Today there are 42000 fewer New Zealand children in a benefit household than there were 3 years ago. The Government’s social investment approach to welfare is increasingly recognised in other developed countries as very progressive if not revolutionary.Grant Robertson: Is he concerned that at least $13 billion will be absent from regional New Zealand over 2 years as a result of plummeting dairy prices or are the job losses and hard times that go with that just fine in his book as long as it happens at the right time in the electoral cycle?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am concerned about that and having for a number of years represented an area that has become an intensive dairying area I know quite a bit about the impact that that loss in dairy income will have. But surely the member is not going to suggest that dairy prices ought to stay low for the next 3 years so that he can get re-elected. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The level of interjection now coming from my right-hand side means that I will not hesitate to deal with somebody very severely on this side if I need to.Grant Robertson: Is he concerned that the proportion of workers who received a pay increase over the past year is the lowest for 5 years or is that just fine so long as it happens at the right time in the electoral cycle to suit his party’s electoral prospects?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that demonstrates that the member has a bit of homework to do. Real wage increases have continued. In the last year in fact inflation was zero and oil prices dropped yielding spare cash for families for further consumption or saving. There is no evidence that wage growth is way out of proportion with where it has been over recent years. Wages continue to rise and will continue to do so despite that member trying to say that the economy is going down the toilet.Grant Robertson: When will he apologise to New Zealanders for his out-of-touch cynical and selfish comments to the National Party conference on the weekend or is he just more worried about his party’s electoral prospects than how New Zealanders do?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The cynic in me would say that it would be when that member’s out-of-touch cynical and selfish undermining of the Labour leadership stops.Grant Robertson: Given that he has acknowledged that he did make comments in the weekend that the slow-down or softening of the New Zealand economy was happening at the right time in the electoral cycle when will he start governing in the national interest and not in the interests of National?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unfortunately the Government does not have sufficient influence to determine when or how economic slow-downs occur. I know that member believes that is the case but actually the fundamental job in New Zealand is to ensure that this economy is resilient to precisely these slow-downs and I think the Government has built up a track record where its policy has supported that resilience and built up the confidence of New Zealanders in their ability to deal with economic adversity. We are proud to stand by that track record.Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s Performance and Monitoring8.DAVID CLENDON (Green) to the Minister of Corrections: How many Final Warning Notices in accordance with Serco’s contract with the Crown have been issued since Serco took over management of the Mt Eden Corrections Facility?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. None but there have been substantial financial penalties to date.David Clendon: Why have no final warning notices been issued to Serco given that at least 10 performance notices have been issued in the last 3 years and any one of those could have doubled as a final notice?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: As I have said in the past there are a number of options available to the department but the most important thing at this stage is ensuring the safety of staff and prisoners at the facility. That is why we are awaiting the outcome of the review by the chief inspector.David Clendon: How did the Department of Corrections fail to pick up on the huge failings at the Serco facility despite auditing and reporting done by Serco doing spot checks and having an onsite monitoring team including a primary and two secondary monitors in the prison who attended daily and weekly meetings on operational matters and a monthly contract management meeting attended by the prison director?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Those matters that the member refers to are part of the review of the chief inspector which is being overseen by the Office of the Ombudsmen. I await the findings of that review and I suggest that the member waits too.David Clendon: Was the Minister correct to dismiss as “political game-playing” accusations last week of prisoner violence in Mt Eden prison?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I was referring to bringing the death of a young man to this House and using it as a political football. These issues and allegations are serious and our Government takes these matters seriously and that is why the review is in place.David Clendon: Given revelations about Serco’s failings since question time last Thursday will the Minister now rule out renewing Serco’s contract for the management of Mt Eden prison?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: We have a review in place and we need to get to the bottom of all the serious allegations that have been brought to task. Certainly termination is one of the options available.David Clendon: What if any additional monitoring has the Minister already put in place at the Auckland South corrections facility at Wiri which is also managed by Serco?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: We have monitors in place. We have the Office of the Ombudsmen which is able to go on the premises at any time. There are a number of monitoring and surveillance of the activities of Serco currently in place.Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was what additional monitoring there was. The Minister referred to the existing monitoring; David Clendon is interested in what additional monitoring there was.Mr SPEAKER: I think this is a fair call. I am going to ask David Clendon to repeat that question.David Clendon: Thank you Mr Speaker. What if any additional monitoring has the Minister put in place at the new Auckland South correctional facility at Wiri which is also managed by Serco?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I have not personally put in any additional measures at Wiri.Mt Eden Corrections Facility—Serco’s Performance9.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he agree with the statement made by the Department of Corrections Chief Executive Ray Smith that “not everything is broken” in relation to Serco’s management of Mt Eden Corrections Facility?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (Minister of Corrections): Yes I do but like the chief executive I am awaiting the outcome of the review by the chief inspector.Kelvin Davis: How can he believe that not everything is broken at Serco when this morning two inmates were found to have been organising a class A drug ring within the prison?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The incident that that member refers to is subject to a police investigation and I await the findings of that police investigation.Kelvin Davis: Has he received any reports contradicting Ray Smith’s press release of 23 July which concluded that the February serious assault case involved only one attacker?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: Can the member please repeat the question?Mr SPEAKER: Yes I can certainly organise that.Kelvin Davis: Has he received any reports contradicting Ray Smith’s press release of 23 July which concluded that the February serious assault case—the Littleton case—involved only one attacker?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: No I have not received any reports.Kelvin Davis: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s statement on Saturday that “That is the advantage of the private sector model. We can act; we can deal with it.”; if so why does he feel that he cannot deal with any issues that come up at public prisons?Hon Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: I always agree with the Prime Minister.Immigration Policy—Migration to Regions10.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Immigration: What measures has the Government announced to help spread the benefits of migration across New Zealand?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister of Immigration): The Government has announced a package of changes designed to help spread the benefits of migration across the country particularly in those regions with demands for workers skills and investment. The changes include trebling the bonus points for skilled migrants for a job offer outside Auckland doubling the points for an entrepreneur setting up a business in the regions streamlining the labour market check and providing a pathway to residence for a number of long-term migrants on temporary visas in the South Island. Overall the feedback on these initiatives has been positive with wide support from local mayors and a number of business groups that welcome the opportunity to access the skills and labour their regions need to grow.Alastair Scott: What reports has the Minister received supporting the Government’s changes to immigration settings?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have seen a wide range of reports supporting the Government’s changes from a wide range of stakeholders: mayors business groups and others.11:0019/8SJ I know one pragmatic report said: “I thought about it for a while and I thought: ‘Well let’s give it a go.’ It is an instrument there’s a whole lot of stuff that can be done but anything that helps to get the regions going has got to be good.” That is from the very sensible Labour MP Stuart Nash and I wholeheartedly agree.Housing Market—Foreign Ownership of New Zealand Properties11.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Trade: Is the effect of Article 139 of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement that it allows restrictions to be introduced on foreign buyers of New Zealand homes including Chinese buyers so long as subsequent agreements with other countries are no more generous?Hon TODD McCLAY (Acting Minister of Trade): Mr Speaker kia ora and tēnā koe. The most favoured nation obligation of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement requires New Zealand to extend to Chinese investors any preferential treatment granted under subsequent New Zealand free-trade agreements and this is a reciprocal clause. I am advised that China is currently negotiating with the US and the EU on investment. Article 139 also means that New Zealand investors will receive any preferences made or extended under the most favoured nation clause of that agreement.Hon David Parker: Can he now confirm what he refused to answer last week—that is the Trans-Pacific Partnership will purport to stop a future New Zealand Government banning the sale of existing New Zealand homes to foreign buyers from Trans-Pacific Partnership countries?Hon TODD McCLAY: The Trans-Pacific Partnership is still under negotiation so there is no agreement yet. That is why it is still called a negotiation and not yet an agreement. Whether or not provisions in subsequent agreements allow restrictions on foreign buyers of New Zealand homes or whether they also prevent restrictions from Chinese buyers would depend upon the specific facts measures and the application of the provisions in any respective agreement.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister’s answers—last week and this week—are making a mockery of this Parliament and a fool of you Mr Speaker. I do not say you are foolish but it is making a fool of Parliament that he can turn up and make denials in this House or refuse to answer these questions. That the Minister of Trade on The Nation and then the Prime Minister on Q+A answers them is an affront to this House.Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion my duty here is to listen to the question and then I expect the Minister to address that question. The question asked whether he would confirm etc. and then went on to put the proposition the member wanted answered. At the very start of the Minister’s answers he effectively said “The negotiations are still under way.” and therefore he would not be able to confirm that. That is an answer. It may not be an answer that is satisfactory to the member but the way forward is further supplementary questions.Hon David Parker: Speaking to the point of order—Mr SPEAKER: No no. I have ruled on that point of order. If the member has a fresh point of order I will hear it but we are not about to relitigate points of order.Hon David Parker: Does he now concede that although China can and has banned sales to non-residents in its cities and Australia has too he is trading away New Zealand’s sovereign right to ban the sale of New Zealand homes to overseas buyers from Trans-Pacific Partnership countries and China?Hon TODD McCLAY: No I do not accept that. I suggest to the member that he goes and does a little bit more research about China. Nobody gets to buy land in China—not Chinese people not people from other countries. That is the first thing. The second thing I would say is I can give an absolute guarantee that under the Trans-Pacific Partnership this Government will not commit to something that compels the Government to produce a shonky list based on people’s names and what they think their ethnicity might be to create policy—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order!Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If you will not make the Minister answer a question could you at least stop him insulting the Opposition—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a very good mind to ask that member to leave the Chamber. The first thing is whether the question “Does he now concede …” was addressed. The Minister right at the start of the answer said that he does not agree with that. And then as soon as the Minister did wander to where he was going with the latter part of his answer before the member was even on his feet I stood—[Interruption] Order! I certainly do not expect backchat from the Hon David Parker when I am delivering a ruling. As soon as I saw where the Minister was going I rose to my feet and stopped him answering then turned to the member to see him on his feet.Hon David Parker: Are the hundreds of thousands if not millions of New Zealanders who want an assurance that his Government will protect New Zealand’s ability to stop the sale of New Zealand homes to foreign buyers reasonable or unreasonable in their expectations?Hon TODD McCLAY: What is unreasonable is this member’s position compared with some of his colleagues’ when it comes to trade. Recently Clayton Cosgrove said that he is a rabid free-trader Clare Curran and Mr Parker are just rabid and of course Mr Little is just angry on this issue.Māori Language / Te Reo—Support for Young Learners12.NUK KORAKO (National) to the Minister of Education: He aha ērā mahi āwhina kia kaha kē atu ai te ako o te hunga rangatahi i Te Reo Māori?[What is being done to help more young people learn Te Reo Māori?]Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Te Reo Māori i te tuatahi te reo Pākehā e whai atu. Ā tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā otirā huri noa i tō tātou Whare tēnā koutou katoa. Ko tō tātou Reo Māori he taonga tuku iho he reo kāmehameha nō reira kia kaha tātou ki te kōrero i tō tātou reo rangatira ahakoa ki hea ki ngā kāinga ki ngā wāhi mahi ki ngā whare ako ki ngā hāpori hoki.[In the Māori language first followed by the English language. And so salutations to you Mr Speaker but at the same time to you all throughout our House. Our Māori language is a treasure that has been handed down it is priceless and so we need to be robust in speaking in our esteemed language regardless of where that might be—in the homes workplaces learning institutions and communities as well.]The New Zealand curriculum for English-medium schooling gives schools the option of teaching Te Reo Māori. Te Marautanga o Aotearoa the curriculum for Māori-medium schooling focuses on developing effective communicators in Te Reo. Between 2010 and 2014 the number of young people learning Te Reo at school grew from 133000 to more than 147000. Should schools choose to do more with Te Reo Māori—and I encourage them to do so—they are supported by the Ministry of Education and other agencies with resources. Ko Te Reo kia tika ko Te Reo kia rere ko Te Reo kia Māori ā ko Te Reo Māori ka rangona i ngā moka katoa o Aotearoa.[The Māori language must be correct fluent and Māori in essence and it must be heard in all extremities of New Zealand.]Nuk Korako: He aha ngā whakaotinga mahi kia tipu ai te mātauranga kaupapa Māori?[What is being done to grow Māori-medium education?]Hon HEKIA PARATA: We are committed to growing the number of young people attending Māori-medium education—from kōhanga and puna reo to kura kaupapa wharekura and whare wānanga—to ensure that they achieve educational success. To this end we are working both within Government agencies and with the providers of Māori-medium education to strengthen their reach and provision. In 2014 Māori-medium education was provided to approximately 2 percent of the schooling population or just under 18000 students across 282 Māori-medium schools or settings. We know that many young people do well in Māori-medium education and our Government is committed to seeing that continue. Kia ora.Urgent Debates DeclinedElectoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act—Consistency with New Zealand Bill of Rights ActTrans-Pacific Partnership—NegotiationsMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 a recent declaration by the High Court that the Electoral (Disqualification of Sentenced Prisoners) Amendment Act 2010 is inconsistent with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. For there to be an urgent debate there must be an administrative or ministerial responsibility or the case must be of recent occurrence. The member in his application cites the judgment of the High Court issued on 24 July as the particular case of recent occurrence. An urgent debate is a way of holding the Government accountable for an action for which it is responsible. There must be distinct governmental responsibility for the particular case that it is sought to debate. A decision of the High Court is not a matter for which any Minister has responsibility. The application is therefore declined.I have also received a letter from the Rt Hon Winston Peters seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 the negotiation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership. For an urgent debate to be granted there must be a particular case of recent occurrence. Negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership have been continuing since at least 2010. An ongoing event is not a particular case of recent occurrence. The application is therefore declined.New Zealand Flag Referendums BillSecond ReadingHon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I move That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill be now read a second time.Grant Robertson: That’s all they’ve got.Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is it. That is it.Tēnā koutou katoa ngā mema o tēnei Whare arā te Pāremata o Aotearoa. Tēnā tātou i tēnei Wiki o Te Reo Māori ko tāku īnoi kia kaha tātou ki te kōrero Māori.[Acknowledgments to you all members of this House—in other words the New Zealand Parliament. Greetings to us all in this Māori Language Week. My plea is that we be robust and speak in Māori.]This bill ensures that the debate about the New Zealand flag is resolved through a formal careful and respectful process where New Zealanders can have their say. I want to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee for its thorough consideration of the bill and I want to thank those members of the public who made submissions. The committee received 259 submissions and one form submission representing almost 16000 individuals.I would like to address the report of the select committee. The committee has not recommended major changes to the bill. The majority of the committee recommended agreement with the structure procedures and requirements for the referendums which are fundamentally sound and appropriate for the process. A number of submissions queried the structure of the referendums and the order of the questions. Many of these submissions supported the inclusion of a yes/no question about changing the flag in the first referendum. The committee considered this but recommended no change. That is because a majority of the committee saw the importance of voters being able to give full consideration to alternative flag designs before deciding whether to keep or change our flag. It is pretty logical. People can make an informed decision about whether to change the flag if they can see what the alternative is.I would like to briefly touch on two amendments the committee has recommended. The committee’s first recommendation is to exempt the second flag referendum from the requirement for a preliminary referendum roll. The purpose of a preliminary roll is to make an updated electoral roll available for public inspection. However this will be done before the first referendum so it is not necessary to require it again before the second one.The committee’s second recommendation is to provide a regulated period for referendum advertising. Members of the House will be familiar with the importance of the regulated period and in parliamentary elections the significant penalties for breaching its rules. The regulated period will ensure there is no parliamentary funding of referendum advertisements advocating that people vote one way or another during the regulated period. These are fairly technical amendments.I would like to take the opportunity to briefly mention the activities of the independent Flag Consideration Panel. The panel’s process was set up and has been separate from the bill. The panel plays a pretty important role in engaging New Zealanders on this issue and will oversee the process of choosing four alternative flag designs that will be put to voters in the first referendum. Online engagement with the public has been very high: more than 850000 visits to the flag website—somewhat more I suspect than to the Labour Party website during the same time. The panel has had a number of public workshops and distributed public information. These opportunities have been important for people who do not find the internet a comfortable environment.Public suggestions for alternative flag designs closed on 16 July. The flag panel has received 10290 flag designs which indicates some level of public interest. It is now considering those designs. The panel will report to me in late August with its four designs Cabinet will then authorise the four designs to be added to the first referendum voting paper by Order in Council and that referendum will be held in November and December. The preferred alternative design chosen will then be put against the current flag in the second binding referendum. The Electoral Commission will conduct these referendums and has robust systems in place as one would expect.I am grateful for the input of members of political parties and members of the public who have participated in the development of this bill. There has been—and certainly in this House—some robust opinion about whether to change the flag and what kind of flag to change it to but I can tell you two of the main reasons I have heard that are the wrong reasons. One is that the Opposition members do not like John Key. That is the main reason they oppose the referendums.The second reason is that they want to change the flag but they wish they had had the courage themselves to put forward the proposition. We know that because putting up a referendum to change the flag is Labour Party policy. The Labour Party has always prided itself on being the owners of New Zealand—its brand its identity its spirit and its principles. That may have been the case when Michael Joseph Savage was the Prime Minister but in this intellectually bankrupt unaspirational modern Labour Party it does not own any aspect of our national identity. The National Party of course believes that the people own it. We are not a Government that regards its job as promoting national identity. What would Governments know that they could add? The people own it and that is why the people should have a say about whether they want a new flag.There is a third reason that is a bad reason for opposing this bill and it is the one that New Zealand First members have picked—that is they are simply against New Zealand being an open forward-looking progressive country. They think that New Zealanders are incapable of making a dangerous decision like whether to change a flag or not. In fact so does the Labour Party now. I mean what is the Labour Party going to say if New Zealand votes to change the flag? It will condemn it to even more irrelevance than the track that it is on.So I look forward to hearing in this debate a debate about the flag and about the process of picking it. I do not look forward to hearing the whingeing backward-looking complaints of the Opposition parties which lack confidence in New Zealand and aspiration for New Zealanders.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): Tēnā koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Just when 4.4 million Kiwis have been asked what they stand for I thought that at least the Deputy Prime Minister might stand up and tell us what he stood for. He stood there for half his speech with his hands in his pockets and he did not tell us a thing. He stood there—dare I say—whingeing and moaning and carrying on because the truth is that New Zealanders do not want this change right now.There are thousands tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who want a banner that reflects and represents the mightiness that is New Zealand but they know a bad thing when they see it and they know bad times when they see them. Many of the delegates who turned up to the National Party conference this weekend the weekend just gone—they know a bad thing when they see it too which was when the Minister of Finance stood up to speak to that conference. They knew it was all bad too. They were not convinced by a Minister of Finance who stands up and says: “Don’t worry. The electoral cycle will take care of itall. We’re just OK for 2017.” The same applies to the flag. This is not a question of the electoral cycle. This is a question about our national identity but it is a question about the time when New Zealanders are comfortable with change.Right now this economy because of this Government’s appalling economic mismanagement is facing some of the most serious headwinds we have seen in a generation. There is massive loss in the dairy price massive loss of economic confidence. You walk up the main street of Whanganui and a quarter of the shopfronts are now empty. People in Whanganui are concerned like in many other regions around New Zealand. People are concerned about the immediate future of New Zealand and they want the Government to be there to help. They want the Government to be there to help with housing to help with social housing to provide insulation for housing to look after our kids and to make sure all those kids who are still going hungry in our schools might get a decent feed whether for breakfast or lunch. What they do not want at these difficult times is a Government that has already spent $8 million on a referendum process without a referendum being held yet with another $17 million left to go when there are greater priorities at stake.This Government has just got it wrong. If there is any further evidence required just about the level of enthusiasm that there is amongst the public in New Zealand about this then just look at these figures. They had 25 public meetings. These were the opportunities for mass public engagement. Hundreds of people were expected to turn up—that is at each meeting I mean not across all of them. Across all those meetings 739 people turned up—an average of 29 per meeting. Do you know how many people turned up in New Plymouth?Hon Maggie Barry: How many on the website?ANDREW LITTLE: Maggie Barry has been to New Plymouth recently because I enjoyed sitting alongside her when we opened the iconic Len Lye Centre. But I wonder when she looked out at the vast throng of people who turned up at that most iconic building whether she realised how many had turned up to the flag referendum meeting.Eight. Eight people in New Plymouth. The people of New Plymouth are good people. The people of New Plymouth are good people—they know iconic identity when they see it because they have now got it on their front doorstep—but they do not want a flag change. That is why eight people turning up to a meeting designed for several hundred tells you that people do not want a flag change. They do not want this referendum and as you go up and down the country—15 people in some other place 22 somewhere else; an average of 29 at each meeting.What about the website submissions? The Deputy Prime Minister says: “Well we’ve had thousands of submissions. Over 10000 submitted new designs of the flag.” We know what they look like because Parliament was treated to the spectacle of some of those flags last week: a sheep with a rainbow coming out of its bottom—and that pretty much sums up the National Party. That is the state it is in—a pack of sheep. It wants something flash and fancy. It will not deal with the methane issue in our agriculture sector so it is left up to the flag designers amongst us to try to get a message to the National Party: will you please do something about the real issues? That is what that flag design represents. Then there were others: meat pies Jelly Tips jandals kiwi all the rest of it. There is nothing wrong with those. Unfortunately the Leader of the House has gone because I know that he will have a fascination with some of those designs.But this is where people are at—they do not take it seriously. They do not take it seriously because they have got other priorities. The rest of New Zealand overwhelmingly has other priorities at this difficult time in our history. This is not the time—when people are disengaged when people are concerned and when people are anxious about unemployment about the state of our economy about what is happening to our farming sector and about what is happening in the regions. They do not need a $17 million referendum that asks the wrong questions in the wrong order. If we are going to have a referendum we should have at least turned it round and asked in the right order. But people have spoken loudly and clearly: they do not want the change right now.That is not a poor reflection on New Zealanders many of whom would like something different many of whom would like a change. Many of them want a change to the national anthem too because they are sick of singing a dirge every time you turn up to a festive occasion. Most of them sing along to the Australian national anthem before they sing along to our own. They want something different but they do not want it at a time—and they do not want this Government which parades itself as the great financial managers and the great financial responsibility people of the generation spending $17 million—when this country can ill afford it.We have never been under greater pressure financially. This economy has never been under greater pressure and yet the Minister of Finance the Deputy Prime Minister has the temerity to stand up in this House and sell us a dodgy bill of goods—a dodgy bill of goods: a flag that they do not know and an identity they cannot be clear about. This is the issue that New Zealanders are clear about: if this Government cared about New Zealanders if this Government actually started treating New Zealanders as if they mattered it would see the writing on the wall. It would see the sheep bottoms and the rainbows and it would say: “Now is not the time.” It would be honest with New Zealanders and say it is time for a strategic withdrawal we can come back to this another time we will respect the wishes of New Zealand and we will abandon the referendum and save the $17 million and we will use it for something useful.JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki): I want to thank the select committee members from all sides of the House for their consideration in this New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. We had a good process with good engagement by the public and enjoyed many submissions. In fact we enjoyed many suggestions for alternative flags. I think that comes to the heart of why this process is so important for New Zealanders because it gives them—it gives New Zealanders—the opportunity to think about and to come to a view on what they think best represents us as a country in terms of a flag.We had a number of submitters some of whom were entertaining and some of whom gave us some very impassioned views on how they saw New Zealand. I think that is the essence of this subject. It is that through the select committee process and also through the flag consideration process which is happening at the same time it gave New Zealanders an opportunity to record what they believed an alternative flag might look like.That brings me back to the structure of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. It was our job in the select committee to consider the structure around the discussion—the structure around the two referendums. If I refer to the bill schedules 1 and 2 outline what the referendum questions are going to be. In the first question which is the first voting paper for the first flag referendum it asks: “If the New Zealand flag changes which flag would you prefer?”—if the New Zealand flag changes which flag would you prefer? That question is asking people to first consider this in their minds: “OK if it changes”. It immediately asks a meaningful question of the public which is: if it changes. The answer might be: “All right so if it changes; you’re right that is something I have to think about.” Then the second part of that first question is: which of these four alternatives do you prefer? So people are then directed to make an informed choice. That is the first question.The second referendum then asks the question—it puts up the existing New Zealand flag which we have had since 1908 and the preferred alternative and then asks them: “Of these two alternatives which do you prefer?”. It is an informed choice and it is the choice that is put out to the New Zealand public to make.It is interesting is it not that the online process for gathering alternative flags has been a pretty busy process. There have been more than 10000 alternative flag designs published which is really interesting—10000 different flag designs. I know that all of us who are interested in these things have had a look at those alternative flags from time to time and we are coming to a view and it will be an informed view because of the structure of this bill. There have been 2.7 million views of the flag gallery and more than 850000 online visits and so this has been a particularly successful online investigation which of course is very appropriate given that this is such a visual question. What do we want for New Zealand? Do we want New Zealand to reflect our rich history? Do we want New Zealand to reflect our modern forward-looking open progressive nature? Well the structure of this bill gives New Zealanders the opportunity to do just that.During the consideration of the select committee we did recommend some changes one of which was the requirement for a preliminary referendum roll for the second referendum. The preliminary referendum roll for the first referendum makes a public roll of electors available for people to check first of all that they are on the roll and secondly that their details are correct. It was the view of the majority of the select committee that because the second referendum was to happen in fairly short order it would be an unnecessary expense and an unnecessary process to make the preliminary referendum roll for the second referendum available.The select committee by majority also recommended to Parliament that a regulated period be inserted into the bill to prohibit members of Parliament from spending parliamentary funding on referendum advertising. This is consistent with the Electoral Act and provides for a level playing field in the consideration of what will be a very focused discussion no doubt leading up to the referendums. So the committee agreed to insert that and make that recommendation.We did consider other aspects that were brought to us. Some submitters said to the committee that they believed that the word “Aotearoa” should be included in the bill. We considered whether the title of the bill should contain “Aotearoa”—of course it is Māori Language Week. But it was determined due really to an issue of a technical nature which is that the New Zealand flag is known as “the New Zealand Flag” within the Flags Emblems and Names—Denis O’Rourke: Really?JACQUI DEAN: I know it is difficult for New Zealand First. I know it is difficult because this is a little bit technical but just breathe through your noses boys and you might get it. So in terms of the Flags Emblems and Names Protection Act 1981 it would therefore have been a little inconsistent.The timing of the flag consideration process was also raised by some submitters and the committee considered the views which were strongly given to us particularly by the RSA and other members who had the view that the consideration in this year was inappropriately close to the Gallipoli campaign centenary and Anzac Day commemorations. The reality of it is that it does not matter when these referendums were timed; they were always going to be adjacent to some national celebration or some national event. It was felt and I agree entirely that it is far more appropriate to be having this consideration away from an election year because it would either be eclipsed by or maybe eclipse the consideration in a general election. We believe by majority that it is much more appropriate to give these referendums their own space.The committee considered at the same time a petition from the Hon Trevor Mallard who no doubt will make a contribution on that petition in the House today and in subsequent debates. The committee listened again carefully and with respect to Mr Mallard’s petition and the petitioners calling for the New Zealand Government to include in the first referendum a question asking New Zealanders whether they wanted a change of flag or not. It was considered but by majority the committee held the view that the order of questions as introduced provided for a more informed choice and a more informed consideration of the question at hand.I am very pleased to speak in the second reading of the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I believe that the structure that is being proposed in this bill is the right structure to provide New Zealanders with an informed choice. It is an opportunity to provide New Zealanders with the opportunity to consider where we stand in the world what New Zealand stands for and what the alternatives are that might reflect who and what we stand for now. Do they reflect us as the New Zealand we want to be? Do they reflect us as an outward-looking progressive open country? I think this bill puts the structure in place and now it is up to the people. Thank you.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Ngā mihi o te rā. I never thought that I would see another select committee process as bad as the one that was run by Todd McClay when he chaired the Finance and Expenditure Committee but under Jacqui Dean the process for this bill has been an absolute disgrace. I want to name the members Jacqui Dean Jono Naylor Chris Bishop Alfred Ngaro and the Hon Louise Upston. They were the National Government members on this committee who decided that 747 people who had asked to be heard by the committee would be denied the right to be heard. Those members voted to give submitters 5 minutes to speak. They were the members who gave the very few submitters whom they allowed to come to the committee 5 minutes to speak. To be fair there was an exception. The New Zealand RSA—the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association—was allowed 10 minutes. The representatives of the returned soldiers—people who had fought under the flag—were allowed only 10 minutes before the committee to express the views of their tens of thousands of returned members.This Parliament has enough trouble with its public relations that when submitters to committees are treated in such a disgraceful manner by members of the National Government who acted as if they knew everything and did not want to listen this Parliament’s reputation will be diminished further. I want to say that Jacqui Dean Chris Bishop Jono Naylor Alfred Ngaro and Louise Upston were too damn lazy to sit the select committee during the 3 weeks of adjournment. They were too lazy to sit the select committee during the 3 weeks of adjournment in order to hear the people who wanted to be heard. When that occurs and when 747 people who ask to be heard are not then this Parliament’s reputation will be in tatters.The main point that the RSA representatives wanted to make and that the people whom they had emailed and who had emailed submissions back wanted to make was that they thought that the timing was appalling. They thought that having both referenda during the period that we are commemorating the First World War was inappropriate. In April 1916 the entire Massey Cabinet went to the Pētone railway station for the first annual official Government commemoration of Anzac Day. The entire Cabinet was there. And what is going to happen in the couple of weeks before the centenary of that and with the flag that was raised along with the Australian flag at the Pētone railway station? What is going to happen? This Government is promoting that that is when a decision on the flag should be made. The timing is wrong. The timing is wrong for lots and lots of reasons.On the yes/no question on the that day it was considered by the advisory group by the cross-party group there was only one dissenting voice—and it was one of doubt—as to whether this should be a yes/no vote. The dissenting voice—and it was a bit of a wobble—belonged to Jonathan Young. He was not sure whether he had checked with Bill English he said. Every other party that was present on the day said thatthere should be a yes/no vote as there was with the MMP referendum. Even those toadies who rely on the National Government to deliver their seats—Mr Seymour and Mr Dunne—even those two members said: “Of course this should be a yes/no vote. New Zealanders should have their say early in the process and if we can save money then we should.” But the National Government has decided to bulldoze its approach through the House and to not trust New Zealanders as it trusted New Zealanders when we brought in MMP to say as part of the first referendum process whether they want to consider a change or not.I think it is fair to say that Labour went into the first reading of this bill opposing it but with the hope that the bill could be improved through the process to the point that we could support it going further. There are a number of us myself included who think that we should change our flageventually—eventually we should.Hon Ruth Dyson: Proper process.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: We want a proper process we want the timing to be right and we do not want the referenda to be rorted. We do not want it to be biased in the way that John Key wants for his vanity project. When we are being told that there is not enough money for food in schools that there is not enough money for rape crisis centres and that there is not enough money to fix up State houses that have gaping holes in them we think that this spending on a vanity project for the Prime Minister is something that is inappropriate. We believe that the referenda are poorly worded.I just want to ask the members opposite whether they really think that spending on hall hire meeting fees and advertising for meetings—$2300 for every person who turned up to those meetings—is good value for money. What sort of efficiency—Hon Ruth Dyson: That’s a lot of kids’ lunches.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well the member says that that is a lot of kids’ lunches. It is a lot of insulation. It would fix the holes in the State flats in Pētone—the total amount that was set there—that have been waiting for 5 years. Members opposite are so arrogant notwithstanding that and notwithstanding the shift. My understanding is that about 5 years ago when Lloyd Morrison was leading a campaign there was a majority in New Zealand in favour of changing the flag. A couple of years later it went from about 50 percent in favour down to about 30 percent in favour. My understanding is that we have now got to the point that it has gone below 10 percent. It has gone below 10 percent in favour of changing the flag. So the question I have got is: why are we continuing with this?One of the important things for Governments is to work out at some point when they have got it wrong. It is important to work out when they have got it wrong and when it is the time to beat a strategic retreat to say that we have listened. We have listened to the select committee process. We have listened to the former soldiers. We have listened to the people who said that there is a higher priority for the money and we will send this bill on we will leave it on the Order Paper and we will leave it there for 5 years. We will leave it there until after the commemoration of the First World War and we will bring it—well the National Government will not of course—bring it back up at that stage for further consideration. That I think would be an honest approach it would be a fair approach and it would be acknowledging what is happening.At the end of my speech I do want to acknowledge that right back at the beginning of the process the Rt Hon Winston Peters was right and I was wrong. I believed the National Government—I believed Bill English and I believed John Key—when they said that they were open and would take into account what the cross-party committee said. What they did was they did not take this into account as far as the membership of the advisory group was concerned. Most of the advisory group are good people but it was balanced out with National Government hacks who were not recommended by the cross-party committee. The other question is that no one else in the committee with only the dithering of Jonathan Young supported this shape of referendum but because it is John Key’s vanity project they have decided to rort the process. They have decided to spend the money. As a result of that all over New Zealand people are saying: “Generally I trust John but on this one he’s just got it wrong.”JONO NAYLOR (National): I just want to start this contribution by putting the New Zealand flag into a little bit of context. From some of the speeches that we have heard from the other side of the House and some of the debate that we have heard from submitters at different times you would begin to think that this was the only flag that New Zealand had ever had. How could you ever possibly change the New Zealand flag because it is the only one we have ever had! What we do know is that this is in fact the third flag that New Zealand has had. But I think there is a really important thing to notice about the three flags that New Zealand has had. None of those flags were voted on or chosen by the people of New Zealand. Those flags were decided on by the Government of the day which decided to choose the flag which decided to tell the people of New Zealand what their flag would be. It denied them the opportunity of choosing their flag.It does not really matter to a certain degree whether you want to keep the flag or whether you want to change the flag. This referendum gives New Zealanders the opportunity to choose their national emblem their national symbol. It is not the Government’s choice. We have got these people who are saying “Don’t have a referendum. Don’t give the people the choice. Don’t let them choose to keep this flag or perhaps choose another one.” and they are simply going by the original decision of 1905 to impose this flag on the people of New Zealand. Let us face it. We are not saying it is a horrible flag. We are not saying that we are not proud of our country. What we are saying is that this is an important issue of national significance and it is one that the people of New Zealand will get to make a choice on.I think it is really interesting too that we are told that the people of New Zealand do not want this. This is based on opinion polls. I am just wondering whether the members opposite think we should just go by opinion polls. In February of last year the Colmar Brunton poll said that the National Party would have 51 percent of the vote if an election were held. I am wondering whether the members opposite would have been happy at that point to concede and just say: “OK let’s give the National Party 51 percent because that’s what the polls are saying. That’s what the people of New Zealand want and so therefore we’ll let the National Party have 51 percent of the vote.” I do not think they would have been quite so happy to quote the polls at that point. I do not think they would have been quite so happy to let the choice of New Zealanders be determined by a poll at that point. But no when it suits the agenda of members opposite when it suits their desire to impose on the people of New Zealand what their flag should or should not be then they want to go by the polls. They do not want to give the people of New Zealand the right to choose their emblem. They do not want to do that because they know better. I can tell you that we do not claim to know better and that is the purpose behind this referendum. The purpose behind this referendum is to allow the people of New Zealand to indicate to us what they would like for their national emblem. It is what they would like to take forward.Now that we are bringing this issue through now that it is on the table and we have got this bill before us there has been a lot of talk about the order of the questions. They have been saying that we should give people a yes/no vote for this one first before we ask about the others. I have spoken to quite a few people and am probably in this position myself as well who say that they are open to the idea of changing the New Zealand flag. I am open to the idea of changing the New Zealand flag but it will all depend I know from my way of thinking and the thinking of lots of the other people whom I have talked to on what the alternatives are. Lots of people would say “Well if you gave me a yes/no question at the moment I might say no.” because they are concerned that it might end up being a sheep with a rainbow coming out the back of it. If I had the choice between a sheep with a rainbow coming out of its bottom and the current New Zealand flag I think I would vote for the current New Zealand flag. I am pretty sure we all would—pretty sure we all would. However if we were going to get the choice between the New Zealand flag and one of those Kyle Lockwood designs then perhaps I might be more likely to choose or I might be more likely to choose something that at least has some other symbols of New Zealand on it.I just want to draw people’s attention to one of our submitters who I think summed up the idea of why it is important for us to do things in this process. We got a submission via teleconference from a young man called Jordan Ward. He raised the following concerns so if you will just excuse me I want to read out what he said. He believes in respect of the yes/no question and I think I agree with him that “electors voting ‘no’ to change in the first referendum”—or in the first part of that referendum—“may be less likely to express their preferences for an alternative design” which might come after. What we need to do is we need to simplify this. We need to keep it simple. We need to say to people: “If New Zealand were to change its flag which one would you prefer?”. It is a pretty simple question and it is pretty easy to understand. There is no problem whatsoever. At that point whichever flag is the winner would be run off against the current New Zealand flag. It is really simple and really easy to understand. It is really easy to comprehend. If you put that yes/no question at the very front end of all of that it makes life a little trickier because those people who have not yet made up their mind whether or not they do want to change the flag because they are waiting to see the alternatives will then be able to vote accordingly.I did a little bit of a search on New Zealand logos and symbols. People will have heard this comment made before. How many people have got a T-shirt with a New Zealand flag on it in the cupboard? Not too many. How many people have got a cap that has the New Zealand flag on it? Not too many. But if we look around we see the symbolism that is most commonly associated with New Zealand and we can look at a few different things. For example the New Zealand Air Force aircraft have a kiwi on them. That is what is on the side of our New Zealand Air Force planes. New Zealand Trade and Enterprise for example has a sort of a fern design. Actually what is on our New Zealand war graves is a silver fern. In fact even if we look at an organisation such as the New Zealand Labour Party within its logo it incorporates a fern not necessarily the New Zealand flag. So we need to have something I believe that is easily identifiable. That is just a personal belief. I think it is great. I think we need to give the opportunity for people to decide what is important to them.There have been a lot of great events that have happened over the years and we associate the current New Zealand flag with them. For example when Edmund Hillary climbed Mount Everest—oh wait; he did not take the New Zealand flag with him did he? He took the Union Jack with him. So we look at things like that. We see Olympians draped in our New Zealand flag and we feel proud. We feel proud of them because of what they have achieved not necessarily because of the flag that they have got around them. Whatever we choose whatever the people of New Zealand decide is going to be the most appropriate emblem to drape our Olympians in and to mark significant events with that is what is going to be important. It is going to be important that it symbolises what is at the heart of our nation. That is why this debate to my mind has been so important because regardless of whether we keep this flag or change this flag our nation will have been through hopefully a very mature discussion—well apart from the banter that I hear from the other side of the House which is not particularly mature or helpful.But we have been hearing some very good debate across our nation about what it means to be a New Zealander what it means to be a Kiwi and what is important to us as a nation. I hope that whatever flag we choose whether it is the one that we have currently got or a new flag we will be stronger as a nation more united as a nation and we will have a better understanding of who it is that we are what we represent and we will be able to move forward to be a great nation—an even greater nation than we are now. I look forward to the outcome of this bill to the outcome of the referenda and then for us to be able to move on together. Thank you.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Green): E te Māngai o te Whare tēnā koe. There is an ugly word that is used by political operatives and political spin doctors. It is also used quite a lot in the public relations industry and by those who have an interest in manipulating public opinion. It is a word that is the very opposite of substance. It is the word “optics”. Optics is all about how something looks. It is not about what the reality of something is; it is not about what the real content of something is. Optics is all about how it looks. What kind of an appearance would it give? How would something look to a person if they were passing by it and did not really look at it closely? The bill that we have in front of us today is all about optics. It is all about how it looks and it is all about the legacy of our Prime Minister. What he wants to give is an appearance of substance. What he wants to give is an appearance of being a progressive forward-looking aspirational Prime Minister leading an aspirationalforward-looking Government. He wants to use this symbol and this referendum on the flag in order to get the right optics—how does it look?How would it look to a person who was not really paying any attention? It would look like: “Well the Prime Minister is forward-looking; he wants to change the flag.” He wants to adopt a modern aspirational forward-looking flag as we have heard from all the National Government speakers—a flag that enshrines our national identity. But by changing the flag what are we really changing? Are we changing the fact that our head of State is in fact a foreigner; that our head of State is in fact chosen by birth; and that our head of State is in fact a hereditary monarch? By choosing a new flag does it change any of those fundamental constitutional arrangements? No—the Prime Minister does not want to deal with that. That is hard; that is leadership.If you want to have a constitutional republic in New Zealand if you want to be a Prime Minister who actually wants to make New Zealand constitutionally independent that would take leadership of substance not leadership of optics. This bill is about optics. It is about how it would look. How would it look if we adopted a new flag? It would look like this was a Government that was addressing some fundamental issues about our constitution because we were changing the flag. It would look like a Government perhaps that was addressing some of the fundamental issues of our identity like our relationship with tangata whenua and the Treaty of Waitangi. No it is just changing a piece of cloth and the pattern on a piece of cloth. The constitutional structure will remain exactly the same. So we will have a hereditary head of State.Hereditary heads of State are very strange things. I mean imagine for example if you had an accident this afternoon and you had to go to hospital and you said: “Well I need heart surgerybut it’s all right because the father”—or mother—“of my heart surgeon was a heart surgeon. They are a hereditary heart surgeon so I’m sure that they are going to do a really good job.” Ha! A hereditary heart surgeon! Honestly would anyone here say: “I’m going to go and give my body over to a hereditary heart surgeon because their father or mother was a very good heart surgeon so I think they must be a good heart surgeon as well.”? When I get my hair cut—I am going to get my hair cut in a week or so; it needs to be every now and then—would I say: “Oh well my hairdresser’s mother or father was a very good hairdresser so I’m sure that they will do an excellent job.”? But when it comes to the constitution and to the head of State we say: “No no it’s all right. We are going to hand over the office of head of State to a person who was chosen by birth.” Ha ha! By birth—that is right. That is how we are choosing our head of State. Not by a democratic process; they did not have to go through a test to prove how good they are. I was not: “Oh yeah—if you are good on the constitution let’s test you on the constitution.” No we choose them by birth.This bill which gives the appearance of dealing with some really substantive issues about our nation—the flag—does not deal with any of the really substantive issues that confront our country. From John Key’s point of view that is the beauty of this referendum. It is manipulation of public opinion. It gives the appearance of substance without actual substance. It looks like the Prime Minister is addressing the big issues of the day—the big issues of the nation. Well the Prime Minister is doing nothing of the sort and that is exactly what he needs because what he really wants is a fourth term as Prime Minister.The Prime Minister talks about independence from the United Kingdom—“This flag will symbolise our independence from the United Kingdom.” Actually it will do nothing of the sort. The head of State will still be a British person—Charles. He is a perfectly nice fellow. In fact on green issues he is pretty good you would have to say. I have got a lot of sympathy for Prince Charles on green issues. But as for being a person who should be the head of State of New Zealand—I do not think that is the right way to go about it.Think about the fundamental issues around the Bill of Rights. The courts have just ruled that this Parliament breached the constitution of New Zealand by saying that prisoners are not allowed to vote. Are we going to talk about that?Hon David Parker: Can’t debate that here though.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: We cannot even have an urgent debate about that. The Speaker said “No no—that’s not serious enough.” The fact that according to the courts this Parliament breached the constitution of New Zealand by taking away prisoners’ right to vote is not important enough to have an urgent debate. It is certainly not important enough to have a referendum about! For goodness sake we have got to have one about the flag—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member is now relitigating a finding that has already been committed to the House by the Speaker. It is not up for debate. The member should get back to this debate which is about the flag referendum please.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Thank you for your wise advice Mr Deputy Speaker. In terms of the flag the Prime Minister has been very clear that he wants to have a debate about optics—that is what he wants—not about substance not about the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and not about the constitution. Even though the Prime Minister talks about the constitution in relation to this flag Mr Deputy Speaker will not let me talk about the constitution in relation to this flag. But the Prime Minister of course does. He gives the appearance that this is about substance; it is nothing of the sort.The process itself is manipulative. That is the giveaway. When we had the MMP referendum the first question was: do you want to have first past the post or MMP? You had to decide: do you want to keep first past the post? If the majority said yes we kept it. The majority voted for change. When we had the second MMP referendum the first question was: do you want to keep MMP or not? It was a yes/no decision. But with this referendum on the flag the Prime Minister is purposely manipulating the process to push it towards the outcome he wants. That is manipulative. That is about optics. That is about spin. That is about Government by spin. That is about Government by optics. It is trying to manipulate the people of New Zealand in order to get the outcome that it wants.The honest question is this—first question of the referendum—do you want to change the flag? My answer to that question is yes. I want to change a lot of things actually. I want to have a proper democracy which is what a constitutional republic is all about. I want to make sure that this Parliament operates within the constitution of New Zealand and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act. I want to do a lot of things. But on the question of how to do this flag referendum it is manipulative—in the way that the Government has set up the referendum question in order to push it towards the result it wants.As a matter of fact when the first referendum comes along and you have got to pick between four different kinds of flags if you do not want to change the flag you are not likely to participate in that referendum. Is there a quorum? What is the quorum? Ten people could participate in this referendum. Is there any quorum for this thing I ask the National Government members over there? What if 10 people vote in this referendum? What if the turnout is 20 percent? What if the turnout in that first referendum is 10 percent?Louisa Wall: No mandate.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Where will the mandate be for this new flag then? There will not be one. So this is all about optics. This referendum is all about optics and it is all about making the Prime Minister look like he cares for something.May I remind you that Keith Locke put up a bill—the Head of State Referenda Bill—and the Prime Minister blocked it from even going to a select committee. That would have meant a true debate about our identity and a true debate about our constitutional arrangements but John Key said: “No we will not have a real debate. I’m not going to allow that. We can have a debate around my flag proposal”—which is all about optics and deception—“but we cannot have a real debate.”One of my reading habits lately has been Tom Paine and there is a great Tom Paine quote about the monarchy. Tom Paine said that “a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right”. He was talking about the monarchy and that was just before the American Revolution. This is exactly the same situation we find ourselves in today—a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the appearance of being right. We should address the real constitutional issues facing our country—constitutional monarchy constitutional republic—rather than getting caught up in the Prime Minister’s optics around this referendum on a flag.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): The Government should be withdrawing this unpopular bill. The submissions to the Justice and Electoral Committee showed the magnitude of the degree of unpopularity of the bill. There were literally hundreds of submissions against it. However only a few were actually heard because of the arrogance of the National members on the select committee. The consultation process was no better. It showed very little public pressure for any change at all and the truth is that this Government is pushing this bill through against public opinion not following it. The roadshow that accompanied the public consultation process was an absolute farce and you would have got more people turning out to a snake oil auction than went to that particular farce. There was also only modest response to the internet-based facility for comment—only very modest response.Many submitters have also properly been concerned about the total cost—$25.7 million—being spent on this farcical process. Those people said that it was a waste of taxpayers’ money for no gain. They said to spend the money elsewhere. They said to spend it on new homes on education and on better health services. Of course there will be many many other costs if this process to change the flag actually succeeds. It will include a large number of official publications and emblems—even including driver’s licences for example—not to mention the millions needed to run the referendums and for the advertising of them. Passports will have the wrong flag on them and all of those will have to change. And there are many many other costs that are almost impossible to quantify for businesses and other organisations that will need to change the flags on their promotional material. Those costs have been estimated by some as likely to exceed $100 million. That is the true cost of this exercise—that is the true cost.Many submitters were also opposed to the process of holding the two referendums. Using preferential voting the first referendum will determine from only four alternatives to be prescribed which alternative flag design is preferred. The second will determine whether the alternative flag or the current flag should be the one that is accepted. Only if voters decide in the second referendum that the New Zealand flag is to change will that then lead to further legislation to actually do away with the current flag. The point is that there could have been one referendumonly. If there is going to be a referendum one would be enough simply by adding the current New Zealand flag to the four that are going to be put up in the first referendum. So this is a deeply flawed process and the Government has got it totally the wrong way round. Before spending millions of dollars on the two planned referendums and before appointing any panels or incurring any other expenses there should have been one referendumonly. That referendum should have asked the simple question: “Do you want a new national flag to replace the current one?”. Simply that question alone would have been enough and only if the answer had been yes by a majority would it have been justifiable to spend any money taking the matter any further.The process set out in this bill appears to be a way for the Government to rig the result—nothing less than that. It is rigging the result getting what it wants—a new flag—by having only four options decided first. That pre-empts the primary question which is simply: “Does anyone want a new flag at all?”. Instead we have this ludicrous back to front process as a blatant means of trying to influence the result. New Zealand people will see through it and will tell this Government in no uncertain terms where to put its new flag proposal.Many submitters have asked validly why we would even consider a new flag. The current one is not out of date. It is as appropriate today as it was in 1908 when it was officially adopted. In fact it is actually a young flag when compared with many others. It represents through having the Union Jack the British heritage of New Zealand. The English language legal system and culture and the Westminster system of government are just as much Kiwi as they are British. The flag represents thatperfectly and it also represents our Pacific and Māori culture. The Southern Cross on a blue background represents the Māori navigators who resulted in the Māori settlement of New Zealand all those hundreds of years ago. No flag could better reflect the Treaty of Waitangi partnership. No flag could better represent that partnership.By contrast John Key originally wanted a black flag but he then realised the connection that that would have with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and he suddenly went quiet about that. And in any event a black flag is much too funereal. He also wanted a silver fern but that confuses a sports symbol—as Jono Naylor did in his speech—with the needs of a national flag. They are two totally different things. The flag needs to represent the partnership between the two cultures: the British heritage and the Pacific and Māori culture. That is New Zealand that represents New Zealand and that is the way it should stay. John Key wants to sell out all of that and the current flag without thinking it through without any genuine public support and without regard to the damage that it will do to New Zealand’s interests and heritage.On that matter the current flag has a good reputation where it matters in the world: in the UK in the Commonwealth in sporting events in the United Nations and so on. We benefit from the prestige that that flag gives us of having a British and a Pacific and Māori culture and it could not represent that better. We will gain little or nothing by having an unknown new flag which would take decades even to be recognised in overseas places—or even in New Zealand for that matter.There is also another very important reason for us to oppose this bill for a new flag and it is that it will betray the men who fought and died under that flag in many world wars and in other wars. The respect that the current flag generates from having flown everywhere where our men have fought should never be disregarded in the cavalier way that the National Government is doing with this awful bill. Why would we want to lose that heritage that history and that connection? And make no mistake they will be lost if a new flag is adopted. They will be lost—that is the truth. In clause 69 the bill purports to preserve the current flag as depicted in new schedule 1A but only as a flag of “historical significance”. What a terrible way to treat our New Zealand flag. It will not really be preserved at all. It would actually be relegated to history and as such that would be something of an insult I believe to all of the people who fell defending that flag and this country in two world wars.This is not an honest or a respectful way to treat that flag. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for a new flag and nobody has yet described to me in a way that I can understand or appreciate why the flag has to be changed at all. Some members opposite have talked about the future and about having a progressive nation. Are they saying that the current New Zealand flag cannot represent a forward-looking and progressive nation? It has so far—it has so far. Why would it not in the future? There is no genuine or significant public pressure for a change of the flag. There is public pressure for genuine constitutional reform—Māori seats a written constitution the size of Parliament the length of the parliamentary term the Māori electorate option and participation the role of the Treaty of Waitangi and so on. So what do we do? We have a referendum on one thingonly—the least important thing of the lot: the flag. What about all of those other things? Why are they not part of this referendum? Why are the things that will actually make a difference not being referred to the New Zealand public by way of a referendum? For all of these reasons New Zealand First will continue to lead the campaign against this bad legislation its flawed process and any suggestion that this country needs a new flag.TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West): Kia ora e te Mana Whakawā tēnā koe e te Whāre. Ko tēnei Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori me whakanuia e tātau![Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker greetings to you the House. This is Māori Language Week and we must celebrate it!]I am delighted that we are having this debate today and I am fervently hoping that it will lead to a new national flag that is not constantly confused with Australia’s but around which we as New Zealanders can proudly unite. It is not just because I want change for the sake of change—far from it. For me it is very personal and in many respects it relates directly to arguments that have just been put by Mr O’Rourke which I completely refute. It is because the emblem that New Zealanders unite under and most important that is on both moving and very numerous New Zealand headstones and tombstones throughout the battlefields of Western Europe is not the New Zealand flag; it is the silver fern.Darroch Ball: Why are you changing it now?TIM MACINDOE: I will come to that as well. I never met my maternal great-grandfather Hugh Francis Wright but I know three things about him. The first is that my mother loved him and admired him. The second is that he was in his day one of New Zealand’s leading mountaineers which I have to say is a talent he certainly did not pass on to this particular great-grandson. And the third is that at the outbreak of World War I he was considered too old to enlist and so even though he offered to do so he was declined on the grounds of age. But then after the devastating losses in Western Europe throughout 1914 1915 and 1916 there was a new wave of enlisters and older men were accepted for enlistment and my great-grandfather was one of them. He went and fought in the First World War and I am pleased to say returned to New Zealand at the end of it.I did not know my paternal grandfather Charles Grierson Macindoe and at the other end of the age bracket legend has it that he lied about his age and ran away at the start of the Boer War and he served there. This year on Anzac Day for the first time I proudly wore his medals on my right lapel something I had never felt I could do before but I was very proud to do. I did of course know my father and my father served in the Second World War. He was an Aircrew Allocation Centre instructor and along with his brother he served in the Pacific he was injured in an accident there and his brother carried on to Europe. My uncle whom I never met Raymond Kenneth Grierson Macindoe was killed in action just a fortnight before the end of the war—just before VE-Day. The war was virtually over and he is buried in Forli in southern Italy where he fell and the silver fern is the emblem that identifies him as a New Zealander.So for me this is very personal and for me the timing is absolutely right to be making the change in this year as we honour the legacy of all of those who have served our country in the major conflicts through to the present day because it is the silver fern that is the emblem that they fought and died under and that honours their legacy. So I utterly reject the argument that changing the flag in this year is disrespectful. Mr Mallard said it is wrong; the timing is wrong. I say: what finer way could we find to honour the legacy of those courageous New Zealanders than to honour their contribution with a change of the flag of the type I have said? So not just any change but a flag that shows what we have in common.The Union Jack reflects my heritage. Obviously with a name like Macindoe I have Scottish ancestry but I believe it is totally incongruous here in the 21st century for us as a proud and independent nation tostill have another country’s flag on our flag. The New Zealand First Party has argued against the cost of this exercise. I say to them: what cost is democracy? It may not cost as much as $26 million but put it in the context of our annual expenditure which is in the region of $73 billion. A referendum is the best way and the fairest way to consult all New Zealanders and to give them their say and I am proud that we are doing it.This is the same process to those who argue against it that New Zealanders followed about 20 years ago when we changed our electoral system from first past the post to MMP. Those members who now object so strongly to what we are doing would not be here if we had not had that exercise and they should reflect on that. Would Canada go back to its flag of pre-1965? Of course it would not. It is very proud of its maple leaf and wherever you go around the world if you see someone wearing something with the maple leaf you know either that they are Canadian or they have recently visited that country. I want the same for New Zealanders.I do not want us to be constantly confused with Australians and in many cases others and I am utterly appalled by the disingenuousness and frankly the blatant dishonesty particularly of the Labour Party which now wants to pretend to this nation that it is opposed to this process when its own 2014 election policy it said: “Labour will: … review the design of the New Zealand flag involving flag design experts and with full public consultation and involvement.” “We believe that the time has come …” said Labour “and it is right for the issue to be put to the public.” And what did Mr Andrew Little say when asked: “Should NZ change its flag: What’s your personal opinion? Should there be a referendum?” Mr Little said: “I think a referendum is a suitable way to deal with an issue that can be very polarising.”What absolute claptrap and disingenuous behaviour from Labour members now—to resile from that position purely for populist reasons. There is no principle in their argument at all and they know it. That is why their heads are down. They know that they want it and as the Prime Minister and Bill English have both said the only reason they do not support us in this debate is that we are doing it. If they were doing it they would be leading the charge and we would be supporting them. If New Zealanders reflect on this issue and I hope they will and decide to retain our current flag then I will respect their opinion but I hope that they will think about it seriously. And more important I have to say I would be very disappointed at such a lost opportunity which we will not enjoy again in our lifetime and members should reflect on that. We will not have this opportunity again in our lifetime if we do not seize it this time around.If the flag review panel—and I want to commend the members on the outstanding work that they have been doing—provides an attractive option that includes the silver fern for the reasons that I have already outlined I shall proudly vote for that option particularly to honour the legacy of our forebears including my own relatives about whom I spoke earlier in this debate.I am happy to accept the invitations that the New Zealand First Party members have challenged me to accept to go to the RSAs to meet with veterans and to have this discussion with them because I will prove to them that I honour their legacy that I do respect them that I share and understand and value all of the things that they stand for and that I want to acknowledge their sacrifice and their service with the change that we are debating today. I respect those who hold a contrary view because of their great passion for the current New Zealand flag but I utterly reject any suggestion that this is the wrong time to consider changing it. On the contrary this is the ideal time to honour the outstanding service of men and women who have served our nation. This is the ideal time to say we can have something about which we feel proud and there is an emblem that we proudly wear when we go to sporting events that we proudly see on New Zealanders who travel abroad and in a very sombre and moving way that we see as we move up and down the rows and rows of those war cemeteries of Western Europe.So I want to honour the legacy of Hugh Francis Wright of Charles Grierson Macindoe of Harley Lieman Grierson Macindoe and in particular my Uncle Ken whom I never met by making this change. I cannot more strongly commend this bill to the House.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A 5-minute call from the Green Party.DAVID CLENDON (Green): E Te Ūpoko o Te Paopao a Piringa tēnā koe.[Mr Speaker of the House of Idle Talk greetings to you.]What we are debating today is actually a symbol. A flag is a very powerful and very important symbol. It is a symbol of a nation State a symbol of a political identity and to a lesser extent perhaps a symbol of a shared cultural identity. It is important. This symbol has already triggered one shooting war in New Zealand. If you recall our history our northern tupuna Hone Heke took exception to the fact that the symbol of British power was being flown above Kororāreka rather than the flag of New Zealand which 10 years earlier had been acknowledged by the British monarchy and by the Admiralty. One hopes that this debate currently will not come to blows but nevertheless it is a critically important conversation we are having about this symbol.I guess our objection to this bill is that in my view—and it is a common enough phrase—form should follow function. Of course that comes from architecture—that the purpose of a building should drive its design. In this instance the function is our constitutional arrangements that underpin our political identity; the form is the symbol that we fly to represent our nation State which is of course a flag. We are having this debate and a referendum—$26 million of expenditure—worrying about changing the form when we should be addressing the function which is the underlying constitutional arrangements.It is true that in 2010 the Government did establish a panel the independent Constitutional Advisory Panel which in 2013 reported back with its findings. With all due respect to the eminent New Zealanders who sat on the panel their recommendation which was perhaps a little underwhelming was that we should continue the conversation. It was a very genuine and a thoughtful enough recommendation and a very real one.It is fair to say that this current flag consultation process has struggled to get the numbers. We have all seen the pictures of halls prepared for 100 people with five or six embarrassed-looking people and probably a larger number of officials.The Constitutional Advisory Panel back in 2010 or thereabouts received something like 5259 submissions which in the words of Mr English—who spoke earlier today—indicated some interest in the nation’s constitutional framework. Mr English then went on to say: “although there is no sense of an urgent or widespread desire for change”. So by Mr English’s admission in 2013 New Zealanders are not jumping up and down in the street for this. I think there is a groundswell and a feeling that we need to look hard at our constitution and therefore at the symbols that represent us as a nation State but there seems to not be the urgency. It seems peculiar that we are spending an inordinate amount of time and a remarkable amount of money debating the form rather than the function of our constitution.I think we would not need to spend $26 million to think hard and to perhaps develop a new more fit for purpose constitution. We have a very good model a matika mai which is a project being led by Moana Jackson a lawyer specialising in constitutional and Māori and te Tiriti issues particularly who along with a very well-informed powerful team of people and for very little money continues to go around the country talking about what our constitution could look like.I think it is fair to say that too often the question posed is: how might Te Tiriti o Waitangi fit into our constitutional arrangements? That is the wrong question. The question we need to ask is what form of constitutional arrangement logically emerges from our Te Tiriti o Waitangi which I think we collectively recognise as the founding document of our country. That is the debate we should be having rather than this rather tangential debate about the symbolism about the flag—about what has been described as the piece of coloured cloth. Thank you.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Karanga ahau a Marama Fox tēnā koe. A 5-minute call.MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā me tō kaha ki te whakahua i tō tātau Reo Māori. Ā he Reo Māori taku kōrero. Ā tēnā koutou e te Whare nei te mihi atu ki a tātau katoa tēnā koe tēnā koutou ā nei te mihi atu ki te Whare.Ā āe tika rā te kōrero he āhua taumaha tēnei i runga i te pokohiwi o Te Iwi Māori me te whenua—te pōharatanga te pani me te rawakore. Ā kua rongona mātau ki taua kōrero: “He moumou pūtea tēnei kōrero mō te haki.” Āe kai te whakaae au ki tēnā kei te whakaae au ki tēnā. Heoi anō kai te whakapaua taua pūtea ahakoa tō mātau whakaae. Nā reira ki au nei me mau tēnei take kia tutuki pai tēnei kōrero kai mua i te aroaro o te whatu.I ahau e huri rauna i te motu kai te kōrero au ki aku hoa ki aku whanaunga ā ki ngā marae o te motu ki ngā kuia ki ngā koroua ki ngā kaumātua. Kāre rātau i te kite i Te Iwi Māori i roto i tēnei haki o Aotearoa e rere nei i tēnei wā. Kāre rātau i te kite i te kaha o Te Iwi Māori kai roto i tēnei haki o tēnei wā. Nā reira i whakaae au kia tīnihia tēnei haki. Kai te hiahia au kia rapua tētahi tohu e whakamārama ana i ngā taha e rua o te whenua nei: kia kitea Te Māoritanga i roto i te haki; te haki e tū nei ki runga i ngā Whare Pāremata te haki e tū nei ki runga i te pokohiwi o te tangata e oma haere ana mō Aotearoa. Kai te pīrangi au ki te kite i Te Iwi Māori i roto.I rongo au i te kōrero o tēnei o te mema Denis O’Rourke e kī nei āe ēnei whetū me tēnei tae kahurangi nei hai whakahua ko Te Iwi Māori tenei. Mehemea e whakaae ana mātau ki tēnā he aha te take ka hiahia mātau i tō mātau ake haki? He aha te take ka whakairia te iwi o Ngāpuhi o Ngāti Hine i te haki o Te Whakapuakitanga? Ā ko te take kāre rātau i kite i a rātau anō i roto i tēnei haki o Aotearoa.I kī mai ētahi i mate ō tātau tūpuna i runga i ngā whīra pakanga o te ao i raro i te haki i whawhai mō te haki. Kai te whakahē au i taua kōrero. Kāre rātau i whawhai mō te haki i whawhai rātau mō te toto mō te whakapapa mō ā rātau hoa mō ngā hōia kai ā rātau taha mō ā rātau whānau mō ā rātau marae. Koirā te take e whawhai ana. Kāre rātau e whawhai mō tēnei haki. Kai raro i tēnei haki haere atu Te Hokowhitu-ā-Tū ki ngā pakanga o te ao. Kāre tēnei Kāwana me te haki nei i hoatu i te pū ki a rātau. Karekau! I hoatu kē i tētahi spade kāre au i te mōhio i te kupu mō te “spade” hai keri i te whenua kia hono ai te tangata. Kāre rātau i whakatakoto i tō rātau kaha i runga i ngā pakanga o te ao mō te haki.I a rātau e hoki mai ana ki Aotearoa nei kāore tonu tēnei haki tēnei Kāwana i whakamana i a rātau i a rātau i hoki atu ki tō rātau whenua. Kāre rātau i whiwhi pūtea kāre rātau i whiwhi whenua. I tangohia kētia te whenua o Te Māori i a rātau e hoki atu ana ki te kāinga kai raro i tēnei haki.Nā reira e kī atu ana au kāre au i whakaae ki tēnei haki. Kai te pīrangi au kia tīnihia kia kite whānui tātau katoa kai roto i tō tātau tohu Māori tauiwi ki raro i te haki kotahi. Āe tika rā te kōrero—maha kē atu ngā take kai mua i a tātau ā ngā pūtake ō tātau āe kia tutuki pai. Heoi anō he tīmatanga noa tēnei. Tīmata ki te haki whai atu ki te waiata o Aotearoa nei whai tonutia ki te ture ki raro i Te Tiriti o Waitangi—kia whakamanahia ki roto i Te Ture. Ā koinei tāku he tīmatanga noa ka pā atu nei Te Iwi Māori me te iwi tauiwi. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā mai tātau katoa.[Greetings and congratulations to you Mr Deputy Speaker in your efforts to speak our Māori language. My address will be in Māori as a consequence. So greetings to you collectively the House. I commend us all: you Mr Deputy Speaker and indeed everyone present here—well done the House.Yes the statement—the poor the orphaned and the underprivileged—is a fair one and somewhat of a burden upon the shoulder of Māoridom and the country. We have heard the comment: “This talk about the flag is a waste of funding.” Yes I agree with that quite emphatically. None the less that funding is being spent even though we agree it is a waste of money. And so to me we progress this matter so that this consultation before us is completed well.So as I went around the country I was talking with my friends relatives marae around the country elderly women and men folk and the aged. They are not seeing Māoridom in this flag of New Zealand that is flying currently. They are not seeing the intensity of Māoridom in this current flag. Hence I agree that this flag be changed and I want a search to be undertaken for a symbol that will reflect both sides of this country so that its Māoritanga is seen clearly in the flag: in the flag flying on the Houses of Parliament the flag on the shoulders of an athlete running for New Zealand. I want to see Māoridom in it.I heard that member Denis O’Rourke’s address. Yes the member said these stars this blue colour to announce that this is Māoridom. If we agree to that why would we want our own flag? Why would the Ngāpuhi tribe and the Ngāti Hine tribe fly the flag of the Declaration of Independence? The reason is that they do not really see themselves in this New Zealand flag.Others said to me that our ancestors died on the battlefields of the world fighting under the flag. They fought for the flag. I reject that assertion. They did not fight for the flag; they fought for blood genealogy and their mates the soldiers by their sides their families and marae. That is the reason why they were fighting. They were not fighting for this flag. The Māori Battalion went to the world wars under this flag. This Government and flag did not arm them. No! They gave them a spade instead—I do not know what the Māori word is for “spade”—to dig trenches so a person can link up. They did not exert themselves on the battlefields of the world for the flag.As they came back here to New Zealand this flag and Government did not empower them as they went back to their own part of the country. They did not receive any funding any land. Under this flag Māori land was being taken instead as they were going back home.Therefore I am telling you that I am not in favour of this flag. I want it changed so that we can all see broadly that our symbol contains a Māori and non-Māori perspective in it under the one flag. Yes the assertion is correct—there are many other issues before us yes our very own issues that we need to address to achieve a satisfactory outcome. But this is simply the beginning. The flag is just the beginning. The national anthem follows next and immediately afterwards the Treaty of Waitangi given effect under the Act. Yes from me personally it is merely a beginning that will impact upon Māori and non-Māori. I commend acknowledge and applaud you and us all collectively thank you.]ALFRED NGARO (National): Tēnā koe e Minita o Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori. It is an honour to be able to speak in the second reading on this bill the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill. I have to be honest. When this thought—this idea about us heading towards a referendum and even the changing of the flag—initially came out my first impression was to ask what the reason was. What was the purpose and what was the sense in us heading in this direction?I then began to reflect that in 2012 and 2013 there was a consultation process in regard to the constitution or the forming of a constitution—just as has been spoken about by the previous speaker Marama Fox and other speakers—and about the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and other aspects of what defines us as a nation. In some of those consultations there was a discussion by some people about the national anthem and the things that constitute national identity. There was an issue that was raised by some about the flag as well as other areas. So the constitution discussion actually began to bring up this question about what defines us as a nation.Then in going through this process I began to look into where this began—this whole idea around the call for a New Zealand flag. Well this happened over 40 years ago. I want to just mention this because there is a thought out there in the public and in the nation that this is simply an idea by our Prime Minister the Rt Hon John Key—that he has just thought this up as a great idea. In fact this has been happening over many decades previously. So let me just give us an idea about where this has come from.There have been numerous calls in the last four decades for a new flag to be adopted.Darroch Ball: Citizens started that last one Alfred not the Government—citizens did.ALFRED NGARO: So if Mr Ball listens he will maybe havejust a little bit of education here. In 1970 National MP and the Minister of Internal Affairs Allan Highet also put forward the idea. He asked: does this flag not only represent our history and heritage but is it a reflection of our future? That idea was actually removed—it did not have the traction. In 1988 Labour MP and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Russell Marshall also put forward the idea. The thought about this fact was that again here is the flag—around the idea of national identity and nationhood should we be reflecting on the idea of having a new flag?In 1989 the Listener magazine ran a competition for designs. There were over 600 entries and seven finalists including the current flag the 1902 flag and what was surprising is that that flag won by only just a small majority—a very small majority. Here is what Gordon Campbell who was the editor of the Listener at that time and who ran the competition said. He said that despite the result it was confirmed that it had exploded the myths about New Zealanders’ devotion to the flag.In February 1992 the late Hon Matiu Rata a former Minister of Māori Affairs and the founder of Mana Motuhake called for a redesign to re-establish a national identity. He called for a redesign to be able to look at this and here was his point of difference. He asked whether even in this House this current flag represents our history and our heritage. We have heard arguments today that yes it does. But then he said this: “But does it represent our future heading into a bicultural nation?”.At that time the RSA had a petition from over 10000 signatories who argued again that they did not want to change the flag. Over several of these attempts the RSA came to the point where it said that it realised that unlike with the previous three attempts if this decision was to be made then the decision to change the flag should be done via a referendum—it should be done via a referendum. So what are we doing at the moment? We are actually talking about a bill that is about having a referendum as well.In 1998 Marie Hasler the Minister of Cultural Affairs also talked about and argued in favour of the existing flag but said she would support a change if it was shown that the will of the people was there for a referendum. This has been going on. In 2004 Wellington businessman Lloyd Morrison formed a trust called the NZFlag.com Trust. The purpose was again to ask whether we should be changing the flag and whether there should be a referendum. There were supporters like Cath Tizard Keith Quinn Susan Devoy—a number of them there. We know that they were not able to get a referendum as they did not have enough signatories but what I want to say is that the point I am making out of this is that this issue has been going on for a long time. The idea of changing the flag in regard to reflecting our history and our heritage and most important our future has been going on for a long time.We have heard speeches in the House that have clearly said this. From the Greens Russel Norman supports changing the flag. He may not like the process but he would support a change as would others in regard to our constitution. We know that on the other side the Hon Trevor Mallard came to our select committee. He even indicated that he would support a change to the flag. However what he did not like was the process.We know that across the House the majority of members bar New Zealand First support the change to the flag. The truth of the reality is that members on the other side will not support it because those members—who are supposedly the nation-builders of the country in describing this identity—are not the ones who are in control of this process. That is the reason why we are heading towards this.I just want to come to a couple of other points. There were some points that we were talking about. People also know that we have a Māori flag. It is the flag that is flown on Waitangi Day and the name is just escaping me at the moment. Peeni you might be able to help me there—Peeni Henare: Tino Rangatiratanga.ALFRED NGARO: The Tino Rangatiratanga flag thank you. That is flown and has been acknowledged and recognised. The Government allowed for that initiative to be able to happen so that there could be the opportunity for that flag to be flown. So I want to just rebut some of the comments by Denis O’Rourke when he said that even Māori support this current flag. I suggest that those comments are not true. I suggest those comments would be rebutted even by other speakers. This flag was not chosen by referendum nor by Māori. I would suggest that there are others like Matiu Rata who would say that this current flag of 1902 does not reflect our future—it does not reflect our future.In 1989 the Government also approved—let us talk about the cost. People have been talking about this cost of $26 million. Look we know that the timing of that is quite challenging but in 1989 the Government took the time to acknowledge the fact that 1990 was the sesquicentennial year of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi—$20 million was put aside to acknowledge that. Why? Because it was important in the building and the acknowledging and the shaping of a nation. So we think that is really important.In fact when we think about the submitters there were only 113 of those submitters who considered the referendum process to be too expensive. The Government considers that to have a process that is legitimate and democratic and for the outcome to endure it is important to do it properly and that is to do it via a referendum. We have heard again that this is so that the nation may choose—not the Government but the nation may choose.I just want to make a couple of comments from the Hon Trevor Mallard. He named the National Party members on the Justice and Electoral Committee and talked about the democratic process of having oral submissions—in fact he talked about there being 740 oral submissions. It is true to say that those came in as form submissions. It is standard process and protocol that those form submissions whatever form they take are often collated to be one submission before the select committee so we did not believe that we were denying any rights whatsoever for others to be able to do that.There were many submitters who had actually submitted and actually took the time—in fact there were 259 submissions of which 27 submitters chose to make an oral submission. It would not have taken much for those 740 people to have written something quite different—not a form submission—to indicate their right and their willingness to come and submit before the committee. They did not do that. It was a form submission.I just want to finish on the last comments that I think are really important. There was a comment again by the Hon Trevor Mallard about how in the cross-party group there was unanimous agreement—bar the Government members at that time—towards having one referendum. That was contested. I can say that that was contested. Even from the Māori Party those members had agreed and do agree with the process that the Government is taking. It is wrong to indicate that it was only the Government members who were willing to take this process of having two referendums. We believe that this process is important.I look forward to the Committee of the whole House stage. But most important I actually look forward to the process of going out into those RSAs as I have been—I am a member of Te Atatū RSA—and to be able to talk continually about the importance and the role that this referendum has in the shaping of our nation and the changing potentially of the flag. Whatever the nation chooses at the end of the day it is what we will all also abide by. I commend this bill to the House.PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau):Tēnā koe e te Māngai o te Whare otirā tēnā tātau katoa ki roto i tēnei tūāhuatanga arā ko Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori kei te pātaitia e tēnei Whare te mana o te tangata ki tētahi haki. Koinā tāku e mea atu ana koia rā tērā ko te pai o Te Reo Māori. Anā he aha nei nakena ngā haki tūturu o te whenua nei? Ko Te Reo tēnā i tupu mai i te whenua koinā tāku e kōrero atu ana ahau ki a tātau tēnā tātau katoa.Ka tīkina ake ahau ngā kōrero a te mema ki tērā taha o te Whare Alfred Ngaro e kōrero ana mō te ture Kāwanatanga constitution. Anā i tīmataria ai e tēnei Kāwanatanga te mahi kia whiwhi ai i ngā whakaaro o te motu whānui mō tēnei mea te ture Kāwanatanga. Anā i roto i ngā whakaputanga o taua Rōpū Whiriwhiri Take e pā ana ki te ture Kāwanatanga kīhei rātou i mea atu me tīni te haki nei. Koinā tāku e mea atu ana kei te whai tēnei Kāwanatanga i tō rātou ake whiore. Koinā te take kei te kūiti tēnei Kāwanatanga i te motu whānui. E kūiti ana tēnei Kāwanatanga i roto i tētahi kūititanga ki te mea atu mehemea e hiahia ana koutou ki te tīnihia i te haki tēnā anei hoki ko ngā whiriwhiringa kei mua i a koutou. Ēngari ko tā mātou e mea atu ana me tukuna te pātai tika i te tuatahi. He aha nei nakena ki te pātai tika anā. Mehemea e hiahia ana te motu whānui kia tīnihia te haki koinā hoki ko te pātai tuatahi ki a au nei.Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki wētahi o ngā kōrero ka puta mai i te rangi nei e pā ana ki te taha pūtea. E mōhio ana tātou katoa ko te tini o te pūtea ka whakapauhia ki runga i tēnei take. He mea moumou. Nui ake ngā take kei mua i te aroaro o tēnei motu whānui arā te pōharatanga te mātauranga he tini. Koinei tāku atu ki te Kāwanatanga i tēnei tāima. Mehemea e ngākaunui ana ngā hunga nei ki ngā RSAs tēnā hoatu te pūtea ki ngā RSAs tā te mea mōhio ana tātou kei te hinga haere te rahi o te pūtea ki aua wāhi rā—he wāhi maumaharatanga mō ngā hōia. Kāti!Ka whakaaro ake ahau ki ngā kōrero o te mema o tērā taha o te Whare Alfred Ngaro. Hei tāna ko te mana o te hōia ki roto i ngā pakanga kua pahure ake nei. Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō tōku tupuna a Te Hāringi Te Hāringi Rīwhi. I whawhai te kaumātua rā ki roto i Te Pakanga Tuatahi o te Ao ki roto hoki i Te Pakanga Tuarua o te Ao. I te ata ka āra mai a Te Hāringi ki raro i te maru o tō tātou haki. I te mutunga o te rā kīhai a Te Hāringi i hoki mai ki te kāinga. Anā ka mate ki raro tonu i te maru o taua haki. Ko te mate kē kīhai ōna hoa hōia i kimi i tōna tūpāpaku. Nō reira ka takoto ake a Hāri ki roto o wāhi kē. Ēngari i te mutunga o te rā ka tuohu te mātenga o ōna hoa hōia ki te haki e hāwhe kake nei ki runga i te pou haki. Nō reira koia rā wētahi o tāku e mea atu ana i whawhai ngā mātua ngā tūpuna mō te haki te take. E mea atu ana ā e kāhore! Ko Te Kīngi ko te whenua o te mana motuhake. Ēngari e mea atu ana ahau i haere rātou ki raro i te maru o te haki i hoki anō mai rātou i raro i taua haki.Nō reira kāti! Ka whakaaro ake ahau mō ētahi atu o ngā take ko te take nui ahakoa te aha mōhio ana tātou ko te whakapautanga o te pūtea mō te kore take noa iho. Tukuna te pātai tika i te tuatahi mai i te tīmatanga o tēnei kaupapa ā kāti ka tahuri atu ahau ki roto i te reo tuarua hei whakakapi ake i tōku kōrero i te rā nei.[Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker and at the same time I extend my greetings to us all in the circumstances of this Māori Language Week. This House questions the integrity of an individual against that of a flag and that is the reason why I have said to you collectively that the Māori language is so appealing. Now then what is there about the flags of this country that is so indigenous? On the other hand the Māori language evolved from the land and that is the real reason why I am addressing us in Māori so hello there to us all.I take up the sentiments of the member on that side of the House Alfred Ngaro about the Government’s action relating to the constitution. Now then this Government instigated a process to obtain the views of the nation at large about it. Now that Constitutional Advisory Panel never stated in its releases that the flag of this nation must be changed. And that is why I am saying to you: this Government is chasing its own tail. That is the reason this Government is putting a squeeze on the nation at large.It is narrowing the confinement and saying: well then here are the options as well in front of you. But we are saying to Government release the proper question first. But what indeed is the proper question? That is it! Now if the nation desires a change that in fact to me is the first question.I ponder over some of the comments relating to funding that emerged today. We are all aware that an enormous amount of funding will be spent on this matter. It is sheer waste of funding. There are so many other issues confronting the nation like poverty education—myriads. At this very moment this is mine to Government. If these ones in Government are committed to RSAs well then give the funding to RSAs because we are all aware that funding in places like those—memorial places for armed forces.Enough! I reflect on the sentiments of the member on that side of the House Alfred Ngaro. To that member the status of the soldier in battle has passed. I reflect on my ancestor Te Hāringi Te Hāringi Rīwhi that elderly one who fought in the First World War and in the Second World War as well. In the morning Te Hāringi woke up from under the shelter of our flag. At day’s end Te Hāringi did not come home. He died there under the shelter of the flag. The real misfortune was that his comrades did not look for his body. So Hāri was interred somewhere else. But at day’s end his fellow soldiers bowed their heads to the flag flying at half mast on the flag pole. So those are some of my reflections that I am alluding to about parents and ancestors fighting for the flag. It is asserting: no! It was for the King and independence of the country. But I do assert that they went under the shelter of the flag and they returned as well under that flag.And so enough. I can think of other matters but the most significant one above all else is our awareness that funding is being spent for no reason at all. Release the proper question first from the outset of this proposal. Well now to conclude my address today I turn to the second language.]In conclusion it seems pretty set from the Government that this change is going to happen despite the call of this nation that now is not the right time. So if it is going to happen it seems that the only way that this flag will rise up the flagpole and also continue to blow proudly in the sky is on the hot air coming from the other side of the House. Kia ora tātou.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I think it says everything about the current Government’s priorities that at a time when the economy is in serious difficulty when there are riots at privatised prisons when charter schools are falling over and when the Government is hocking off State houses and literally driving pensioners out of their homes—literally driving pensioners out of their homes—it wants to devote the time of this House to a referendum on the flag. And it is not just the time of the House it is using in this referendum process; it is also $26 million of taxpayers’ money. That says everything about the current Government’s priorities.John Key went on television a couple of weeks ago and said: “I as Prime Minister want overt signs of patriotism.” That is his goal—overt signs of patriotism. Well my message for John Key is quite simple. If he wants New Zealanders to be more patriotic and more proud of their country he should give them something to be proud of. A flag is a symbol but actually what Governments do is far more important.There have been moments when New Zealand Prime Ministers on both sides of the House have inspired New Zealanders to be proud of their country. David Lange stood up at the Oxford Union debate and regardless of what flag it was under he made New Zealanders proud to be New Zealanders. When Helen Clark stood up and took in the Tampa boat people she made New Zealanders proud to be New Zealanders. I have got to say as a New Zealander that I was proud of New Zealand when Jim Bolger and Doug Graham and those other people on the National Party side were leading the Treaty settlements process. That made me proud to be a New Zealander. That was not involving a flag; that was involving genuine action by the Government that made New Zealanders proud.So my message to John Key is that if he wants New Zealanders to be more patriotic and proud of their country he should give them something to be proud of. And it is not going to be kicking pensioners out of their State houses like this Government is doing. It is not going to be turning the other way when our primary producing industries struggle in the current economy which the National Government is turning a blind eye to. Those things are not going to make New Zealanders proud and a simple referendum on a change of flag is not going to make New Zealanders proud at the moment not at a time when there are so many other things New Zealanders are worried about.I have been very clear all along. I would like to see a flag that better reflects the New Zealand that we are today and the New Zealand that we will be in the future. I have been very clear about that—Hon Dr Nick Smith: Support the bill.CHRIS HIPKINS: —and I have got to say to Nick Smith that it is one of the reasons I do not want a referendum that is doomed to fail. What the referendum will do is actually take the whole issue away for generations. We will not get to discuss this again when this referendum is voted down and it is doomed to be voted down because of the mismanagement of this National Government.Let us be clear about how badly this issue is going for the Government. How many people showed up at public meetings? Just 700 people showed up at the meetings that the Government has been having around the country—739 members of the public. That is $550 per person just for the cost of the meetings. But if you add in the amount of money the Government spent advertising the meetings as well it is over $2000 per person who showed up at those meetings at a time when New Zealanders have much more important priorities on their mind. The Government sent out 1.6 million postcards. Only 15000 of those were returned. That is $93 per postcard returned. That is the cost that we are talking about. These are not trivial sums of money at a time when there are so many other things that New Zealanders want to their Government to be spending money on. But of course New Zealanders have come to accept waste as part and parcel of this Government.Finally I want to talk to Tim Macindoe who gave a very good speech in this debate. I want to commend him for his speech. He spoke about veterans of both world wars and his relations who were veterans of both world wars. I say to him that I admire the contribution he made to this debate but if the Government is so concerned about veterans and so interested in the views of veterans and what they fought for why did it give the RSA only 10 minutes at the Justice and Electoral Committee? Why is the Government willing to spend tens of millions of dollars on a referendum process when it is not willing to spare more than 10 minutes for the RSA at the select committee? So when National Government members show up to Anzac Day services or World War I commemorative services all around the country let them explain that to all the veterans who are at those events. Let them explain why they think the RSA is so unimportant in this process that they were willing to give it only 10 minutes. This is not the time to be doing this. This referendum is doomed to fail and that is why the Government should pull up stumps now.CHRIS BISHOP (National): Let us put on the record for the House the reason why the Labour Party is opposed to this bill. It is spite—simple spite. That is the simple reality of it. The Labour Party has this view of itself—this vainglorious view of itself—that it is the party that does nationhood. It is the party of Norman Kirk at Waitangi. It is the party of sending the ships over to Mururoa. It is the party of David Lange at the Oxford Union giving that glorious speech. Look I quoted David Lange in my maiden speech. I agree that he was a great statesman but the Labour Party does not have a monopoly on nationhood and it does not have a monopoly on taking New Zealand forward.Let us be very clear. The reason why the Labour Party is opposed to this bill is spite and jealousy. They are jealous that it is a National-led Government led by a Prime Minister whom they despise that is putting to the people the idea of changing the New Zealand flag. They are jealous of it because it is Labour Party policy to have a referendum on the flag. As late as September last year—in fact as late as last week on its website—it was Labour Party policy to consider a flag referendum.My good friend Charles Chauvel—the much-lamented Charles Chauvel—had a member’s bill for a flag referendum in the ballot some time ago. The Labour Party is all over this except for the fact that it is a National Government doing it. It is really sad because actually I reckon most Labour members agree with changing the flag. Andrew Little certainly does. Last year he said: “My personal opinion is we should have something more relevant to an independent small Asia-Pacific nation. I think a referendum is a suitable way to deal with an issue that can be very polarising.” So the Government which took a policy of having a referendum to the election and duly got elected has introduced legislation. And what do we have from the Labour Party today? Well it is going to oppose it. It is really really sad.New Zealand does not discuss nationhood and the issue of national identity enough in my view. This bill and the process that we are undertaking is part of that ongoing conversation about what New Zealand is and what we should stand for. The question of the flag is important. Yes it is a just a symbol but symbols matter—symbols matter. The issue of whether in the 21st century modern-day New Zealand is best represented by a flag that has a Union Jack and the Southern Cross on it or whether we move to a flag that better represents New Zealand’s national identity is an important one. We are no longer a colony of Great Britain. We are no longer tied by the apron strings to that country—to the mother country. We have moved on from that and the question as to whether or not we should have a flag that better represents that new reality is something that New Zealanders are going to grapple with and have been grappling with during this referendum process.The process is important. We heard from Mr Chris Hipkins over there that New Zealanders do not care about it that they are totally unengaged and that to the extent that they do care about the flag referendum process they are absolutely opposed to change. The ultimate referendum is the referendum that we are going to have. The logical extension of the Labour Party’s argument on this stuff is that we should just govern by opinion poll. It is that we should just put everything out to the people and have a fleeting cursory view of public opinion at one moment in time. No actually that is not the right way to go about things. The right way to go about things on an issue as important as this is through a deliberative consultative process in which people get a chance to consider the issues widely and fully have a say and then get a vote on it.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: They have. They have and they have given it the thumbs down.CHRIS BISHOP: It is not a New Zealand Herald online poll Mr Cosgrove. It is not some smidgen of public opinion at any one fixed point in time. It is through a deliberative process through a referendum. If the Labour Party is correct and if Mr Hipkins is correct—he very rarely is on most other matters—and the people do not want to change the flag they will say so. This Government will respect that view—we will respect that view. But if they vote for change then the flag will change. The question for the Labour Party is—after having exhausted all of this hot air arguing against giving New Zealanders a say about the flag and the future of the flag in this country—will they respect the outcome if people vote in favour of a change of flag? That is the question for the Labour Party.This referendum does not disrespect veterans. It does not do that. On the issue of whether or not something is the right time again you could make that argument about almost any change that the Government does. Well it is never the right time. There has not been a right time since 1970; there has not been the right time since 1980; it was not the right time back in 2005 when hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders signed a petition to change the flag. That is an argument for the status quo. It is a conservative argument and it is just hilarious that it is coming from the so-called progressive party of social change over there—the party that likes to tell itself that it is all in favour of moving New Zealand forward but that gives speech after speech saying: “It’s not the right time. You know we’re not sure New Zealanders are in favour of this.” They sound like the conservative fuddy-duddy party that the Labour Party has become. It is truly tragic.The Justice and Electoral Committee which considered this bill did a very good job of considering the process. We considered the suggestion from Trevor Mallard and from others that we should put a yes/no question in the first referendum that we are going to have and that we are going to have quickly. Actually we considered whether or not that was a good idea and we came to the view by majority that it was not a good idea. The reason for that is firstly the Ministry of Justice officials recommended against it. The reason is that it biases the referendum in favour of the status quo; it does not lead to a mutual objective referendum. In our view that was not a good public policy outcome and that is why the majority of the select committee decided that the structure that we have at the moment which is the one recommended by the officials as being the most neutral and objective referendum possible is what we should do.There were some suggestions that we should have a yes/no referendum to start with—just put one question to the people: do you want to change the flag or not? The problem with that as somebody explained to me at a public meeting yesterday is that they may very well be in favour of changing the flag but that they just do not know what it is going to change to and until they have the options available they are not sure. That with respect is a silly suggestion by people who make it including New Zealand First. Denis O’Rourke during the select committee process asked one question of all the submitters which was: why do we not just have a yes/no referendum question first? I have just given the reason for Denis’ benefit. The reason is that it is hard to make up your mind whether or not you are in favour of change unless you know what you are changing to. We decided to have the view that you should let people have a say on the options first and then it will be a binary up or down vote on what the change will be.We do not discuss constitutional questions enough in this House. We do not discuss in this House issues of national identity. This is a good bill put forward by a good Government. It is opposed by parties out of pure spite and jealousy.The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Justice and Electoral Committee be agreed to.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the question be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Question agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Bill read a second time.Estimates DebateIn CommitteeDebate resumed from 21 July on the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill.Environment Sector (continued)The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members when we were last progressing the estimates debate we were debating the votes in the environment sector—volume B.5 volume 3. They are Vote Conservation Vote Environment and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. Scott Simpson had the call and he has 2 minutes and 20 seconds remaining if he so wishes. Before giving the call to Mr Simpson I would like to remind the select committee chairs who are allocated calls who lead the sector debates of the requirement of the Business Committee to set out the major findings of their committees in relation to the estimates. Mr Simpson has set an excellent example in this matter.SCOTT SIMPSON (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): Mr Chairman I appreciate the acknowledgment and also the opportunity to conclude with a couple of minutes’ rounding out what for me is a very important part of this Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill discussion and debate. It relates exactly to the environmental sector where two very competent Ministers preside over the most important environmental decisions and the stewardship of our precious environment. Looking forward to the future they are putting in place excellent protections excellent stewardship and excellent advances that have not previously been considered by other Governments.In the field of conservation the Minister of Conservation Maggie Barry is doing an exceptional job. She is a person who has devoted her entire working life—not just in this Parliament but her entire working life—to ensuring the advancement of conservation matters and of our environment. In terms of the Ministerfor the Environment Nick Smith he too has made a greater contribution—dare I say it—than any other member in this House in terms of protecting and ensuring the enhancement of our natural environment.I want to highlight one or two matters that came before the Local Government and Environment Committee during the estimates hearings. I was particularly impressed with the work that the Department of Conservation is doing in partnership agreements with independent bodies and commercial organisations to leverage the funding and access of resources for the further advancement and protection of our environment. I particularly want to commenton with appreciation and note the work that Fonterra is doing in terms of its Living Water programme. One of those projects has relevance in my electorate on the Seabird Coast at Miranda and Kaiaua where excellent work is being done to protect the wetlands there. That is just one area where partnerships are proving absolutely that they can add value to our conservation message and to our conservation objectives.Another one is the rat eradication on Great Mercury Island also within the boundaries of the very beautiful and lovely Coromandel electorate. There Sir Michael Fay and David Richwhite have entered into a programme with the Department of Conservation to eradicate rats on that very precious and important island. There are some who object to that but I think that is a wonderful move and it is certainly something that is going to enhance that island and also the greater area.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is my pleasure to take a call in this section of the estimates debate and to listen to the words of the member who just sat down Scott Simpson—and very fine words they were. You would believe that everything was hunky-dory with the environment. You would not actually realise that this is a Government that is failing in some key issues of the environment or that we have a Government that is not being straight with New Zealanders on a range of issues from the housing crisis right through to a number of issues. We certainly have a Government that is not being straight with New Zealanders about the state of our environment.I just want to pick up from where Mr Simpson was concluding—he was talking about the wonderful work in terms of our waterways. We have just received a report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that gives us the facts about what the state of New Zealand water is the impacts of dairying on our waterways throughout the country and what they are.To stand in the House and say that everything is fine is just a symbol of how this Government is governing. Government members are closing their eyes to the reality and they are closing their ears to what is happening around them. They are certainly not being straight. In this area our environment is being left behind.In my address today I want to deal primarily with two key issues that we covered off at the hearings and my colleague Ruth Dyson will pick up on further areas. One is Resource Management Act reform. You might remember Resource Management Act reform. It is something that this Government has been talking about for a very long time. It is also something that this Government has been spending quite a lot of money on. So when we have a look at the appropriation that this Government is putting in under Resource Management Act reform we see $3 million there for contractors. One has to assume—Hon Ruth Dyson: What?Dr MEGAN WOODS: $3 million—that is right. There is $3 million for contractors because this is a Government that is failing to get its reforms across the line.It is also a Government that is failing to take the offer from Labour to work with it on the sensible bits of Resource Management Act reform. We will—we have put that offer in. Nicky Wagner is looking confused. She might like to look at the papers—it is in there. Labour has put the offer on the table. We have said that we will work with National on a national policy statement around housing and sensible reform—things that can be achieved. But that has been reacted to with blankness.There is no intention to work together for sustainable enduring solutions for such a linchpin piece of legislation as the Resource Management Act. Instead we have got $3 million in this appropriation for spin doctors and contractors to play catch-up because the Minister for the Environment has dropped the ball on Resource Management Act reform. He has mucked it up from go to whoa and not only in terms of what National was intending to do around gutting the fundamental provisions of the Resource Management Act. He has also mucked up relations with the coalition partners and he cannot get it across the line. The taxpayer is left holding the $3 million bill for Nick Smith’s ineptitude in this particular area. The taxpayer is of course footing the bill for Nick Smith’s ineptitude in a range of areas but in the area of Resource Management Act reform let us just call it $3 million.I want to turn my attention to the issue of climate change. This accounts for 48 percent of the Vote Environment budget. It is a substantial part of the environmental budget and even more actually if you factor in the money that is set aside for the emissions trading scheme. So after hearing speakers in the previous debate say that Labour is the conservative fuddy-duddy party that does not want to see progress I have two words for Mr Bishop—11 percent. That is the paltry sum that this Government is thinking it is going to take to the Paris talks. It thinks that is a credible position for New Zealand to take to the Paris talks about what our emissions reduction target should be but it is not.This is a Government that is being criticised all over the world for its negligence in this area—it is certainly not enough. This is a Government that has absolutely let the emissions trading scheme fail to do what it needs to do through letting the price of carbon collapse. It is a Government that is not incentivising the things we need to be doing around planting forests and it is a Government that will not take the hard decisions it needs to take around what we need to do around carbon dioxide emissions reduction. It is a Government that will not have the sensible and needed conversation about how we account for methane in our emissions target profile and about when we bring this in. This is a Government that is content to be a laggard in the world and to be criticised by other nations for not doing its bit. Thank you.Hon MAGGIE BARRY (Minister of Conservation): Kia ora Minister members. Mr Chair ngā mihi nui ki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori tēnā koe.[Thank you Minister and members. Much accolades to Māori Language Week and to you Mr Chair.]It gives me great pleasure to stand before this Committee this afternoon and take a call on the appropriations. From the point of view of being the Minister of Conservation it is very important to me that we understand the nature of the struggle that we are involved in. It is important that we have enough money to do what we need to do and in order to make taxpayers’ money go even further we need to work in collaboration. So in my call today I am going to outline some of the more successful collaborations including collaboration with the Australians.Two weeks ago I was a keynote speaker at the inaugural Threatened Species Summit in Melbourne where I discovered that the Australians have vastly more money than we do to spend on many things. However what they envy us is the level of collaboration that we have been able to knit together with partners philanthropists and businesses so that we can work as a whole team to overcome our obstacles. As New Zealand has experienced and so too has Australia our vulnerable species are prone to being predated upon by mostly eco-invaders. Ironically here in New Zealand one of the worst offenders for us is a treasured protected species of possum in Australia. I did offer to ship over a couple of million to solve both our problems but Australia refused that kind offer.However where we were able to collaborate was around the need to have a strategy and to have what we are about to announce which is a threatened species ambassador. This is an individual who will help us to develop a strategy and a series of guidelines for acting with partners so that we will be able to do the good fight together.I will give a couple of examples that are working successfully at the moment. One of them is Air New Zealand. Air New Zealand is going to part-fund this threatened species ambassador’s role for the first couple of years. That is building on a successful long-term partnership that has been worth $7 million over the past 3 years with Air New Zealand and it gives significant gains for conservation our New Zealand economy and also Air New Zealand. It is a classic win-win which is why it has not only sustained but it is also being built on. Air New Zealand through its in-flight entertainment and advertising has contributed to the success of the Department of Conservation’s Great Walks. As we know tourism is now our biggest earner in New Zealand. It has overtaken dairying. By teaming up with Air New Zealand and promoting our walker numbers for example those have gone up by more than 30 percent since the partnership began. So in round figures that is up from 79000 overnight stays to now more than over 100000.The Department of Conservation has also been working a lot with Genesis Energy. That was a partnership that began 4 years ago. Over the past 5 years $2.5 million has been specifically aimed at supporting and protecting the blue duck our whio or whio whio as it is called in the middle part of the North Island. So what that partnership has meant is that we have been able to double the amount of conservation work. We now have eight secure sites to maintain a viable population of ducks that breed and we take out the baby ducklings—the whio whio—to actually get what we call a boot camp for ducklings which is where they get training in having to swim upstream on some very rapid bits of water so that when they are released to the wild they are then made fit for purpose in the wild. It is a fantastic thing. So welcoming partnerships with philanthropists is also something that the Department of Conservation has encouraged in the past couple of years.NEXT Foundation for example is running $100 million of strategic philanthropy over the next 10 years in partnership with the Department of Conservation and other entities. NEXT Foundation commits something like $5 million and up to $15 million a year and it ring-fences three major projects including Zero Invasive Predators or ZIP as it is known. Along with NEXT Foundation Fonterra the dairy industry the Department of Conservation and the philanthropists we are all working together. The target is a big one. To the members of this Committee who understand these things to be able to be predator-free and to have that as a measurable target and goal by 2050 is indeed a very ambitious target. It is only by involving philanthropists and an army of volunteers to help us that we will be able to get there. Zero Invasive Predators is focused as we are as a Government and as a department on excluding pests from all the parts of the mainland where they have been eradicated.The Department of Conservation is extremely good and effective—and is known to be so nationwide and internationally—at looking after pest-free islands. Our ambitious goal now is to transfer those skills to the mainland. There are many excellent projects that this department and this Government are involved in. I am very proud of them and we will continue to do our best.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): Tēnā koe  Mr Chair. Thank you. Tuarua ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare tēnā koutou katoa.[Secondly greetings to you all the members of our House.]Appointing one threatened species ambassador is not going to solve our biodiversity crisis. The Government has done very little in this Budget to tackle that. The Department of Conservation is not being adequately funded to tackle the conservation challenges that it faces and the dump of Budget documents was very revealing. It showed that Treasury as explained to it obviously by the Minister of Finance does not believe that increasing the funding for the department to assist kiwi is consistent with the Government’s overall priorities. The Cabinet may have overruled that but it is clear that the Government has not got a priority of protecting our biodiversity.Since Aotearoa New Zealand was settled 800 years ago 53 bird species have gone extinct 15 of those since 1850. Currently we rank the worst in the United Nations for the protection of threatened species. We have more species threatened with extinction than any other country. Yet what did we have in this Budget? No increase for the Department of Conservation; in fact there was a reduction of $7 million in the funding that the department puts towards the management of natural heritage. This Government despite the Biodiversity Strategy having a clear objective that all Government agencies agreed to in 2000 of maintaining our biodiversity of halting the decline is failing to invest adequately in the protection of our native plant species and wildlife. So the Department of Conservation has been left to manage a third of New Zealand’s land area and over 40000 square kilometres of marine reserves on a pitiful budget.Last year for example the department was supposed to be managing 159 threatened species actively. What happened? The department was so distracted by the restructuring and the loss of staff with technical expertise that it was able to actively manage only 104 threatened species. What is the target for this financial year? Managing 104 threatened species actively. The department is winding back its goals because the Government and this Minister is not investing adequately in baseline conservation funding. National is completely out of touch with what makes New Zealand special and out of touch with how our wild landscapes and our native plants and wildlife contribute to our identity as New Zealanders and how much Kiwis value them.We had the Department of Conservation recognised recently as the eighth most influential brand in New Zealand up there with Facebook and Google and surpassed only by TradeMe and Air New Zealand as other New Zealand entities. The 1000 respondents in that Ipsos survey were asked to score 100 national and international brands on five factors: leading edge trustworthiness engagement citizenship and presence. The fact that the Department of Conservation scored so highly shows how much Kiwis value conservation yet National has looked the other way when it comes to investing in the public sector in conservation.What it is also failing to do is use the Resource Management Act. A lot of our threatened species are on private land so the decisions that Māori landowners and private landowners make about what happens there have a major impact on whether species like grasshoppers like whio and like a lot of our native fish have got better prospects or not for their future. Yet we have seen this Government proposing to spend Nick Smith nearly $21 million which is allocated in this Budget for improving resource management for providing more advice and more tools. Yet this will not be going to strengthen the Resource Management Act in relation to indigenous biodiversity.Given the National Government’s past plans to gut the Resource Management Act we are likely to see it further weakened and see the powers of private landholders to make whatever decisions they like increased. In fact some of the past plans that the Minister had to change the Resource Management Act have included providing for councils to compensate private landowners if the council includes rules in the plan that affect the ability of private landowners to use their land. That will hinder the prospects of threatened species. It will hinder our biodiversity not support it.Under National private property rights reign supreme. We have had major evidence of that in a recent report that Environment Canterbury has put out. It showed how agricultural intensification is destroying areas of riparian wetland and shrubland habitat along the margins of internationally important braided rivers in Canterbury—rivers like the Waiau River the Rangitata the Hakatere River or the Ashburton River. Alongside those rivers those areas of wetlands and shrublands are some of the only areas on the Canterbury Plains where indigenous species can survive. They are habitat for kowhai for cabbage tree for our native brooms for some of the divaricating mat plants like the Raoulia. They have not been cultivated so they remain as habitat. Yet between 1990 and 2012 over 11000 hectares of those areas were destroyed and converted to pasture. That is an average of 530 hectares each year.The Resource Management Act is supposed to provide some protection for significant indigenous habitats and significant indigenous vegetation. It is supposed to control the environmental effects of land use. Yet this grasp for more pasture to increase the milk supply is leading to the decimation of remaining wild nature and indigenous habitats on the plains. National has done absolutely nothing about that. The Department of Conservation and Land Information New Zealand have failed to enforce the Resource Management Act even though 40 percent of that 11000 hectares was actually Crown land or conservation land or Environment Canterbury reserve. The Resource Management Act needs strengthening to ensure that it protects our biodiversity not further weakening as National is proposing in its reforms.One of the other areas where this Government is failing our biodiversity also under the Resource Management Act is the recently released National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry. Although it is desirable to have some consistency in the rules that apply to forestry across the country we are not going to get it under this national environmental standard. That is because it has got very weak provisions to protect indigenous biodiversity. It has got quite clear rules around the shading of plantations on roads to prevent icing yet it allows exotic plantations to be established in indigenous grasslands and in shrublands and it provides the requirement for resource consent only if these areas have been identified as significant in district and regional plans. Most councils have got a very limited list of significant natural areas. They cover only a tiny proportion of the indigenous habitats in the district. So this National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry is going to provide a means for private landowners to destroy more areas without getting a resource consent.Again with the biodiversity crisis the Government could have picked up the National Policy Statement on Indigenous Biodiversity and made sure we had some consistency in rules around the country in terms of vegetation clearance control. It has failed to do that. In 2011 it could have progressed it but it dropped it like the proverbial hot potato because who opposed it? Landholders and business interests. So National has failed to implement the national policy statement under the Resource Management Act on indigenous biodiversity. There have been two goes at that yet this Minister and her colleague Nick Smith have totally dropped the ball. That allows a permissive approach to the destruction of habitat on private land to continue.This Government is out of touch. It does not recognise that Kiwis really value our indigenous plants and wildlife and our wild landscapes. It does not recognise that we need to protect these areas as the basis of a healthy economy. It allows private property rights to prevail. It thinks that appointing a threatened species ambassador is going to address the major challenges that we face with the highest number of threatened species in the world. It fails to invest in the Department of Conservation by increasing its funding. Instead it cuts its funding. It is all just about optics as my colleague Russel Norman talked about in an earlier speech—the optics of a threatened species ambassador but not the substance of investing in conservation and ensuring that our law actually protects our wild places and our indigenous habitats on private land.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I want to speak on the Environment sector in the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill and specifically on climate change policy ready for Paris 2015. This Government has a half-hearted approach to climate change policy and I think it has actually lost sight of the real objective. The need to greatly reduce the planet’s greenhouse gases arising from human activity is the most serious issue of the age. The effects of climate change will be as serious for New Zealand as for the rest of the world and maybe they will be even more serious given New Zealand’s reliance on agriculture. New Zealand in fact is in a better position than most other nations to make a positive and exemplar commitment to its targets and contrary to Government claims there is no need for any risk to the New Zealand economy by doing so. In fact as President Clinton used to say what is good for the environment is good for business. Indeed there are bound to be significant benefits for the New Zealand economy our physical environment our social systems job growth and of course our international reputation from a genuine commitment to a climate change target. Most of all we could make the greatest contribution possible to future generations of Kiwis by committing to a genuine and significant target for 2030.The Government’s recently announced target of an 11 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2030 has been called feeble unambitious and embarrassing. I would have to agree. I think it is pathetic. We in New Zealand First do not aspire to make New Zealand First a leader in cutting greenhouse gas emissions but we do think there needs to be a genuine target for that and in particular we think we need as a nation to take effective measures to ensure we actually achieve our target. New Zealand so far has failed. Instead of doing more this Government has decided to take longer and to do less. There is far too much reliance on carbon credits from plantation forests established many many years ago. As a result our actual greenhouse gas emissions will be 33 percent higher than in 1990 and we will be worse on a per capita basis than the United States. Our targets are now so low that we may not have to do anything at all to reach them and that applies to both the 2020 and 2030 targets. That is an utterly inadequate response when there is no satisfactory reason for not at least doubling the 2030 target that the Government has announced if not more.The Infometrics study for the Ministry for the Environment has calculated that at worst it would cost New Zealand as little as $500 per household—not per capita but per household—per year until 2020 for an additional and much more ambitious and effective target for New Zealand. In fact a rise to a 40 percent target instead of an 11 percent one is achievable at this reasonable and affordable cost. If you think about the amount of $500 per household per year that is less than $10 per week or to put it another way it is the cost of about two cappuccinos for two people per week. It is a very low cost indeed. That in fact is the real cost of an effective climate change target which is not what we have got under this Government. We can afford it. We can afford a much better and much more ambitious target as part of our national budget. But what we cannot afford are the risks of climate change by doing too little.We in New Zealand need to show the rest of the world that we are going to genuinely play our part not just to make a statement to the rest of the world but for our own New Zealand benefit especially for those of future generations. For those reasons I believe that we must upgrade our target for Paris in December—not just to make such a statement but to achieve a better economy a better social system and a better environment for New Zealand. I want to take this opportunity to call on the Government to revise the target it has announced and to adopt a much more ambitious one.Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): In these estimates I want to emphasise that our National Party Government does not proclaim to be the greenest party in this Parliament. What we do proclaim is that we are the party that is able to marry together good economic stewardship with responsible management of New Zealand’s treasured environment.I firstly want to respond to the challenge from Eugenie Sage around biodiversity. My colleague Maggie Barry the new Minister of Conservation—against the advice of Treasury—secured $11.5 million in this vote for ensuring that the ongoing decline in the kiwi population does not continue and if there is a portion of our biodiversity that every member of this Committee should treasure it is the survival of our iconic kiwi bird.I want to respond to the contribution by New Zealand First in respect of New Zealand’s climate change target and the work that Tim Groser is doing internationally. I want to put on the record of the House as a member who has taken an interest in climate change for all of my 25 years here that I have not known a climate change Minister to be as influential in the international negotiations as Tim Groser and every member of this Parliament should be proud of the contribution that he is making. Mr Denis O’Rourke challenges us on the target of a 30 percent reduction of emissions by 2030. I have a simple challenge for New Zealand First: we could have been much more ambitious in those targets if it were not for the fact that emissions went up by 25 percent in the term of the previous Labour Government which New Zealand First was part of. So it is rich for New Zealand First to come to this Parliament and claim that the target is not ambitious enough when during its watch when its members were in the Cabinet room emissions went up by more than in any other term.Look back at the projection—the actual record of emissions between 1990 when we entered the framework convention on climate change and today—and the very worst period was in the period from 2005 to 2008. At the same time that the previous Labour Government was talking about carbon neutrality—the very period when New Zealand First had ministerial warrants—New Zealand’s emissions went through the roof. I ask those members to contrast the fact that the actual record of this Government in constraining the growth of emissions has been more successful than any Government in the records since 1990.What these estimates provide for is a real focus on the environmental issues that are important to New Zealand. The biggest increase in my vote is in terms of the work around fresh water. I think every member of this Committee would want that to be a priority for the Government. Let me give the numbers for a matter of record. These estimates enable us to lift the overall contribution during our period in Government—our commitment to freshwater clean-up projects—to $350 million over the 9 years that we have been in Government. Let me compare that with times when there was a lot more cash for the Government when the previous Labour Government spent just $50 million. That is one-seventh of the amount that we have committed and that is why I say to members of this Committee that this Government has a record of real commitments in fresh water.But it is not enough just to commit the money; we need to get the proper rules and management in place to manage fresh water. That is why in 2010 we introduced the first National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and why in 2013 we introduced national standards known as the National Objectives Framework and why in this next year we will be taking the next steps around the invertebrates index around the issues of exceptions to the policy and around the very tricky challenging issue around Māori rights and interests. With these estimates we will be able to take those next key steps around fresh water.I also want to say that these estimates provide the resources for the Government to take the next steps in ocean management. An important step that we will be taking later this year is for the Environmental Protection Authority to take responsibility for the pollution regulations in that part of the exclusive economic zone that makes up more than 20 percent of the area that we are responsible for in terms of jurisdiction. That is why a very important part of our next steps for our Bluegreen team is around reform of New Zealand’s legislation in respect of marine-protected areas.This is a complex piece of work. It involves a large number of Government agencies—foreign affairs and defence have an interest and both my ministry the Ministry for the Environment and the Department of Conservation. There is a big interest of course from the Ministry for Primary Industries and Nathan Guy is taking an intense interest in it. This year we will be putting out a substantive discussion document on how we can improve the legislative framework and that is something we are going to do in the next year and we would welcome Labour’s support for a piece of work that has been promised for—Hon Ruth Dyson: Got a time frame yet?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will just remind the Labour member that it was in Labour’s policy in 1999. You had 9 years in Government and made no progress. Look forward to the progress that we will be making in the next year around that important piece of work around marine-protected areas which was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this year.The other specific area that I want to mention is the importance of resource management reform. In that area we are going in the direction of a greater degree of national consistency. If we are to get good environmental outcomes but bring the compliance costs down for sectors what we need to have is a greater use of the national instruments under the Resource Management Act. That is why right now with the support of these estimates which provide a substantive increase in funding we are looking at a national environment standard on telecommunications. Why? Because my colleague Amy Adams the Minister for Communications is going for broke to make sure that New Zealand is a world leader in the extension of ultra-fast broadband and cellphone technologies.But it is no good doing that if we cannot actually get those new networks consented. Having every single one of our councils across New Zealand having a different set of rules around where you can put Wi-Fi ultra-fast broadband and cellphones does not make sense. That is why these estimates provide for our concluding this year a national environment standard around those communications. I really do challenge the Green Party which has come out publicly and opposed that national environment standard and I say that it is holding back New Zealand’s connectedness and New Zealand’s competitive advantage in not wanting us to have a greater degree of consistency in that area.I will also mention one of New Zealand’s really important export industries the forestry sector. You know members give lip-service to the issue of regional development. What are the regions of New Zealand where forestry is a critical industry? It is Northland. It is the central North Island. It is areas like Nelson Marlborough and Southland. If you talk to the forestry industry one of the real concerns that that sector has is differentiation of rules under the Resource Management Act which drives up their costs and undermines their international competitiveness. That new national environment standard which we are consulting on right now is going to provide for good environmental outcomes. In some areas it will mean tougher environmental rules—that is true—but it will result in better environmental outcomes and a huge reduction in the amount of bureaucracy and consents that are required for New Zealand’s fourth-biggest export earner.Alongside that piece of work is important work around the Resource Management Act which is also critical in respect of the key challenge New Zealand has around housing. A key part of these estimates provides support for the development of the Auckland Unitary Plan. Why does that matter? Well Auckland is actually one-third of the country. This Government is providing support to Auckland to be able to finalise a plan for that city in the next year which is so critical to its economic growth and housing as well as ensuring that we have good environmental management in that year.So this programme in the conservation climate change and environmental areas shows a very active blue-green agenda by this Government. It does the things that will make sure we better manage our environment our water our marine space our biodiversity our air quality—those things—while also supporting a strong economy.Undermining all that work then is a revolutionary step in the way in which we actually measure how we are doing.Hon Ruth Dyson: Did you say “undermining” or “underlining”?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Underlining—absolutely underlining it. Let me tell the member who has interjected why. It is this: if you ask me what is one of the two most important pieces of legislation that a National Government has passed that has made New Zealand do better I would highlight the Fiscal Responsibility Act 1994 because we as a country should be ashamed of our record preceding that Act in the management of our public finances. And in the 20 years hence we have done so much better.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): Rau rakatira mā tēnei te mihi ki a koutou i runga i te kaupapa o te rā tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.[To the esteemed ones of a hundredfold I acknowledge you collectively in regard to the matter of the day; salutations greetings and accolades to you and to us all.]It is a really important debate that we are having and I want to acknowledge everyone who has contributed to it. It is the one opportunity in the year that select committees get a chance to hold the Ministers of various portfolios to account and I want to acknowledge the Ministers who did front up to the committees and generally answered questions to the best of their ability—not always as well as we had hoped but certainly to the best of their ability.There are few comments that I want to make in relation to the conservation portfolio specifically. This is the seventh year in a row that we have seen a reduction in the overall budget for the Department of Conservation and frankly it is getting to the point where every time the department has a bit of crisis on its hands—for example a stoat on Kāpiti—it puts out the begging bowl and has to ask whether there is anybody who would like to donate so that it can perform its core statutory responsibilities. I think that that is an embarrassment to New Zealand and New Zealanders and I think the Ministers misrepresent the position that the department has been put in by the lack of support from their Cabinet colleagues.There are other points of concern that were raised during the debate in the Local Government and Environment Committeethat I want to mention. The first is the lack of reclassification of stewardship land and the implication that that might have particularly in two areas that are of current concern. One is Ruataniwha and the other is the Hurunui where conservation land is being proposed as part of a land swap for the creation of a dam. Because those areas in the most part are currently stewardship land there has been a tendency to reduce the public concern by dismissing them as land of little value and we know from the work that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has done on the need for the proper classification of stewardship land that that land is often not of low value at all. I would really urge the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of Conservation to take the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and do something with it.The second concern that I want to put on the record is the fact that the Minister for the Environment is now responsible for leading our marine reserves legislation and change and I want to say that that is not because of the personality of the Minister for the Environment. Few National members are more passionate than he is about marine protection and I acknowledge the work that he has done over recent years in particular. That is not the concern that I have. The concern I have is that as Minister for the Environment he operates under different criteria.The current marine protection legislation led by the Minister of Conservation has preservation and protection as the basis of that legislation whereas the exclusive economic zone legislation which is where the Minister for the Environment is likely to lead has a sustainable management ethos. They are quite different foundations and that causes a considerable concern in the transfer. So it is not about the personality of the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I am quite comfortable with him amongst all of the National Government Ministers—in fact he is the only one amongst all of the National Government Ministers who I think gives a toss in this area. It is about what the basis of our future marine legislationis going to be. So I wish him every success in ensuring that conservation and preservation are the basis of future legislation.The next point I want to mention is the inability of the Minister of Conservation to answer on time some of the questions and her refusal to answer questions about unsuccessful Budget bids. She is the only Minister I have seen before a select committee who has refused to acknowledge that in some areas her bids were unsuccessful. She should have been up front and honest with not just the committee and Parliament but the public of New Zealand. I have seen other Ministers front up to those questions; she refused. I have subsequently asked the Prime Minister; he has refused to have anything to do with that as well.The last point I want to make is in regard to conservation partnerships. Of course these are a good thing—working with philanthropic organisations with business with individuals and with community organisations together to progress a shared goal—but it goes over the line of partnership when the department is dependent on donations in order to fulfil its core functions. It has got that way in the area of pest management and control it has got that way in areas of planting and it has got that way in the area of education. Those are core statutory functions that the department is unable to perform on its own.DENISE ROCHE (Green): E Te Whare tēnā koe; tuarua ki ngā mema o tō tātou Whare tēnā koutou katoa; tuatoru mihi atu ki Te Wiki o Te Reo Māori tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.[I greet you the House; secondly salutations to you all the members of our House; and thirdly I acknowledge Māori Language Week. Greetings to you and to us all.]I am addressing my comments to the Vote Environment budget. The revenue line shows that the waste disposal levy is expected to remain the same for the 2015-16 year as it did for the 2014-15 year. Currently that budget is $32 million.This revenue is the result of charging $10 on every tonne of waste that goes to landfill and I would just note that that is in the Waste Minimisation Act 2008 which was a member’s bill initiated by the Green Party that got cross-party support. That levy of $32 million is shared between local government and central government to fund waste minimisation activities and initiatives. Basically that is what it is used for.The Government’s Budget line shows that waste minimisation is not working—certainly not if it is going to keep the revenue level at the same amount as this year and last year—and I guess that is not really a surprise when you consider some of the schemes that the Government is funding. The classic example is the one that the Minister announced on the Saturday before last which was a voluntary product stewardship scheme from the packaging industry where it would set up collection points at supermarkets as a 3-year trial to collect single-use plastics and soft plastics including single-use plastic bags.The Government has allocated $1.2 million to do this for the 3-year trial but it is an example of “greenwashing” and nobody is fooled. One just has to look at the New Zealand Herald editorial on Saturday which basically explained why it is “greenwashing”. Again today in the Dominion Post we have the headline here “Plastic bag scheme won’t work” over an opinion piece from Massey University’s Dr Trisia Farrelly. It will not work because the scheme is an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and it does not deal with the problem of single-use plastic bags in the environment. We use 1.6 billion of these single-use plastic bags every year. That generates about 6 to 11 tonnes of carbon per year and if we got rid of them it would be the same as taking about 3600 cars off the road permanently.Plastic bags are designed to be disposed of. Yes they do not make up a huge amount in the landfill but that is because they are incredibly lightweight and this is where they have a devastating impact on the environment. They can be ingested by marine animals—up to 2000 different marine species including whales and turtles are known to ingest plastic bags and die from them—and they break down into micro-plastic which is eaten by fish and then it enters the human food chain.This Government scheme does not work to change consumer behaviour so it does not minimise the amount of soft single-use plastic and it targets the same environmentally aware consumers who already take their reusable shopping bags to the supermarket in the first place. This is the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff once we have failed to avoid refuse and reduce and then we have got into recycling but this is not going to fix it.Prevention is the way to go and for single-use plastic bags that would be done by introducing a disincentive to use them. We could join hundreds of countries and States across the world and phase them out entirely or we could introduce a point-of-sale levy. International evidence shows that having a levy reduces single-use plastic bag use by between 70 percent and 95 percent depending on how much is charged. Local government bodies really really support doing this. They voted on the Sunday before last to call on the Government to introduce a levy on single-use plastics because they are the ones that are cleaning up the waterways and cleaning up the drains that are getting blocked by this pest and this terrible product which is having a huge impact on our environment.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): E Te Heamana e mihi atu ana ki a koe.[I acknowledge you Mr Chairman.]I would like to spend just a few moments talking about the conservation partnerships but if I can just acknowledge the Minister in the chair Nick Smith. He spoke to the key messages that he actually spoke to at the select committee. He spoke about our reform agenda over the last few years and how effective that has been. We have the National Policy Statement for Freshwater the National Objectives Framework the Environmental Protection Authority—there is a huge list of reforms and of course there are funding initiatives to support that. But in particular I would like to spend a few moments just reflecting on the conservation partnerships that we now have in place have had in place for a number of years and intend to continue to invest heavily in over the next 2 or 3 years.When these conservation partnerships were introduced a few years ago under Nick Smith and under Al Morrison’s leadership as the chief executive there was a typical reaction from the Labour Party and the Green Party in particular. They were very anti them—a typically ideological reaction from those who think that conservation and business cannot work together and are in fact in their view very incompatible bedfellows. But these partnerships have proven that wrong. The philosophy that we were privatising the Department of Conservation that private-public partnerships are evil and that conservation is simply the preserve of the Government reflects a tired and captured ideology that in my view is holding them back.These conservation partnerships which Minister Barry and Lou Sanson stepped us through in the Local Government and Environment Committee are successful and are working. The reason they are successful and working is that they are partnering with people who are on the ground. They have the expertise of the Department of Conservation which is in the particular region understands the ecosystem pressures and can identify what the appropriate interventions are to give the best outcome. You have local communities be they iwi or be they local non-government partnerships that are energised and are passionate for their particular area and they can be partnered with business in a way that delivers real benefit. It is not a failed ideology of privatisation which gets barked at us from the other side. It is yet again an example of a pragmatic framework that is working and is delivering and I am very pleased to able to be part of a Government that supports that and to hear from Minister Barry in terms of the various partnerships and how they are progressing.Some of this is pretty personal to me because of the Fonterra Living Waters programme which was launched 2 years ago in partnership with the Department of Conservation. I was part of that; I saw it being introduced. Five areas across the country that are under pressure are having an immediate turn-round with the community Fonterra and the Department of Conservation working together to get a better ecosystem outcome. It is the same with Air New Zealand. There is a list of them and it is worth just reflecting on these conservation partnerships and how they are impacting across the country from Air New Zealand’s conservation partnership—which was initially focused on supporting the kiwi and has now been broadened tosupporting Great Walks marine reserves and other coastal gems—to Dulux New Zealand. Obviously I have touched on Fonterra’s partnership. There is Genesis Energy and its support in terms of the Whio Forever Project. Minister Barry of course at the select committee spoke on the Kiwis for Kiwi programme and the significant investment that we are putting in for that programme and the Mitre 10 Takahē Rescue programme is also an example of that.What is coming to be very clear to those who are involved in these partnerships is that once you actually get around the table likeminded people—people who are concerned about ensuring a better ecosystem outcome—and businesses that are prepared to put their money and support and energy behind that over time as they work together on that particular programme other opportunities come from that. As the relationships become deeper and as the community the Department of Conservation and the business have an established track record of being able to work together for effect the community is presented with more opportunities to take up.I want to reinforce that that is an example of a public policy that is working. It is working today and it deserves ongoing support and credit not the blind opposition based on ideology that we are hearing from the other side.Earlier on we had Eugenie Sage talking about the fact there was no new money in this Budget for conservation. That is wrong. There is $11.2 million of extra funding.NUK KORAKO (National):Tēnā koe e te Kaiwhakahaere. Ā koutou rā te Pāti Rōpū Reipa Ngā Kākāriki Aotearoa Tuatahi me ngā Kahurangi he mihi tēnei ki a koutou katoa.[Thank you Mr Chair. To you the Labour Party the Greens New Zealand First and the Blues I acknowledge you all.]I would like to take a short call in the estimates debate around the environment sector. From listening to the different views from both sides of the House indeed the glass on this side of the House is half full or over half full and on the other side unfortunately it is empty or half empty.I just want to also acknowledge the last speaker my colleague Todd Muller who talked particularly about the relationships that have been developed and fostered particularly over the last three terms of this Government. I particularly want to acknowledge Lou Sanson as well because when we look at the work that he has done particularly with iwi mana whenua and tangata whenua there has not been a time ever during the history of the Department of Conservation when iwi relationships have been so high. That is a true reflection of the way that the Department of Conservation acknowledges Te Ao Māori the world of the Māori and particularly because the other part of it is a whakataukī or an interesting proverb that goes “Whatungarongaro he tangata toitū he whenua”. What that means is that people move on but the land remains. That is really the basis around true partnership and relationships when we talk about the environment.There is one part of the estimates vote that I would just like concentrate on and it particularly concerns the Minister of Conservation but that is not to forget the other two Ministers Minister Groser particularly with climate change and Minister Smith as well for the environment. The Minister of Conservation appeared before the Local Government and Environment Committee to update us around the programmes to tackle kauri die-back. I want to just really concentrate on this because some years ago I spent some time working in tourism up in Northland—particularly up in Waipoua working with the iwi of Te Uri o Hau which is an iwi that operates right inside the Waipoua Forest—and also working with Footprints Waipoua which does tours particularly to Tāne Māhuta and really tells this incredible story around the spirituality of Waipoua.While I was there I really did gain an appreciation for how much of a taoka or treasure kauri are to tangata whenua of the Tai Tokerau but also to all New Zealanders. In the area sometimes referred to as the Kauri Coast kauri contributes to a growing tourist industry as well. I had the opportunity when I was up there in Northland at the beginning of the year to visit the Kauri Museum at Matakohe. That also demonstrated the really important part that kauri plays in the local economy.I just want to say that it is fascinating when you look at those people who work on this kauri die-back programme because it really reflects the partnership that the Department of Conservation has developed with them. You do have these individuals you have conservationists you have iwi and then you have the Department of Conservation working together. So when we look at this—when the Minister came to the committee she expressed the frustration that I think we all feel that we do not know enough about the invisible killer of the kauri. What we do know is that the pathogen is carried through the soil and that it is easily spread from place to place on our shoes and by visitors.A party vote was called for on the question That Vote Conservation Vote Environment and Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Votes agreed to.External SectorThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we now come to the votes for the external sector—volume B.5 volume 4. The question is that Vote Customs Vote Defence Vote Defence Force Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade and Vote Official Development Assistance stand part of the schedules. I ask the chair of the committee to set out the major findings of your committee in relation to the estimates.MARK MITCHELL (Chairperson of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee): I have a lot to say in such a short time but I will give it my best shot. I wanted to speak about Vote Foreign Affairs first and then cover off very quickly what we discussed in our appropriation hearing in the committee. The first thing is of course the sheep farm in Saudi Arabia. I just want to say that from my own observations from my own time up in the Middle East I was very interested to watch a big stock-handling facility that was built in Boosaaso. It was sponsored by the Qatari Government. It was built so that the state of Puntland which is a part of Somalia on the Horn of Africa could start trading livestock with Saudi Arabia because of the size of the market and the demand there. It helped drive up its GDP. It was a very good project.I also want to state that mutton and lamb is a big part of the diet in the Middle East. That is not something new. It is not like we are just taking sheep into the Middle East for the first time—they are there. The markets in Basra in southern Iraq used to feed a good part of the Middle East prior to the second war and people would travel from all over the Middle East to go to the markets and the stockyards in Basra to buy mutton.We were told that no additional funds had been provided to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to actually fund the agribusiness hub there and there are about 30 New Zealand businesses connected to the agribusiness hub that are providing goods and services. This is a big business. This has a lot of potential for New Zealand. We own a lot of the intellectual property the knowledge and the know how in order to actually create a real vibrant business in the Middle East.We spoke about the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. We asked for an update on that. The agreement is an important one for New Zealand. It involves 40 percent of New Zealand’s trade in goods and services and it involves five of New Zealand’s top 10 trading partners. We know that once the agreement is signed by all parties it will go through New Zealand’s domestic approval processes in the course of which the agreement and its associated national interest analysis will come before the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee. If changes are required to New Zealand’s domestic legislation Parliament will need to pass them before ratification of the treaty.We spoke about the ASEAN relationship. The year 2015 is the 40th anniversary of New Zealand’s diplomatic relations with ASEAN countries and New Zealand will host 31 celebratory events across 10 ASEAN capitals.We talked about Niue. The Minister of Foreign Affairs spoke about Niue. He highlighted that since 2010 New Zealand has focused its support to Niue on the development of its tourism industry at the request of the country’s Premier and Government. We heard that Niue’s visitor numbers have increased considerably and that this has been a very very successful initiative which has been supported by New Zealand.We asked the Minister about our seat on the United Nations Security Council of which I am personally very proud to see him now sitting in the president’s seat. I want to acknowledge him all of our ambassadors—for example Sir Jim McLay whom we spoke to on the weekend—and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade for being so successful in securing us a seat on the Security Council.We have begun our month-long presidency. In that time we are going to host an open debate in the council on 30 July in which countries from outside the council can participate. This is important. This is significant because this is one of the points that we lobbied on in trying to gain support to actually win that seat on the Security Council. They are going to be talking about the security challenges facing developing small Island States. Although such States make up about one quarter of the membership of the United Nations only three of them have ever served on the Security Council. New Zealand wants to provide an opportunity for the wider group to be heard on the council. We also plan to have an informal closed dialogue on reform of the Security Council to make it more accountable and more transparent and there is going to be a fair bit of focus around the use of the veto.The Minister spoke briefly about the Middle East peace process. He highlighted the fact that having a seat on the United Nations Security Council will affect our involvement in the Middle East peace process and that there is general consensus that after the Israeli elections and the formation of its Government the Security Council talks on Iran also need to be concluded before the Middle East peace process can be addressed. There may be an opportunity in August or September to consider the peace process and New Zealand will be alert to playing an active role in the process on which the international community agrees urgent action is needed. So you can see that the Minister and the ministry are going to be very active on the Security Council.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): I want to speak to the New Zealand Defence Force estimates and to begin by saying that at the estimates hearing having the Minister of Defence before the committee is a real test of whether the Minister has any knowledge or understanding of his portfolio. I regret to report to the Committee that 8 months into his portfolio Gerry Brownlee does not understand defence. He has not got a clue about it.It was interesting. We started with a fairly light issue. “Light issue” is a play on words I guess because it was about obesity problems in the Defence Force. That week there had been a major article in the paper saying that 20 percent of the Defence Force personnel were obese and 10 percent were significantly obese and the Minister said that he did not know anything about it. To give credit to Mark Mitchell he said: “But surely Minister if you banned fizzy drinks and deep-fried food from the armed services’ canteen there must be a problem?”. And Gerry Brownlee said: “Oh we were just following what Labour did in the schools 4 years earlier.” I want to know how come it is that “nanny State Gerry Brownlee” will stop adults in employment from drinking fizzy drinks but the Government removed the requirement not to put those things on the shelves of school cafes in order to look after the kids. That was curious.Then there was a question about Vanuatu. Vanuatu—we were a bit late getting there. We have a great ship the Canterbury to do the job in Vanuatu and the Minister said: “Well we can’t send our people up there till we know what they want.” We know what they want from day one. When there is a cyclone they need building materials they need water purifiers they need food and they need equipment to move the debris. But we took 2 weeks to get there and we did not put the NH90s in there as the Australians did. What did Gerry Brownlee say? I have got it here. He said the NH90s were “a dreadful purchase”. Well I want to read to the Committee the answers to two questions that I asked the Minister in the written questions for estimates: “Does the Minister stand by the assessment of the NH90 aircraft by his predecessors the Hon Wayne Mapp and the Hon Jonathan Coleman as being ‘very capable’ and ‘a quantum leap forward for New Zealand’?”. The response from Gerry Brownlee was “Yes”—yes! He said it was “a dreadful purchase” but it was a quantum leap forward according to his predecessors and he agreed.Then I asked “Has the RNZAF ever advised the Minister that the NH90s are not and will not be fit for purpose?” and the answer was no. I want to tell the Minister how angry the people are in the Royal New Zealand Air Force about his disparaging of the best rotary wing aircraft they have ever had.But the real questions came on the deployment to Iraq. I sat down and read the New York Times when I was at an international airport about the same time as the inquiry was going on. What did the New York Times report? It reported that the United States military in Iraq had more than three times the capacity for training Iraqi soldiers than was being used. They had 2000 soldiers being trained. They had capacity for 6700. So I have got to ask the question: why are we spending $65 million and putting our capable troops at risk to have 16 trainers go to Iraq when there is already a surplus of trainers in that country? The article went on to say that the other problem is that there are 22000 Iraqi troops who have deserted and 50000 ghost soldiers where the money is being ripped off and put into the private pockets of those running the military leadership.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I rise to take a call in respect of the trade estimates. There are two issues that I want to address. The first issue is in respect of the sheep saga which was traversed a little at the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and as members who were there will know the National Government members did their best to stop us inquiring into that. They gave the Minister the Hon Murray McCully the opportunity to explain things from his perspective and to try to cover his tracks and then they stopped us from inquiring into itproperly. This is part of the orchestrated cover up that we have had from the Government in respect of the Saudi sheep saga. Even now we and just about every media organisation in New Zealand have outstanding Official Information Act requests that have been routinely ignored in breach of the Act by all of the ministries—by New Zealand Trade and Enterprise by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade by the Ministry for Primary Industries by the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment and by Treasury. They have all gone to the end of the statutory period and have then all claimed that they need more time. Then Treasury had the audacity to say that it was going to have a proactive release some time in the distant future.At the heart of this is the fact that the Government has been caught acting unscrupulously. It has wasted more than $6 million on a farm in the desert where most of the lambs died. The Minister for Primary Industries Nathan Guy said he thought that it might have been because of a sand storm which is rather ironic given that the farm advisers say it was more likely to have been a rain event which is itself ironic given that the sheep are under shelter. That waste of $6 million is less unprincipled than the $4 million facilitation payment that the Government paid unnecessarily in order to settle what it says was some threatened legal claim which we now know was never threatened. There has never been any legal advice that we have been able to see that says there was any legal risk to be settled. It was a facilitation payment paid to the Al-Khalaf Group—a $4 million upfront payment that was hidden for a number of years and that has still not been properly explained by Mr McCully.As if that was not bad enough we have also had the South Korea free-trade agreement which makes some important advances in terms of tariff reductions for New Zealand and therefore is good for our traders. But again we had to drag out from the Government and from officials the truth that the South Korea free-trade agreement contains a limitation on a future New Zealand Government extending the sorts of categories of investment that are screened for—i.e. you can screen for existing categories of investment like farms but you cannot add a new category of screening like banning the purchase of houses. It is almost unbelievable that the Government could be so inept as to get this wrong in respect of the South Korea free-trade agreement because the recent South Korea free-trade agreement with Australia permits just that: the banning of the sale of houses to South Koreans. So why this Government was so negligent as to trade the sovereignty of a future Government being able to do that I do not know.As if that was not bad enough we have then had denial after denial in this House where the Minister of Trade has refused to answer questions as to whether the same mistake is being made in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. They have insulted the intelligence of this House by refusing to answer questions when exactly the same questions were answered by Minister Groser on The Nation and on Q+A at the weekend and then by the Prime Minister on Q+A on Sunday. It is a disgraceful thing. Lots of my forebears came to New Zealand to escape absentee landlords and yet that is what this Government is allowing to happen in New Zealand. The richest 1 percent in the world from overseas countries who want to put their money beyond the reach of their authorities or to spread their investments or who think that New Zealand is a safe place to put their money can outbid New Zealanders can push up house prices and can exclude New Zealanders from owning one house in their own country.We have seen a documentary in Australia of the problems that it is having in respect of farmland purchases at the moment; another area where this Government allows overly permissive rules. This Government pretended after the Shanghai Pengxin transaction that it was tightening the rules and then it sent a side letter to the Overseas Investment Office telling it to look felicitously or to approve applications for up to 10 times the size of the average farm unit.Hon NICKY WAGNER (Minister of Customs): E te Tiamana tēnā koe. As Minister of Customs Te Mana Arai o Aotearoa it is my pleasure to update the House on the excellent work of the New Zealand Customs Service and our Budget initiatives. It is an enormous privilege to be the Minister of Customs because it is the oldest New Zealand service. It is celebrating its 175th anniversary this year because the first customs house was established in Russell weeks before the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. I like to say that customs is 175 years young because even though it is a traditional organisation and it has loyalty and commitment it is innovative and forward-thinking and it delivers cutting-edge services and technology. So it is great to see that you can teach an old dog new tricks.Customs has four major roles. The first is protecting the border the second is managing travellers as they cross that border the third is managing imports and exports and the fourth is collecting revenue. Over that 175 years the demands at the borders have changed but they are always challenging because customs’ job is to keep New Zealand and New Zealanders safe. We do that by managing risk and making border access as quick as easy and as cost-effective as possible for legitimate travellers and goods but as complicated as difficult as time-consuming and as expensive as possible for illegal or dangerous people or goods. The New Zealand Customs Service does this very well. The World Economic Forum rates New Zealand as fourth in the world for facilitating trade across the border and sixth in the world for its actual border processing. That is pretty amazing considering the emphasis we have on biosecurity and the fact that other countries do not do that at all.Last year 10.4 million travellers crossed our border and those numbers are increasing every year. They are increasing in number and in diversity. We have more non-English speaking travellers and we have different cultures and that increases the complexity at the border. SmartGate allows us to manage that risk. Just this week I announced 29 new SmartGates. These are SmartGates on steroids. These are SmartGates that are brand new technology with a one-step process. No more ticketing booths. No more two queues. It has faster processing and better-quality biometrics. That is a fantastic upgrade for New Zealand.We are also delivering for importers and exporters of goods. The Joint Border Management System and the Trade Single Window are world-leading technologies. They are transforming border processes and streamlining systems. Recently I visited the US and talking to customs officials and business people there they were absolutely impressed that New Zealand had this technology—and jealous because they do not have it yet. Customs manages about 11 million import and export transactions and 99 percent of those are managed within 30 minutes. We are also actively supporting exporters. Whenever the Government negotiates any trade agreements customs is involved in order to manage the border processes. In Budget 2015 $6.2 million has been allocated over 4 years to support small businesses so that they can access international markets and reduce the risk of trade disruption.We are constantly challenged at the border by people who want to bring illegal or dangerous things into New Zealand by smuggling drugs offensive weapons and child pornography. So we need to be vigilant and we need to be one step ahead and we do that by working in partnership with the New Zealand Police and with international agencies. In the last 6 months we have stopped half a tonne of methamphetamine at our border. That is a street value of $246 million. We know that we are holding our own against the drug rings and organised crime because the price of methamphetamine has remained the same since 2011 so we have control.We also collect revenue for the Crown. We collect about $12 billion every year.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe Mr Chair. Te mihi nui ki Te Wiki o Te Reo Te Reo rangatira Te Reo tino ātaahua Te Reo tūturu Te Reo kotahi o Aotearoa.[I salute Māori Language Week the noble language the beautiful language the original language and the sole language of New Zealand.]Before I speak about overseas assistance and aid I would like to talk just a little bit about foreign affairs as that is part of the appropriation. How is the war going? How is that going—$65 million worth of it? How is the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement going—that thing that was never going to take away our medicines but we have found out just today that it is going to take away our cheap medicines? It is going really well if you do not think about the real value of the way we use our money in this country. The way we make trade deals the way we actually approach peace and defence is a bit of a disaster and so foreign affairs at the moment defence—a number of these portfolios that are covered by this appropriation—are actually a real mess.We have actually done really well in helping to polarise things further in the Middle East and at the same time in another appropriation we are refusing to take any more refugees except the bare minimum. So on the one hand $65 million is going to promote the wars that create more polarisation; on the other hand we are not going to help people whose lives are destroyed by war. So that is a really great start for foreign affairs.I would like to talk however about overseas development and assistance because it is our privilege to be in Te Moana-nui-a-Kiwa the Pacific the wonderful Pacific where we have relationships with a number of Pacific nations. Some of those relationships ought to include a healthy and honest relationship around aid because we are the privileged the wealthy and the exploiter in some cases of the cheap labour of the Pacific—we have been in the past—and so we need to have a robust and ethical overseas development and assistance aid programme.Under the current Government it has become very economics-focused and to our shame there is no more of it. In fact in 2014 our appropriation was 0.27 percent of gross national income (GNI) compared with 0.39 percent for most OECD members. So other countries of a similar size are doing a whole lot better but unfortunately the Government is a bit mean a little bit selfish and is not prepared to go for the real goal for official development assistance which would be 0.7 percent of GNI. We can be the better country because we rely on the relationships we have in the Pacific. Just because we are bigger and more powerful does not mean we should change our aid policies or freeze our aid policies to what they were way back in the old days. If the defence budget can be increased why cannot the official development assistance budget be increased? We are going to make more peace in this world through those aid and development healthy relationships than we are ever going to make by sending people over to kill people who already think that killing people is the solution.So I think it is quite important to look closely at official development assistance and look at what it should be addressing. We are on the Security Council. We are in a position to talk about security and aid and all of those things should be focused on addressing climate change engendering more local participation and gender equity—dare I say it as if anyone saw the New Zealand Herald story today they will know that the Government is not really not very big on gender equity at the moment; its statistics are shameful—but particularly overseas looking at the economic and social rights of recipient countries.So official development assistance needs to be strengthened and it needs to be increased and there needs to be support for the right kind of development. I said this in this Parliament—was it 2 years ago; I cannot quite recall maybe less—when we had a wonderful conference here which the Government did host and fund for Pacific nations to come and talk about the important issues of the Pacific. It was a great conference. The greatest thing about it was its rejection of the Government’s free-trade agenda and the Pacific nations’ rejection of opening their economies—Hon Simon Bridges: I don’t remember that.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: Mr—I cannot remember his title—the Hon Mr Bridges forgets that in the last discussion at that wonderful conference when there was a statement put forward about the Pacific Pacific nations said: “We do not want your idea of development.” Country after country got up and said about this important relationship around overseas development and around assistance and around trade: “We reject your model. We want to protect our resources.” Vanuatu was the first speaker. I can quote you the speech. And they were the first people to say it but country after country got up and said: “We know that the natural resources of our world need to be protected. We know that they are vulnerable. We know that our relationship with Australasia and Aotearoa is important. But we want overseas development and assistance that actually allows us to protect our resources.” They do not want the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement any more than many of us in this country do.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert): I just want to touch on the speech from Nicky Wagner from before. What she failed to talk about in her speech was the JBMS—the Joint Border Management System—that her Customs Service has been overseeing. It has run off-budget—$30 million off-budget. It has not delivered what she said it was going to deliver and now we have the old system and the new system—the CusMod system and the Joint Border Management System—running side by side duplicating each other’s work. What a shemozzle. And if that was not the only thing wrong with the Customs Service here is another thing: there is the highest number of churn through that department than any other Government department and there is the lowest morale in the Customs Service. There are serious things wrong with the Customs Service. It is the staff who are not happy and the information systems that have failed and that is what this Minister of Customs is not getting on to.But anyway I want to move on to foreign affairs. We came on to the United Nations Security Council this year. It is good that New Zealand is represented there. We were all very proud of that and we are currently right now this month in the presidency—there is a rotating presidency and New Zealand holds the presidency in the United Nations Security Council. Murray McCully said that there were three things he wanted to do: he wanted to solve the Middle East peace process he wanted to solve the issue of the veto in the United Nations Security Council and he wanted to do some work on bringing up the issues and the interests of small developing States. Well we have not heard anything about small developing States; we have heard a bit about solving the Middle East peace process and at the moment we have got 3 days left in July and we still have not quite got on top of it; and we still have not knocked off the veto in the United Nations Security Council. This may play well to a New Zealand audience but to an international audience it sounds woefully out of touch and incredibly naive. We can obviously do some work to progress these issues but coming out and saying somehow New Zealand is going to turn those things round is—well look I wish him all the best but in anybody’s reckoning it is wishful thinking.Meanwhile the Government has done this—and I want to just run through this little story. There are 900 sheep in the South Island 300 owned by Mr Al Ali Khalaf. The Government and Murray McCully really without very much consultation with any of his colleagues decided to buy 300 sheep for Mr Al Ali Khalaf fly them courtesy of Singapore Airlines to Saudi Arabia to Mr Al Ali Khalaf’s farm and give them to Mr Al Ali Khalaf. Can you believe that? This is a true story. This is a true story. You could write about this and nobody would believe you. And then those 900 sheep that sit there in Saudi Arabia are all pregnant ewes and 700 of their lambs die. This is supposed to be a model farm that New Zealand is going to be advertising its wares from. Incredible—what an incredible fiasco and debacle.The reason we did that according to the Government is because the Labour Government said that we were banning the export of live sheep and it had upset Mr Al Ali Khalaf. Well actually this Government extended the ban on live sheep exports in 2010 but somehow that was the problem. Mr Al Ali Khalaf was supposed to be suing New Zealand because we had taken away some of his rights. The only thing is that the Government will not release the papers that show what Mr Al Ali Khalaf was likely to do. Mr McCully says: “Oh we actually had a legal opinion on this.” Well he will not release the legal opinion and they certainly will not release any information about whether they sought a second legal opinion perhaps from the Crown Law Office—absolute debacle.But then there is another reason. There is another reason and that reason is that somehow this is going to block a free-trade agreement that New Zealand is going to have with Saudi Arabia and other Gulf States. I want you to reflect on this: if a company had said that they were going to be paying a Saudi businessman this sort of money what would we call it? We would call it a bribe. That is what we would call it and that is exactly what it is and yet Mr McCully has entered the New Zealand Government into a bribe.Hon TODD McCLAY (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs): It is a pleasure to take a call in this part of the debate on Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade. Particularly I would like to commend I suppose all of the members of the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee for the useful report that they have put together. Of course we have heard from other speakers about the great accomplishments in the area of the foreign affairs of New Zealand and therefore the Government and the Minister of Foreign Affairs Murray McCully over the last year. Of course that is about our accession—our moving up and being elected—to the UN Security Council.Over the 3 or 4 or 5 years that Mr McCully and Sir Jim McLay and others were campaigning on behalf of New Zealand for this seat on the Security Council there were members of this House who said that it would never happen. They said that New Zealand would not get the recognition that Minister McCully was seeking and some said that it was a waste of effort a waste of time and—dare I say it—a waste of taxpayers’ money. I think that it is a significant accomplishment on the part of New Zealand to be elected to the Security Council not only on the first vote but also with so many votes to spare. The reason why the support that New Zealand received was so significant is that we are seen to be a fair-minded country that will stand up for the rights of people all round the world. We set out an agenda and said that we would go and talk about those issues and we received that significant support.I know that every member of this House bar a few supports Mr McCully in his work and is certainly very proud that New Zealand has been recognised and has received the votes of so many countries of the world. I know that inside this Chamber is a political place but listening to some of the speeches during this part of the debate it would lead one to believe that not all of the support that should be backing New Zealand is as obvious and apparent as it might or should be from members of the Opposition. I put that down to the politics of the situation. I know that David Shearer is a very big supporter of New Zealand’s place on the United Nations and he is a man for whom I have a lot of respect—a lot of respect for Mr Shearer. Indeed he spoke about customs and his concern about the very high churn of officials in the Customs Service. I was of a mind not to believe him but then I realised actually that he has a lot of experience in this area. Nowhere else across the Government or within this Parliament has there been more churn than with Mr Shearer and all of those other Labour Party leaders who have rotated through that seat over the past 6 years.Mr Shearer said that he was supportive of Mr McCully but then he offered some words of wisdom about what he should actually be doing over there. This is the same Mr Shearer who jumped on a plane to go and support Mr McCully just after I think the election last year and who was the very first person to put out a press release following the vote congratulating Mr McCully—not congratulating New Zealand or the Government but saying that he had been able to do some important work in the day that he had been there that had helped to deliver this victory for New Zealand. That was Mr Shearer. Putting that aside actually I know that his heart is in the right place and that he is one of the few members on that side of the Chamber who are actually willing to put what is important for New Zealand first even when it comes to—and this is my second intervention when I want to talk more about trade—being supportive of high-quality trade agreements. I know that when many of his colleagues vote against the Trans-Pacific Partnership he will be conflicted. I would not mind betting that we will see him on this side of the House.We have taken on the UN Security Council presidency at the moment and Mr McCully with our representatives there is representing New Zealand extremely well. There are two other parts that I want to speak about in this report. The first is our relationship with the ASEAN countries. In 2015 there will be the 40th anniversary of New Zealand’s diplomatic relations with ASEAN and that is quite some achievement. In fact we have very important relationships with all of those countries. Indeed New Zealand will host 31 celebratory events across 10 Asian capitals with representatives from these countries to celebrate that relationship and the important trading relationships that we have with them. But it goes so much further than that—many of those ASEAN countries supported us towards the UN.A final bit here is about Niue and our relationship with it—the smallest country in the world and a very special relationship for New Zealand. Mr McCully has championed our relationship and has ensured that we give the right type of support to Niue and in particular since 2010 a lot of effort between the Governments has gone into the promotion of tourism.RON MARK (Deputy Leader—NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to make a brief call in defence of Defence Force personnel during the debate on the external sector in the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2015/16 Estimates) Bill. I have to say I subbed briefly on to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee to take the opportunity to hear the Minister of Defence who made a presentation along with the Chief of Defence Force Tim Keating so that I could get a bit of clarification around why I could not find in the appropriations a clear indication or any detail of a pay increase for Defence Force personnel. I think it is only appropriate at this time to remind the Committee that it was not so long ago when we had a certain gentleman standing on that side of the Chamber yelling at the House—in fact I actually believe it was outside the Standing Orders myself but the Speaker never responded—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Do not relitigate that please. Carry on.RON MARK: He did not respond Mr Chair. The question was put to this side of the House that we should gain some intestinal fortitude; in fact that we should “get some guts”. The question put across the House was about how the Opposition needed to get some guts and support the deployment of these troops. Often in my time in the Defence Force—15 years in the New Zealand Army and 5 years operating internationally—I heard many many speakers from this House talking about how they valued Defence Force people. In fact if I summed up the number of minutes of speeches at Anzac Day services by Government MPs and Ministers from both sides of the House—Labour or National; both the same to me—talking about how they valued Defence Force contributions I mean if I had a dollar for every second I would not be here today; I would be retired.What we now know from the appropriations is that despite the calls to get some guts and despite the accolades poured upon the Defence Force it did not seem to be enough to move this Government to give personnel a pay rise. There is nothing in this Budget for a pay rise for Defence Force personnel. In fact when I look a little bit deeper what do we in New Zealand First find? We find that this Government actually has the legislative tools and the mechanisms to do one thing for our Defence Force personnel—those deployed to Iraq who have got the guts to go—and that is to give them a tax-free wage. Australia has done it the United States has done it but not the New Zealand Government. When I asked the Minister of Defence that very question in the select committee his answer was no they didn’t consider that. New Zealand First’s question is why not. If these Defence Force personnel are so vital to the foreign policy of this nation and so vital to foreign policy in the view of this Government then why can this Government not see fit to pay them a tax-free wage as the legislation Minister Bennett allows your Cabinet to do. She is mouthing at me across the Chamber—take a call answer my question. As opposed to just chipping at me and mouthing across the Chamber Minister Bennett tell the people of New Zealand and the people at Linton Military Camp and Burnham Military Camp why this Government chose not to.If I look at the Cabinet committee that is meant to advocate on behalf of these Defence Force people—the people whom the Government values so much the people that it wants to pour so many accolades on but is too cheapskate to actually pay them what they are worth—who do I find on this committee? Oh the ministerial committee that makes this determination includes the Prime Minister John Key—well he clearly did not think that they deserved a pay rise. He clearly did not think that they deserved a tax-free wage for being in Iraq. There is the Minister of Defence—well who is going to expect a hell of a lot of support from that gentleman—and there is the Minister of Finance. I am surprised about Bill English. I had almost picked that Bill English was on his own. Section CW23(3) of the Income Tax Act states that the ministerial committee which also includes the Minister of Foreign Affairs “may for the purposes of subsection (2)(b) decide that an amount of income derived by a member for being in an operational area is exempt income.” But this Government no matter what it says out there on the hustings no matter what it says in the media and no matter what it says in the House cannot find it within itself to pay our troops in Iraq today a tax-free salary.What would that do? Well let me tell you as someone who has deployed unlike the person who is yelling out across the House—he would not know what deployment meant—Alastair Scott: Can you spell it?RON MARK: What I can tell you is about when the husbands the wives those service personnel are offshore—listen up Alastair Scott. When they are offshore it is left down to the spouse remaining to look after the kids to pay the power bill to pay the rent—now that they are subject to market rents because the houses have been taken away from them by this Government—pay all off those bills and deal with the coughs the colds the trauma that normally comes up in raising a family. It is hard to do as a couple. It is even harder to do when one is on one’s own. It is even harder to do if one’s spouse is deployed in Iraq and cannot get back. When all those things come to a head it is left down to the spouse back here at home and it is left down to this Government to have some heart and recognise that.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I just want to contrast that last speaker Ron Mark. The members of the public out there will know him as probably one of the most angry members of this House and a most detestable member of this House as well. But that member was actually part of a Government that sent troops overseas and did not give them tax-free salaries. Why did that Government not give them a tax-free salary? Why did the Government that that member was part of not give them a tax-free salary? When that member was in Government troops were sent overseas without tax-free status.And then today in this Chamber he comes here and says: “Look at me. I am the person standing up for those troops. I am the person who is the only one who cares. I am the only one who is doing this.” And when he had a chance he delivered nothing for those troops. All he did was pay for his big fat salary so that he could walk behind his leader and leave this Chamber whenever his leader instructs him to do something. Never has that member delivered anything for this country in this Parliament. Never has that member actually delivered anything that an individual member of Parliament would do. All that member has done in his whole lifetime is sit behind somebody else and be on their gravy train. That is all that member knows.Ron Mark: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I need to assist as a point of correction. I was in a National - New Zealand First coalition Government that delivered lots of good things for the people of New Zealand.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): That is not a point of order; it is a matter of debate. The member will be seated.DAVID BENNETT: Thank you. When we come to the foreign affairs and defence areas of this country—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Which you’d know very little about.DAVID BENNETT: Mr Cosgrove is over there. Mr Cosgrove is another member who knows all about sitting on the fat of the country is he not? We would like to see him win a seat back in that area again but that is not going to happen is it Mr Cosgrove? Coming in here spouting as well—Ron Mark: Go back to San Francisco.DAVID BENNETT: I would be quiet Mr Mark because the public has seen your true colours tonight. The public has seen somebody that is not black and white. He is not New Zealand First. He is not even Green. Ha ha! He is another colour and the reason that he is that colour is that he does not stand up for the people of New Zealand when he has a chance and that is the reality of it. And the Labour Party—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Back to the bill—back to the bill.DAVID BENNETT: OK but it is not really a bill. It is the estimates but I will get back to it.When we talk in this debate about foreign affairs it is important to look at New Zealand as an open free country a country that is confident to take its place on the world stage a country that New Zealanders can be proud of and proud of what it stands for and a country that is open to people coming here and making their lives in this country. New Zealand is a country that sees a future in the Asia-Pacific region. It is a country that does not want to discriminate against people on the basis of their surnames. It is a country that does not want to discriminate—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The member is debating the estimates; it would be good if he got back to them.DAVID BENNETT: OK Mr Chair. I know Mr Mark wants to clap but that is what he does when he is that member of the party and I would love for Tracey Martin to be here at this stage as well. The estimates are an important part of what we look at when we look at what this country is achieving on the world stage especially in the defence area and in the foreign affairs area. When we look at the speeches made in the past they have talked about things like New Zealand’s role on the Security Council they have talked about free-trade agreements with Korea and they have talked about free-trade agreements that are soon to come which the Green Party will be voting against and which the Labour Party for the first time in its history will be voting against. It will be voting against free trade and against something that will deliver for New Zealanders and that is a shame on the Labour Party.You just have to go across the Ditch to see that it did not work out when people took that attitude towards the ability of a country to trade and become more successful. New Zealanders need those trade arrangements. They need those trade agreements and it is a shame on the Labour Party that its leadership will be ideologically driven to oppose free trade—just as they are opposed to immigration just as they are opposed to people making New Zealand their home and just as they are opposed to this country taking its rightful place in foreign affairs and taking its rightful place in the Asia-Pacific region. We can be a leader in that region. We can be a country that is seen as free independent and confident and one that delivers for its people. We do not have to be seen as a country that is insular against trade against immigration and against people making a future for themselves in this country as the Opposition parties have shown themselves to be tonight in their speeches and in their failure to act when given the chance to many years ago.Hon TODD McCLAY (Associate Minister of Trade): I almost did not want to interrupt the member David Bennett. That was one of the most insightful and thought-provoking speeches I have heard in this Chamber for some time. I congratulate him on that. As he is the chair of our most significant committee in this Parliament we are in very good hands.I want to talk now about trade and the importance of trade. Not everybody in this Parliament understands the importance of trade to New Zealand. We do not become richer from selling to ourselves. Of all the things we produce so well be it from dairy wood and wood processing—all of these areas—we produce more than we can consume in New Zealand. We are a trading nation. To be able to make sure that our producers can trade successfully to make sure that New Zealanders can retain their jobs we need high-quality broad trade agreements that at the very least give us the same advantage that some of our competitors have into some of the most competitive markets in the world. But in many cases a free-trade agreement gives us an advantage a preference.Over the last year New Zealand has achieved a significant amount in trade negotiations but also when it comes to trade. Last year New Zealand exported $55 billion worth of goods and services a significant increase on the previous year. That is the first thing. The second thing is that when one looks at the top 10 countries of importance that we trade with—Australia being No. 1 China being No. 2 the United States being No. 3 and Japan being No. 4—we see that we have a free-trade agreement with them or we have launched a free-trade agreement with them or we have a negotiation under way to launch a free-trade agreement.When I look at that list at the next 10 most important countries that we trade with I can see that we have a free-trade agreement with every single one or we are negotiating or we are having discussions with them about the launch of a free-trade agreement. I repeat: we do not become richer as a nation by selling only to ourselves.Tim Groser at the moment is overseas negotiating a high-quality agreement of exceptional importance to New Zealand.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Are they coping?Hon TODD McCLAY: I know that Mr Cosgrove although he may well have been muzzled—and good luck to those on his side who try to muzzle him—understands trade and is supportive of trade. I know that he has described himself as a rabid free-trader. I accept what that means. That means he is extremely supportive of free trade. He knows the benefits it delivers. Mr Nash is another one. He is a little less rabid when it comes to free trade but he is a free-trader none the less.I think there are starting to be great divisions within the Labour Party when it comes to the trade issue. So are they going to support a high-quality agreement—the Trans-Pacific Partnership—or are they not? I would suggest that a number of the members on the opposite side of the Chamber—the members who know about trade and the importance of trade to New Zealand and are actually in touch with the electorate and know what mums and dads workers and businesses want when it comes to trade agreements—want to support this.But their leader is not so sure you see. I do not know but if you are angry about lots of things why not just get angry about a trade agreement? Why not put aside the collegiality that has often been in this House between the two largest parties when it comes to trade agreements? We will not agree on all aspects of them but actually there has been a bipartisan approach to trade and free trade. We can have the debates about how much further you would go but it is extremely worrying when it comes to New Zealand’s place in the world and the view that the world will have of New Zealand with the second-largest party signalling that it may well vote against an important agreement that would deliver for New Zealanders.So the question is: do we want a free-trade agreement with Japan? Do we want one with America? Do we want to back our businesses to do well in trade with them? Well of course we do—a high-quality agreement. I know that there are members on that side of the House who when they were in Government advocated for and argued in favour of a negotiation with those two countries and others. I know that deep down that they support this.So why is this important? Well think about the New Zealand - Korea Free Trade Agreement that has been delivered and is about to go through this House. I will give you an example from the Bay of Plenty of how exceptionally important this is to individuals and mums and dads. We export a lot of kiwifruit. We are the best kiwifruit producers in the world and the best exporters of kiwifruit. But others produce good kiwifruit as well and others are competitive and others have lower costs of production. So when Chilean kiwifruit go into Korea they have a lower tariff rate than we do.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei): It is a pleasure to speak about the estimates and appropriations hearing. The estimates hearing was on 25 June. With the knowledge that New Zealand would be taking the United Nations Security Council chair on 1 July the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs about New Zealand’s role in the Middle East peace process. We heard several things. We heard that the last time the Middle East peace process had been considered was 6 months previously in December. We heard that the process was waiting for the outcome of the Israeli elections. We also heard that there needed to be some conclusion on the P5+1 nuclear talks.Several weeks later we can look at what actually happened. The Israelis decided their electoral process—a Netanyahu Government. I would also note the successful conclusion several weeks after the Minister presented this of the P5+1 nuclear talks. Indeed Mr McCully talks to this. We have to imagine that this is a very important activity around the world. Nearly everyone was very pleased to have those talks concluded in a satisfactory way and New Zealand was the chair when that happened. Mr McCully talked to it at that time. Here is what he said: “Over the last eighteen months negotiators have been working to secure an agreement that will increase international confidence in the nature of Iran’s nuclear programme … This agreement is a positive development for regional stability in the Middle East and will allow for further progress to be made in the relationship between New Zealand and Iran. New Zealand commends all parties to the negotiations for staying the course and concluding this important deal. As the current President of the United Nations Security Council New Zealand will do what it can to expedite any necessary Security Council action and we call for the agreement to be implemented as soon as possible”.So there was a clear answer to us. We asked what role New Zealand was playing on the Security Council. There was a clear answer and within a few weeks we had already stepped up to the plate and been a part of those talks. Furthermore on taking the chair of the council on 1 July New Zealand has more than kept to its word on the whole matter of the Middle East peace process. At the recent Middle East open debate at the United Nations Mr McCully demonstrated that leadership and commitment that we bring because that is what got us the seat in the first place. The small nations said: “Yes we believe in you. We believe you will lead us that you will speak for us that you will guide us and help us.” and within the first few weeks that is exactly what we did tackling some of the hard questions—and the Middle East peace process is a hard question.Here is the statement that demonstrates to those who supported us that we do indeed respect their vote and that we are doing stuff. This is from Mr McCully. Speaking to the United Nations Security Council at the Middle East open debate in New York where New Zealand is currently president Mr McCully said: “[T]he situation in Syria has remained deadlocked for far too long. The region cannot afford for the conflict to continue. Nor can the Council – its credibility is at stake.” These are fighting words. This is tough talk for New Zealand. Although the United Nations Security Council celebrated a historic agreement earlier this week when it signed off a nuclear deal with Iran Mr McCully stressed that the council could not rest on its laurels. That is good stuff. It is a real demonstration that we carry a strong voice at the council.We also heard from the Minister of Customs. We asked customs about what our drug detection capabilities at the border are. We were advised of many refined and very sophisticated tools that we have at our disposal. These included intelligence machinery—that is advanced passenger processing that gives us the ability before people actually hit our borders to have a higher index of suspicion and to do something about it. We were also able to share the Ministry for Primary Industries’ X-ray equipment and it was relayed to us that purchasing approval had been had for cutting-edge detection technology that can detect drug suspended in solutions. This is a good thing. We were also told that we have trace-detection technology that works at a molecular level and of course drug dogs which are very successful for mass screening.So we were told what mechanisms we have to detect and we clearly know what we see and find but an interesting question is: what do we not detect? What could be getting past us? Do we have any sense as to what that looks like? So we actually asked that question and what we were told was that yes there are actually several ways to determine on the street how we are doing and what might be getting past us. Those two ways were first of all a survey that Massey University does regularly. That gets some assessment as to what is on the street what got past us. The second way is measuring commodity prices and simple supply and demand. What they are noticing is that prices for refined methamphetamine especially are stabilising and may even be rising and that would suggest that supply is falling. So I think that in some sense that is an independent measure that our drug detection capabilities at the border are actually successful.At the estimates hearing we heard very strong support for the New Zealand Defence Force. It was quite akin to what the member Ron Mark from New Zealand First was telling us. I do not think a Minister could have given a stronger statement and indeed it raised some contention amongst the committee members at that time. So I want to totally disagree with what Ron Mark was saying. What we did ask the Defence Force about was the other side of the work. So there was a lot of discussion around our forces in Taji and the excellent work they are doing. We asked them about their capabilities and their work around disaster relief more specifically in Vanuatu in the wake of Cyclone—Vote Customs Vote Defence Vote Defence Force Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade and Vote Official Development Assistance agreed to.Finance and Government Administration SectorThe CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members we come now to the votes in the finance and Government administration sector—volume B.5 volume 5 and the question is that Vote Audit Vote Communications Security and Intelligence Vote Finance Vote Office of the Clerk Vote Ombudsmen Vote Parliamentary Service Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet Vote Revenue Vote Security Intelligence and Vote State Services stand part of the schedules.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central): It is interesting that on the weekend the National Party held its conference here in Wellington. I read about Paula Bennett who was like the host of some kind of demented version of TheGeneration Game pulling on Jonathan Coleman’s hair to work out whether it was a toupee or not. This was the level of debate and rigour and vision for New Zealand that was emanating from the National Party conference at the weekend. Paula Bennett was taking text messages from the crowd about which member of the Cabinet’s hair she could pull.Between that and the canapés and drinking the Kool-Aid Bill English stood up and told the National Party conference that it was all OK with the New Zealand economy slowing down with consumer confidence collapsing with business confidence collapsing and with employment confidence collapsing. That was all OK because it came at the right time in the electoral cycle. That is now the extent of the vision for the economy from the National Party. It is governing not in the national interest but in the interest of the National Party. That is the extent of the once-ambitious National Party for New Zealand.Once upon a time when there was a massive slow-down in rural New Zealand with $13 billion disappearing from regional and rural New Zealand communities over a 2-year period National Party members would have stood up and said: “This is a serious problem.” It was only a few years ago that John Key said: “When the dairy industry gets a sniffle New Zealand gets a cold.” But not now—not now. It is fine. It is a great thing. It is happening now and by 2017 along will come the National Party just as it did in 2010 with a wee package of tax cuts—unaffordable as they were in 2010. The National Party will come along in 2017 and try to bribe the electorate again.Meanwhile people are doing it tough right now in New Zealand and apparently that is a good thing for Bill English. Apparently it is a good thing that people are doing it tough that there are 146000 New Zealanders out of work and that we have the highest number of people who have not had a wage increase in 5 years. That is a good thing Bill English told the National Party at its conference. Well that is a disgrace. It is a disgraceful coming from the Minister of Finance who stands up and says that a slow-down in the New Zealand economy is good because it is happening now in the electoral cycle.I thought Bill English was better than that. I thought Bill English was a better person than that. But he stood up at that National Party conference and revealed that it is just about the politics. That is all that matters. A slow-down in the New Zealand economy people losing their jobs and communities losing out is a good thing according to Bill English. That is what he told that National Party conference. That in my view is an absolute disgrace. There is nothing in these estimates to say to New Zealanders: “Here’s the plan to get us out of this economic slow-down.” After 6½ years of lazy economic management from this Government there is no plan in here to say how we will get ourselves as a country out of this situation. Instead what we have in here is a lack of vision.What we have in this Budget—and let us not mistake this for one moment—is $60 billion more debt than this Government had when it came into office. We have $60 billion more debt. The Government will not pay down under this Budget a cent of that until 2019—until 2019. There is nothing in this Budget nothing in these estimates to give New Zealanders that sense of hope that there might be some new ideas that there might be some ideas for adding value to our industries and that there might actually be a plan to support diversification. Instead all there is is a continuation of trying to ride the wave of commodity prices. Well guess what? The wave has broken and there is no plan B on that side of the House. The wave has broken—$13 billion dollars has gone out of the economy—and there is no plan B.What these estimates show is a complete lack of vision for the kind of economy New Zealand could have—an economy that supports a good life for New Zealanders in the regions and a good life for New Zealanders in Auckland and an economy that says we are going to be ambitious about lifting exports. The Government set a great big target for increasing exports: up to 40 percent of GDP. What has happened under this Government? It has gone down and this Budget sees it tracking down even further.Let us be absolutely certain. Since this Budget was put on the table it is the downside scenario that is coming through. It is not the great upside scenario of growth of around 3 to 3.5 percent. It is heading downwards—it is heading downwards. There is no sign in this Budget no sign in these estimates that the Government has any plan about what happens when its precious precious plan of sitting there and riding the commodity wave falls apart. I would have thought Bill English with his seventh Budget would be able to come to this House with a plan that says: “I recognise confidence is disappearing from this economy. I recognise we’ve got to do things differently. Let’s actually plan.” There is nothing here like that.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Members I will call the member David Bennett shortly. I need to concede that I should have called him first. I encourage him when seeking the call to use the same voice that he uses for interjections. Bearing his last intervention in this debatein mind I would remind him of the Business Committee’s determination that the role of the select committee chair in speaking in the estimates debate is to set out the major findings of their committee in relation to the estimates. I welcome the call from the member.DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): It is my pleasure to do that following the previous speech which did not set out any of the findings of the select committee’s hearing. It was a speech by somebody who has no contact with the real world. He thought that the National Party conference was in Wellington not in Auckland. He thinks that the beltway that he represents is what it is all about.I tell you this: in the 5-minute speech by the Opposition spokesperson on financeI found only one number. You would expect a speech on economics and finance to be full of numbers to talk about Budget surpluses to talk about economic growth and to talk about the things that we talked about in the estimates hearings. There was only one number used in that whole speech and that was when that member described the Minister as having made his seventh Budget. That was the only number that was actually remembered by the member opposite.Never was there any talk of the things that we talked about in the estimates hearings—revenue tax gains what has been largely looked at in the tax field trying to look at getting more tax revenue for New Zealand and appropriate tax revenue—nor was there any talk of the numbers used in Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery. Was there any mention of the numbers used in Vote Finance the Fiscal Strategy Report or the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update? This is where we talk about things like the Budget surplus and where we talk about things like economic growth. None of those things were mentioned by that member—none of them.That shows that that member is totally out of touch with his portfolio. He has no understanding of economics. He is purely a Wellington beltway official who is now in the political realm. That is a disgrace. He talked about things like bribing the electorate. This is from Labour which gave free student loans and 20 free hours’ early childhood education. Labour is the bribing party if ever there was one.Hon Annette King: Did you get rid of them?DAVID BENNETT: Annette King is here. She is the top briber. She is the greatest briber you will ever see.Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Two points—the first point is that I do not think it is appropriate for anybody to be accused as an individual of bribery. I think you will find that that is out of order. Secondly I fail to see what the last 1½ minutes have had to do with anything in the estimates.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): The points are well made. It is over to the individual member to take offence if that is the point that is believed to have been made. Having said that the point was underlined to the speaker at the beginning of his speech when he was called that the Business Committee has allocated special calls to committee chairpersons for the purpose of setting out the committee’s major findings on the estimates. I challenge the member to live up to the expectations of the Business Committee.DAVID BENNETT: I was merely responding to a previous speech that had started this debate and I could not let it go without referring to it.If we look at Vote Finance what does it say in Vote Finance? Under the economic and fiscal outlook it says that there is an average growth rate of 2.8 percent in New Zealand—Brett Hudson: How much?DAVID BENNETT: —2.8 percent over the next 4 years—2.8 percent. That is one of the highest growth rates that you will find in the Western World. That is in New Zealand and it represents good economic management. When we talked about Treasury’s Budget and the Economic and Fiscal Update that was one of the key things that came out of it—that is the strong growth rates in New Zealand going forward. Unemployment is expected to drop below 5 percent in the next 2 years. Unemployment dropping and higher growth rates—that is good for New Zealand going forward.When we look at the Budget we actually look at what was considered as the Budget surplus or deficit. It is always a bit of a moving feast at this stage because when you look at the numbers they are quite small in comparison with the overall spend and the total tax take. But when you look at a Budget surplus or deficit—in this case we are looking at losses of about $684 million in 2014-15 followed by a surplus of $176 million in 2015-16 and increasing surpluses after that—it shows that New Zealand is on the right track. It shows that the economic management of this Government is on the right track. I bet that we will actually be in surplus this year a bit earlier than anyone expected and that shows even better economic performance by the New Zealand—Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The economists are hanging on every word.DAVID BENNETT: Is that something Mr Cosgrove is saying is it? Mr Cosgrove was a member of that Finance and Expenditure Committee but apart from his abusing the officials nobody actually remembers what he said. But he was there.Achieving a Budget surplus was a key part of the finance estimates and many members from the Opposition asked questions about that. Of course they were interested to see New Zealand achieving a surplus which is something they do not want for New Zealand and were quite keen to make that point in the estimates hearings when the Minister was quite clear that that is his focus. So it was disappointing for those Opposition members to find that—Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour): That member David Bennett reminds me of the Edmonds cookbook where you used to have to buy a desiccated coconut and what you would get with a desiccated coconut is that they would break the coconut open and hollow it out. That is what that member reminds me of.That member asked for numbers. Well if he cared to have a look at Vote Revenue it is on page 138. We will go through a few numbers. I know that Todd McClay who inherited the revenue portfolio—poor soul that he is—from Mr Dunne cannot take absolute responsibility for the massive overspends in this portfolio. The member wanted some numbers. Well let us give him some numbers. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee report it talks about the child support reforms. They were originally estimated to cost $30 million but because of delays the budget was revised to $210 million and then after Mr McClay came in like the nightwatchman to clean up after Mr Dunne he bodgied a few figures and revised it down to a blowout of $163 million. So there for the desiccated coconut in the corner over there who has just spoken are some numbers.We will also turn to a couple of other numbers shall we? Look at the Business Transformation project on page 139 in the Estimates—$100 million has been spent to date and what have we got to show for it? Do we have a computer program? We have got some reports and we have got a few piles of paper but do we have one keystroke banged on a computer keyboard? No. And the first $100 million has been spent—Brett Hudson: The difference—that’s because we plan to succeed not plan to fail.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: No no you keep quiet over there. The first $100 million has been spent—[Interruption] The old tumbleweed in the corner over there—you keep quiet.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I will just remind the member on his feet that his nicknames for various members of the House have got him in the brown stuff before. I would suggest that he refrain from using those nicknames and tend to refer to members by their proper names.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: I take the point Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not understand the first technical point but I am sure we can have a chat about it afterwards.If we can look at some numbers on the Business Transformation project as I have said there was $100 million spent. The latest estimate for this amorphous beast is $1.3 billion to $1.9 billion.Brett Hudson: It’s called planning Mr Cosgrove—planning and design.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: For the new member at the back Mr Hudson—I do not know where Mr Halls is but Mr Hudson although he was not a member here may remember that we had a thing called INCIS. There are a number of members who are here in this Chamber—it was the police project remember? That was put down to what they called spec creep at the time. That project rolled out at a couple of hundred million dollars—I think the final bill for it was well over $1 billion from memory. Like that member I was not in the House. I was working in Parliament but I well remember that one. So I wonder whether Mr Bennett will come back and maybe take another call andwhether as he is fond of addressing numbers and those sorts of things he will address some of those.The final point I want to deal with is what was foreshadowed in the Budget which is the infamous land register for overseas interests—if I have time. This is an absolute doozy. This is a cracker. This is a Bill English special. After Bill English along with Dr Nick Smith said that a register of foreign ownership in residential land or any type of database one would be a complete waste of time; two would be totally unworkable; and three—to quote Dr Smith—would cost millions of dollars what did they do when their feet were put to the fire and they needed to look as if they were doing something about the foreign ownership issue? Well they came up with a land register. Then we found out that it will not be universal. It will not cover the main home. You will not have to provide an IRD number for your main home. Why? Because it would be a financial and compliance burden to you for somebody to ring up and ask: “Where’s your IRD number? Can we get it?” Also we find out that it may well be possible—I do not know whether Mr McClay knows this—to have two main homes. So this register—Hon Members: You can’t have two main homes.Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Oh yes. Oh yes according to the Inland Revenue Department officials at the select committee.Ernst and Young could not find a reason why people should not universally provide their IRD number regardless of whether it is their main home or a second residence or whether they are a domestic or foreign purchaser. In fact Ernst and Young got up and said: “There is no compliance cost. There is no financial burden or other burden to people doing that. But what it would do if you made the register universal is it would give you high-quality statistics and a real register if you really as a Government wanted to know what is going on.” So I look forward to the debate over that and I bet the Minister whatever he likes that we will be back here inside 12 months amending and patching up that piece of legislation.It is designed as a piece of political propaganda so that the Government can appear to be worried about foreign ownership inresidential property but it is putting together a regime that you could drive a bus through. Even Mr Bennett in his own limited and weird way may be able to find a way around that—I think he might. Even Mr Bishop nods in agreement.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I would like to take a call in relation to Vote Finance appropriations initially. I just wanted to agree with some of the comments that were made by Grant Robertson earlier in the evening when he said that his sense was that looking at the appropriations it demonstrates really a lack of vision on behalf of the Government in relation to how to create a sustainable long-term economy. When this Government was campaigning for office in the mid to late 2000s it talked about trying to create an economy that was built on savings and investment rather than on debt consumption and spending. What has happened over the course of this Government is that the economy has actually become more about speculation than about investment despite a number of things that the Government has been spending money on to try to nudge it in a different direction.One example of that is the research and development grants which have kind of shuffled money around in terms of how we try to encourage innovation. We did some research recently that showed that despite everything the Government has been doing in that area New Zealand’s spending—not the Government’s but New Zealand’s—on research and development and innovation is about the same now as it was in 2008. In other words we have been trying to do some different things and yet we are getting nowhere which in my view looks very similar to the Government’s approach on a number of fronts which is to be seen to be doing something without actually doing anything at all.There has been a real failure to diversify the economy and this has left us of course very exposed. I will also reference the 13 percent fall in the global dairy trade option prices recently which has left the economy very exposed. I just want to call out Steven Joyce on this issue who when we recently questioned him in the House on the risk to the New Zealand economy from the fall in dairy option prices said: “Oh well don’t worry about it—dairy is only 5 percent of our overall economy. It doesn’t really matter.” Of course it might be 5 percent of the overall economy but it is about 40 percent of our exports. I completely agree with Todd McClay who said earlier that we do not get wealthy by trading with ourselves. So the fact that dairy is such a massive portion of our export market is really important. When you try to minimise the fall in dairy prices on the basis of the overall economy rather than the trading economy that is being completely disingenuous. When dairy struggles so does the rest of New Zealand because so much of the domestic economy is actually built around providing products and services to the dairy industry.The other thing that that comment really shows is a sort of callous approach actually to a core National Party constituency which is the rural and farming community. The sheer numbers of farmers who are leveraged up to and past the hilt is now at the point where huge numbers of them are actually at risk having gone through the process of making those conversions so that the price that they are getting at the gate means that they are barely covering the cost of production let alone servicing their debt. I know that the Government says that the price will recover fairly quickly but actually there have been some big shifts in the global market. The Americans for example have changed the way that they subsidise their own farmers which is encouraging huge amounts of production in the American market causing a glut. So I think there is actually some risk that prices are going to stay low and as low as they are if not even lower for quite some time. So this does present a real risk to our economy.Successive Governments—not just the current Government but previous Governments—have failed to address property speculation which has got worse and worse to the point that since 2009 Auckland property prices have gone up 79 percent which is pretty staggering. I accept the Government’s argument that there is a supply side problem. Obviously people do not speculate when there is a glut; they speculate on the basis that there is not that much supply. But it is also a demand side problem. There is both a supply side problem and a demand side problem. Because of this Government and—Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): It is good to hear the Greens bring to the Opposition part of this debate a little bit of logic. I do not agree with everything the co-leader of the Greens said but he made a lot more sense than Grant Robertson did. I could follow his argument. It was starting from some wrong premises but nevertheless you could see where it was going. You know that even if you disagree with their critique of Government policy the Greens have an alternative view of the world and in its own way on its own planet it has got some coherence. You cannot say that about the Labour Party—you cannot.Just before I come to that I just want to correct one or two of the things that the member James Shaw said. He has the benefit of being a new leader. Therefore he is not responsible I suppose for the positions previously taken by the Greens but I have to say that the Greens’ crocodile tears for the dairy industry would be slightly insincere from anyone else in their caucus with their having spent the last 10 years kicking the dairy industry as the destroyer of the planet. It creates the only type of pollution that is almost as bad as people in the Greens’ world. So that is one thing he does not have to take too much responsibility for but I accept that the Greens now have a much more balanced view about the role of the dairy industry in the New Zealand economy which is that it produces jobs exports incomes increments in wealth and the opportunity for the Government to take some of that in tax and pay for other things. So I hope the Greens are going to stick to that position. At least it is more coherent than the Labour Party one.The other area where he was a bit more coherent was around the issue of consumption and expenditure versus exports and investment. That certainly is a challenge for the New Zealand economy. The Labour Party ought to listen because the co-leader of the Greens—and he is not even the finance spokesperson—seems to be able to articulate that kind of logic without sounding like he is a student politician trying to impress a bunch of first-year students in a lecture hall in their lunch break to see whether he can get them out on a protest about student loans which is what the Labour Party still sounds like. It still sounds like that.Mind you it must be difficult being a spokesman for the Labour Party. I mean at least the Greens are against free trade. They like fair trade—I am not exactly clear why but they do—and they are against free trade. Well it must be hard to represent the Labour Party’s position because it is for it and against it and interestingly that does not seem to create much tension for Grant Robertson. It does not seem to matter that those members are totally contradictory just like they are for and against migration. I have finally figured out the Labour Party formula: those members are all for having migrants from China as long as they stay homeless. That is fine. As long as they are homeless migrants they are most welcome as Labour members stand up in front of the Chinese New Year celebrations to acknowledge the role that this ethnic community is playing in the economy of New Zealand.I mean the fundamental problem with the contribution from the spokesman from the Labour Party—and we have pointed it out before in the House and I have yet to hear Labour address it—was this: dairy prices being high was bad for the New Zealand economy. We put up with that for years. Those members said that dairy prices being high meant we were not diversifying it meant that there was too much pollution and it meant that there were rich farmers on the pig’s back getting their carbon credits subsidised. So I thought: “Would it not be great if dairy prices dropped? That would solve all those problems.” Oh no. Now that dairy prices are down that is bad as well even if it achieves all the things that the Labour Opposition said should happen.That is the fundamental contradiction at the heart of Labour’s approach. The Greens are at least consistent. Labour does not believe in prices. Those members think that politicians should decide just to have a bigger part of the economy here and a smaller part over there. Well I look forward to the finance spokesperson for the Greens turning up again—Ms Genter—because I do not think it will take her very long at all to establish her credibility as the leading Opposition spokesperson on finance in the House.CHRIS BISHOP (National): What an interesting contribution we had from Mr Robertson earlier. It was a revealing insight into Mr Robertson’s state of mind. What did he say at one point? He said that the National Party will take to the 2017 election a plan to bribe the electorate with tax cuts. Well I personally hope we do take a tax cut package to the next election but what a revealing insight into what Mr Robertson thinks about New Zealanders with their own money. He said that giving them tax cuts is a bribe. I think that that is regrettable.What else did Grant Robertson say? Well he accused the Government of lazy economic management. Oh the irony—the irony—of Mr Robertson accusing this Government of being lazy. The guy who is spending 2 years on the future of work—2 years gallivanting up and down the country and offshore no doubt to the United Kingdom and Canada to talk to all of his left-wing mates—is accusing us of laziness. Well that is just deeply ironic.You see the Labour Party is really at sixes and sevens at the moment because its Chinese demonisation campaign I think it is fair to say has been an utter disaster. So—Hon Annette King: What do the polls say Chris?CHRIS BISHOP: The polls have not moved for Labour but not only that all of the Labour Party’s best activists are flooding Twitter and Facebook and resigning. So the very people whom the Labour Party relies upon—Sue Moroney: How many Chris?CHRIS BISHOP: The people whom Sue Moroney relies on in her continual and perennially failed Hamilton West and Hamilton East and Piako and Port Waikato campaigns to put up her hoardings which were frequently reused in the last campaign—all those activists are resigning from the Labour Party. Why? Because the Labour Party has been revealed not as the progressive force for enlightenment and tolerance and for welcoming migrants and foreigners to the country but as a party that is prepared to play the race card for base political purposes. And not only that; it failed. So it is really at sixes and sevens.It is really at sixes and sevens about the issue of free trade as well. Actually—and this is really sad—only one party in this Parliament now stands up for an open and tolerant—[Interruption]The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Actually I would like to hear what is being said. [Interruption] I am on my feet; the member will be silent. That was not necessary. I ask the member to come back to the substance of the estimates debate please on this one.CHRIS BISHOP: Thank you very much Mr Chair. I do want to talk about the estimates but I want to respond to the point that Grant Robertson made about the dairy price and to the point that Mr Shaw made as well. What these estimates contain particularly with finance and Government administration—Vote Finance—is the diversification that is occurring in the New Zealand economy and it is actually quite regrettable that the Labour Party thinks that this is not occurring. What this Government has set out to do over the last 7 years is grow the innovative parts of our economy through things like Callaghan Innovation through things like new rules for research and development and through things like information and communications technology graduate schools. We have sought to do that and actually that is increasing.I just want to pick up on the point that James Shaw made before. He said that the amount of research and development that is going on in the economy is not increasing. Well I think you could probably argue about the numbers but it is true to say that as a percentage of GDP the amount of research and development that is going on in the economy has not increased at the rate that we would like. I think that it is also fair to say that the development of things like Callaghan Innovation and some of the new tax rules that we are introducing have not flowed through into some of those statistics yet. The numbers that he was talking about were for 2014. Some of those developments came in only in 2013 or 2014 so these things take a while to turn round.But what is true is that the number of firms in New Zealand that are engaging in research and development is increasing and the amount of money that is being spent is increasing in real terms. As a percentage of GDP I think it is true to say that those numbers are flat but why is that? Why is that? Because our GDP has been growing and our GDP has been growing at one of the fastest rates in the developed world.So Mr Shaw made a good point but I think it is true to say that these estimates contain a range of measures that are going to increase the amount of innovation occurring in the New Zealand economy. It was a sage speech by Mr Shaw. It is unfortunate that we cannot say the same about Mr Robertson’s contribution.Hon TODD McCLAY (Minister of Revenue): I want to speak in the debate at the moment around revenue. I do want to say that when the Hon Clayton Cosgrove was speaking I did particularly enjoy his interventions. The challenge was that very little—in fact nothing—he said there was correct. It was very unusual because he is a wise man. He does get very excited when it comes to speaking particularly when David Bennett interjects. I would say it reminded me of when I saw him earlier today down at the gym beside the cycle. His little legs were going as fast as they could there was sweat on his brow and there was a very very serious look on his face. Then I suddenly realised he was just trying to get up on the seat. It was very much like his speech here in the House because he was very excited but there was not very much relevance in it.The Government has under way a very large and ambitious project for the Inland Revenue Department to transform and modernise and to modernise and simplify tax administration in New Zealand. It is as straightforward and simple as this: our desire is to find ways to make it easier for New Zealanders to comply with their tax obligations to reduce the administrative burden upon them when it comes to paying tax and to modernise the tax system so it works for them and certainly so it works for the Government and it works for the Inland Revenue Department.This will be broken down into a number of chunks. We have just had two green papers that we have put out where we had more than a thousand interactions with the public. Very significant when it comes to taxation was members of the public and businesses telling us what they thought we may do to improve tax administration. A very important part of this was around provisional tax—making provisional tax simpler and making it easier.We put out a green paper and we said to the public: “We want to hear from you. Put in a submission.” and after the submission date closed all of a sudden the Leader of the Opposition came out with a policy around provisional tax. He said: “PAYE for businesses.” The problem with that was it was less a policy and more of a late submission on our green paper because actually that was what was in the green paper. In the green paper it said: “What about PAYE for businesses to reduce the burden upon them?”. It is good to see that the Leader of the Opposition Mr Little put in a late submission supporting the Government’s proposal. We thank him for that. I have another green paper on tax coming out soon. If he just waits he could actually put in a submission on that as well. If he only asks we can extend the deadline if he cannot get the work done.But do you know why I think Mr Little did that on that Friday? It was because earlier in the week Mr Twyford had made a great error of judgment. He had got some dodgy numbers he had put a few names together and he had decided to beat up on a very important constituent group in New Zealand the Chinese community. But actually he did not beat up on the Chinese community; just on a whole lot of people with Chinese-sounding names. At the end of that week I think that this announcement that the Leader of the Opposition made around provisional tax which I had already released some months earlier was to divert attention away from the horrible horrible things that Mr Twyford had said about Chinese New Zealanders—well actually New Zealanders with Chinese-sounding names.The other part of business transformation that we are going to look at during the course of this year is secondary tax because the system does burden hard-working New Zealanders. You will see some changes around the PAYE system and GST announced this year that will make it easier for people to comply with GST and actually our focus will be around small to medium sized enterprises as well as others. We want to reduce the economic burden upon them. Business transformation as I said to the Finance and Expenditure Committee will go across a number of parliaments—it has been here for two already—and I have extended an invitation to the committee to make Inland Revenue Department officials available to it to work through some of the detail so that actually Parliament as a whole can focus on what is best for our business community and taxpayers. Maybe that will help Mr Cosgrove with those fast little legs going to get it right when it comes to business transformation and the work that we are doing.The other important thing that has just happened is around property tax compliance. We heard from Mr Cosgrove about all the problems in the current consultation. Again actually unfortunately he is wrong. As a Government we have given the Inland Revenue Department a lot of extra money in successive Budgets to focus on property tax compliance and that move brought in hundreds of millions of dollars of additional tax from people who should have been paying it based upon the properties that they bought and sold.Well indeed we announced a brightline test to focus more clearly on this to make it easier for people to understand their obligations. That is out for consultation as well. Mr Little should send his policy in now rather than make a late submission afterwards but we are working in the right direction.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First): Thank you for the privilege of speaking tonight and tēnā koutou to the Committee this evening. Can I just take this opportunity to reply to some of the words from the Minister of Revenue tonight. I actually say good luck with what you are trying to achieve with the tax system and good luck with the outcomes you hope to achieve because if what you are hoping for actually works then New Zealand First will probably agree that actually that will be great for small New Zealand businesses because we are talking about the lowering of the cost of compliance. But what the Minister and what this Government in particular probably will not concede is that although on the one hand they seek to lower compliance costs in terms of tax conformity or performance on the other hand we are about to debate a piece of legislation in regards to health and safety reform where the cost of compliance to New Zealand’s small businesses will be horrendous.Already the discussion is taking place where small businesses are coming to us and saying: “How can we cope with these costs of these safety regulations?”. The irony of that is that actually if this Government had left the legislation alone but had simply funded adequately the oversight of the safety legislation as it stood previously we would have had an adequate health and safety system. Instead we are changing the law in a large and extreme manner actually and then we are funding oversight—$8 million a year for the next 3 years—to actually ensure that we are complying with health and safety. It seems a bit backwards. So although I commend the Minister for what he seeks to achieve on the one hand this Government giveth and on the other it taketh away.The Minister ofFinance spoke in quite some detail about trade. He spoke about the benefits of trade. New Zealand First as a party needs to repeat as often as possible that we are a party that supports trade. We believe in the benefits of trade and we understand why trade is important. Those members over there deliberately claim ignorance. I am not calling them ignorant; I am saying they deliberately claim ignorance. They deliberately claim it because it makes their conversation or their debate easier. The reality is trade is good but in those same trade agreements we have the likes of certification. More important I presented a member’s bill to this Parliament to try to remove the investor-State dispute settlement provisions from our trade agreements. That is not anti-trade; that is pro - New Zealand.So what this Government says to us is that in order to have trade we must remove our sovereignty. We must disempower this very Government that members sit there representing tonight. The investor-State dispute settlement provisions allow large international corporates to sue this Government not in New Zealand law and not in international law but in secret tribunals. This is what this Government is advocating. It just makes no sense. Those tribunals are not transparent they have no right of appeal and they make decisions that we cannot investigate and we cannot understand how they came to those decisions because they are made in secret. So New Zealand First stood up in this Chamber just last week and said: “We cannot accept that in our trade agreements. Let’s use a transparent legal system. Let’s have judges. Let’s have transparency. Let’s have an appellate system where we can actually appeal the decisions and conversely for once the Governments could actually hold the international corporates to account.”On Budget day I said to this Government that it was wearing rose-coloured lenses. The assumptions that this Government made when it wrote this Budget were bordering on the ridiculous—bordering on the ridiculous. The appropriations were made given a set of rose-tinted assumptions and the Government said: “This scenario is very unlikely. Everything will be rosy and our Budget will be accurate if only a few things come to pass.” Well nothing that this Government used to create the appropriations was actually accounted for in that Budget.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green): I would like to take another call in relation to the finance and Government administration sector appropriations this time in relation to the appropriation for Vote Ombudsmen and turn attention to the Office of the Ombudsmen to its revenues and to this Government’s attitude towards transparency and openness. I am delighted to see the Attorney-General is in the Chamber to have a discussion on this.I note that the Vote Ombudsmen appropriation for the year 2014-15 was $12.278 million and in 2015-16 it has increased to $12.387 million. So there has been an increase of $110000 approximately to cover the increased costs of investigation and the resolution of complaints. A hundred and ten thousand dollars will buy you perhaps one more staff person and their associated costs. What we know is that the Ombudsmen’s office is completely inundated with thousands of requests for assistance—thousands of complaints every year—because this Government is suppressing information and abusing the process to an extent that is unparalleled since the Official Information Act was created.I am not saying that it is the behaviour of this present Governmentonly. It has been sliding towards this over the course of the last couple of decades but things have got to the point now where essentially the system is now broken and the Government is using the underfunding of the Office of the Ombudsmen to supress the effectiveness of the Official Information Act. In the Finance and Expenditure Committee report we note that there was an extremely high staff turnover in the Office of the Ombudsmen. They are amazing people they are good lawyers and they are extremely good public servants but the burnout due to the sheer weight of the complaints that each of them has to handle the fact that they are not as well paid as they would be in the general market or even in other parts of the Public Service and the repetitive nature of the work of dealing with this enormous volume of complaints means that it is extremely hard for the Office of the Ombudsmen to hold on to its staff. This of course also means that the office is losing institutional knowledge as that turnover occurs—$110000 is not going to cut it in terms of solving those kinds of problems.We note and the select committee report also referred to this that when documents are released now under the Official Information Act some as late as a year as opposed to the 20 days that are specified under the Act often they are so full of redactions that they are basically completely meaningless. So there is a huge problem here.The problem is not to do with the Act itself. The Act is in extremely good condition. It is not to do with the Office of the Ombudsmen. They are working extremely hard under very trying circumstances.But this Government has turned the art of obfuscation into a really fine art an absolutely high art as demonstrated some time ago by the fact that the Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment has got more PR people than it has health and safety inspectors which gives you some idea of where its priorities are. The priorities are on spin and public relations and not on actually getting the job done. When the cracks show in not getting the job done the Government relies on the spin to get it through and when the Opposition tries to do its job of holding the Government to account and speaking truth to power that obfuscation and abuse of the Official Information Act are the order of the day.This Government is using the constant underfunding of the Office of the Ombudsmen as a way of ensuring that it can stay unaccountable so that the Office of the Ombudsmen is unable to deal with the volume of complaints to do with the complaints that are coming through about that. So there are a couple of ways to fix this. We can increase funding to the Office of the Ombudsmen and I accept the Government’s position that it is operating within an extremely tight fiscal envelope at the moment but this is to do with the nature of our democracy. The other thing is to start acting in accordance with the Act because that will obviously put less pressure on the Ombudsmen—to actually live in accordance with the Official Information Act and to live within its spirit.BRETT HUDSON (National): E te Tiamana tēnā koe. We have been treated tonight to some speeches from the Opposition—treated mistreated choose your language. Opposition members seem to be confusing their own opinions with the facts whereas the facts are quite simple. The economy has been growing at around 2.6 percent. Over the last 4 years 192000 jobs were created; a further 150000 are forecast over the next 4 years. Over the same time period unemployment is forecast to reduce to under 5 percent. The economy is doing very well. Interest rates are low. Inflation over the last quarter was just 0.3 percent. New Zealand businesses and New Zealand families are being treated to a lower cost of living and lower costs of debt helping to provide incentives to businesses to grow and helping Kiwis to feel more secure in the paying of their home mortgages.But what instead have we heard? In the face of those facts what have we heard? Well firstly we had from Mr Robertson wild assertion after wild assertion and as my colleague David Bennett pointed out none of them were underpinned by numbers. His was a very special speech. It is known as a Burger King speech—just one whopper after another. And he got confused in the process on taxation and what he referred to as bribery. As my learned colleague Christopher Bishop pointed out he does not seem to understand what taxation is. I would like to take just a moment to help to put him straight. Some years ago a New York newspaper—I think it was the New York Times—ran a competition where if you could change a single consonant or vowel in a word and create a new one there would be a prize. Some chap came up with the word “intaxication”. Intaxication is defined as the mild sense of euphoria you feel upon receiving a tax refund before realising it was your money to begin with. Mr Robertson thinks giving your money back is somehow a bribe.We went from wild assertions and complete misunderstanding of the taxation system to the Green Party and James Shaw who obviously does not know about Daniel Patrick Moynihan because that member most certainly was thinking that he could have not only his own opinions but his own set of facts. Mr Shaw tried to tell us that dairy makes up 40 percent of our exports while acknowledging that it makes up 5 percent of the overall economy. Well that is a very interesting assertion on its own because tourism is now worth 7 percent of our economy. So based on his maths that would mean that tourism is in the order of 60 percent of our exports on its own. That would leave no room for the $2.85 billion of international student education which is itself an export and equates to around 1.3 percent of the economy which the maths tells us is roughly 10 percent of exports. So we have got to 110 percent of exports already. Nor would it leave room for the wine industry which contributes $1.37 billion worth of exports—up 8.2 percent over the past year. Nor would it provide room for the exports in the information and communications technology sector which contributed about $930 million and which overall as a sector both domestically and in exports is around 1.7 percent of our economy. But Mr Shaw would have us believe that dairy is a far greater proportion of exports than it truly is.What those numbers tell us and what those facts tell us is that we do have a diverse economy because although I mentioned wine I mentioned information and communications technology and I mentioned international students I did not mention meat. I did not mention forestry. I did not mention fisheries or oil and gas or minerals or kiwifruit or any of those other products that Kiwi businesses export around the world which I guess must take us up to—I do not know—130 percent of exports. Using James’ numbers who can be sure? What it does show us is that we have a very strong and vibrant economy and a very strong diverse set of export industries across New Zealand. Although dairy might not be performing at its traditional or recent highs the other parts of our export economy are performing very solidly indeed. They are contributing to those continued good strong growth numbers that match up with any country in the OECD that are continuing to provide jobs for Kiwis and that are continuing to provide confidence to New Zealand businesses and New Zealand families in their future. The country is headed in the right direction.MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney): I am happy to take a call on this debate. Although I am not on the Finance and Expenditure Committee it is a great opportunity to be able to take a call. I have to say that in an appropriations debate I was shocked to see the Labour economics spokesperson Grant Robertson get up and spend the first half of his speech talking about the Hon Jonathan Coleman’s hair and the Hon Paula Bennett’s texting habits. If he is going to talk about the Hon Paula Bennett talk about doing the reverse bungy—she is very good at that.Iain Lees-Galloway: He’s in team Bennett.MARK MITCHELL: That is right. I can testify I assure you.The third thing is that he was obsessed with the National Party conference—he should have just bought a ticket and come along—and the Hon Bill English’s speech. I think the reason why he spoke about the Hon Bill English’s speech so much is that that is where he gets all his information. That is where he actually learns what is going on.Because it is an economic debate I would like to take it back to my own electorate Rodney because we have been talking about how much diversification we do have in the New Zealand economy today—and we do. We do have other industries that are doing very very well. We have a dollar that has weakened and of course in any economy there is always an upside and a downside to that. But one of the upsides that we experience of course is for our exporters. Being a trading nation and a nation that relies heavily on exports that is actually a very good thing for our economy.I want to recognise and speak about Southern Paprika. It is a business up in the north of my electorate just outside of Warkworth. The owner of the company is Hamish Alexander a business leader in our electorate. Southern Paprika is diversifying. It is using technology. It is forming partnerships around the world. It has formed a very strong partnership with a Dutch company where now it is starting to grow product and get into the European market and it is starting to be a real force to be reckoned with over there. It creates jobs. It is creating more jobs. Yes it went through a bit of a tough time when our dollar was as strong as it was but it adapted and it found a way to keep trading and to keep growing. Now that the dollar has come back a bit that growth is accelerating; it is getting faster. Southern Paprika is diversifying into new products. It is investing in avocado. It is buying more land. It is creating more jobs. It is an exciting business and it is another very strong piece of our economy.I would like to talk about the Honey Merchant out of Matakana. I hope that Minister Coleman visits our markets up there and gets to experience some of the honey from the Honey Merchant.Chris Bishop: Good honey.MARK MITCHELL: It is outstanding honey. The reality of it is that this business is growing. We were very lucky last year to have a visit from a delegation from China that signed a contract with it.Chris Bishop: Where?MARK MITCHELL: China—a very good delegation from China that is forward-looking and sees the opportunities that New Zealand also presents in terms of business partnerships joint ventures and being able to grow another very strong part of our economy. This is a part of our economy where we are leading around the science where we are developing new strains of honey bees that are placid and that are very hard-working and that is making a massive contribution to another very strong sector in New Zealand. These industries are creating jobs. They are creating jobs.This is actually something that I think is pretty good: a lot of young people in my electorate are taking an interest in the honey industry. They want to get an entry into the honey industry and so we have got an industry in Rodney that is leading in science is leading in technology and is now starting to train and bring young people into the industry. They need to learn the science. There is a lot of science associated with it. They are in the process of buying and identifying more land. There is even mānuka starting to be replanted around areas in my electorate. It is an industry that is growing.The reason why I wanted to talk about these two examples is that the reality of it is that we do have a diversified economy. We do have some great little industries and some great New Zealand products that are growing and that are being traded and exported around the world. Thank you very much.A party vote was called for on the question That Vote Audit Vote Communications Security and Intelligence Vote Finance Vote Office of the Clerk Vote Ombudsmen Vote Parliamentary Service Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet Vote Revenue Vote Security and Intelligence and Vote State Services be agreed to.Ayes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 56New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 12; New Zealand First 12.Votes agreed to.Health SectorThe CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Members we now come to the vote in the health sector—volume B.5 volume 6. The question is that Vote Health stand part of the schedules. The chairman of the Health Committee speaks first. I call Simon O’Connor. Mr O’Connor your task is to set out the major findings of your committee in relation to the estimates.SIMON O’CONNOR (Chairperson of the Health Committee): You can rest assured Mr Chair that we will happily be speaking to the main findings of the estimates for Vote Health from the Health Committee. I always say it when I stand up but it is an excellent cooperative committee. It is one of those committees where generally we are in agreement with what we have to do for the betterment of the country. By and large and I see my colleague Barbara Stewart nodding we get that right. Obviously there are a few tensions. You can indicate and see those in the report.As context for what came through the estimates report we are in a fine space for health. We know that the under-13-year-olds are now getting free GP visits and prescriptions—a really positive step there. One thing that I thought was really neat which I had not been aware of until I was reminded was that 94 percent of those under 8 months of ageare now fully immunised. It is a huge step forward. If I may make a plug—Chris Bishop: How much?SIMON O’CONNOR: 94 percent. May I make a plug to those people out there to please vaccinate. It does not matter if it is your children your teenagers or older. It is very positive—there have been 44000 more elective surgeries compared with 2007-08. So this is the context in which the estimates began and were heard. There is a 62-day target for patients to get their first cancer treatment. I will not go into the context of the past but that is an incredibly good period of time and something that I think the select committee—Brett Hudson: We’re up against the world.SIMON O’CONNOR: I think it is world-leading actually Mr Hudson. But this is the context in which the committee began its discussions. We are putting in it was acknowledged further funding to allow 4000 more elective surgeries a year. So again bear in mind that we have increased by about 44000 surgeries a year and we intend to push that higher towards 48000—I would hope eventually 50000. Hopefully none of us will have to avail ourselves of this particular target but 95 percent of those going into the emergency department are seen within 6 hours.Vote Health is the second-largest vote in Budget 2015. It accounts for about 17.8 percent of the total appropriation so be in no doubt—as this Committee will know—that health is a serious issue. We noted in our report that the vote increased by approximately 4.9 percent so we are now spending about $15.868 billion—in fact that is not approximate as that is what we are spending; let us be precise about that.In fact one of the things that we noted in our report is that $55 million of non-departmental capital has been moved and provided to help district health boards around deficit support. I mention that because I do not think we are under any illusion as a select committee and hopefully as a House that it can be tight for some district health boards. That was acknowledged also in the estimates with the Minister of Health. It goes without saying that the Minister is the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman and when I was reading out those positive lines at the start I think it is incredibly important to note to the Committee that they are not purely the musings thoughts insights or feedback of the chair of the committee; that was in fact the feedback of the select committee itself to the Minister.I quote: “We congratulated Dr Coleman on his appointment last year as Minister of Health and expressed our satisfaction with the working relationship he has established with us.” Those were the words put forward at the questioning but also written up in the report and I would like to thank all the members who contributed to that and the continuing positive relationship we have with the Minister of Health.We noted that there has been a change in sector leadership. Those who follow the health sector will be aware that we have had an acting director-general for a while Mr Chai Chuah. Very shortly before we moved into this estimates hearing he was made the director-general. We were curious about how that was beginning and amongst other things we noted that surveys done recently have shown improving staff engagement and we are looking forward to seeing more of that as it goes along.Other areas we looked at were the demographics particularly around chronic disease. It is something that crops up in our informal conversations from time to time and it certainly has been in front of the Health Committee. When we are talking about chronic disease we are talking about things like “COPD”—that is an acronym for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease—and we also have got the likes of diabetes. Diabetes is very much at front and centre of debates at the moment and in fact over the weekend we had quite a constructive conversation in that space about how we engage with diabetes particularly around healthy decisions around food and sport.When we are looking at these chronic diseases the Minister noted—quite rightly I thought and I hope I am not stealing his thoughts for later on—that new models of care are needed. Although we have always been around “sooner faster more convenient” we I think as a Government understand the need for people to be able to obtain their health needs closer to home from particularly GPs medical practitioners they trust—sorry health practitioners; I should be clear on that particularly as we have a new bill before the House—and how we might work with them.I have spoken to the House before about how we better work the scope of practices. I use again the examples of nurses doing endoscopy GPs doing skin work and so forth. This is part of how we can better engage and we can do it in these chronic areas. One thing that has been announced—and we touch on it later in our report—is around the development of pain teams. Strictly speaking orthopaedic issues are not chronic—I do not think they are; I will have to take some medical advice on that. But the pain teams are pulling together—Hon Annette King: They can be chronically awful.SIMON O’CONNOR: The honourable member notes they are very painful and what we are trying to do is to have a lead provider in the community to help drive the care. So again you might have a GP a specialist a nurse or an occupational therapist who is going to take the lead in that support.I thought that the other thing that was really useful that came out was the whole notion of promoting healthy lifestyles. In fact if I recall the session correctly I asked the Minister of Health—who is not only the Minister of Health but also the Minister for Sport and Recreation—whether that was a coincidence of those two portfolios coming together which of course it was not. It was a good insight of the Prime Minister to see how that was going to work together.The Minister noted of course the Healthy Families New Zealand pilot which has been launched and I think well lauded in the health community. There is also work that has been undertaken to see how we might get that crossover particularly for our young people in schools around sport and healthy eating—two things I am quite passionate about when I visit my primary schools. Some will be in the most effectively wealthy suburbs in the country and then I go to other areas that are amongst the poorest if not the poorest. You look at the lunches and the choices that are being made there—I think we can make improvements not only through working with the principals but obviously through working with the families.The other aspect is activity. In fact I think it was on Prime news tonight or TV3 about how much time is spent in front of digital devices and so forth—so how do we get our young people active? The other thing I would note and we noted in the report from the Minister is encouraging activity. There is the notion of cycleways—I just have to put in a plug for that. The Government put out some money recently and the good people of Tāmaki are most pleased to have got the biggest chunk of that as we put in a cycleway from Glen Innes through to Tāmaki Drive. I am very much looking forward to stopping my running one weekend and actually jumping on a bike.Smoke-free targets—there is some really good work going on there. Speaking personally—and it is noted in the report—I think many of us still have concerns particularly with young Māori women who have an almost 50 percent smoking rate. I think there is stuff that we need to do and must do there. I think that is an important signal to the community as well.We have indicated that about another $12.4 million has been allocated to extend the bowel screening programme which is being done in the Waitematā so that has been extended again. A little bit like prostate work as well—you do this as a pilot you see what is possible and you take those learnings and then see whether it is feasible to roll it out across the country.I am conscious that we are probably coming close to time and I have got quite a number of pages to go. The one I did want to finish if I can is around the flu vaccine. It is coming out of time now but the committee was interested as to why there was an apparent delay. The long and the short of it was that as the flu vaccine was coming into the country the officials were made aware that some strains could be introduced to the vaccine. In other words there were new strains of flu out there and it seemed from the reports that we heard that it was actually better to get the new vaccines in so that those New Zealanders choosing the latter vaccinations could be fully protected from those new strains. There was a small blip at the start but I think we have got every confidence that that will continue and work well next year. I just wanted to mention that. I do not think we want any impression certainly from the Health Committee that somehow there was bad planning or a lack of vaccines available. It was a prudent health choice to look at the best medical and scientific information out there and to say: “Hey new strains.”—I am sorry but I cannot quote what they are—“Let’s get them into the vaccine and make sure New Zealanders are good to go.”An area I am always keen on is palliative care—$76 million - plus has been invested in that. That is going to work in a number of areas. It plays back into that original discussion I was having about “sooner faster more convenient”. A lot of it is for hospice care which importantly is done from home.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I am going to pick up on the bits that the chair of the Health Committee Simon O’Connor left out of our report. I have to say however in starting my contribution that we have a very fair chair of the Health Committee and it is a committee that I very much enjoy working with. And to show what generous people we are the Minister of Health will know that we congratulated him on becoming the Minister and on the constructive way he had worked with the select committee. I know of course that he would rather be the Minister of Foreign Affairs but that is another matter.I did raise with him at the very beginning of my contribution my disappointment in the slowness of responding to Official Information Act requests and answering written questions and I said that the Tony Ryall school of thought had continued under the new Minister. I was very disappointed because I was expecting much more. The Minister said he wanted the best possible result but I have to tell you Minister it is slower than it was when you were before the select committee. So can I ask you to go back and speak to Mr Hundleby and others who hold up these Official Information Act requests and say “Pull finger.” because we deserve to have the information that we ask for.We then raised with the Minister the reports that I had had and an anonymous letter that I had received about bullying in the health sector. I have to say that since that issue was raised and it was raised in the media and picked up by many in the media I have been inundated with letters and comments about bullying in the health sector and it has come right from the top. I am not blaming this Minister because he is quite new but he does follow on from a former Minister who was very controlling indeed who put his fingers into every part of the health system and used threats and phone calls on a regular basis. The Minister of Health said he too would be very worried about bullying in the health sector but unfortunately he went away and absolutely nothing happened. That is why we continue to get reports about bullying particularly in the Ministry of Health in the very highest echelons up with the director-general and his office.We then raised the issue of cost pressures in the district health boards. We are constantly told by the Government that there is more money in health than there has ever been before. Well Minister if you put one dollar more in than you did last year there would be more money than there had ever been in health before. The question is: is there sufficient money going into health? Of course we have never been able to get this answer; we are just told how lucky we are to have the amount of money that we do.We had some work done on this by Infometrics. It is independent. These are not our figures—Infometrics did the work. It looked at these six Budgets that the National Government had provided in health. Four of those six Budgets including this one have effectively cut the health funding. We have an accumulative shortfall of $1.7 billion from 2010 to 2015-16. They are not my figures. They are not Labour’s figures. They are Infometrics’ figures. Using the Treasury figures it looked at how the change in core Crown health expenditure aligns with the growth in inflation and demographic characteristics. We now know that there is a shortfall. If the Minister wants to dispute the figures that Infometrics has provided he should put on the table—using the same data that Treasury uses—what the real figures are if the Minister does not agree. I suspect he will not because it is a terrible embarrassment—$1.7 billion has been removed from the health budget over the last 6 years. We now know that 11 of our 20 district health boards are showing a deficit.I then questioned the Ministry of Health on the cuts to its budget. It got $74 million not $79 million as it actually says in our report from the select committee. From Official Information Act requests and papers released by Treasury we know that the ministry asked for $170 million in early funding signalled in November last year. It wanted that to deal with the pressures of Vote Health. It then revised that down to $150 million according to the figures that we received. The Minister received advice in February that $74.9 million was necessary to maintain core services in the Ministry of Health.I want to quote what the Ministry of Health said to the Minister in February with regard to the provision of national services by the ministry. He probably went in to argue for more for the ministry but he was a loser in this respect because this is what the ministry said: “Easy wins had been exhausted and major service cuts and reconfiguration will be necessary to achieve further major savings.”So in fact the Ministry of Health had been asked to reprioritise $32.1 million in savings. It told the select committee the reason that it could now live on $74 million—not the $170 million it started with or the $150 million it then asked for and ended up with $74 million—was that it had revised its figures because Treasury’s inflation forecast was lower than what it had predicted. So what did it do? It adjusted the budget down by 50 percent. Did you know that inflation was running at 50 percent? Because that is the cut that came in the Ministry of Health’s budget. Based on wanting $150 million and getting close to $75 million because of the adjustment in inflation which was lower than it expected—we were expected to believe that claptrap; it is just a nonsense.The Minister if he was fronting up to this issue would say that his ministry is under huge pressure to be able to provide the core services that it has to provide let alone the manifesto commitments that have been made to that ministry. Of course what we got was flannel from his officials as they tried to make sure they looked all right in front of the Minister. We did not get the ungarnished truth about what is happening within the Ministry of Health.We then asked about pharmaceuticals and the money that goes into the Pharmac budget. We are told that Pharmac has got $800 million out of the $15.6 billion budget. It has virtually not moved in 4 years. The same amount of funding has been going into Pharmac and it is expected each year to make the savings for the Government. In fact the Government now relies on Pharmac to help it to pay for the health budget. At the select committee we raised how long that could go on. How long can we expect Pharmac to take the load for the cuts in the health budget? It deserves a reasonable amount of money to provide pharmaceuticals to New Zealanders in a timely and appropriate way in a First World way. We now know there are many drugs in this country that Pharmac cannot and will not provide because it cannot afford it. Minister we have real concerns that you are not in fact providing sufficient money in the Pharmac budget. It cannot be a cash cow for this Government continuously as it has been.There were a number of other issues raised in our examination of these estimates. For example we also raised the issue of social bonds. The Minister has been questioned on social bonds on a number of occasions. He has been unable to tell this House in question time whether the $28.8 million that has been allocated to social bonds will be paid on results as he said at the beginning or whether it will be payment along the way to the banks that are doing the funding. We have not had that answer from the Minister. Perhaps he would like to take the opportunity in this debate to tell the House whether the $28.8 million of funding will be paid once those social bond projects give the results back to the Government or are they going to have sweeteners along the way out of the $28 million to make them look better or even to say that they have worked? Was the Minister telling it straight when he said it is paid out on results—on outcomes? Well you cannot be paying out on outcomes after a few days or a few weeks if you are going to really measure whether mental health patients got a real job and stayed in that job.There are many things in the select committee that we raised. I am glad that the chair was able to be very positive about everything.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): Look it is great to take a call in this estimates debate as the Minister of Health. This has been a great Budget for health in New Zealand. There is $400 million of new money out of a total allocation across the Government of a billion dollars. I mean that is a record result of $15.9 billion in the vote and $1.7 billion across the next 4 years. But of course it is not as Labour would have it just all about the money. You would have noticed in Mrs King’s speech there that her main theme was that there will never be enough money. Well I can tell you that in health it never feels as if there is enough but the fact is that we are a Government that has focused on results in health. That is the key thing and if you look at the results you just cannot dispute them.We have been very targeted on the areas that we think make a real difference for New Zealanders. So there is an extra 50000 first specialist assessments per year an extra 45000 elective operations each year and an extra 5000 doctors and nurses in the system. You know these are real results. And if you look at the health target levels in terms of emergency departments people are getting in and out of our emergency departments within 6 hours. That is 95 percent of people. We are immunising—nearly 94 percent of children are fully immunised at 8 months. Just a couple of years ago that figure was 70-odd percent. We are doing very well on the advice for stopping smoking on heart and diabetes checks.And cancer—that has been a major success. So when Labour was in power 760 people a year went to Australia for cancer treatment.Hon Member: How many?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It was 760. Under us no one now goes to Australia. We have set very tight targets around that and we are delivering in terms of cancer treatment for New Zealanders. We achieved our first target which was around people being able to get their treatment started within 4 weeks of having all their lab tests and being ready. We achieved that. We are now aiming for the gold standard target of 62 days across the whole cancer pathway.So Annette King will tell you about some report that the Labour Party has had commissioned. She talks about cuts in health. That is completely untrue. There is more money than ever; there is more money going in each year. What we have done which Labour did not do is actually look at where the money needs to be spent. So we have new models of care. We need people being treated in primary care with an emphasis on prevention and early intervention. So that is where the money has to go. What happened when Labour was in power? It doubled the health budget but 2000 fewer people each year got an operation. It had those people going to Australia for cancer care. During Annette King’s time it actually delivered fewer first specialist assessments than ever.I do need to also take issue with some of the points that she made there. She was talking about responses to Official Information Act requests. Well actually the more people that Labour has working on those the more it generates and the more it sends to district health boards the more people we are having to employ to answer the requests and the longer they are going to take. But the real point is that it does make Mrs King sound a bit of a hypocrite because if you look back to 2007—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: —or it could make her sound a little bit like one.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: In 2007 it took her when she was replying to an Official Information Act request on the Electoral Finance Act 18 months to reply.Hon Member: What?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: 18 months. I mean that is not just unethical and it is not just not playing by the rules; it must be illegal. So for Annette King to come here and argue that sort of thing just does not stack up. So there is a range of things she raised there. She was talking about bullying in the health sector and all these letters she claims she gets. Well what she should be worried about is bullying in the Labour Party because we know plenty of that is going on. Mr Chai Chuah is a very fine Director-General of Health. One thing I can tell you is that he may be many things but he is not a bully. He is doing a very good job of getting the health system into shape.You hear these outrageous claims from Mrs King on the radio each morning. I must say she is a popular figure around the Parliament but when you hear her on the radio—you know yesterday morning she was saying that I must be making stuff up—and you contrast that with this lovely woman here it is a bit like seeing your favourite aunt in court on burglary charges. It is hard to believe that someone like this has something like that in her. It is really quite outrageous. But today tabling that Infometrics—well she did not table the Infometrics—Hon Annette King: You’re telling porkies.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Mrs King talks about porkies. What I can tell you is she spends half her time trying to corrupt her officials and the other half making statisticsup. There you have it.BARBARA STEWART (NZ First): I am very pleased to take a call in the estimates debate. We continue to be astonished in New Zealand First at the lack of preventative programmes rolling out across the country. The Government does not appear to have a plan for serving the needs of the current population let alone future generations and it is a worry. This is an issue that is seriously affecting the health of New Zealanders. Non-communicable diseases are on the increase and we need a fence at the top of the cliff rather an ambulance at the bottom. We know that that ambulance at the bottom is slowly breaking down. We want the Government to be forward-looking and it was quite interesting when we met the Minister of Health to catch up with the lack of programmes that have a preventative focus. We know that the need for health care is going to increase dramatically over the next few years so we need that preventative focus—absolutely essential. Our nation’s health is at critically poor levels with ever-increasing numbers of people suffering chronic illnesses and non-communicable diseases and that is a shame.There is an urgent need for more research into cancer prevention and treatment. We are falling drastically behind Australia in our treatment of cancer. For all cancers New Zealanders’ survival rate at 5 years after diagnosis is 4 percent lower than that of Australia. The Government states that reducing the burden of cancer is one of its top priority areas yet this is an area that remains drastically underfunded. We were very pleased to hear the Minister say that there was going to be a new roll-out of a cancer strategy. We would like to see the bowel cancer strategy increasing and the roll-out of the screening programmes increasing. We cannot afford to wait until 2017 when the Waitematā trial finishes when we have 1200 Kiwis dying every year from bowel cancer. Of course that has a drastic effect on families and the hospital system. Skin cancer—we have the highest death rate of skin cancer in the world and this does need to be urgently addressed.Obesity—our obesity rate is continuing. We are now third in the world rapidly closing in on Mexico and the USA. We are an outdoors country. It is really shameful for us to have this rate of obesity. Critical health services—the ambulance service needs to have more funding. We know for a fact that people are complaining about the length of time they are having to wait for ambulances. The ambulances provide a very critical role and we need them there when we need them most. We expect them to come. So extra funding is actually required in this area.When we look at elective surgery the need for elective surgery is increasing. We get more and more people coming to our door saying that they are on the waiting list. They are waiting and they are waiting and they do not want to wait any longer. It is a shame. We know that despite the increase of $98 million for elective surgeries that is not going to cope with even the current needs. There are far too many people who go to the hospital wait to have an appointment and then are told to go home. They are even called in for scans do not get those scans go home and have to come back the next day or the next week when they can get an appointment.We all know that we have got an ageing population and of course this is going to mean a really sharp increase in all the diseases associated with ageing: Alzheimer’s osteoporosis macular degeneration and type 2 diabetes. We know that the population is set to double. Why are we not doing something about the planning and investment in this area to try to meet the needs that we know are actually coming?Today I had a visitor who is very interested in rural health. Rural health is an area that has been sadly underfunded by the Government. The Healthy Bastards group came to see me. They focus on men’s health. They cannot even get an appointment with the Minister to discuss the work they are doing.JAN LOGIE (Green): I would like to focus tonight on one small aspect of the health estimates rather than do the large overview. I would like this Committee to consider—what if there was a way of providing an essential medical service that was safer more accessible cheaper and less traumatic for patients and that also saved millions of precious health budget dollars? Well there is but we need to change our abortion laws to make it possible.Our abortion law in New Zealand was introduced in 1977 without even one woman’s vote in support of it. It maintains abortion is a crime unless two certifying consultants sign off that a pregnant person meets the legal criteria for an abortion—that is that there is a serious danger to the life or physical and mental—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are debating on the appropriations estimates. The member must come back to what has been reported back. That is what this debate is about. It is not a general debate on health matters. So the member should concentrate on what is actually in the Estimates.JAN LOGIE: Point of clarification—I am just trying to understand this process. The Budget where there are budget lines around sexual and reproductive health within the Budget—that is not enough—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I do not have a copy in front of me. [Interruption] There is a copy here—JAN LOGIE: So it is the Budget not the committee report?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): So this is the Estimates. I would just ask the member—what you are saying if you could tie it back to what is actually in the Estimates. That is what it is about.JAN LOGIE: So it can be broader than the select committee discussion which does introduce sexual and reproductive health?The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): You just carry on but I want you to tie it back into the appropriations.JAN LOGIE: Sure and the budgetthat is in the estimates around funding for sexual and reproductive healthdoes relate to the service and the fact that every year $3.5 million is spent on consulting physicians which is required by our very outdated law. The law requires that a child would be severely handicapped physically or mentally that pregnancy is a result of either incest or unlawful sex with their guardian or severe mental subnormality of the mother. Clearly this law entrenches deeply discriminatory beliefs that harm people with disabilities and also represents a profound mistrust of women. You will note that in that list rape is not grounds for abortion in this country because when it was debated by the men in this House at that time they said that if it were then all women would just say they had been raped to get an abortion. Women were not and it seems they are still not able to be trusted in our laws.This system costs $3.5 million a year—Simon O’Connor: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Although I appreciate that the member is raising what is an important issue to her this really has nothing to do with the estimates or what the committee discussed in any way shape or form.Metiria Turei: Point of order.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): No I am going to deal with the point of order. The member is talking about the law and how the law—that is what I am taking out of what you are saying whereas this debate is about the appropriations rather than the law in general and those points of interest to you. So let us try again.JAN LOGIE: That was the framing for it Mr Chair. Thank you very much.This entire system costs far more than the $3.5 million that is required as a result of our laws for the consulting physicians because in this country in the way it is happening at the moment and is organised pregnant people will be required to see up to five doctors just to be allowed an abortion. The doctors may be in different places requiring separate appointments and trips. The West Coast and Whanganui still do not offer abortion services which requires more money and more time to be found for travel—all paid for through our health budget. Plus all but two district health boards that offer abortion services require mandatory ultrasounds and in several districts you have to go to another service to get this ultrasound. This is all an unnecessary expense and stress and is against the World Health Organization guidelines.Critically too each of these steps delays access to abortion. Prior to 9 weeks early medical abortion is carried out which is more like a natural miscarriage. After 9 weeks it is a later medical abortion which is more like inducing labour. The Abortion Supervisory Committee advises that it is best practice to carry out abortions before 9 weeks but sadly because of our system women are required to jump through so many hoops that most abortions happen in later term. Only a third of abortions were carried out in this country before 9 weeks because the women were required to jump through so many unnecessary and medically unjustifiable hoops.We have a law and a system in place that is expensive and prevents best medical practice. These processes required or enabled by this system that shows up in our Budget are also a breach of the Code of Health and Disability Consumers’ Rights which guarantees every consumer the right to be provided with services that take into account the needs values and beliefs of different cultural religious social and ethnic groups and guarantees that every consumer be presumed competent to make an informed choice and give informed consent unless there are reasonable grounds for believing they are not competent. Our current law and Budget remove women’s competency.Abortion is a health service. I get that some people are morally opposed to it; that is OK. If you do not want one do not have one. But we recognised that abortion was a health service back in the 1970s. We need to ensure that our current health system is based on best practice and the needs of patients rather than on the morals of a minority. Our wider health budget could do with the resources.Progress reported.Report adopted.The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.