Volume 679 Week 10 - Tuesday 8 May 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 679 Week 10 - Tuesday 8 May 2012 
[Sitting date: 08 May 2012. Volume:679;Page:1989. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 8 May 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2012—Return to Surplus and Management of Government Debt 
1. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What steps has the Government taken to responsibly manage its finances and stop the increase in public debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Of course the Government is committed to attaining surpluses because that will stop the rise in public debt but alongside that we also want to achieve a competitive economy and better public services because in the long run better public services will give us lower costs and a competitive economy will give us more revenue more jobs and more growth. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Why is it so important for New Zealand to get back into surplus and to stop further rises in New Zealand’s level of public debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are a number of things this country needs to achieve. The most important is a competitive economy because that will help us to lift incomes by selling more products to the rest of the world at higher value. Alongside that we need to manage our risks and one of those risks is the very high level of national debt—that is adding together public and private debt. It is important to get back to surplus so that the Government can make its contribution to reducing our vulnerabilities by preventing a further rise in Government debt. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: How has the Government’s decision in 2009 to suspend payments to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund helped New Zealand to get on top of its level of public debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That decision in 2009 means that we do not have to borrow roughly $2 billion a year more from nervous overseas lenders to invest in volatile world sharemarkets. We made it clear at the time that we will resume contributions to the superannuation fund when we return to a sufficiently large surplus and we no longer have to borrow money to add to our fast rising debt. I am pleased that the Opposition now agrees with this policy. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the best way to reduce the Government deficit and debt to grow the economy and if so why has National not grown the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The economy has grown in 10 of the last 11 quarters and over the next 12 months is likely to grow faster than those of Europe the UK the US and Canada and at similar rates to Australia’s. But I just want to clear up one misconception for the member: Governments do not grow economies; it is people and businesses who grow economies and we want to make sure they can make positive decisions about new investment and new jobs. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What reports has the Minister seen setting out contrary views over Government contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There have been a number of reports and I will use some of these quotes: “deferrals were a big mistake that would leave Superannuitants much worse off in the future.”; and secondly: “what is the logic behind cutting contributions? The answer is there isn’t any.” Those came from Labour’s finance spokesman. And as recently as last week Trevor Mallard was criticising the Government for not putting money into the Cullen fund. I am pleased his leader made a sensible decision; it would have been good if he had told his finance team that he had made it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Does the Minister think either he or the Prime Minister or for that matter Cabinet acted responsibly in allowing the massive blowout—hundreds of millions of dollars—of the underwriting costs of South Canterbury Finance? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not agree with the member’s description but I do believe that the Government acted responsibly. 
Economic Recovery and Job Creation—Prime Minister’s Statements 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all of his statements? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I stand by the statements I make but of course I do not stand by the statements David Farrar makes. 
David Shearer 
: Did he say in 2009 that New Zealand would be coming out of recession— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition. I could not hear the start of his question because of other noise around the House. I invite him to start again. 
David Shearer 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. Did he say in 2009 that New Zealand would be coming out of recession reasonably aggressively by early 2010; and if so has it come out of recession reasonably aggressively? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I remember making that statement. It was also part of the quote—if you look at the overall quote which I do not have with me—that said it is subject to a lot of flux in Europe. And yes actually we have grown in 10 of the last 11 quarters—better than most other countries around the world. 
David Shearer 
: How can his Government continue to blame earthquakes and the financial crisis when just 6 months ago Treasury forecast revenue being $1.5 billion higher than today’s figures and it notes that this result is largely due to employment wage growth and business profitability being weaker than expected? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member just made an interesting comment: is the Government going to blame the global financial crisis? Well I hate to tell the member but New Zealand is not an island on its own. Actually the rest of the world has been badly affected by the global financial crisis and that is why the unemployment rate in Europe is around 11 percent unemployment in Spain is around 24 percent and the unemployment rate in the UK is over 8 percent. That is why the UK is back in recession; that is why Australia has most recently cut interest rates. I wish I could live in a world that could just ignore what is happening in the rest of the world as David Shearer wants to but that is not the real world. 
David Shearer 
: If the 18000 new people in the labour force are looking for jobs because as he said “the economy is coming right” then why was it that half of them could not find a job? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: What that shows in terms of the second-highest participation rate since the household labour force survey has been in action is that people are increasingly confident they will get a job and under a National Government rightfully so. 
David Shearer 
: Does he stand by his statement “We can effect things like labour laws and if you look at the jobs creation that we have been promoting; the Skycity convention centre more mining and exploration Australian companies coming back … they will create jobs.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and let us run through it. The Skycity convention centre would create about 900 jobs in construction and 800 jobs working your way through it. An extension of exploration and mining activities in New Zealand would certainly create jobs as Bathurst and others have indicated recently. The Australian companies moving to New Zealand have quite clearly in fact demonstrated that they are wanting to invest in New Zealand to create jobs. In fact I had a major Australian corporation in my office just last week telling me they are going to move a substantial amount of their operations to New Zealand. They are all things that the National Government is in favour of. Last night David Shearer told us what he was in favour of and that is following Hollande and Greece and spending money we do not have. 
David Shearer 
: When will he admit that his Government’s cuts to services a zero Budget and an economic plan based on pokies mining and low wages to attract foreign companies are in fact a sign of economic failure? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If you grow in 10 of the last 11 quarters at a time when the rest of the world is doing incredibly poorly I do not describe that as economic failure. These are very difficult times for New Zealanders and this Government—let us be honest—inherited an enormous mess from the previous Labour Government which just left us with programmes that were spiralling out of control. Thank goodness we have had the economic leadership of Bill English to guide us through these very troubled times. 
David Shearer 
: I seek leave to table more than 1000 submissions from people who have written to the Labour website “Show us your cards John” opposing the increase in pokies in the Skycity convention centre. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Documents by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Welfare Reforms—Subsidised Contraception 
3. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he still stand by his statement that “The welfare system will always be there to support those who genuinely need it”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Metiria Turei 
: What advice has the Prime Minister received that having Work and Income officers “assist women to decide whether they want to have children” is in breach of the UN convention on the elimination of discrimination against women which guarantees that women have the right to make their own decisions on the number and spacing of their children? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Women in New Zealand will continue to always have that right. The Government is giving about a million dollars so women who may wish to can go to get medical advice and we are investing $55 million over the next 4 years for 155 dedicated Work and Income staff to support job seekers. But I think the Government is doing the right thing in assisting women in a programme that is totally voluntary and totally reversible. 
Metiria Turei 
: How could this policy not be designed to discourage deprived women and their daughters from having children when this contraception policy is in direct response to the Welfare Working Group which said that the work-testing regime may provide an incentive for women to have children and therefore Work and Income should assist women on a benefit to decide whether they want to have children? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think the Government assisting what can be very vulnerable young people to make sure they have both adequate access and advice when it comes to planning a family or potentially preventing unwanted pregnancies is the right thing to do. In fact Governments of all different colours have a history of supporting both family planning and providing support subsidised services and all sorts of contraceptives which have been very beneficial to a great many young New Zealand women and men. 
Metiria Turei 
: If the Prime Minister is genuinely offering an option for vulnerable young women who would like contraception but cannot afford it why is he providing this through Work and Income case officers who can exert financial pressure over these vulnerable women and not through the safer proven and private environment of health services that already do that work? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We are not. Doctors would provide that advice but they will go to Work and Income for a reimbursement of their costs. I think that is actually a sensible and mature thing to do and it is what historical Governments have done in the past. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Is he considering improving access to contraception for all low-income women or just those on benefits; if so why? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. At his point we are not considering widening it out because we already subsidise a number of contraceptive options for a wide range of people including fully subsidising the emergency pill.  
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that men and their sons should also be “assisted to decide whether they want to have children” and be given funding for contraception by their Work and Income case managers or does he believe that sexual reproduction is solely a woman’s responsibility? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Far from it. I think New Zealand parents have an absolute responsibility to speak to their sons and daughters and where possible give them the best advice that they possibly can. But I think that we are talking about a group of young women who are particularly vulnerable and the statistics show us that a great many of them do fall pregnant and actually go on to the DPB. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given that poverty data shows that a third of all children in poverty are living in homes where their parents work why will he not offer fully funded contraception to all families who want it through the community services card and if he will not do that how is this policy not just a blatant discrimination against and coercion of vulnerable young women who find themselves on the benefit? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because we already subsidise through the community services card certain contraceptives for low-income people. I think one thing that will make those women particularly vulnerable is if they have an unwanted pregnancy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just before I call the honourable member Metiria Turei is asking questions and I am finding it hard to hear the answers because of interjections from the Labour Party. I think it is only reasonable that Metiria Turei should be able to hear the answers more clearly. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Prime Minister guarantee that not one single young mother will be told by her case worker in some form: “You should take up this offer of Depo-Provera because if you have another child on the benefit you will have to go to work and be work tested when that baby is just 12 months old and if you don’t your benefit is at risk.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I would expect Work and Income case managers to ensure that any client of Work and Income understands the Government’s policies and the Government’s policy is that if you are on the DPB and have a further child on the DPB then you will be work tested when that child is 1. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a document which is a letter from the Ministry of Social Development to my office dated 11 April 2012 confirming that the contraception policy in the Budget is directly a response to the Welfare Working Group which wants to disincentivise women from having children on the benefit by requiring Work and Income to assist women to make decisions about their number of children. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Budget 2012—Welfare Reforms 
4. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What recent announcements has she made on the Government’s welfare reforms to support more people off welfare? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Under Budget 2012 we will provide $287.5 million over the next 4 years for the first phase of the Government’s welfare reforms to support more New Zealanders into work and education. This includes $81.5 million of new upfront funding with the remainder reprioritised funding from within the Ministry of Social Development. The Government’s welfare changes require significant upfront financial support and we have made that commitment to ensure fewer people remain trapped on welfare. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Under these welfare reforms what support will be available for teen parents with children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Under Budget 2012 we have allocated $80 million over 4 years available to young parents receiving assistance under this youth package. Of this $36.1 million will support a new guaranteed childcare assistance payment over the next 4 years providing childcare for a child to attend an approved early childhood education service. It also includes nearly $44 million to Vote Education to ensure those extra early childhood education places are available. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How will the new funding support disengaged 16 and 17-year-olds not in education employment or training and how does this compare with what was previously available to support this at-risk group? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Budget 2012 provides $134.7 million for youth service providers. This increases the funding that previously went into youth services by $75.9 million over 4 years. Youth providers will have unprecedented flexibility to work with these “neet” young people and teen parents to get them either into education working towards National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 or in training. And for the first time the Ministry of Education will share information with the Ministry of Social Development to stop these young people becoming “neet” long term. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What evidence does she have to show that $1 billion will be saved by her reforms or is it what she calls a best guess and therefore as robust as the 170000 new jobs we are still waiting to be created? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: That is modelling that was done by Treasury and the Ministry of Social Development. They came up with that figure and there are a whole lot of variables to it so it is a best guess. 
Skycity Convention Centre—Consultation with Auckland City Council 
5. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Did he involve Auckland City Council in discussions he or his staff had with SkyCity about a national convention centre in Auckland during 2009 and 2010? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 No. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Has he read a press release dated 14 May 2010 from Auckland City Council that says: “The council … will work with the Government to establish a preferred site.” and further states that a new convention centre would “compliment existing Auckland venues including Sky City …”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not recall that press release but of course in the case of Auckland City Council it was part of the feasibility study that was undertaken by the Government. That was undertaken in the middle part of 2009. I met with Skycity in November of 2009 and had some preliminary discussions with it. Prior to that I had also met with a number of other parties. What discussions the Auckland City Council might have had with Skycity is of its own volition but I was not involved in those. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Did he or any of his representatives ask or encourage the then Auckland City Mayor John Banks to support the proposed pokies deal with Skycity given that Mr Banks originally wanted a convention centre on the waterfront? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No and you are correct about the latter point that the then Mayor of Auckland City John Banks wanted the convention centre to be down at the waterfront. My view of it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s right because he was anti-gambling then; it was before he got the cheque. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well it is a shame he did not build the stadium down there but that was another failure of your Government. But like every other proposal other than Skycity’s Mr Banks’ also required $350 million of taxpayers’ money. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just before I call Denis O’Rourke interjections today have been getting a bit unreasonable and that kind of interjection the member made is totally unacceptable. The Hon Trevor Mallard will get to his feet and withdraw that interjection and apologise.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Was Auckland City Mayor John Banks’ later agreement to go along with the pokies deal brokered by Mr Banks’ personal friend Wayne Eagleson who later travelled to Las Vegas with Skycity lobbyist Mark Unsworth? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No and actually you are ahead of yourself because— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker is— 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —Mr Banks has not actually given his support to the deal yet. He said he would look at it.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the last two questions that the Prime Minister has answered he has started them with the words “you” and “your”. You know full well that that is not correct and he has been around long enough to have learnt a few rudimentary lessons— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member was doing perfectly well up to that point. I do remind the Prime Minister that when he says “you should know something” he is referring to the Speaker and that is not a great look.  
Denis O’Rourke 
: Did Mr Eagleson who as Mr Banks’ friend helped him defend a contempt of court charge in 1987 and is now a conduit between Mr Banks and the Prime Minister’s office on matters relating to donations to Mr Banks’ mayoral campaign have any involvement in brokering the Skycity deal? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
New Zealand Defence Force—Exercise Alam Halfa 
6. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Defence 
: What reports has he received regarding New Zealand Defence Force training exercises? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 I have received reports relating to Exercise Alam Halfa currently taking place across the central North Island. This exercise involves approximately 1500 New Zealand Defence Force personnel from all three services of the Defence Force. It is the largest military exercise to take place in New Zealand in the last 15 years.  
John Hayes 
: How does this exercise assist in advancing the Government’s long-term strategy for the New Zealand Defence Force? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The New Zealand Defence Force will have a joint amphibious task force at the core of its force structure by 2015. This task force will draw upon the strengths of all three services to enhance the ability to rapidly deploy people and capabilities. In line with this Exercise Alam Halfa sees our army navy and air force working together under a joint command and coordinating their activities appropriately. It is an example of how in defence this Government is focused on optimising the impact of the New Zealand Defence Force’s resources.  
Budget 2012—Changes to Student Allowances 
7. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: How many people will lose access to some or all of their student allowance as a result of the changes he announced last week? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 I am advised that approximately 4000 to 5000 students would be affected by the policy change that removes student allowance eligibility for post-graduate master’s and PhD students. Those students will of course remain eligible to borrow from the interest-free student loan scheme. The change would not affect the vast majority of students undertaking undergraduate degrees and of course the 200 weeks eligibility rule—roughly equivalent to 5 years of study—has been in place for decades. The member does have to remember the context that the Government’s expenditure on student allowances has blown out in recent years from $385 million in 2007-08 to $620 million in 2010-11 which is a 62 percent increase. 
Grant Robertson 
: Has the Minister read the Ministry of Education’s advice that the increase in student allowance expenditure that he has just referred to is “largely due to high unemployment particularly for younger age-groups due to the economic recession.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: That explains some of the increase. The other significant contributor to the increase was the very large increase in the parental income threshold made by the previous Government back in the time when it thought that the golden world economic weather would go on for ever. The increasing parental income threshold was the very significant change made by the previous Government. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will a student such as one who contacted me today who has already used the 200 weeks of allowances allowed under his new system and is 1 year into a 2-year Master of Science programme be able to get allowances for the final year of their study? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The exact details of the transition will be released in the Budget but I can say that once somebody has had the 200 weeks of student allowances at an undergraduate level just as happens currently they will have to move on to a student loan. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister understand that the person whom I referenced in the last question who is 1 year into a 2-year Master of Science programme under the current rules would be able to get allowances next year and will not be able to get them under the rules that he has now announced? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Indeed if they are a postgraduate yes the member is right. The master’s and PhD degrees are no longer eligible. However those students will be eligible to borrow from the student loan scheme which as we know is interest-free. Of course somebody who is getting a master’s degree or a PhD is actually highly likely to have a very significant income premium over somebody who has not completed such a degree. And of course given that their student loan repayments are income contingent they will be paying off their loan only as their income rises. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister realise that student allowances are available only to people from low and modest income backgrounds and why does he think it is right that people from poor backgrounds should have to bear the brunt of his Government’s inability to grow the economy while his Government has given tax cuts to people who do not need them? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I appreciate that the member has not yet seen a student allowance he does not want to increase but the reality of the situation is that student allowances should be focused on the early years of study and on low-income families—on that I agree with the member. But once you get to postgraduate level you are going to graduate; you are going to achieve your postgraduate degree and achieve the ability to earn a much higher income than somebody else. I would also—[ 
Interruption 
] Do you want to listen Mr Robertson? You might learn something. Also it is important to point out that university graduates on average achieve an income premium earning about 50 to 60 percent more than somebody who does not go to university and I do not think we should actually be saying we want more subsidy of university students by people who do not actually go to university. 
Grant Robertson 
: When he made his announcement last week why were there no papers released to back up the announcement and why were there no final figures on the costs or savings for the announcement yet when Paula Bennett made her announcement this week there was a full suite of background papers and costings? Could it be that there was a need to provide a diversion last week from Mr Banks and his failing memory? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member has confirmed that as well as never seeing a student allowance he does not want to increase he also wears a tinfoil hat on regular occasions. 
Parole—Reduction in Unnecessary Hearings 
8. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: What steps is the Government taking to reduce unnecessary parole hearings? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 In keeping with the Government’s post-election action plan and law and order policies Cabinet has agreed to amend the Parole Act so that prisoners in future will be screened to postpone unnecessary parole hearings. The maximum interval between parole hearings will be increased from 1 year to 2 years for all offenders and the maximum postponement of parole hearings for offenders serving long sentences will be increased to 5 years. The Parole Board will be able to direct that hearings be brought forward if an offender has engaged in rehabilitative programmes earlier than expected. 
Mark Mitchell 
: What will be the benefits of reducing unnecessary parole hearings? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: This Government is putting victims at the heart of the justice system. These changes will reduce the stress and anxiety on victims by cutting the number of times they need to attend unnecessary parole hearings. It will enable the Parole Board to better focus its time on those offenders who have a more genuine chance of getting parole and it will help to incentivise offenders to take responsibility for their offending by completing rehabilitation programmes to help them gain earlier consideration for parole. Savings to Government of $700000 per annum will also be available. 
Welfare Reforms—Youth Not in Employment Education or Training 
9. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What proportion of the 87000 young people not in employment training or education will be assisted by her youth services package? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Yesterday’s announcement targets around 14000 16 and 17-year-old “neets” and around 3000 16 to 18-year-olds on benefit. The package is targeted at those who are most at risk. Evidence tells us that the earlier we intervene the better outcomes we will get. In addition to this we spend on young people aged 18 years and over about $40 million a year through Work and Income on employment and training - focused assistance $1.2 billion through the Tertiary Education Commission for tertiary and workplace training and $43 million for industry training. This package is unapologetic in targeting support to those young people who need it most.  
Jacinda Ardern 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I hate to be picky but I did put on notice this question in order for the Minister to express as a proportion—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am dealing with the noise that erupted in the House there. A point of order was called and members are not at liberty to make that kind of noise when a point of order is called. I did hear the point of order the member was raising and I accept what she is saying. The question did ask what proportion and instead of giving a proportion the Minister gave exactly the figures. Seventeen over 87 is not beyond the member’s wit and I do not think we need to get too picky.  
Hon Member 
: Can you do it? 
Hon Member 
: 20 percent. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Sixteen percent. Why is she cutting the number of young people eligible for assistance into work training or education through her youth services by up to half in some cases but spending more money on those services?  
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: That is a good question and the answer is because quite frankly if you scattergun the money across and give a lot just a little then you will not get the kinds of results that one needs for these young people. So we are targeting it to those who are most at risk and those are the 16 and 17-year-olds who are currently completely disengaged who have actually fallen out of education and who are currently lost. Some of them will need a light touch but many of them will actually need far more intensive support and we are going to wrap that support round them and hopefully stop that track that they are on towards long-term welfare receipt.  
Jacinda Ardern 
: How will an 18-year-old who did not do well in school have any chance of getting back into training or education when they no longer have access to foundation classes and are they not at risk too?  
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is simply not true that 18-year-olds will not have access to foundation classes; they will. We are still spending more than $40 million a year on that 18-plus age group who can get employment assistance. There are still places for them in tertiary institutions and they will be given support to get into them but we will be focusing on those 16 and 17-year-olds who are currently completely disengaged. They are on a fast track to long-term welfare receipt and we can do better by them.  
Jacinda Ardern 
: Will successful services like Youth Transition Services championed by the chair of the Mayors Taskforce for Jobs Dale Williams be eligible for funding under this model or will it close as the mayor contends?  
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes he will be eligible if he has put an application in.  
Jacinda Ardern 
: Has she spoken to those working on the front line of Youth Transition Services who say that 70 percent of the clientele whom they work with move into work at 16 and 17 and are in need of their services once they hit 18?  
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I spend a lot of time talking to front-line services and particularly those with Youth Transition Services. For example the ones in my own patch actually tell me that more than 70 percent of the young people who are going through there are 16 and 17 years old and that is the reality for it—the New Lynn one so you can go and visit it if you like. The reality is that it is those 16 and 17-year-olds who need the most help. Some of it needs to be pretty intensive and we are putting the money in to back them.  
Budget 2012—Impact of Changes to Student Loan Repayment Rate 
10. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: What official advice if any has he received about how increasing the student loan repayment rate will impact on young families and those on low incomes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 The official advice was that those on low incomes say about $25000 will be required to contribute a further $2.27 per week towards paying off their loan and those on a more middle income of say $48000 would pay an additional $11.12 per week. Of course the average student loan borrower will pay off their loan 4 to 5 months more quickly and then they will not have to be paying those repayments any further. The unofficial advice was that using the member’s own figure of a person on the average full-time wage with a tertiary qualification—that is a wage of $59000—they would be permanently worse off under the Green Party’s tax policy than under our policy of paying off their student loan faster.  
Holly Walker 
: Was he advised that the combined effect of last year’s Working for Families and KiwiSaver changes with the new 12 percent student loan scheme repayment rate will be a 7.6 percent increase in the effective marginal tax rate for working parents with student loans and how will that affect young families trying to save? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No I have not received that particular piece of advice but again I want to point out to the member that it does feel a bit like crocodile tears when the Green Party’s tax policy— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member got away with that the first time around and I am not going to let him get away with it on that. The question was not provocative. It asked whether the Minister had received certain advice. 
Holly Walker 
: How will the increased repayment rate affect polytechnic and other non-university graduates who do not attract the 50 to 60 percent income premium he referred to in an answer to an earlier question? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The reality is that the repayments are income contingent so they depend on the level of income. But I would point out that somebody with a mid-level diploma or certificate from a polytechnic is likely to get a premium of 20 to 30 percent over somebody who does not achieve anything in tertiary education. 
Holly Walker 
: Would it not make more sense for student loan repayment rates to be progressive as they are in many countries including Australia so that those graduates who can afford to repay their loans faster do so while those on lower incomes have a chance to find their feet first? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The difficulty with just cherry-picking one part of another country’s scheme is that you say “Well on the one hand we want to keep all the good parts of our scheme and on the other hand we want to keep the other country’s scheme.” 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What’s wrong with that? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well if you have got limitless money of course that is a very good idea but if you have not got limitless money that is not a good idea. If the member wanted to copy the Australian scheme then you would have to actually CPI-adjust the value of the student loans for every student each year by 3 percent. You also would have to ban borrowing for living costs. My understanding is the member wants to make the current scheme here even more generous and I would say that would just be fiscally irresponsible in the current climate. 
Hon John Banks—Compliance with  
Cabinet Manual 
11. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he believe Hon John Banks when he said on Friday 27 April 2012 that he could not remember a helicopter trip to the Dotcom mansion and if not was Mr Banks’ comment consistent with clause 2.53 of the Cabinet Office Manual which states “… at all times Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards. Ultimately Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did he personally speak to John Banks before the House resumed last Tuesday to discuss what Mr Banks remembered with regard to the helicopter trip; and if not why not? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he stand by his statement: “The appointment of a minister … has to be done on the basis that … I can look that person in the eye and have confidence that I can rely on their word.”; and if so why did he not apply that test to John Banks? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and that is why I would never have that member in my Cabinet. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been called. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I would never want to get close enough— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Oh no. Order! [ 
Interruption 
] No I am on my feet and all comments will cease. Order! I guess we get into some difficulty when answers are not helpful. I did not intervene because the line of questioning is a fairly personal line of questioning. But the Prime Minister should not have given that last part of that answer and certainly the Hon Trevor Mallard should not have responded under a point of order in the way that he did. Let us call the score one all at this stage and move on. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Why did he not apply the “looking in the eye” test to John Banks? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because that was not necessary. What was necessary was to confirm that the allegations made by the Hon Trevor Mallard that the member had broken the Local Electoral Act were not correct. He gave me that cast-iron assurance through my chief of staff and I accept that.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that he understands the difference between a Skycity donation and a trip to Dotcom? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I do not have any responsibility for that so I cannot really answer the question for the member.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: When he finally did talk to John Banks did he tell him that employing Simon Lusk was not desirable? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No.  
Television Switch-over to Digital—Progress 
12. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Broadcasting 
: What progress is the Government making towards the digital switchover? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Broadcasting) 
: 
 Good progress has been made in helping New Zealand households make the digital switch-over: 84 percent of New Zealand households have already gone digital and are enjoying more channels better pictures and new services. In fewer than 5 months by 30 September TV in Hawke’s Bay and on the West Coast of the South Island goes digital. The Going Digital team is continuing to work to help thousands make the digital switch-over. To keep watching TV all New Zealanders need to go digital by getting FreeView Sky or TelstraClear by the end of 2013.  
Chris Auchinvole 
: What steps are being taken to help households make the digital switch-over? 
Hon CRAIG FOSS 
: To assist households in Hawke’s Bay and on the West Coast of the South Island to make the digital switch-over community advisers have been going door-to-door meeting with community groups and promoting Going Digital messages. I am informed that by the end of this month 22000 households will have been visited in Hawke’s Bay and will have been doorknocked. This is in addition to the TV radio and print advertising that has been running. People looking to go digital and wanting to work out when their region goes digital and what equipment they need will need to either visit the Going Digital website or call 0800 838 800. 
International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I move  
That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 This bill will amend the International Finance Agreements Act 1961. This Act allows the Government of New Zealand to meet its obligations as a member of various financial institutions including the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The amendment bill updates the Act to give effect to the changes to the articles of agreement of the IMF which were agreed to by the governors in 2008 and 2010.  
I just want to talk briefly about the role of the IMF in the current context of global volatility. The risks of another global financial crisis are real. Whichever region a crisis might stem from we will all face negative economic consequences given the interconnectedness of the global economy. It is organisations like the IMF that can help steer countries through turbulent times. IMF member countries such as New Zealand play a shareholding contribution to the IMF so that the organisation can loan money to countries that are experiencing a balance of payments crisis and cannot find sufficient financing on affordable terms. This helps prevent the situation where a country has to default on paying debt due to insufficient capital and therefore prevents adverse shocks occurring in the global economy. The IMF also provides advice to Governments and central banks based on analysis of economic trends and cross-country experiences in addition to research and statistics based on its tracking of global regional and individual economies and markets. 
 For these reasons New Zealand takes its membership of the IMF seriously. We believe it is important to be an active participant in the international system whether it is by being an active member of multilateral organisations such as the UN regional organisations such as the Pacific Islands Forum or an economic organisation such as the IMF. As a small open economy we benefit considerably from a stable and prosperous global economy— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! Could I ask members please—there is too much noise and I cannot hear. Can I refer the Minister to Standing Order 283(1): the Minister should at the commencement of his speech indicate to the House the committee he nominates should consider the bill. That is Standing Order 283(1). So I ask the Minister before he continues to actually do that now. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Our commitments to the IMF are effectively premiums to an insurance policy against damage to our economy from an unstable world. Contributing to the IMF and global financial stability are also part of our international reputation.  
The changes to the articles of agreement are integral parts of an overall package designed to bolster the resources available to the IMF and enhance its legitimacy and effectiveness by ensuring that members’ voting shares and voice appropriately reflect their changing relative economic weight in the global economy. The amendment to the articles will assist in facilitating the agreed change in the composition of the IMF’s executive board and its future evolution by removing the right of the five largest fund members to appoint an executive director and allowing instead for an all-elected board. Consequently passing this bill will signal New Zealand’s support for reform additional resourcing and better legitimacy in an important financial institution. This is in the context particularly of the push by emerging economies to have a say in multilateral institutions which reflects their growing economic weight.  
Financially this bill will mean an increase to New Zealand’s quota commitment to the IMF. However members of the New Arrangements to Borrow programme of which New Zealand is a member have agreed that they will undertake a corresponding decrease in their commitment to that programme. Overall this means that our commitment to the IMF remains relatively constant moving from 1580 million standard drawing rights to 1592 million standard drawing rights or approximately in New Zealand dollars from $2.9 billion to $3 billion. New Zealand has already agreed to these changes and adopting the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill simply puts that agreement into practice.  
The bill also creates a regulation-making power in the principal Act so that further updates to the articles can be made by regulation. This power will simplify the process by which New Zealand meets its obligations. Once changes to the articles are agreed to by the requisite majority of members of the international financial institutions New Zealand will be bound by the amendments which means that we are required to bring our domestic legislation into line with our international obligations. The decision to approve changes to the articles of agreement of the IMF is effectively made at the time but the Minister of Finance votes on the matter as a governor of the institution. Furthermore the regulation-making power would not be unique. The Legislation Advisory Committee guidelines note that a number of Acts have futureproofing clauses that allow the executive rather than the Parliament to update the text of a treaty. In the context of the IMF there is likely in the future to be further changes in its processes reflecting the changing economic significance of different members. These changes do not mean we will change the way in which we consult on important IMF policy changes. Rather this bill is about demonstrating our commitment to multilateral action as well as simplifying the processes needed to update our own legislation to reflect what has already been agreed to with the IMF. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak to this bill the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. The Labour Party will be supporting this bill to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. The Labour Party supports the function of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and broadly agrees with the Minister of Finance that these are good institutions that assist the conduct of international economic affairs in a way that benefits New Zealand as well as other countries. We do think that the regulation-making power that is conferred by this piece of legislation ought not to proceed and we will be seeking to amend that at the select committee. That is something that I will come back to a little later.  
This bill amends the International Finance Agreements Act 1961 and as the Minister says that includes our obligations to the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The changes that are afoot in this bill are giving effect to changes to the treaty which have been agreed in principle by the New Zealand Government but are not effective in New Zealand law until this Act is passed. I am aware that the changes that are promoted here are quite separate from the increases in commitments that were made to the $430 billion IMF fund which was backed by the G20 in recent months.  
I think that the underlying occurrence here is that the legislation is reflecting an update to the international agreement which changes the share of different countries in the world in terms of how much they have to contribute to the pool that the IMF maintains. Because there has been significant growth in other countries that is higher than New Zealand’s growth rate our relative share of that pool is decreasing. The effect on New Zealand’s contribution overall is not large. It goes from a NZ$2.9 billion to a NZ$3 billion share of the pool because the call that is being made on individual members per unit if you like is decreasing as the size of the pool increases through other countries that are growing faster than New Zealand increasing their share of the pool.  
I do not have a problem with that. I would point out that it shows that the underlying drive of wealth—or at least monetary wealth—does depend upon the relative size of your economy. We are not doing very well in that regard as evidenced by the fact that just today we have had an announcement from the Government to show that its growth forecast is not coming true tax revenue is down and the deficit is worse than was predicted at the time of the last election. But that does not mean that it is not wise for us to do our bit in respect of these international institutions. Although there may be some who say that New Zealand should be isolationist in our approach to these matters and just look after our own interests internally the Labour Party does not think that is right and indeed we think that New Zealand is one of the countries that benefit from international organisations such as the IMF.  
The Minister made reference to the advice-giving role of the International Monetary Fund. I think that is an important role. I think it is interesting to reflect on the fact that one of the most important pieces of advice that the IMF gave to New Zealand in recent years has been ignored. That advice was that we should be changing our tax system so that we have a neutral investment signal so that we have people investing for the growth of the New Zealand economy based on the profitability and the productivity of their business rather than the tax effectiveness of their investment. The International Monetary Fund along with the OECD our own Treasury and the Reserve Bank all favour New Zealand adopting a capital gains tax. So I would use this opportunity to note that if we are going to pay for these institutions we should heed their advice. On this occasion it has got it right and it is the National Government that has got it wrong. Of course that is one of the reasons why New Zealand misdirects its precious investment capital into wrong parts of the economy and we are not growing as well as we should which is the underlying cause of our Budget deficit not improving as fast as it ought to.  
The issue as to whether in future amendments to the International Finance Agreements Act should be made by way of statutory regulation is in my view an important one. At the moment the executive is required to come before Parliament and explain a change to these international agreements. That is the effect of the legislation as it currently sits; indeed the Minister of Finance has done that today. That is as it should be because these things have financial implications for New Zealand that are important and I do not agree that we should be creating a regulation-making power so that this is something that is done by the executive without further recourse to Parliament.  
Of course the executive has to authorise the Minister of Finance or his delegate to go along to International Monetary Fund meetings and make provisional agreements in respect of changes to the IMF rules. The IMF rules do not take effect immediately because the IMF rules contemplate that Ministers like our Minister of Finance have to come back and get approval from their legislatures. And that is actually why it is that this change to the International Monetary Fund rules did not take place immediately upon those meetings back in 2008 and 2010 because there had to be a sufficient number of countries that had ratified the agreement in principle that had been reached at those IMF meetings. The fact that we are one of the last countries in the world to do that—they are already up over 85 percent so these changes are already being given effect to at the International Monetary Fund—is because the Government has been slow in putting this bill on the Order Paper which does not mean to say that it ought not to be on the Order Paper.  
I think New Zealanders will have more confidence in our participation in these international fora if they think that Governments are being transparent about changes to those international agreements and the effect of those changes on New Zealand. There is already enough suspicion out there as to the effect of international agreements. We breed further suspicion if we are not open and transparent about changes to those rules.  
For those reasons amongst others the Labour Party opposes future changes to this legislation by way of the statutory regulation-making power that this amendment Act creates. We believe that future amendments ought to come back to this Parliament. If we look back in the history it has not been an onerous task for New Zealand to amend this legislation through annual amendments or anything like that. It is relatively rare that we have amendments to this International Finance Agreements Act which dates back to 1975.  
The Labour Party approves of the change that decreases the percentage of New Zealand’s share in this greater pool increases the size of the pool overall but then says that the individual contributions are pro rata decreased so that the overall effective cost to the country is about the same. We think it is a wise change.  
I would also note that I do not want to think that people should overstate some of the changes that have been made to IMF voting rights. I am informed that for amendments 85 percent of the votes of members are required or votes plus ratification by those members subsequently. The US still effectively holds a veto right because it has 16 percent of the votes. So we should not overstate the changes in that regard.  
We oppose the future changes being made by way of regulation but support this bill to select committee. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise to speak on this bill the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill sponsored by our Deputy Prime Minister the Minister of Finance—and can I thank the Minister for his speech earlier. At a time when the global economy faces such great challenges the role of the IMF is all the more important. One needs only look at a newspaper or reflect back on newspaper reports over the last few years to see the important role the IMF has played as the world has moved through the global financial crisis.  
Indeed long before that happened there were countries in the world that needed to seek support from the IMF and in so doing were able to help reform their economies take some of the sharper edges off the recessions that were hitting and help move their countries back on to a stronger footing—on to growth and so on. It is a reflection actually of the work the Government this National Government has done over the last 3½ years as New Zealand was faced by the steepest recession of 60 years. As countries around the world were finding they were having to default were laying people off everywhere and their economies were getting much worse we as a Government took the sharper edges off that recession and made important decisions for New Zealanders to help them get through that. And as we heard our Prime Minister say earlier today we have seen growth over 10 of the last 11 quarters albeit modest in some cases. But compared with the rest of the world at least we have some semblance of positive and straightforward and effective Government.  
Can I say that New Zealand takes its obligations extremely seriously when it comes to our international commitments to the IMF the World Bank and many other organisations that help countries in their time of need. But more than that they help countries to develop and therefore it is important that this bill is brought before us.  
Contrary to what the last speaker David Parker said this measure is timely in coming to the House. It needs to be ratified and put in place here in domestic law. That is always the case with pieces of legislation like this. I do not remember a time at least on looking at my research that this Parliament has not ratified changes such as this. So I look forward to the discussion and debate when it comes to our committee but I think that as this Parliament has never said that one of these changes should be not put in place there may be a more effective way that we can do so. That will be interesting when we look at the regulation-setting powers and streamlining the work of this Parliament but also at keeping accountability here. My colleagues who sit on the Regulations Review Committee would argue strongly that they play an important role in making sure that democracy is done and that there is transparency. So we will have an opportunity to canvass and to talk about it at the committee but I do think in this instance that in as far as changes like this with the IMF are concerned a more streamlined procedure will not necessarily take away from what we have at this time.  
I will just briefly say that the changes to the articles of the IMF do a couple of things: improve the representation of fast-growing emerging market countries at the IMF and double the quota which is the IMF’s main means of raising funds. The 2010 reforms doubled the IMF’s total quota resources to about $970 billion and this bill will provide for regulation-making powers so that future updates to the articles can be made by way of regulation.  
This bill will come to the Finance and Expenditure Committee and as the newly appointed chair I look forward to it being there. We will consult widely on it and we will have a genuine honest and open debate with New Zealanders and the Opposition. But I think we should deal with this in a timely fashion and refer it back to the House once we have listened to all those concerns. It is a pleasure to speak on this and I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 As my colleague David Parker has said Labour will support the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. We like most other parties in Parliament believe in the worth of international institutions. The IMF World Bank World Trade Organization ILO and others are critical now in a globalised community and in globalised economies.  
I just want to touch on a couple of things and I note Mr McClay’s final comment that we should pass this in a timely fashion and I agree but I would just make this point. The question arises as to why it has taken so long for this bill to appear in Parliament. The advice I have is that Australia passed equivalent legislation in September 2009 and November 2010 and this is just I think another example of where the Government has to get its priorities right. This is a very important piece of legislation. Our involvement in the IMF especially during the global financial crisis is critical. We have responsibilities and obligations and I would have thought that this piece of legislation given its importance would be brought to this Parliament in due time.  
Putting that aside our involvement in the IMF is critical. I remember a former Cabinet Minister in the 1984 Labour Government who made a point to me many years later reflecting on the history of the turbulent economic times that were inherited in 1984 when the then Prime Minister—whom I am sure you know of Mr Assistant Speaker Tisch—refused to deregulate and we lost $600 million I think in those days offshore. The former Labour Cabinet Minister said to me that had we not been an English-speaking country back then the IMF would have moved in and said “She’s all over.” because we were I believe at that stage 6 or 7 days away quite literally from going broke as a country. That is how bad it was.  
Then if you fast forward to the various economic meltdowns we have had in various countries around the world and now the global financial crisis you can see the worth of these global institutions. In the financial crises of the 1920s and 1930s Governments heads of central banks such that they were politicians and critical institutions did not communicate. People and countries acted almost in silos. Now we have a situation where Finance Ministers central bankers and global institutions like the IMF and the World Bank act in concert to try to stabilise the world economy and assist those in greatest need so that you do not get into a situation—touch wood as we go through this—where the world economy implodes to the extent that it is almost unrecoverable.  
This is an important piece of legislation. It will maintain if you like New Zealand’s quota commitment to the IMF at around $3 billion—the former amount was about $2.9 billion—so it is basically a steady state. I think my colleague David Parker makes a valid point in respect of the changes to allow future updates of the articles to be made by regulation. When we have had major agreements in the trade area for instance they are generally brought back to this Parliament and examined and they are examined at the select committees. They are looked at quite carefully because that is the appropriate thing to do. To date generally at least within the major political parties there has been a bipartisan approach to that which reflects our joint view on New Zealand’s interests. That process is valid for a number of reasons. It is democratically valid but also it allows folk in the community to have their say on those agreements. It also allows—and I think this is a good thing—for various myths especially in the free-trade area for instance created by those who linger in the shadows and create myths about what may be positive or negative about free trade to be stripped away. It allows public scrutiny not only of the agreements but also of those myths and legends.  
Where we have difficulty I think in the communities is when there is a vacuum when things pop out of nowhere especially with international obligations such as this and when there is not appropriate scrutiny by Parliament and thereby the community. I just say to the Minister of Finance as he is going through and considering this piece of legislation that it may well—and I do not make a political point—be worth reconsidering the mechanism by which those future updates are made in terms of whether it is as proposed in here by regulation that can happen at the snap of a finger and an Order in Council or whether it would be profitable to bring those back at least in a cursory way to Parliament thereby providing scrutiny of Parliament and thereby providing to some extent a level—I see Mr Hayes shaking his head. I am not sure whether he is shaking his head at you Mr Assistant Speaker or me or whether he has just got the shakes; it may have been a hard night. We could look at whether it would be worth bringing back those regulations to Parliament to allow parliamentary scrutiny and to allow the community even in a cursory way to have some input thereby providing some confidence for those who may have concerns about the nature of global institutions and also exposing those who create myth and legend about them because sunlight as they say is the best disinfectant. So I say to the Minister of Finance that it may well be that he may wish to look at the mechanism again. I think it is also appropriate when we are signing up to obligations like this that Parliament at least gets to scrutinise those—not after the event but as they go through. Again I think that that provides some confidence at least as people can say that the representatives of this House have given it the once-over but also if necessary to question and inquire as to why if there are questions the Government has signed up to regulations and supported regulations as it has.  
The IMF is often criticised of course for getting there a day late and a dollar short as someone once said but one has to ask especially in the global financial crisis that we currently go through what would have been the nature and impact of events had the IMF and other global institutions not been there. One has to ask that and I think any student of history would argue that these are extremely necessary institutions.  
New Zealand’s contribution and of course New Zealand’s votes are pretty minimal on this. There are some I have heard—even some of the folks in my patch—who have asked: “Why do we bother contributing to this. What’s in it for us?”. Well what was in it for us if you go back to 1984 was some serious support. But also we have an international obligation to do our bit to assist others and to contribute to those international institutions like the IMF. So in turn the IMF can play a role as it has done in Greece and Portugal and other economies as they wobble around. Of course what happens in Europe or what happens in Asia—what happens to economies when they are destabilised by whatever force economically—is that ultimately for a small economy country and community like ourselves that has a knock-on effect. We know that if China’s growth rate dips—if for instance it was to go to 7 percent rather than 8 percent—that will have a knock-on effect on Australia and that will have an economic impact ultimately on us. We are a price-taker we sort of have to ride the wave of economic instability and we have very little international influence in terms of that.  
So we support this piece of legislation. It is important. There is very little politics in this but I just conclude by going back to my former point and that of David Parker. I would ask the Minister as he moves this through the process to consider the appropriateness of simply regulating commitments changes and amendments to IMF agreements without due parliamentary scrutiny. Again because there is very little politics in this I reiterate the point. Where there is some parliamentary scrutiny and some community input that in itself creates a degree of confidence in those agreements and that in itself acts as a barrier to those who would nefariously create myth and legend around those organisations and be nefarious in their motives. It exposes the arguments and it allows us to have a debate. It would be rather unthinkable I think if this Parliament did not support its Minister of Finance in supporting those amendments unless they did something completely crazy. I think it is appropriate that there is a level of parliamentary scrutiny. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak on the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill on behalf of the Green Party. This bill essentially does a couple of things. Firstly it implements some changes to the articles of the IMF which are votes and voting changes. They are very minor changes in voting proportions in the International Monetary Fund. Much more important it changes the way that future changes in the articles of the IMF are approved or not by the New Zealand Government. Previously any changes in the articles of the IMF had to be agreed by the legislature by this House before they could be fully implemented by the New Zealand Government. Even though the New Zealand Government might agree to them at the IMF they actually had to pass through and be legislated before they took full effect. This bill gives the executive—the Cabinet effectively—the power to implement changes to the IMF articles or rather to agree to changes to IMF articles without consulting the Parliament and without getting the approval of the Parliament.  
That is quite a significant change. That is the fundamental reason why we are not going to be supporting this bill. We think it is important that if the New Zealand Government is to agree to changes in voting rights at the IMF that should come back to the New Zealand Parliament. This is not a particularly onerous job. From what we could tell there have been half a dozen changes to the IMF articles that have needed approval from the New Zealand Parliament in the space of 40 or 50 years. So it is not like the Government of the day would have to be coming back to the Parliament every year even or every week but very infrequently in order to get changes approved that the New Zealand Government could agree to changes in the articles to the IMF. So we think it is important that the Parliament retains that right.  
This is part of a general trend in legislation that has been going on for some years now whereby there is delegated decision-making or secondary legislation or regulations—basically there is a lot of movement of rule-making or lawmaking into regulations and away from primary legislation. What we are seeing here with this bill is another part of that broader pattern of taking away the right of Parliament to make the rules or the law and Parliament through the Government’s majority delegating that to the Government of the day in the form of regulations and that is what is happening here.  
It is quite important because the IMF is pretty critical. In the post-war period there were three great institutions that were established or not established. The first of course was the International Monetary Fund the second was the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development or the World Bank and the third was what was then called the International Trade Organization. The third institution was never established of course because the US Congress refused to support the establishment of an international trade organisation and it was only much later in 1995 with the establishment of the World Trade Organization that the third global institution came into being.  
The IMF has played a constructive role over many years. However in the 1980s and 1990s it got taken over as did much of the English-speaking Western World by the new-right crazies. So the IMF started to introduce a series of ridiculous proposals which have been enormously destructive. It adopted the Washington consensus around deregulation and privatisation monetarism and all of the rest—the full catastrophe. That has been enormously destructive. The IMF became enormously unpopular internationally during that period. The former chief economist of the World Bank Joseph Stiglitz who was the vice-president of the World Bank was highly critical of the IMF and the role of the IMF particularly during the Asian financial crisis in 1997. The IMF played a particularly destructive role in making the Asian financial crisis much much worse. Not only Stiglitz but a series of very mainstream and important economists have been highly critical of the role of the IMF through the 1980s and 1990s. Neocolonialism was a term that was used quite a lot about the role of the IMF.  
For those reasons democratic reform of the IMF has been high on the agenda of progressives internationally and the Greens have been advocates for democratic reform of the voting rights in the IMF. As has been stated earlier the basic situation at the moment is the United States retains a veto over decision making at the IMF because it holds 16 percent of the voting rights and essentially you need more than 85 percent to get a decision through. So the United States has retained its veto rights.  
The voting reforms that are being proposed which date back to 2008—this is not a recent event; this Parliament has taken a long time to getting around to approving this—make very minor changes to the voting rights. About 6 percent of the voting rights are moving towards the big new developing economies. Of that about 2.5 percent is actually coming from other developed countries. So it is not like it is a big reform coming from the United States which obviously should be giving up some voting rights but rather it is a very minor reform some of which is actually at the expense of other developing countries. So while in terms of democratic reform one might say that it gives something it is a very minor reform.  
Of course the other thing that is interesting about these reforms is essentially they predate the global financial crisis. So what has happened post the global financial crisis is that of course the role of the United States as the world’s global superpower economically speaking has declined dramatically. Of course the debasement of the US dollar has been one of the most obvious examples of that through massive quantitative easing. But perhaps what is really apposite in this situation is that when the IMF asked for more funds most recently and asked New Zealand to contribute and asked other countries it was of course the United States—the biggest single vote share in the IMF—that refused to make a contribution to the global bail-out fund effectively which Christine Lagarde the head of the IMF was trying to build up in order to save the global economy if there was another crisis.  
So it is a paradox that this voting reform does not deal with the fact that it is the United States that effectively maintains veto within the IMF voting system but it was the United States that failed to come up with any money to help out with the global bail-out fund. For that reason if you were one of the big emerging economies you would be pretty annoyed by this very very tepid reform of the voting system at the IMF. Really it does not make the kinds of changes that we need to make.  
For those reasons we think that the democratic reform of the IMF has a long way to go and it still is in some ways enshrined in the post - World War II order and does not represent the modern world. So we would like the democratic reforms—that this bill implements and which are very very minor—to go much much further so that the IMF represents the world much better. Even if it were just to represent the economic world it would be progress. But it certainly does not represent the world populations in any respect whatsoever. So these are very minor reforms. We also think that if you are going to make these kinds of changes what is the problem with bringing it back to the Parliament? But anyway!  
The other thing I just wanted to say was that the IMF does a lot of useful work. For those of you who read the IMF website there are a lot of great research papers come out of the IMF. Of course David Parker talked earlier about the IMF being like every international institution in arguing that New Zealand should be adopting a capital gains tax in order to even up the tax system because our tax system currently gives great advantage to property investment. The IMF has been a very strong advocate for that. I think the latest IMF report on New Zealand which came out in April is quite interesting as well because the IMF basically agreed with the Government’s strategy and the Minister of Finance rightly said: “Look the IMF is agreeing with us.” but that was before the Government’s fiscal position really started to fall apart. So as the Government’s fiscal position has gotten worse it is actually going to make it harder. It will be very interesting to see what the IMF thinks of that position when it comes to have another look at New Zealand.  
What was interesting about what the IMF said was that it is the high currency—the New Zealand dollar—that is a real problem in rebalancing the New Zealand economy. The IMF is absolutely on the money on that question. It is in this context worth mentioning that the IMF’s report on Switzerland which was done about the same time whereby the Swiss were doing very unconventional monetary policy—that is they basically said they were capping the level of the Swiss franc and would print endless Swiss francs to stop the Swiss franc becoming too high which is a very very unconventional monetary policy. The IMF’s view was that that was an entirely appropriate response to deal with a currency that is becoming too high and is destroying the tradable sector in Switzerland. Now I think that New Zealand would want to read that report from the IMF and although it is very unconventional and I give you that it does suggest that we need to think a little bit outside the square in the way that we manage our currency in New Zealand. If we read reports from the IMF a little more closely we might think a little bit more outside the square. Anyway Mr Deputy Speaker is telling me to wind up so thank you very much. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I was finding the previous member’s speech a little difficult to follow. He talked first about the US debasing its currency and then seemed to conclude his speech by suggesting that New Zealand should also debase its currency in order to get in on the act. Maybe we should start watering the milk; that might be the solution to all our problems. I hope that was not what he was trying to say.  
It is my pleasure to be speaking in favour of this bill the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill which is set down for its first reading. It amends the International Finance Agreements Act 1961 which allows the Government to meet its obligations as a member of the various financial institutions including the IMF and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and it provides for New Zealand to recognise changes to the articles of agreement of the International Monetary Fund.  
The basic dynamic here is that the IMF members provide commitments to fund lending and are eligible to take out a loan in times of economic difficulty. The quota of each member country is intended to reflect its economic size and is denominated by special drawing rights. The changes to the articles of agreement of the IMF that the bill provides for include improving the representation of the faster-growing emerging market economies at the IMF. It is doubling the quota which is the IMF’s main means of raising funds; it basically doubles that quota. The bill also provides for regulation-making powers so that the future updates of the articles can be made to the Act by regulation.  
The changes to the articles of agreement are integral parts of an overall package designed to bolster the resources available to the IMF and enhance its legitimacy and effectiveness by ensuring that members’ voting shares and voice appropriately reflect changing relative economic weight in the global economy. Because of that shift in weight New Zealand’s share of the overall pie falls but the net effect once it has taken into account the near doubling of the overall total quota is that New Zealand’s commitments remain relatively constant—moving from about $2.9 billion to $3 billion.  
 I think this bill provides an opportunity for us to pause and reflect I suppose on the shifting currents of the global economy. The old developed world when the IMF was set up is in the process of being caught up and indeed overtaken by a lot of countries that were once regarded as developing countries. We had Mr Parker here before saying that that was a terrible indictment on New Zealand. I do not look upon it in such a negative way. I think it actually is a good thing in many respects that hundreds of millions of people around the world in China in India in Korea and in many other countries—in Africa indeed—have been pulled out of poverty over the last couple of decades by this unprecedented period of rapid economic growth. The fact that those economies are growing and New Zealand’s overall share of the global wealth is diminishing is not in itself a negative thing. Indeed the fact that China and India are shaking the dead weight of very unfortunate policies—socialist policies really—of decades past and are now facing up to and welcoming the energy of the market economies has been a great thing for humanity across the board and is something that we should celebrate more than lament.  
But it does of course raise the issue of where New Zealand fits in all this and the lesson that I draw from it all is that New Zealand’s wealth and position in the world is not written in stone and we have to work for it each decade and each year. We need to create wealth and it is not going to be created for us and the most important thing a Government can be doing in that area is creating an environment that is consistent and a set of policies that are consistent. I think it is one of the signal achievements of this Government in the last 4 years that we have been following a set of policies: getting the Government’s finances back in order building a more productive and competitive economy delivering those better public services within tight financial constraints and since the earthquake rebuilding Christchurch. The fact that we have gone on about those four priorities ad nauseam for a long time so that people know them inside out is exactly what we need in these difficult international times so that New Zealand businesses and individuals can have the confidence to know where the Government is going what it is trying to do that it has a clear plan and that you can make those long-term judgments knowing that this Government will be sticking to its basic plan. Given that broader context I support this bill’s referral to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Thank you. 
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to support the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. This bill which amends the International Finance Agreements Act 1961 provides for New Zealand to become a member of the Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency. That agency is one of the five agencies that make up the World Bank Group and its core mission is to enhance the flow of capital and technology to developing countries for productive purposes by providing investment insurance for member countries against both sovereign and political risk. This bill provides for New Zealand to recognise changes to the articles of agreement of the International Monetary Fund which are the governing documents of the IMF. These changes were agreed to by the IMF governors in 2008 and 2010 and they focus on improving the representation of fast-growing emerging markets in countries involved with the IMF. The IMF’s main source of lending resources the quota will also be doubled in so doing.  
The bill also creates a regulation-making power in the principal Act so that future updates of the articles can be made by regulation. This power will simplify the process by which New Zealand meets its international obligations taking into account the fact that once changes to the articles are agreed to by the requisite majority of IMF members New Zealand is bound by those amendments whether or not they have been incorporated into New Zealand legislation. This does have concerns for us in that we would also concur with other speakers that that should come back to this Parliament for ratification and not go solely to the executive or to the Minister of Finance. We do believe that the New Zealand Parliament should be ratifying any amendments that are put through the IMF.  
New Zealand depends on global trade. We depend on stable economies on all the continents where we trade to enable us to sell our goods and services on those world markets. The International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill is an additional tool in the armoury of the IMF to help ensure greater oversight of the global economy. New Zealand has an international obligation to play its part in maintaining economic stability. Even though we are a small economy and a small country we help to set a good example globally for other like-minded countries that similarly wish to see a level of control over the world economy.  
New Zealand First will support this bill’s referral to the select committee but we note that it will result in New Zealand’s contribution going from NZ$2.9 billion to NZ$3 billion an increase of $100 million. However we know that this Government is not concerned about a figure such as that because only last week the Hon Maurice Williamson said that $100 million was petty cash. Therefore if the Hon Maurice Williamson can call $100 million petty cash obviously this Government has no concerns about this contribution going up by $100 million. However we will be raising that particular issue in the select committee also.  
These are uncertain times globally in terms of many of our major markets and many of our major allies and trading partners. There are problems financially and politically in areas of Europe in the United States in parts of Asia and on other continents where we trade. It is important that we do have financial and political stability around the world and this particular bill and in terms of our working with the IMF will help assist with some of that stability in the global economy. The world economy needs the ability to provide stability so that the highs and lows on these economies are less of a risk. New Zealand First does have some concerns about the bill. We are concerned that it is giving perhaps too long a leash in some respects to the executive in dealing with the IMF. We would like to see some aspects of this brought back to this House for future clarification and ratification. This bill will go forward to the select committee and we do intend to discuss that. So New Zealand First in the meantime sees merit in this bill going forward and we will be supporting it. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 It is good to hear the sensible contributions that have been made in this debate about amendments to the International Finance Agreements Act because one of the biggest challenges that New Zealand currently faces is how we protect our citizens and our country in incredibly challenging financial times. So often in the debates in this Parliament there are all sorts of sideshows going on but actually that is the core challenge for New Zealand.  
As other members have noted the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill puts into place a number of agreements that were made in 2008 and 2010 by the governors of the International Monetary Fund and allows the New Zealand Parliament to effectively ratify those and modernise those IMF structures. Some of the major changes are the recognition that economies like China and Korea have become so much bigger global players and that they need to step up both in the governance and in the financial contributions to international institutions like the IMF to match their contribution globally in 2012 rather than from when the IMF structures were put together in the late 1950s and the early 1960s.  
The part that is a bit missing though from the debate and the contradiction is that I hear Opposition members recognising the need for an international monetary fund recognising the challenges that there are globally and recognising the changes that have occurred globally around the growth of Korea and China and yet in so many of the policy positions that they adopt they take an introverted anti - global trade perspective which actually contradicts— 
Tracey Martin 
: That would be pro - New Zealand. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —the very reality that goes with this bill. Now I hear this interjection that somehow that is being pro - New Zealand. Members on this side of the House would say that for a small trading nation being pro-trade is being pro - New Zealand and that is where we find that some of the very insular almost North Korean perspective that we get from a party like New Zealand First is actually quite a risk to jobs and prosperity for New Zealand.  
I also find it interesting that in debating this International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill there is a recognition that countries have got themselves in a very serious financial pickle by spending money they do not have. In fact the IMF and the provisions that we are putting forward in the Parliament are actually to try to protect the world economy from some of those reckless policies and it is proper for us to provide those protections. The contradiction though is that in every single week that has occurred this year we have seen new spending commitments coming from parties opposite at a time when New Zealand is running substantial deficits.  
I hear the New Zealand First members interjecting and I would simply say to them well it is promises like those over the last adjournment when they promised superannuitants a 10 percent reduction on their power bills a policy that over a period of 5 years would cost $450 million. I say that that is just financially reckless when we are debating a bill of this sort and it would actually just add to the financial instability. That recklessness is equally so in the contributions I have heard from Labour. In every single debate that comes up Labour members want to spend more. They are being financially reckless and actually that reinforces the need for New Zealand to be part of the stabilising mechanisms that are provided by the International Monetary Fund. I simply hope that New Zealand adopts responsible fiscal policies of the sort that are promoted by this Key Government so that we do not have to call on the resources of the IMF one day to bail us out from the sorts of policies that I see being promoted by members opposite.  
I think this debate is a healthy debate. It reminds New Zealand of the need for sound international trading mechanisms and institutions and of the importance of New Zealand taking a rational conservative and responsible fiscal policy because that is the very best hope of being able to secure the bright future that this Government has campaigned on and continues to work towards with legislation such as this bill.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Embedded in the last sentence from the member who has just resumed his seat the Hon Nick Smith were the words “rational” and “conservative” sitting alongside each other. The central tenet of the Labour Party’s view is that those words do not belong in the same sentence because there is nothing rational about economic conservatism when you are already in a recession but I will come on to that in the second half of my remarks today.  
Let us first consider what is the purpose of this International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. I will repeat at the outset that Labour will be supporting the bill going to the Finance and Expenditure Committee but we will assess then our final position. The reason for that is that on the one hand we support the need to increase contributions to the International Monetary Fund first because it is our responsibility as a member country and second because international events have proven as if there was ever any doubt that we are one interdependent global economy and that confidence in that economy requires countries to be able to join together to stand behind its core institutions. However we oppose the power grab by the executive opposite that says that any future changes can be made by regulation-making power and do not require reference to Parliament. When the total cost of this subvention is $3 billion you had better believe that taxpayers think their representatives ought to be able to debate it. So our position is yes we do want to be responsible members of the global community; no we do not want to write a blank cheque to the current executive or any executive—even us in 2 years—because we think that this is a matter of significant substance and it deserves Parliament’s time.  
Let us just quickly recall what this bill is about. In substance it will amend the International Finance Agreements Act of 1961. That is the Act that allows the Government of New Zealand to meet its obligations to the International Monetary Fund. This particular bill increases our contribution to that from $1518 million special drawing rights to $1592 million. That is approximately $2.9 billion to $3 billion and that is a lot of money.  
The first question that must be asked is why New Zealand is contributing besides the fact that we are obligated to. The answer to that is very very clear. If it was ever in doubt that the global economy is interdependent one need only look at the events of 2008-09 and subsequently with the collapse of many global finance and derivative markets and many merchant investment banks and the near freezing of global credit. We missed by a whisker a rerun of the Great Depression and it was only because of the concerted intervention of central banks and of global financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the European Central Bank that we avoided catastrophe. Near catastrophe has not been that great because we face a decade of deleveraging—the so-called new normal. I guess the good news is that it put the lie to the Washington consensus that we are all neo-liberals now because we are not and this side of the House clearly is not as I look around. That was never the fact but the myth has been busted.  
However international cooperation is now more needed than ever. One need only look at the current crisis in Europe which has caused enormous volatility in international equity markets—up about half a percent today down 2 percent just on Friday—and enormous change from day to day and week to week. The issue that we have seen in the last week in Europe has been really important. Greece has had an election. It has not been able to form a new centre-right Government because the Greek Parliament overwhelmingly is opposed to the European austerity plan. In France the neo-liberal conservative president has been thrown out and the first socialist president elected in two decades and with that there is a clear message that France no longer accepts the tenets of austerity economics. Today on Stuff’s website there is an excellent article by Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz who says: “seldom is it explained how to square the circle. How can confidence be restored as the crisis economies plunge into recession? How can growth be revived when austerity will almost surely mean a further decrease in aggregate demand sending output and employment even lower? This we should know by now: markets on their own are not stable. Not only do they repeatedly generate destabilising asset bubbles but when demand weakens forces that exacerbate the downturn come into play.” How right he is. No wonder he got that Nobel Prize. But of course this is not a foreign issue. We know we have to contribute to provide strength to the European Central Bank and the IMF in this case. We know that collective action to head off the consequences of that burst financial bubble are essential and that is why we are putting in $3 billion of New Zealand taxpayers’ money. It is our underwrite.  
But the lessons also come closer to home and here I want to refer again to the Hon Dr Nick Smith thinking that conservatism was rational. What is rational about chasing your fiscal tail down a long dark tunnel where every move you make reduces tax revenue and you have to come back to the country to reduce expenditure making unemployment worse taxes worse and growth worse? You know it takes a long time to work one’s way out of that long dark tunnel and New Zealand has been down there before. It was called the Forbes-Coates coalition in the 1930s and it ended in the election of Michael Joseph Savage just like in the US the Humphrey experiment ended with Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the New Deal—and he did not muck around. That was a crisis. He came in and said: “We’ve got to put people back to work. Let’s plant some trees.” and they had the Civilian Conservation Corps. They froze banking transactions because they were in the middle of a crisis they underwrote the banks and they got moving from there.  
We are not in quite that world now but the point remains that if reliance had been placed on free markets acting on their own in 1932-34 the US would not have stabilised and been ready to fight World War II. Also in New Zealand we would have had a longer darker recession had Michael Joseph Savage and the first Labour Government not restored hope restored growth restored direction and in modern terms restored strategy for the New Zealand economy.  
That is what is lacking today: a clear plan. Even the business community is expressing its disappointment about the current Government’s lack of direction and plan and its tendency to become mired in one-off deals for favoured mates. It is now getting its head around the fact that there is likely to be a change in Government in 2½ years’ time. So business is now once again talking to the Labour Opposition in the most serious terms about what our alternative programme will look to. In other words— 
David Bennett 
: No they’re not. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: In other words Mr Bennett the smart money has already moved. The member from Remuera sitting behind you knows what that means. He knows what the smart money moving means. That means a vote of no confidence in this Government and that vote of no confidence is well and richly deserved.  
But this is an international bill and it is about our contribution to a very important international institution the International Monetary Fund which is not known as a hotbed of socialism. Yet the International Monetary Fund over the last 5 years has reminded all member Governments that austerity economics will make the crisis worse and it has advised them to invest for growth and jobs. That is what we need to do in New Zealand: invest for growth and jobs. We need a systematic partnership between Government and business that will lift employment lift output lift tax revenues and therefore lift our Budget balance. We cannot continue to chase our economic tail down a long dark tunnel of austerity economics. It will not work it does not work and as the voters of France have just shown it will not last. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 It is really unfortunate that after a drubbing in the last election the last speaker the Hon David Cunliffe has not worked out that the community does not share that member’s view that money grows on trees and believes that the Labour Party and its members know better than our communities how to spend their money how to create jobs and how to invest in business. I would say to the last speaker that if the business community is talking to the Labour Party it is probably for the reason of risk mitigation but there is about 0.1 percent of an opportunity for a Labour Government to take over the Treasury benches in 2 years’ time. Most people in New Zealand can see the benefit of the policies being espoused by John Key and Bill English. They can see that the financial crisis has heightened concerns about sovereign debt sustainability and they can see that that has happened across many advanced economies. It has reinforced I think in many people’s minds the notion that no asset can be viewed as truly safe.  
I agree with Mr Cunliffe that recent downgrades of sovereign debt or of sovereigns previously considered to be virtually riskless have reaffirmed that even highly valued assets are subject to risk. If we look across the horizon we can see that sovereign spreads have declined we have seen that bank funding markets have reopened and we see also that equity prices have recovered. But the pressure on European banks remains including from sovereign risk. The weak euro area of growth and the need to strengthen capital cushions to regain investor trust are still very important. I think that some bank deleveraging is still required but in a way that avoids serious damage to asset prices or credit supply and economic activity. Mr Cunliffe’s formula will cause negative consequences in each of those three areas.  
It is very important that we avoid fresh setbacks because we have got a very difficult and critical path forward that is going to be fraught with political and implementation risk. What is going on here and a point that no speaker has made yet is that in this International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill we are adjusting the law in a way that will help New Zealand contribute to the IMF’s efforts to bolster the global firewall against catastrophe. I therefore support this bill because it will promote stability and it will help move the global economy to a path that inspires confidence. That is critically important for New Zealand and all New Zealanders. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand the next call is a split call. I will ring the bell with a minute to go. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 Labour is supporting this legislation the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill. It is supporting it because we are a member of the International Monetary Fund and we are therefore obliged to meet the obligations that we have in that regard. The importance of this fund is such that this bill slightly increases our commitment to underwrite an amount effectively to around about $3 billion. It is a significant underwriting for a country of our size.  
We are not so happy about the changes that allow future updates to the articles to be made by regulation. We do not think that is appropriate because it means decisions will then be made by the Minister without reference to a debate in this Chamber.  
I want to go back to a couple of points that are absolutely incorrect that were made by the Hon Nick Smith. To the accusation that the Opposition parties including Labour are anti-global I want to say to the Hon Nick Smith that it was this Labour Government that negotiated a free-trade agreement with China. I want to say quite proudly that after I signed that agreement in the Great Hall of the People in April 2008 in 4 years our trade with China has doubled and that trade has moved more into balance with our exports to China going up faster than our imports from that country. This National Government would be in real trouble if we did not have a free-trade agreement with China that enabled us to have as our second-biggest trading partner today a country that is enjoying 10 percent growth a year.  
I want to say additionally that it was that Labour Government that negotiated the free-trade agreement with Australia and ASEAN which is one of the fastest-growing economic regions of the world. It was that Labour Government that started the free-trade negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. So Nick Smith needs to look at his conscience when he makes rubbish statements like “The Labour Party Opposition is anti-global.” This is a party that in Government expanded our horizons and opened up our markets.  
I want to say this as well. He talks about reckless policies; I want to tell you what was reckless. Reckless was John Key and Bill English in Opposition who kept telling us in Government to spend the surplus. During the good years they would have had us spend the surplus on tax cuts for the best-off people. But no the Labour Government was smart. The Labour Government actually used those surpluses to pay down the debt to the extent that when the National Government took office the Government accounts were not in the red; they were in the black. We had a net surplus in the Government accounts. It was Bill English who stood up on 12 December and said that we were in a good position to take on the global financial crisis because the Government had prepared for the rainy day. He was not talking about the National Government—it had been in office 4 days. It was the Labour Government that used the money responsibly and if there is any reason why New Zealand is in a better shape than the Europeans and so many other countries in the world it is that the Labour Government had said we needed to prepare for the rainy day and that we needed to get our books into shape. The fact that this National Government has been able to borrow up to $300 million a week is because of the sound fiscal position that the Labour Government left National in when it assumed office.  
Finally in the last minute that is left I want to comment on John Hayes’ remark: “no asset can be viewed as truly safe.” We know that. We know that the answer to getting out of the economic position that New Zealand is in is not to sell off our best-performing assets—the power companies that returned in 2010 $700 million to the New Zealand taxpayer. We will keep those assets and we will use growth to get this country back to the living standards and back to the sound economic position that the Labour Government left it in when National came into office.  
We support this bill but I have got to say that from the last two National speakers I have heard absolutely unadulterated nonsense about the shape of the economy they found and the commitment of this Labour Party which in Government has been a truly internationalist party that has played its role in the world and has met its obligations. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill seeks to do three things. It seeks to amend the articles of agreement of the IMF to do two substantive things: to improve the representation of fast-growing emerging-market countries of the IMF—that is to say with a view presumably to making it more democratic—and secondly to double the quota which is the IMF’s main means of raising funds. In addition within New Zealand’s parliamentary procedural terms the bill also seeks to provide for regulation-making power so that future updates can be made by regulation. It has been an interesting debate today. I think we have actually heard some insights from experienced and seasoned colleagues from all sides of the House although I do suggest that Labour in the form of David Cunliffe and no doubt all his colleagues cease and desist from ensuring or insisting that the debate is cast in “bipartisan terms”. It is for over 15 years that we have had an MMP system. It is not a bipartisan issue—foreign policy defence trade and international finance—it is a multiplicity of ideas from a multiplicity of parties. It is about time that National and Labour recognised that and actually paid respect to it.  
Following the debate it seems to me that there has emerged a theme that essentially divides the House on this bill. The Green Party as my colleague Russel Norman has indicated will oppose the bill and therefore there are two views to be brought to bear on this. If you follow the path of reasoning so to speak between National Labour and New Zealand First on the one side and the Green Party on the other side it is interesting to see what we have in common and where we actually diverge. It seems to me there are three propositions you might say and I think we are agreed on the first two. The difference is that the Green Party diverges on the third. So let us look at that.  
I think we are all agreed on the first proposition which is that the IMF along with other major global institutions such as obviously the United Nations and the Bretton Woods international financial institutions is necessary. Nobody is disputing that. Those who claim the other party is anti-global are engaging in shallow rhetoric. We are all recognising the need for sound and legitimate global institutions. Secondly—we are all agreed on this I think—the IMF along with those other institutions has done good work in the past. The Green Party agrees with that too; I think Russel Norman made that clear. So where do we diverge? We diverge on the third point. And what is that? Let me look at National Labour and the Greens separately.  
National has the following idea: that the IMF still does totally good and sound work that it is therefore still adequately legitimate and that the neo-liberal agenda that was brought in during the 1980s and since is sound. There is therefore nothing to dispute and therefore National will continue to support any changes to it. Look at Labour. It goes down the same critical path it seems to me—pretty much. It says the IMF still does good work and that it is still legitimate. David Cunliffe denies that the Labour Party adopts a neo-liberal agenda. But when in Government Labour effectively indicated to the IMF that it agreed with pretty much all its policies through the 1980s and 2000s. It opposes the Order in Council—and David Parker talked about a lack of transparency—but none the less Labour will support the bill.  
The Green Party takes a different turn. It believes that in the 1980s and since—in the 1990s—the IMF took a wrong turn with its neo-liberal agenda that although it still does good analytical work it is losing its democratic legitimacy now in terms of 21st century global democratic expectations and that the proposed changes are inadequate to the purpose of democratic reform. Therefore the Green Party will oppose the bill. If you go back to the 1940s—it depends on your frame of reference—in the mid-1940s it was adequately democratic. In the early 21st century it is not sufficiently democratic. The democratic reforms do not go far enough ergo the Green Party will oppose the bill. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 In that last speech from the Green Party member Kennedy Graham I am sure he would have preferred to have 10 minutes so that we could actually hear his reasoning behind why the Green Party has such a problem with the IMF. But I think what it does indicate is that the Green Party just does not have any concept of economic reality. It does not understand what is required in a modern economy. It lives in a cocoon of some world of economic legitimacy that it believes in.  
Really it needs to wake up and smell the roses and work out that you actually need to earn money these days that a country needs to go out there and pay its way in the world and that a country can do that and be environmentally friendly as well. The Green Party does not have to revert to communism and to put everybody at one level and think that the world will change for it. That is the Green Party philosophy. I would like to see the Green Party show us an example of where that Green Party philosophy has worked in the world at any point in time in world history let alone now. I am sure there are many examples where it has been tried and they are riddled with failure because it is not the way that the world works and it is not the way that human nature works. The Green Party says that National and Labour are essentially the same and have a neo-liberal agenda to term it in the way that the Green Party does. Well that is just— 
Paul Goldsmith 
: You’re not neo-liberal. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: I am certainly not liberal so to term it in that way is completely inappropriate.  
What we do see is that the world needs to wake up and the message that is coming out of what you are seeing in elections in places like France and through Europe at the moment is still I think a failure to recognise that the world has changed and that the modern economies of the world that are stronger are those that are based on core economic fundamentals of growing their economies earning revenue and not borrowing too much. Those strong economies like India and China that are coming through as proposed in their commitments to the IMF certainly will indicate that and the numbers speak for themselves. The rhetoric and idealism of the Green Party certainly do not favour that. This is— 
Tracey Martin 
: China’s a communist nation still isn’t it? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: What was that from New Zealand First? 
Tracey Martin 
: China’s a communist nation still isn’t it? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: China is a communist nation. That is what the New Zealand First Party says. It is a party that likes dictatorships anyway. It is quite interesting that that comes from the New Zealand First Party. China is a very successful economy and it has a very open market on the ground. You would find that if you had a look at the Chinese economy.  
This bill the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill is something that is important for New Zealand going forward. It is something that as a Parliament we have wide-ranging support for which is good. The IMF is not the silver arrow that is going to save the world. The IMF is a body that is part of the integral nature of our world economy. It has a role to play. It will not be big enough or strong enough to save this world though. What we need to avoid any economic issues is good sound economic management in each country. The New Zealand National Government along with our political supporting parties has delivered that good sound economic management and that is what will be the success of countries going forward. It will be the factor that will determine the successful economies of the next decade or so and countries that do not undertake that successful reform of their economy and good solid management will pay the price in time to come. The environmental prospects of those countries are much worse than those of countries that actually take the right steps at this time. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the International Finance Agreements Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
Ayes 103 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 18 
Green Party 14; Maori Party 3; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Child Support Amendment Bill 
First Reading 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I move  
That the Child Support Amendment Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Social Services Committee to consider the Child Support Amendment Bill. This bill is a very significant one for a great many New Zealand families. When the child support scheme was introduced in 1992 to replace the previous systems of court-ordered maintenance in the liable-parent contribution scheme it was the Government’s intention that it would be a simple scheme relatively easy to understand and administer and using taxable income as a consistent basis on which to assess the capacity of a liable parent to provide support for their children. Since that time it has had a number of relatively minor fixes but fundamentally the scheme has not moved with the times. I can vouch for that based on the number of complaints I receive about it from the public. In fact about 40 percent of the correspondence that I receive as Minister of Revenue relates to the child support scheme.  
For these reasons I began in early 2008 the most major review of the child support scheme since its inception. That work led to a Government discussion paper released in 2010 and to this bill which was introduced shortly before Parliament was dissolved for last year’s election. I freely concede that some might argue that the pace of change has been too slow given the range of problems identified. For my part I have a considerable measure of frustration that progress has not been more rapid but it is important to remember that this is an important social reform with many difficult components and it was therefore vital to make sure that the new format addresses to the greatest extent possible the issues that have been identified while at the same time recognising that it is impossible given the variety of individual circumstances to legislate for every imaginable situation. Having said that it is my strong view that this bill strikes the appropriate balance.  
But it also raises an important issue that cannot be stated too strongly. The child support scheme is a backup arrangement where parents fail to reach agreement over the financial support of their children. Sadly in too many cases since 1992 it has become the default position which in my view has given rise to many of the problems. I cannot state too strongly that the overriding preference has to be that when relationships break up parents reach their own mutually acceptable financial arrangements for the care of their children rather than automatically defaulting to the child support option. Where that is impossible for whatever reason the child support scheme needs to be there to ensure the financial support of the children is secure but it must always be the backstop not the default. The primary onus has to be on separating parents coming to their own mutually acceptable arrangements for the support of their children.  
There is one other general point that I should make because it is often a point of contention. Child support and parental access do not go hand in hand nor does the level of child support payable have any influence on determining the level of access to one’s children. That is a separate process determined by the Family Court under separate legislation and has nothing to do with the child support system. The point is that parents have a fundamental responsibility to provide for the care of their children regardless of whatever access or custody arrangements have been concluded or whatever town or city or even country they might live in.  
So with the measures contained in this bill the Government is signalling its intention to confront the real problems with the current child support scheme to ensure that it is fit for purpose—and that purpose is financial support for approximately 210000 New Zealand children. The changes in this bill provide for a fairer and more transparent assessment calculation for child support payments that takes into account a wider range of individual circumstances and capacities to pay. The bill also includes changes to the rules relating to the payment of child support the imposition of penalties and the writing off of penalties. Broadly speaking the changes in the bill fall into three particular categories: a new child support calculation formula which is the bulk of the changes; secondary changes to update the child support scheme more generally; and amendments to the payment penalties and debt rules for child support.  
It is important to emphasise that over the scheme’s history the formula used to calculate child support has failed to keep up with societal changes and that ends up affecting the children whom the scheme is meant to be there to support financially. It is now more usual than it was in 1992 for both parents to share the care of their children more evenly. A liable parent may therefore significantly share the care and expenditure associated with raising their children but this is not recognised under the current child support formula because they do not have arrangements that qualify for shared care. It is now also quite usual for both parents to be working yet the incomes of both parents are not taken into account. A consequence of this is that the liable parent may not actually be the primary income earner even though that liable parent is paying all the child support.  
On a more basic level the formula that is applied in calculating the level of child support payable does not accurately reflect the true cost of raising children in New Zealand today. I think that child support payments should reflect a fair estimate of what it costs to raise a child in 21st century New Zealand and what a parent would normally be contributing towards meeting that cost if both those parents were living together. So the scheme needs to be changed in order to ensure that it is working to help provide financial support and is not becoming in itself an obstacle to parents meeting their responsibilities.  
A very real concern that caregivers have is about the non-payment of child support payments by the liable parent or the instability or irregularity of those payments. Child support debt levels in particular from penalties have reached record levels. Although penalties play an important part in encouraging parents to meet their child support obligations if they are excessive they can actually discourage payment and the bill therefore proposes a better way of targeting penalties. International studies tell us that child support systems that are perceived as being fairer generally result in higher compliance levels. Together with the changes to the payment penalties and write-off rules for child support a fairer scheme would also provide paying parents with more incentives to make those payments.  
The State child support scheme as I said should be seen as the backup only when parents are unable to make satisfactory private arrangements for the financial support of their children. For the sake of people in that situation it is up to us to ensure that the scheme we put in place is run as efficiently and as fairly as possible while recognising that because of the circumstances involved no country will ever be able to introduce a scheme that satisfies everyone concerned. As I said at the beginning 210000 people depend on the child support scheme to provide financial support—210000 New Zealand children. They did not choose their circumstances but they have to live with them. The changes that this bill is about introducing are to make the support that they get through the child support system more certain and more regular by making the scheme a fairer and a better one. I am very proud and happy to commend the Child Support Amendment Bill to the House. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 I rise to speak to the first reading of this Government bill in the name of the Hon Peter Dunne the Child Support Amendment Bill. Labour will support this bill to the Social Services Committee because we believe that those who are going to be affected by it should it pass should have their say. As Mr Dunne has said 210000 children in New Zealand are affected by the legislation currently. Labour believes that decisions in this area should be guided by the principles of fairness and opportunity. These children who did not choose their particular circumstances should have opportunity and fairness as much as any other child.  
The bill amends the child support scheme that was introduced in 1992 and concerns those who provide financial support to these children by making provisions for a new child support calculation formula and some secondary changes to update the child support scheme more generally. It also amends the payment penalties and debt rules in a way that child support including debt write-offs for parents with debts to the Crown is amended.  
The present provision in the Child Support Act is expanded in respect of the formula to refer to any carer of the child who may be a parent or a non-parent who is not living with a parent of the child in a marriage civil union or de facto relationship. This is an important change as some currently do not qualify for the support. It also recognises that shared-care arrangements have changed through the years and the bill proposes a 28 percent threshold for recognising shared care; that amounts to 2 days of care per week. The new section 16 inserted by the bill relates to this. It is the Commissioner of Inland Revenue who must determine the care cost percentages of every carer under the proposed legislation. The changes that provide for a wider recognition of shared care are things that should be looked at in the select committee. It is true that the devil will be in the detail. The adequacy or inadequacy of the provisions will be highlighted I am sure by interested parties.  
Labour acknowledges the bill as a sincere attempt to wrestle with the realities of modern parenting. Labour is concerned about the effects on families and particularly any perception that this bill would absolve us all from supporting children in vulnerable circumstances. Labour will therefore support the bill to the select committee to give those who are affected by the legislation an opportunity to have their say. We do agree that the current legislation is out of date and any MP in this House who does electorate work will be able to tell stories in relation to cases they have heard where it seems that unfair treatment has been meted out. Of course these are difficult decisions and no bill can ever account for every circumstance. It is hoped that the majority of these things can be sorted out privately and that this Act in its updated form should the bill go through will be a backstop.  
For many parents living apart parental responsibility is shared these days and both remain active in their children’s lives. Work participation rates have increased since the Act was originally derived so it is now more likely that the principal carer of the child is also working. As I have mentioned there are some parents who act as caregivers who have arrangements that do not qualify under the present formula. This should be addressed. Many parents have concerns about non-payment or delayed payment of child support and this bill hopes to address that.  
There are other concerns that we imagine will come to light in the select committee which include the effect on women. There are groups that have submitted I think in the early consultation that have drawn attention to the fact that women are likely to be affected in a negative way by these changes as they are currently proposed. This is something that Labour would like to see addressed if the bill is to move further through the process. I am sure my colleague Jacinda Ardern will speak to that point when she gets up to speak to the bill shortly.  
It is also true that it was over 3 years ago that the Hon Peter Dunne said that he was going to complete a review of the child support system within 6 months. This side of the House wonders what other priorities the Government has had that has meant this bill has been shuffled down the Order Paper.  
It is this wider context that concerns us also. What we see from this side of the House is a background of cuts. We see that real funding in the health sector has dropped under the National Government we see that the early childhood education sector has faced cuts to the 20 free hours scheme that Labour introduced and we see allowances for ongoing education being cut. Against this background changes to child support may affect parents in a way that is of great concern and should be of great concern to New Zealanders. We are mindful of those changes that have happened and they will no doubt inform the submissions that we will hear in the select committee as we make our minds up about whether these changes are fair and the optimal way of amending this legislation to give a fair go and to give fairness and opportunity to those children affected by this bill.  
Since National took office the child support debt has ballooned and currently stands at over $2 billion of which $1.6 billion is penalty payments. It is clear that the current scheme is not working. It is interesting to note that on this matter it seems the National Government has had a change of heart. The last amendment to child support legislation in 2006 which allowed for debt write-downs was supported by all parties in the House except National. On this matter it appears that National is swallowing a dead rat. The problem of debt must be sheeted back because it was National that devised the scheme with the penalty payments that we currently have. It opposed those changes previously. They are there and they are the cause of concern. It is good that those payments are being addressed in the bill.  
The bill allows for further write-off of child support debt under certain circumstances. As I said it is interesting that the Government supports that because National in Opposition opposed any moves to reduce child support debt. Most debt is attributable to these penalties as I have said. In 2005 it is interesting to note Judith Collins said that “Writing off debt sends the worst possible message to absent liable parents. The Government is telling them that if they dodge their responsibilities for long enough they will get a discount. That is the wrong message to send. Those who do the right thing and pay their way will be left wondering why they bothered. Our vulnerable children deserve better than a child support collection system that rewards debt dodgers.” It will be very interesting to hear the reasoning that has shifted that position. It seems that National now supports the debt write-downs. Once again we see that Judith Collins’ tough talk in Opposition does not match her actions in Government.  
As I draw to a close I note that Labour will support the bill to the select committee because we do think that those who are affected should have their say. They had their say a long long time ago when the bill was first mooted when Mr Dunne went out consulting but much water has passed under the bridge and that debt has subsequently ballooned. We look forward to hearing that fairness and opportunity will be preserved against that background of cuts to vital services. The devil will be in the detail and I have no doubt that we will have many submissions of high quality on the adequacy of the amounts proposed in new schedule 2 “Expenditure on children” and also in the formula in new section 29 for assessing the annual amount of child support.  
Labour supports the bill to select committee and we look forward to hearing from submitters who will be affected by this bill about the adequacy of its provisions. Thank you. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 It is a privilege for me to speak in support of this bill the Child Support Amendment Bill and I thank the Minister of Revenue who has just left the Chamber for what is another sensible piece of legislation introduced to this House.  
One of the Government’s key social policy objectives is to ensure that all New Zealanders have an equal opportunity in society and this bill reinforces that objective because it includes a safety net through the benefit system for those who are unable for whatever reason to look after themselves financially. This bill follows the great work that this Government has already done in the area of welfare reforms and in the area of the green paper consultation around vulnerable children. This bill supports again the welfare of children in our country because they are the future and they are certainly part of what is important in New Zealand society today.  
In the context of child support this means that child support payments are collected and they are delivered for the benefit of those children they are intended for and that parents through whatever disagreements or whatever separations occur do not pass those responsibilities on to the rest of society. So as a member of the party of personal responsibility and the party that supports people taking responsibility for their own actions I say that this bill supports the ethos that people should be responsible and take the consequences for their actions. That is why parents can be liable for child support even when the custodial parent receives a State-provided benefit.  
As has already been stated by the previous two speakers we see these issues in our electorate offices constantly throughout our time here at Parliament. They are often heart-wrenching cases where inequity and unfairness pervade the child support system. People have strong views on child support and with good reason because children and the welfare of children often need to fit in with their busy lives as has already been demonstrated.  
But child support needs to fit in with the realities of parenting and raising and supporting children today. This amending legislation amends the core Child Support Act from 20 years ago and in many respects New Zealand has moved on. In many respects our society has changed. That is why the changes that have been promulgated in this bill are actually consistent with the changes that are reflected in our society and that is why I certainly support these changes.  
The bill will affect over 200000 children—200000 children who need support—and although our society changes the needs of our children do not change. The needs of our children—to be educated to be clothed and to be loved and cared for—do not change and this bill supports the need to provide for those children who are certainly in need. Today of course frequently both parents are working childcare arrangements can be quite complex depending on the child concerned and these arrangements need to be fluid and they need to be flexible to respond to the changing needs of our society.  
As the Minister has already pointed out there was extensive consultation. Consistent with the Government’s approach in terms of its multi-agency approach to solving some of society’s more difficult problems a range of Government departments have been involved in this consultation from the Ministry of Social Development of course to the Ministry of Justice Ministry of Women’s Affairs Treasury and the Families Commission. So it has been a multi-pronged approach from Government in solving these issues. There has also been significant public consultation as the Minister has referred to. Following the  
Supporting children 
 discussion document of 2010 we had over 2000 participants in an online forum consultation that was discussing the issues relevant to this bill and a further 112 written submissions.  
The changes are really about a child support calculation formula that will take into account some of those issues that I have already alluded to around shared care around the different income levels of both parents and around the estimates for expenditure that have changed for children in New Zealand society today. This bill firstly modernises an Act that has been in place for 20 years and that many in this House recognise is outdated and requires reform. Secondly there are going to be changes to update the schemes in terms of taking into account other key factors like recognising significant daytime care and relying on parenting orders and agreements.  
I support this bill. I am glad that the Labour Party the “Party of No” is also supporting this bill because the “Party of No” clearly is against jobs clearly against opportunities against mining and against convention centres. I am just glad that it is supporting this bill in terms of the welfare of our children which is paramount to many on this side of the House. I look forward to the select committee process to hear submissions on what is a worthwhile and constructive bill. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I welcome the opportunity to speak to this Child Support Amendment Bill. I resent being called the “Party of No” given that we have offered to support this bill to select committee in order—with a heavy caveat—to allow wider debate and discussion from the public. I would hope then that the select committee process for this bill will be more robust than the last one which went to select committee with a whopping 9 days for consideration.  
Before I get into the detail of this bill I want to speak a little bit to its context because I think that when we are analysing bills such as this there is one simple lens that we should apply and that is quite simply whether the measures in this bill will be in the best interests of children. I think that when we apply that lens we see the world quite differently. But I want to come from the starting point the environment that we are working within currently. I believe that some of the policy some of the debates we have seen in this House and even some of the most recent welfare reforms have not applied that lens to children. We have not been focusing heavily enough on children. If we were we would be probably focusing a bit more on mothers.  
Now what do I mean by that? Bill English consistently comes into this House and talks about smoothing the sharp edges of recession. I want to add a counterstatement to that: women and mothers in particular are the shock absorbers of poverty and recession. Now what do I mean by that? Well unemployment currently in New Zealand is sitting at 6.7 percent. For women it is 7.1 percent and we are at one of our highest rates since the 1990s. Women are overrepresented in statistics around joblessness and underemployment. They are overrepresented in our statistics around sole parents and particularly those in receipt of Government support; in fact they represent over 80 percent of those reliant on Government support. In New Zealand sole parents have one of the highest rates of unemployment in comparison with other OECD nations. By default then those women are more likely to live in poverty. When we are talking about living in poverty in real terms that means things like eating less fruit and fewer vegetables sharing bedding arrangements with children postponing doctors’ visits for yourself in order to ensure your child can access the doctor less heating and poor-quality housing. 
 Women are the shock absorbers of the recession. Women are the shock absorbers of poverty. Why am I bringing that up in this current context? Well a lot of the discussion that has been around parenting lately has been solely around women. Particularly when it comes to welfare reforms and the discussion about team parenting the discussion about sole parents has predominately been about women on the domestic purposes benefit. I have two questions then with that lens on around children. Are we genuinely improving the situation for women in New Zealand through some of the changes we have seen proposed by this Government or are we making it worse? Are we currently valuing the role of mothers in New Zealand or are we playing up to preconceptions and negative stereotypes and ultimately damaging the women who are caring for children in New Zealand?  
And finally what about the dads? I am tired of having conversations whether it be in the context of child support the domestic purposes benefits or welfare where the assumption is that we should be talking solely about women. I do not believe in immaculate conception. Either the Government does or it is ignoring reality. I do want to add a caveat here. I am of course not talking about all fathers involved in a separation who do not have direct full-time custody of their children. There are many out there who are working damned hard to do the best by their kids even if they are not the constant custodian of them. I am not talking about them. But if the Government wants to have a real debate let us talk about dads who have run away from their responsibilities because this is not just about single mums who are still around. It is about the people who leave. If that was brought into the frame this would be a genuine debate but it has not been.  
Let us be clear. Why am I talking about this group of women? It is because this bill will have a very heavy impact on parents who find themselves in a sole-parent situation where they are reliant on Government support. Why am I flagging that? Because Inland Revenue Department figures seem to suggest that a high proportion of the inland revenue payments being collected are held on to because another parent is receiving Government support. Let us look at some of those figures. As at 31 December 2011 there are 141913 custodians registered with the Inland Revenue Department. So where the department was managing an arrangement—let us be clear that not all child support arrangements are registered with the Inland Revenue Department which is what the Minister has talked about—83189 of those cases are where payments have been retained by the department for sole parents or unsupported child payments. Basically we can assume therefore that that might be the number of in particular women who are in receipt of a domestic purposes benefit where for instance the Inland Revenue Department is holding on to a child support contribution because the sole parent is on some form of Government support. By my calculation that could mean—and I acknowledge this is a very rough calculation—up to 30000 sole parents who are not receiving any indirect support for the child they are caring for. To my mind we should be talking more about that figure in this debate.  
There are a couple of other issues that I hope we will hear discussed in the select committee. The first is how we can encourage more parents to show accountability to their children and responsibility and whether this bill could have any role in that. There has been some discussion in overseas jurisdictions for instance about whether or not parents have a more direct involvement in the upbringing of their children if they are the non-custodial parent if they are paying directly to the other parent. At the moment we have the Inland Revenue Department sitting there in the middle. Is that creating a disincentive and a lack of connection between the other parent and the custodian parent and therefore a lack of accountability? I think it is a fair question for us to discuss at the select committee.  
Secondly what about our arrangements in terms of overseas payment? We have reciprocal agreements which allow us to collect payments for some overseas jurisdictions but we have already discussed in the select committee where those have fallen down and whether they are adequate in particular for Australia where a large part of our non-payment tends to reside. I think a discussion needs to be had over that.  
 But I come back to the bill itself remembering our lens—that is the lens of children—and secondly also the role of mums. The Families Commission has said in the extensive work it has done in this area—and I know Rajen Prasad is likely to pick up on this in more detail—that the outcomes for parents who have arrangements outside of the Inland Revenue Department are generally found to be more satisfactory by both parents. That might be self-evident because for instance payments tend to be higher when they are not enforced by the Inland Revenue Department or outside. For instance there seems to be a difference of $433 per month as a median payment versus $241 for department-based payments.  
Also Inland Revenue Department arrangements tend to have less contact than those that are set up as private arrangements. At the select committee I would like us to have more discussion about why those Inland Revenue Department arrangements have such a high level of dissatisfaction for both parents. I want to hear from parents on that and in particular I want to hear about those primary custodians and I know that will mean by and large that we will be hearing from a lot of mums but I want to hear from dads also. I want to hear about people’s views of the per-child payment decreasing once we go beyond a multiple of one which is something that David Clark has raised with me and whether or not this is fair. Can we assume strict economies of scale when it comes to the distinct needs of children? I want to hear from parents on that.  
Overall though we need to keep in mind that although care arrangements may have changed in the modern day actually when it comes to working arrangements particularly for sole parents they have got worse. We cannot assume that because a sole parent has for instance 60 percent of the care arrangements and the care responsibilities they are then able to automatically top up their 40 percent of remaining time with an appropriately flexible part-time job. That is not realistic. We must look at the realities and I look forward to hearing from the public on this bill.  
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 It has not been easy for the Green Party to decide whether or not to support this bill the Child Support Amendment Bill. This bill in our view is somewhat like the proverbial curate’s egg: parts of it are good and parts of it are bad. The Green Party has on balance decided to oppose this bill although we acknowledge that some of the changes it makes to the child support regime have merit. I want to first address the things that we do like about the Child Support Amendment Bill.  
It has long been a concern of the Green Party that it is all too easy for non-custodial parents to minimise their child support obligations particularly if they are wealthy and they are therefore those who should in fact be paying the most to provide financial support for their children. The current child support arrangements permit such wealthy parents—and almost invariably we are talking about fathers in this category who engage in this type of activity—to use complex arrangements involving companies and trusts to minimise their nominal income and therefore their child support obligations. This bill will allow the child support agency to go behind many of these rorts and ensure that wealthy parents pay their true child support obligations rather than using artificial devices to avoid them. To that extent we commend this bill.  
I also want to commend the bill for taking a more sensible approach to the penalty regime for the late payment of child support or non-payment of child support. The harsh penalty regime that currently operates when non-custodial parents do not meet their obligations ironically actually provides a strong disincentive for those who fall behind with their payments to re-engage with the system and the child support agency and resume making their payments. So the Green Party is pleased that this bill introduces greater flexibility to the penalty regime. This will make it more likely that those who are in default actually re-engage and re-engage earlier with the child support system.  
I turn now to the aspects of the bill that the Green Party has concerns about and the reasons on balance why we have decided not to support this bill. The bill will reduce the child support liability of parents who are not the primary caregivers. This includes both those who have their children living with them for 2 or more days a week and those who have started new families. Currently non-custodial parents must have the child or children 40 percent of the nights in a year in order to qualify for a reduction in the amount of support they must pay. Under this bill that will drop to just 28 percent of the nights in a year. This means for example that a father with two children who currently contributes $7400 a year to the mother’s expenses in caring for the children and who has his children for on average 2 nights a week which is a fairly standard example under this bill would have to pay only $2600 a year. That is a massive reduction of 64 percent in his child support liability.  
There seems to be an assumption in this bill that shared care is always a good thing and that the child support regime should be geared towards encouraging such arrangements. I wish to challenge that assumption. Shared care is clearly not always in the best interest of the children and it is the best interest of the children that we should have in mind at all times. Where one parent is violent or otherwise abusive shared care is not in the interest of those children. Nor is shared care in the best interest of children if it impacts negatively on the financial stability of their family. I fear that this bill will incentivise separated parents to enter into shared-care arrangements not because it is in the best interest of the children but because one parent—and this will usually be the father—sees the arrangement as a means of minimising child support liability.  
I do wonder to what extent some aspects of this bill that appear to be really designed to placate non-custodial parents have been influenced by the very vocal and grumpy fathers groups out there on the fringes. I think they are epitomised by the notorious self-styled dad4justice in the blogosphere whom members may be familiar with. These are the fathers who view their children effectively as their chattels and they have made it very clear through their actions that their motivations are not what is in the best interest of their children but their own self-perceived rights including the minimising of their child support obligations.  
The Green Party also has concerns that this bill appears to assume that if a non-custodial parent re-partners or moves in with a new partner that new partner is a dependant for the purposes of child support and a reduction in the non-custodial parent’s child support liability consequently occurs. That seems to provide another loophole in a child support regime that is already riddled with loopholes that allow non-custodial parents to minimise their financial responsibility for their children.  
I acknowledge that no formula-based child support system is ever going to be totally fair and the Green Party’s response to this bill has very much been one of balancing up the competing priorities. However we believe that the test in this instance and we have heard this from other speakers should be what is in the best interest of the children. On balance this bill because it opens as many loopholes as it closes in terms of ensuring that non-custodial parents take the appropriate level of financial responsibility for their children appears to fail that test. The Green Party had hoped that the Government’s review of child support would look afresh at the whole basis for the child support regime afresh. The fundamental principles for a child support regime should be the primacy of the well-being of our nation’s children and New Zealand’s commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Instead this bill has resulted from a review that has involved little more I fear than tinkering around the edges of the child support regime and I fear listening most closely to those who have made the most noise. Although it has some elements that the Green Party supports we cannot support this bill as a whole and we will not be voting to send it to the select committee. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a disappointment that the Green Party does not actually support the Child Support Amendment Bill because I thought that party was actually concerned about the welfare of children. However I am very glad that the Labour Party supports this because we will actually debate this issue in the Social Services Committee and hear from submitters and that will be a good opportunity to see where the country is actually at.  
It is a great pleasure to rise in support of the first reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill introduced by Minister Dunne into the House. The New Zealand child support scheme provides financial support for more than 210000 children in this country. Many parents do reach private agreement on how they are going to split their financial and care responsibility for their children and I am one of those people. I am a sole mother I am a divorcee and I have come to an agreement with my ex-husband on how we were looking after my child and how we were going to be taking responsibility both financially and in terms of the care of my son.  
There are many who cannot come to this kind of agreement and that is when the child support scheme kicks in. The scheme was created back in 1992 to provide a backup. A lot of people have talked about this as a backup for those who cannot agree on how the financial and care responsibilities are shared among the parents and how to support their children in the best possible way. It also applies when the recipient of that support is on a benefit which is a Government payment and so it should be—rightly so. This is because the primary assumption is that the paying parent is in fact the sole income earner—and in the past it has been so—and that the receiving parent is the main care provider for the child.  
As you know society has actually changed and the main care provider is not necessarily just the mother. Often it is the father who actually stays at home with the child so we need to hear from the men who are the sole carers for the children as well. I think it would be a very very interesting select committee to hear from the people who are in that particular situation. It is really wrong to assume as well because there will be a lot of fathers out there who are in fact in that situation and they will want to make sure that the system is fair to them as well.  
For the majority of parents the current scheme actually works as it is a straightforward way of calculating liability. But there are concerns that the scheme is out of date as other speakers have mentioned earlier. Many parents have an agreement to share the care as I said and the cost for their children but often the arrangements do not qualify as shared care for the purposes of the current child support formula. The current payment liabilities do not accurately reflect the true expenditure involved in raising children in New Zealand. The changes in this amendment bill are to allay these concerns to make the system fairer and more transparent. The calculation for child support payments will take a wider range of individual circumstances into consideration.  
Perhaps I should have actually considered that my child was going to grow up and was going to eat me out of home and house when we agreed on a financial agreement between my husband and me. Teenagers’ needs are quite different to those of a child who is in nappies. I am very pleased that the new amendment takes into account that the costs for a young child are quite different to the amounts needed for teenagers who are in our home who actually eat you out of home and house. The bill also includes changes to rules on payments for child support penalties and writing off of penalties.  
I would like to talk about some of the changes. The basic summary of the changes in this amendment will be based on the following three factors. First there is a wider recognition of shared care. Because both parents are often working I think it is unfair to assume that only one parent is solely in charge. Shared care needs to be recognised. Sometimes parents do know what is best and they do care for their children. When we talk about the 28 percent threshold that is 2 nights a week and those parents who do care for children 2 nights a week should be recognised as well instead of only those who reach the 40 percent threshold. The income of both parents will be considered and the estimated average expenditure for raising children in New Zealand will be taken into consideration. The thing that I would like to talk about is the current formula. It recognises the threshold of 40 percent of nights where if my child was to stay with his father for 40 percent of nights that is recognised. But what if he was staying there for 2 nights a week? His father is taking responsibility and he is actually paying towards my son so I think it would be unfair to assume that he is not. I think having that tiered threshold is very very important and I think it goes towards the fairness of this amendment bill.  
The income component of the amendment takes into consideration whether a paying parent has other dependent children. Would it not be fantastic if we could pay as much as we could to every single child in our household? But often when you actually look at a parent who is liable and who might—as I think Holly Walker said—go into a different relationship then that person has a responsibility to the new partner and perhaps also to another child that that relationship creates. What kind of responsibility does that father or mother have? I would have hoped it was equal responsibility but the thing is that person has only one income. I think we need to be fair and decide what is in fact the fair amount that the liable parent should pay towards the child they are liable for.  
This is a good bill and I look forward to the debates that we are going to have in the select committee. I look forward to the submissions from the public especially from the parents who actually have the personal experience that they can bring to the select committee for us to consider. I commend this bill to the House.  
ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the Child Support Amendment Bill. New Zealand First will support this bill going to the Social Services Committee. We support many aspects of this bill. However we do have reservations about other aspects of it.  
The existing New Zealand child support scheme helps to provide financial support for over 210000 children as we have heard from other speakers. That scheme was established in 1992. As we all know the scheme is needed when parents cannot mutually agree on the relative financial contributions to support their children. It is essential that the child support scheme operates as effectively as possible in the best interests of the children involved. It is stated that the Child Support Amendment Bill is introduced with the intention of improving child support and making it fairer and more efficient. We certainly hope that that is the case. The bill in itself will revise the child support calculation formula to include greater recognition of shared care and the income of both parents. The bill will also update the scheme to take account of other key factors such as new estimates of expenditure for raising children today. The bill will improve the rules for payment penalties and debt.  
Much has changed in New Zealand society since 1992. These days far more parents are both working childcare arrangements are more extensive and varied and a working week can be on any one of the 7 days of the week. It is perhaps considerably changed from the days of 1992 when this legislation was first introduced. However we in New Zealand First do have some concerns and these will need to be addressed at the select committee and during further readings in this House. 
For instance the current levels of shared care of a 40:60 percent split may vary as much as a 28:72 percent split. This appears to be an opportunistic lowering of these levels to decrease the financial input of the non-custodial parent. How has the 28 percent level been arrived at? We would like to know from the Minister of Revenue and from the officials as to how that particular figure was determined. It is not even a one- third to two-thirds split of the payments. In terms of the total income of both parents if one parent earns more and is the custodial parent does that directly affect the non-custodial parent’s financial responsibility to these children? If a non-custodial parent chooses to enter another relationship and have further children does this lessen financial responsibility to their first family? Does this clause not disadvantage the custodial parent?  
We are also concerned that various analysts have looked at this bill—for instance I draw your attention to a recent article dated 7 May which was published by a tax specialist Mr Terry Baucher. I apologise to Mr Baucher if I have mispronounced his name. He states: “Child support payments are collected and distributed by the IRD usually on a monthly basis. The problem is that the penalties for late payment of child support are very onerous an initial 10% and then a further 2% per month on the outstanding amount (including penalties). According to the New Zealand Institute of Chartered Accountants the effective annual rate of late payment penalties is an eye-watering 36.8% in the first year of non-payment. It’s therefore quite easy to quickly run up large arrears through non-payment …” as seems to have happened with many many cases in this scheme. 
Mr Baucher goes on to include a graph showing the top 10 largest debtors owing money to the child support scheme. Looking at this graph all of these top 10 largest debtors started off with debts in the order of $25000 to $50000 - odd. Their debts with the penalties and all the other fees that have been charged to them have gone up to between $550000 and $1.050 million—over a million dollars—on an original debt in the order of $25000 to $50000. Mr Baucher comments: “As can be seen the actual amount of child support owed by the ten largest debtors is maybe not even five per cent of the total owed. The rest is in penalties.” He further says: “at 30 June 2009 total child support outstanding was $1.56 billion including over a billion dollars of unpaid penalties.”—over a billion dollars of unpaid penalties. “The IRD has so little confidence that it will collect these outstanding penalties that its bad debt provisions in respect of penalties were more than 99%.” So this Government is allowing the IRD to continue with over a billion dollars of debts against these child support schemes with the prospect of 99 percent of them not being recoverable.  
This therefore does cast a doubt over aspects of this scheme. It means that perhaps the figures do need to be recalculated. Perhaps the percentages are not necessarily correct and true as to what they should be in the end. Perhaps the debt levels and the penalties are too great and are too great a disincentive to try to get the funds back. Perhaps this scheme is a little bit like the student loan scheme where basically so much is being racked up and so much is unrecoverable by this Government that perhaps it is living on a false promise and a false hope of recovering much of this money. Perhaps it has to get back to the basics and we have to make it fair and equitable for people to be able to pay off what is owed on these debts rather than having fictitious amounts sitting there on the books which the New Zealand Government has no opportunity to recover. 
This situation also has had in the past the effect of driving people offshore to run away from their debts. In particular they go to Australia and other places and further afield to get away from their child maintenance debts. Again a little bit like the student loan scheme we seem to be very good in this country at sending people offshore exporting our people who basically cannot afford to maintain their payments. Perhaps we have to be a bit more creative. Perhaps when this bill goes to the select committee this has to be investigated further. Perhaps there has to be more consideration given to a real solution to this problem and to coming up with some solutions to make it more affordable and more easily obtainable for those who owe these moneys to get on top of the situation they are in.  
It was very sad that in recent weeks as I understand from the news media one individual in Australia took his own life as a result of being hounded in Australia for child payment debts he owed in New Zealand. He simply could not face the situation. It is very sad when it gets to that situation. Certainly I hope the Social Services Committee will look at this bill closely because we do want a fair and equitable scheme for all.  
New Zealand First will support this bill going through to the Social Services Committee but we will be certainly asking many questions in respect of it. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I am happy to take a call in support of the Child Support Amendment Bill going to the Social Services Committee where it will receive equitable debate as is the convention for fair just and robust discussion. Family breakups can be difficult and traumatic and often it is the children who suffer the most. Financial instability following a breakup is all too common in our communities.  
I firstly want to commend the Minister for ensuring that this bill has been strongly shaped by intensive consultation. Discussion on the Government’s  
Supporting children 
 discussion document ran through September and October last year and there were nearly 2300 submissions. There was a huge range of strongly held views with submission themes including arguments for both the adequacy and the excessiveness of child support payments about how they were calculated and recognising shared care and the impact that a child support formula based on the income of both parents would have on the incentive for parents to work or increase their earnings. The strong views served only to confirm the view that the current child support regime is both outdated and sometimes unfair. The system focused too heavily on penalties and people were not coming forward to the Inland Revenue Department to make payments. So the debt sat at $2 billion and 60 percent of that debt was from overdue penalty payments.  
These proposed changes would see more flexibility in situations of hardship and payments would and could be made through instalments. So what are the changes that are being introduced? There are changes to payment penalties and the write-off rules. The rules relating to payment penalties and write-off play an important role in encouraging parents to meet their child support obligations on time. Debt from unpaid child support is $2 billion and 60 percent of the debt is from unpaid penalty payments. What happens is people get behind in their payments and they incur interest and penalties. The figures get to be very huge and they drop out of the system because it becomes just much too difficult.  
The changes in the bill are aimed at better encouraging the facilitating parents to make timely payments of child support. The bill firstly allows for compulsory deductions of child support from the employment income of paying parents. It introduces a two-stage initial penalty with the current full 10 percent being charged only if the debt remains unpaid after 7 days. It reduces the incremental monthly payment from 2 percent to 1 percent after a year of non-compliance complemented by intensive case management by the Inland Revenue Department. It relaxes the circumstances in which penalties can be written off including where a paying parent enters into an instalment arrangement or is in such serious hardship that debt recovery is a demonstrably inefficient use of the department’s resources or where only a low level of penalty debt is outstanding. Lastly it allows the department to write off on serious hardship grounds assessed debt owed to the Crown in relation to a receiving carer who is a beneficiary.  
These changes bring New Zealand into line with Australian policy. New Zealand has a mutual agreement with Australia for child support payment cases and the law will make it easier to deal with unpaid child support. I stand in support of this amendment bill for its support for the children who are most at need. Thank you. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is an honour to stand and speak at the first reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill which has been introduced by the Government. I just want to reflect at the outset that this is called the Child Support Amendment Bill and I make it really clear that when Labour considers this bill it will be children and the effect and impact on children that we will consider first and foremost. As we all know the New Zealand Labour Party makes all of its policy decisions basing children at the heart of everything that we make decisions about in this regard. So when we listen to the Social Services Committee considerations in the minds of the Labour Party members will be how this affects children first and foremost.  
I think that is a really important element to introduce into this debate and to make sure is strongly held in this debate because of course it becomes an extremely emotive issue once we start talking about families—the breakup of families and the way in which that all shakes down. I think many of us as MPs will have experienced having in our offices many very distraught members of families who have been through family breakups describing the very real and diverse impacts on them of things that have happened with the relationship breakdown. So I guess it is a little bit of a sad bill in that regard in that to get to the point where we are talking about child support at all in this regard we are considering the breakup of a relationship and the breakup of a family and how we actually deal with that.  
I am sure that the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne came face to face with this when he originally said that he was going to bring this bill forward within 6 months of going to people to find out what they thought about the child support system. He was going to review that and it was going to come back to Parliament within 6 months and I am sure that what he found was that the issue is not as straightforward as it may seem. I think that is also what this Parliament will find when we listen to the submissions coming forward at the select committee.  
Labour’s view is that we are supporting—as many other parties have indicated during the course of this debate—this issue at the first reading. We will be listening and questioning very carefully the submitters as they come before the select committee to make sure that there are no unintended consequences from this piece of legislation because there could so easily be unintended consequences. It is really important that this Parliament works together to get this right because where we do not those suffering are some of the most vulnerable people in our society actually—children from a broken relationship from a broken household with all the members of that household trying to work out how they make this new situation work.  
So if we do not get this right if there are unintended consequences sometimes the people whom that affects—the children in this relationship—will be the very people who are unable to come through the door of their MP’s office and explain to them why it is not going right for them. They will be the very people who will be unable to make a difference in policy terms. So we must take this very carefully and make sure that we get it right. I think the key to that is to ensure and encourage a lot of submissions from the very families that this bill will affect. Families in New Zealand are very diverse. We need to make sure that all the different types of family arrangements are brought before our select committee so that we can make sure that these arrangements are going to work for them.  
I think that the objectives of this bill are very honourable. Yes it is time that the Child Support Act was reviewed because it is a number of years since it was introduced—in 1992 in fact—and the world has moved on since then. The current legislation is out of date because it does assume that the paying parent is the sole income earner and that the receiving parent is the main care provider. For many parents living apart parental responsibility is shared and both remain active in the children’s lives. But I think we need to make sure that all of our legislation actually is up to date with the current situations that families face. And yes I will take the opportunity to make a link between this bill and the bill that I have introduced to Parliament to extend paid parental leave to 6 months because I think there is a very strong connection in terms of making sure that families are well supported. It would be really good to see the Government supporting working families in the same way that it is prepared to look at this bill to improve child support.  
So I will take the opportunity to make a plea to the Government members opposite primarily the National members to take a very good look at their current position on using a financial veto to ensure that hard-working families do not get the sort of support that they need with extending paid parental leave to 6 months. That will be very much a factor for the very families that we are considering here in this bill before us with regard to child support because of course the children of many of these families suddenly find themselves in families in a household where there is one parent now providing the income. In the event of a new baby being in that household—and yes that does happen. I think members opposite are concerned that that would happen that there would be a relationship breakup and then a baby would arrive. Well actually guess what? In the real world that does happen. Those families in that sole parent income earning situation are going to need as much time as they can to bond with that new baby particularly in the situation where there has been a recent relationship breakup. So all of these pieces of legislation are connected and I think that if the Government is serious about being concerned about this group of families we are addressing here today—families where there has been a relationship breakdown—then it will think seriously about supporting the extension to paid parental leave as well.  
Coming back to the purpose of this bill the scheme was originally introduced in 1992 and it does provide financial support for 210000 children. I think it is important that we remember that number because each of those children will have had a different experience and each of those children will have different arrangements between their parents. Maybe the non-custodial parent is nearby and there can be a shared-care arrangement but maybe they are far away and that situation is just not going to work.  
So there are a lot of complexities in how this might shake down but the primary concern for the Labour Party will be what the impact is on the children. I think it would be really easy in debating this bill to focus on fairness and equity for the parents and what is equitable for the parents in their new relationships or what is equitable for the parents in terms of their desires in the situation. For the New Zealand Labour Party we are firmly focused on what is going to be in the best interests of the children. And that may not be actually the liable parent paying less. That might not turn out to be the answer to that question but that is the question that the New Zealand Labour Party will be asking itself as we listen to those submissions.  
In closing my plea to people listening to this debate is that if you have a view on this bill if you know of family members who will be impacted by this bill please encourage them to have a look at the impact that this bill will have on them and to make a submission. I know that those submissions might be quite hard for people to make because it is about talking about their personal experiences but I believe that if we are going to get this right we will need to have those personal stories and we will need to have those case studies of families that this will affect so that we can make sure that we get it right.  
I just want to reiterate that Labour does support this bill going to select committee. We will be ensuring through our questions and through our considerations that the interests of children will be best served by these amendments.  
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 I was pleased to hear Ms Moroney in her introductory comments describe the objectives of this bill the Child Support Amendment Bill as honourable because they certainly are and I welcome the fact that that has been reflected generally in the contributions of members to this point in our first reading debate.  
The Hon Peter Dunne speaking an hour or so ago when he introduced this measure noted that the children affected by this particular bill do not choose to be in the circumstances that they find themselves in—needing the protection of this bill. So it is very important that we respond to the needs of those children as fairly and as sensitively as we can. I therefore welcome the support that has already been indicated by Labour and New Zealand First speakers opposite and I thank them for that. I am disappointed to hear that they will not be joined in their support of the measure by the Greens but I am sure that we will work through the submissions that we receive during the select committee process and I hope the outcome will be definitely an improvement in this vital area of law.  
The chair of the Social Services Committee Sam Lotu-Iiga when speaking in the debate made the point that this bill builds on very important work that the Government has been doing in our time in office in the area of child welfare such as the green paper on vulnerable children and the welfare reform legislation measures to encourage teen parents to learn parenting and budgeting skills and so on.  
As with the extensive public consultation that was undertaken on the green paper the Government undertook significant public consultation on this measure to update the child support scheme including issuing a discussion document. The submissions on that document reflected the Government’s indication of the need to provide a safety net through the benefit system for those who are unable for various reasons to support themselves financially. In the context of child support this means that child support payments are collected and delivered for the benefit of the children for whom they are intended and that parents do not pass their financial responsibilities to maintain their children on to other members of society. We all are constantly picking up the tab for many many children in that position. We want to see those children given all the support that they need and deserve but we also want to ensure that the system is fair to all taxpayers and that others are not unfairly burdened by the refusal of some to meet their obligations when in fact they could. 
The child support scheme is intended as a backup when parents are unable to make satisfactory private arrangements for the financial support of their children. Fortunately in many many instances this backup is not needed but it is sobering to realise that it currently helps provide financial support to about 210000 New Zealand children—210000.  
It is 20 years since the Bolger National Government introduced the scheme and as has been observed by previous speakers much has changed in our society in the intervening two decades. So the amendment is now appropriate. This updated bill has been strongly shaped as I said by extensive consultation. That consultation has been with a wide range of Government agencies whose input is obviously critical but there has also been significant public consultation on the various options that are available to us for child support reform. The level of interest in this particular issue is illustrated by the fact that there were 2272 participants in the online consultation and a further 112 written submissions on it. That in my experience in this House is a very high level of contribution of submissions. I thank everybody who made a submission on it. As I say their concerns broadly speaking underline the importance that the Government is bringing to this measure and show their support for the changes that are proposed in the bill.  
Those changes fall broadly into three categories. There is a new child support calculation formula which includes greater recognition of shared care and the income of both parents and new estimates of expenditure for raising children in modern New Zealand society. There are further changes to update the scheme to take account of other key factors such as making it easier to recognise significant daytime care and relying on parenting orders and agreements and there are improvements to the rules for payments penalties and debt. The new formula will provide a more equitable system of financial support in a variety of circumstances. It will better reflect many of the social and legal changes that have occurred since the introduction of the current scheme such as the greater emphasis that is now placed on separated parents sharing the care of and financial responsibility for their children.  
When I was a child the rate of separation was lower but also the likelihood that a father would be actively involved in that care was probably lower. There was sort of a natural assumption that the mother would do it all and the father would go off to work. Well times have changed. We have moved on. I think it is a good thing that fathers in those circumstances are now in many cases more actively involved in their children’s care but sadly the other side of that coin is that in many cases the fathers are nowhere to be seen. So it is about striking a balance.  
My colleagues who have spoken before me have traversed some of the assumptions and implications underlying the new formula so I am simply going to close with a couple of general observations. I look forward to working on this important bill in the energetic and mostly harmonious Social Services Committee when it is presumably referred to us.  
The rules relating to payment penalties and the write-off of debts play an important role in encouraging liable parents to meet their child support obligations on time. As my colleague Alfred Ngaro observed a few moments ago debt from unpaid child support is currently $2 billion and 60 percent of the debt is from overdue penalty payments. Typically we are talking about liable parents who fall behind in their payments then incur interest and penalties that in many instances see the figures grow massively out of their control and they drop out of the system because they simply cannot cope with the burden that they find themselves expected to meet. The taxpayer picks up the tab and in many cases the children suffer. The changes in the bill are aimed at better encouraging and facilitating parents to make timely payments of their child support. I am sure we all welcome that and I commend the bill to the House and look forward to seeing it pass through to being enacted.  
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Rajen Prasad but before I do so can I inform the House that this is a split call. The member will get a bell with 1 minute remaining. Namaste. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 Namaste Mr Speaker and thank you very much for that acknowledgement. 
Just before I get into the content of my speech there is something that the Minister of Revenue said in introducing this bill the Child Support Amendment Bill that I wanted to comment on. I do agree with him when he says that the child support system is a separate system from childcare access issues and other parenting issues. He is absolutely right and those issues when contest arises are dealt with in the Family Court. However there is a linkage. I have seen many cases where conflicts arise between parents who have separated that are linked to their child support arrangements. The child support arrangements themselves because they have not been responsive to their contemporary situation have caused a lot of conflict. That affects their parenting. That affects access. That affects the whole relationship. And that surely must have a negative impact on the development of children themselves and the life and happiness of a family. So there is a linkage between the child support system and how families live and the stress that families can experience from time to time.  
The converse therefore is true: a well-crafted child support system which is operating well does obviate all of those kinds of negative influences. What impacts on children growing up what impacts on families being together and what impacts on sole parents looking after their children or single parents is that all of the factors that impact on their needs so to speak are integrated. And when they are the outcomes for those children are much more positive. In that sense the child support system is an integral part of the life of single parents or parents who are separated where there is a dispute.  
I am disappointed of course that the Greens have indicated that they might not support this bill because it does not go back to first principles. In a sense I would ask whether this is the bill where we ought to go back to first principles about the interests of children. Children are always the centre of everything we do in this House in a sense but this bill is only one part of that and that part needs fixing and therefore perhaps in the select committee as we go through that process we will have the opportunity to consider what the parts are that need fixing.  
It is a sad fact that contemporary life for many parents and many families as such means that for various reasons they are unable to be together. That is just the way it is. It is far too regular and it is regular enough for the State to be intervening through programmes and policies of this nature that actually begin to make it at least workable. But there are many cases in which parents—and this would be the majority of cases—work it out for themselves. As our research at the Families Commission showed when they do the arrangements work quite well and they are much more generous in terms of time joint parenting joint care of children etc. They are able to fulfil their obligations to their children and to their families and continue to love them and live with them and really be good parents so to speak.  
But sadly this is not always possible and when it is not possible conflicts arise and this bill begins to address the situations in which those conflicts arise. The contemporary set-up is quite different. Today we have reconstituted families we have dual career families and families with different patterns of parenting. What this bill does is begin to design or redesign the child support system to address that. I know that under the old system some parents watched bed nights because that would affect the way in which money would transfer from one to the other.  
Labour supports this bill quite strongly. I encourage the many many fathers who have come to us come to my office spoken to us saying “We are often marginalised. We often do not participate in the lives of our children.” to have their say. Here is an opportunity for those fathers to turn up to the select committee to have their say so that whatever needs to be done to resolve those problems will be done. So I look forward to the discussions in the select committee. I look forward to the submissions and perhaps returning with a better bill. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 As stated by my colleague Holly Walker the Green Party will not be supporting the Child Support Amendment Bill. I will now just talk in a little bit more detail about some of our concerns which relate for me anyway primarily to the context that child support operates within. Child support is undoubtedly an important issue for women and children in New Zealand. The most recent estimates are that around one in two mothers have spent some time as a sole parent by the time they reach 50 and that a third of children have lived with a sole mother for some time by the time they are 17.  
According to the Families Commission research we know that for many receiving parents the amount they receive is considered to be too little to meet the needs of their child. In 2009 90 percent of sole parent families had incomes below the median household income for all households with or without children. This bill sadly although closing some loopholes which will hopefully increase payments to some primary caregivers and their children also opens others that will actually further reduce incomes to a significant number and this for us is completely unacceptable. If child support payments reflected the high cost of child rearing were paid regularly and frequently and were in a context of acknowledging power dynamics in relationships they could help to reduce child poverty. Sadly this bill does not do that.  
I will again just mention the decrease as noted by my colleague Holly for a father who currently might pay $7400 per annum who under this regime would be required to pay only $2600 per annum—a massive reduction of 64 percent in child support liability. That is a reduction in child support going to that child. Reducing the threshold for time spent parenting also does not take into account that the primary financial burden for health care costs education uniform costs sports activities and extracurricular activities usually remains with the primary caregiver. A parent having the child for the weekend usually will not be responsible for those costs.  
I also have to address in this speech that New Zealand fathers—and this is backed up by evidence—have a long history of not paying child support paying too little and paying erratically. This bill seems to support in part at least the view that child support should be less onerous because liable parents resent paying it. This rationale appears to have neglected the unavoidable fact that child support is for the support of the child and that reducing payments will increase child poverty. The culture of avoiding paying child support needs to be challenged directly.  
Again—and I am going to be a broken record in this House—this bill also ignores the context of domestic violence in this country. A women’s safety survey conducted in 1996 found that 70 percent of separated women had experienced some form of domestic violence. We know that our courts and custody are used as a tool of abuse. We have New Zealand research that shows that although custody applications based on assertions of parental rights appear to be accepted at face value by our courts it is too well documented that Family Courts often treat applications concerned with violence abuse and coercive control with a degree of scepticism that is unwarranted leaving children and their mothers in highly dangerous situations. Auckland University research has shown that women sometimes feel fearful and under pressure to agree to care arrangements that they do not believe are in their children’s best interests.  
This bill as it stands increases the opportunity for abusive fathers to use the law against their ex-partner. I really would just say to Labour and National that if we are relying on the select committee process we are not recognising the difficulty of speaking to that experience of abuse. It is much easier for the father to talk about his outrage than it is for a woman who has been a victim of violence. We would suggest at least that the review of the Family Court be responded to before this bill goes further. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on this first reading of the Child Support Amendment Bill. Can I firstly just apologise. I have recently arrived in the House having come from a select committee so I apologise if I retraverse some of the material already spoken to. However as someone who has been a sole parent I am very pleased to support this bill and rather disappointed in the comments from the previous speaker Jan Logie on this bill.  
I just want to reflect on some of the important components that this bill is really set to address. That is really the question of what the endgame actually is here and that is ensuring that we have a fair child support system that reflects what New Zealand is now as opposed to the introduction of the scheme back in 1992. I think it is fair to say that parents and the relationships of parents when they have separated are quite different from what they were back then.  
It is sad to say that unfortunately many parents when separated do not fulfil their obligations with their children. I think to some extent it is a long bow to draw to suggest that the amount of child support that they are paying or the fact that they are paying is going to have any effect on how that money is ultimately used by the recipient. There are many other ways in which we need to be addressing this in my view. The Child Support Act I believe has become a very blunt instrument. The formula itself provides for disproportionate variances that negatively impact and in many ways actually create problems with the relationship shared by parents who are genuinely trying to do their best.  
This bill will address three important changes. I just want to reflect on those as the last speaker for this first reading. The formula provides a greater recognition for shared care. I certainly was in a position as a solo father where care of my children probably did break the mould to some extent in terms of a father being a primary caregiver and I think this is modern New Zealand. Although it is sad that many couples find themselves separated it is a reality that has to be confronted and dealt with in a fair and constructive manner.  
The formula also better recognises the amount of debt that has been amassed over some period of time—and previous speakers have alluded to it—of some $2 billion 60 percent of which really amounts to penalties. So you get an unintended consequence in many regards in my view which is that parents will turn and run because of the implications of the penalties and the wall that they find themselves up against. I think it is very important that there has to be some reality in how that is addressed.  
The formula which to me is at the heart of the changes in this bill is really looking at addressing the shared care and the threshold at which that shared arrangement can be taken into account. The threshold shifting from 40 percent to 28 percent provides a much fairer and more level playing field and encourages the involvement of both parents in the upkeep and the upbringing and both the financial but also the parental responsibilities that they must have. It also takes into account the incomes of both parents in this equation. I think that is very important. Rather than just simply the scale of the input or amounts paid by one parent simply reflected in their own income and their increasing income this gives again a much fairer representation of what it is to be a parent bringing up children in a separated household.  
The other third important part of the formula in my view is that the formula uses a new scale of costs which is more up to date with the costs of raising children and how those costs vary. It addresses the anomaly in my view that results from some parents whose income rises creating a situation where there is more disposable income and that is not necessarily reflected in the costs of bringing up that child.  
I commend this bill to the House. It really is about getting a fairer system that will benefit the interests of both parents and children. It is more reflective of New Zealand today and that can only mean better outcomes for both the parents in a challenging situation and their children. I encourage members to remember that endgame. It is about supporting better outcomes for these children. Thank you. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Child Support Amendment Bill be now read a first time.  
Ayes 106 
New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 34; New Zealand First 8; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 15 
Green Party 14; Mana 1. 
Bill read a first time. 
Bill referred to the Social Services Committee. 
Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill 
First Reading 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I move  
That the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate that the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill be referred to the Law and Order Committee. I would like to acknowledge at the outset the work of my predecessor the Hon Judith Collins in developing and introducing this bill. Overall the legislation governing the administration of the corrections system is working well. However some provisions have been identified as barriers to effectiveness and efficiency in achieving its statutory purpose. Two bills have been introduced to remove such barriers: the current bill before us which aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of sentences and orders in the community and the Corrections Amendment Bill which aims to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of prisons. It has recently received its first reading and is with the Law and Order Committee.  
The Sentencing Act 2002 the Parole Act 2002 and to a lesser extent the Bail Act 2000 play a central role in governing the corrections system as it relates to the management of offenders serving sentences in the community and of prisoners who have been released from prison. Major reform of the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act was undertaken in 2007. Since then a number of problems have been identified in administering the changes introduced by the reforms particularly in relation to the administration of community sentences and orders. This bill makes minor drafting amendments to these Acts to clarify operational procedure where an Act is silent or unclear and where its interpretation has led to unintended consequences. The bill also introduces a number of minor policy changes to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of home detention community-based sentences and the electronic monitoring regime.  
I will briefly outline some of the more significant changes. Currently a home detention sentence is suspended when an appeal is lodged. The bill provides instead that the sentence will continue to run unless the appellant is granted bail. This recognises that some home detainees who appeal may pose a risk to public safety if released into the community without restrictions. Secondly sometimes offenders who abscond from community-based sentences are not located until the sentence has ended. The bill provides that the time will cease to run on a sentence of supervision intensive supervision or community detention if an application is made to the court to vary or cancel that sentence because the offender is not complying with it. This will help to ensure that offenders who do not comply with their sentences will still be held to account. Thirdly enforcement problems can arise because the boundaries of an offender’s address do not align with the boundaries of electronic monitoring equipment. Under the bill where electronic monitoring is a release condition or a condition of community sentence the offender will be required to remain within an area defined by a probation officer.  
Fourthly under current law even a sentence of say 2 weeks’ imprisonment automatically cancels a home detention sentence. Yet in some circumstances the completion of the home detention sentence may be in the interests of the community. The bill will give the court a discretion to allow a home detention sentence to resume after a short sentence of imprisonment. Finally administrative problems can arise if a court imposes a non-custodial sentence that is incompatible with another non-custodial sentence already being served. The bill contains provisions to prevent this. Other adjustments cover a range of matters including eliminating gaps in extended supervision order provisions that can result in short periods when offenders are not subject to appropriate conditions.  
In conclusion the measures in this bill will contribute to public safety and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the management of offenders in the community. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 I want to say at the outset that Labour will be voting to send the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill to the Law and Order Committee for scrutiny. It does appear on the face of it to be a sensible bill that will improve the way in which community sentences are administered and I commend the Minister of Corrections for bringing a measure to the House that does have that purpose. Too often in the past the temptation has clearly been for Ministers to bring law and order measures to this House that will not make a lot of difference to public safety but that sound good and play well in the media. I think we can be confident that this bill is not one of those.  
I think it is commendable that the general policy statement to the bill recognises: “Overall current legislation continues to provide a sound framework for the operation of the corrections system. However certain provisions have been identified as barriers to managing offenders in the community in a manner that is safe secure humane effective and efficient. The purpose of this Bill is to remove these barriers.” If it transpires that scrutiny at the select committee confirms that the bill will do those things properly then the Opposition will continue to give the legislation support.  
But there are a number of concerns that we have in considering this first draft of the bill—for example whether or not it does actually make changes that are sufficient and adequate to the extent that is needed for the protection of public safety given the technological opportunities that now exist in this area in particular. I was very glad a week or two ago to visit the Mangere probation service centre and to see the work that is being done there particularly in light of those technological opportunities and particularly in light of the changes in the way that the Department of Corrections now administers community sentences. The department has deliberately laid out its work areas in ways that allow for and maximise cooperation between teams so they can keep in contact with one another about the way in which different community sentences are being administered in the area for which the office is responsible. Obviously we do not want to do anything in legislation or otherwise that will get in the way of doing that. We have heard the chief executive of the department in recent days talk about the need for a restructuring of the department to ensure that its different business units work more effectively together. Again we want to make sure at the select committee—and I am pleased to see the Minister nodding—that nothing in this bill gets in the way of that aim and indeed that the restructuring itself actually serves that purpose.  
I think it is also important to remember that process is important here and that part of the scrutiny that this bill is going to require is the extent to which it amends other legislation. The Minister observed in her first reading speech that this legislation will amend the Bail Act. I note that there is another Bail Amendment Bill which was introduced to the House today and is in the name of another Minister the Minister of Justice. So we have two bail amendments going through the House. One bill is at its introduction stage and it might well go to another select committee than the one that the Minister has nominated for this bill. Although I praised the Minister earlier for bringing forward sensible reform there is clearly an issue of internal coordination within this Government in the law and order area and the Minister I think needs to hear the concern that I am expressing in this area—the temptation for her colleague to run off with another initiative the Bail Amendment Bill which was supposed to be a consultative exercise. There was going to be a discussion paper based on public submissions and then only on the basis of those submissions was there going to be a bill. Well Judith Collins has thrown process to the wind and we have seen the unilateral introduction of a bill today that would also amend legislation that the legislation the Minister has brought in before the House today would also amend. As I say if they go off to different select committees what will that say about coordination within the Government over law and order policy? How can we be assured that the provisions of the Bail Act are not going to end up at sixes and sevens with one another because two different committees of the House and two different Ministers are dealing with them at once? That is not a commendable state of affairs and the Government does need to get its house in order on that issue.  
I do want to say one or two words generally about community sentences. The Department of Corrections is set at its current rate to become the largest Government department. We have already heard the Minister of Finance say that prisons are a moral and fiscal failure and it is important therefore that the department takes an evidence-based approach as to what works and what does not in respect of the sentencing of offenders. There is plenty of evidence that community-based sentences work and are a worthwhile option to consider particularly as an alternative to custodial sentences where that is an appropriate thing to contemplate in the interests of public safety. There was a recent review of the sentence of home detention and it suggested that eligibility for home detention should be based primarily on the reduction of crime rather than the subjective judgments of politicians about certain kinds of criminals. I was very interested to read some remarks made by the current Minister of Justice in the past about what sorts of offences it would or would not be appropriate to have offenders on home detention for. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL 
: Before the break I was making some general comments about the efficacy of community sentences. I think it is useful for the House to note that the proportion of offenders sentenced to home detention in 2007 through to 2009 who were reconvicted in the following 12 months—the rates for each year were 21.5 percent and 23 percent respectively—was less than half those reconvicted following a short-term prison sentence according to the Ministry of Justice’s review of the sentence of home detention. The prison figures were 50.3 percent and 52.6 percent. What that tells the House is that in terms of combating recidivist offending these community sentences can be up to twice as effective. Judith Collins herself has said we need to put a lot more emphasis on rehabilitation but one of the problems we have seen in the last 4 years is that there has simply been no change in recidivism statistics. In fact reconviction rates have gone up which is why we saw the Salvation Army give the Government an F earlier in the year in its state of the nation report on combating recidivism.  
The other reason why community sentences are important is cost. The taxpayer pays $58 a day to keep somebody on home detention which is about a quarter of the $249 per day it costs to keep a person in prison. It is fiscally responsible to examine the widening use of home detention rather than dismissing it as a soft-on-crime option. It is absolutely the case that provided these sentences are properly administered they are not soft options as we can see from the figures they do give value to the taxpayer and they are effective at reducing reoffending which is something we should all be aiming for if we actually want a safer society in the long term.  
Labour as I have said will support this bill going to the select committee. We will be looking carefully at it at the select committee to see that it is actually adequate and fit for purpose. There are concerns around extended supervision orders and whether they are adequate. We saw the recent case of a person on a bus in Hamilton who was subject to one of these orders having been a sexual offender who reoffended. Clearly there is an issue around whether we can improve the surveillance of those on extended supervision orders and that needs to be looked at.  
Also as I said before the fact that we have the Bail Act being amended in this legislation and also by another Minister in another bill introduced to the House today indicates that there is a bit of disarray and a disconnect in respect of justice and law and order policy on the National side. We will want to see some guarantees that that is being addressed. But subject to those caveats we will be supporting the bill at this first reading. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I was reading the regulatory impact statement and it makes for quite interesting reading because the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill comes out of a review of the current legislative and regulatory framework. The Department of Corrections has identified some minor but worth-to-do legislative amendments that will make the day-to-day management of offenders in all the areas that I am going to go over more effective and more efficient.  
According to the regulatory impact statement the preferred option for the Department of Corrections is to make these minor amendments. Option one was the status quo and to do nothing. It is worth remembering that this National-led Government has passed 18 new laws and made other policy changes to not only improve public safety but also put the rights of victims to the forefront. National will continue to promote policies that hold offenders to account and that put victims at the heart of the justice system. Generally the current legislation is providing a sound corrections framework but there are certain provisions that have been identified as barriers to managing offenders in the community in a manner that is safe in a manner that is secure and in a manner that is humane but also effective and efficient. This bill will remove those barriers.  
Minor policy changes are recommended to the Sentencing Act the Parole Act and the Bail Act. For the Sentencing Act there are a number of changes which the Minister outlined fully in her speech to the House. But just very quickly changes to the Sentencing Act will require pre-sentence reports before an offender is sentenced to home detention or community detention. So that is strengthening that connection between the court and sentencing. It clarifies the effect on home detention of a subsequent sentence of imprisonment. So if an offender is already on home detention and subsequently is sentenced to imprisonment it just clarifies the effect on that home detention sentence which is a little unclear at the moment. It prevents the imposition of old custodial sentences that are inconsistent with an existing sentence or order and it aligns electronic monitoring conditions with the range of the monitoring equipment. Once again the legislation needs to keep up with modern technology. It clarifies when time should stop and start on community-based sentences during periods of non-compliance. If the offender goes back before the court what happens to the community-based sentence? That needs to be clarified. It enables court registrars to issue arrest warrants in applications to review a non-custodial sentence.  
The changes to the Parole Act of 2002 clarifies—once again this is about clarifying and giving certainty to the Department of Corrections—the responsibility for preparing reports on suitability for residential restrictions. The changes to the Bail Act—and I am not sure that I share the concerns expressed by the member who spoke previously on changes to the Bail Act—that I see outlined in the bill are to prevent the imposition of bail conditions that are inconsistent with an existing sentence or order. We will have a good look at that and we will also have a good look at enabling home detention to continue pending an appeal. The Law and Order Committee will have a close look at those and at the other changes.  
As to the final financial impact the Department of Corrections estimates that the proposal to clarify the effect of a subsequent sentence of imprisonment on home detention might require an additional $200000 of capital funding. That will be required to update the courts’ case management systems. I think that sounds like quite a good efficiency to take and that is something that the Law and Order Committee will be able to further review when we are doing our financial review of the Department of Corrections. The Law and Order Committee will give this bill full consideration and I commend it to the House. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 The previous speaker Jacqui Dean mentioned that there are 18 justice bills that went through under the last term of Government. That may well be the case but one should never mistake quantity for quality. The bills came in two separate categories. The first category of bills that were passed and the one that we got most used to was the sort of populist bill that spoke a lot about an issue but actually did very little about it. The origin of those bills was in the National Party research unit and the research they were based on was polling: did people feel that might be a good idea? If it looked like there might be some popular support for it and it looked like it might do something then the bill went through. I have to say that those sorts of bills are useless. They waste our time they create the impression with the public that something is happening when it is not happening and they do not actually go to the core of the problem of law and order which is about keeping the community safe.  
The second form of bill is a bill that usually has it origin in the department that sponsors it either the Ministry of Justice or the Department of Corrections as is the case with this bill. They tend to be practical bills. They are based on research they are based on experience and they are based on doing something about the problem of crime in the community and actually making people safer.  
I believe that this bill the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill is largely in the second category; that is why the Labour Party will be supporting this bill through to the Law and Order Committee. I strongly suspect that we will continue to support the bill because having read through the bill there are a number of practical and quite technical changes that are being made and the select committee will I think operate in the way that select committees operate best. We will look at the bill objectively we will see whether it achieves its purpose we will listen to the submissions we will analyse those submissions and we will do the right thing for the country.  
The goal of the legislation is to provide a sound framework within which the Department of Corrections and the corrections system can operate and nobody could be opposed to that goal. The objective set out in the bill is to manage “offenders in the community in a way that is safe secure humane effective and efficient.” and I think that those are proper objectives. I want to come back towards the end of my comments to the whole nature of community sentences because I am a believer—a strong believer—that community sentences should be used in appropriate cases where there is no or very little risk to the community and in place of short-term prison sentences which I believe achieve very little.  
The Department of Corrections way back in July 2010 produced a regulatory impact statement to help inform the major policy decisions that are made in this bill and it proposed changes to three Acts: the Bail Act 2000 the Sentencing Act 2002 and the Parole Act 2002. I have some affection for those Acts because those were Acts passed when I was Minister of Justice. They are major pieces of legislation they shape our justice system today and they are important pieces of legislation in terms of modernising how our system works. They were also bills that were based on a rational assessment of how our justice system was working or failing to work; they were not based simply on populist thinking that this seemed like something that might be what the electorate would like if they are worried about crime.  
The great thing about those three pieces of legislation is that after a decade in operation nobody is saying that they are in any way fundamentally flawed; 10 years on we see that we got that legislation about right and that is quite a remarkable achievement because of the complexity of the situations that we are dealing with. They have indeed stood the test of time.  
However over time a number of minor and technical changes have been discovered as being necessary to make those pieces of legislation work better and those minor and technical problems are identified and addressed in this bill. They will I believe improve the operation of home detention and community-based sentences and the electronic monitoring regimes under which offenders are managed. The technical changes are required largely to deal with operational procedures where the legislation either is silent is unclear or has been interpreted in ways that were not what was intended in the framing of the original legislation.  
The first change is to the Bail Act. Home detention sentences under this bill will continue to run when an appeal is lodged. I think that is sensible because the person is within their own home where they are being detained. An appeal may be lodged but you would not suspend the restrictive conditions while that appeal is being considered.  
Most of the changes are to the Sentencing Act—for example requiring pre-sentence reports before an offender is sentenced to home detention or community detention. I think that is simply a matter of common sense. When the judge is making that sentence the judge needs to have the best information possible. It clarifies the maximum number of hours that an offender is required to serve. That is a technical matter. It clarifies the effect of a subsequent sentence of imprisonment on the sentence of home detention. At the moment if you are sentenced to imprisonment then that brings to an end the sentence of home detention. But the sentence of imprisonment might be for only a couple of weeks and actually what the offender requires is a longer period of supervision under restrictive requirements under home detention. I support that change.  
The bill clarifies the situation where there is more than one community sentence in operation. That makes sense; it speaks for itself. It enables court registrars to issue warrants and applications to review a non-custodial sentence. It provides that time stops running when an application is made to the court to vary or cancel a sentence when the offender is unable or fails to comply with a sentence. At the moment if you abscond and you are not serving the sentence the clock keeps running and you get a discount on your sentence and really that is not very smart. So I think that change is a good one.  
In terms of electronic monitoring you have got a bit of a discrepancy. Sometimes you are sentenced to home detention in your home but the electronic monitoring regime is not the same as the boundaries of your home so it is important to get alignment between those two. Finally in relation to parole and extended supervision orders the bill clarifies responsibility for preparing reports on suitability for residential restrictions. That makes sense. It eliminates gaps in extended supervision order provisions. Most of those provisions are sensible.  
When we extended home detention after the trial period that it went through there were a lot of sceptics and critics around New Zealand who believed that simply locking up offenders in prison was the thing to do even for short periods of time and that that eliminated the risk to the community. I believe that those critics were very short-sighted. The Ministry of Justice did a review into the sentence of home detention and I think those findings are findings that everybody in this House should take on board.  
First of all there is dramatically less recidivism when an offender is serving a community sentence compared with a short prison sentence of pretty much the same time period. About 22 percent on community sentences were reconvicted after 12 months. If you look at the reconviction rates for people on very short-term prison sentences that figure is twice as much: it is over 50 percent. Clearly we want sentences that work. In relation to costs it is about $58 a day to keep somebody under home detention; it is about $249 a day to imprison a person. So there is less recidivism and less cost but I think the other argument is even more important. It keeps the offender who is at the lesser end of serious offending and is not of risk to the community in the workforce maintaining his or her job and maintaining their responsibilities in the home environment which is something that prison interrupts. So I think that community sentences should be fostered. They are important and it is important that we get them right. I think this bill is a step in the right direction. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on this bill the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill and I just pick up on some of the initial comments made by the previous speaker Mr Goff. He observed that the last Parliament saw a remarkable number of justice bills going through and that indeed the quality did not match the quantity of those bills. So when this bill was tabled shortly before the last election it created something of a conundrum for the Greens. Here was yet another in a long series of corrections bills that we had seen from a Government that gave us the three-strikes legislation. Having seen that it had failed miserably everywhere around the world we imposed a similar regime here! The Government gave us double-bunking in prisons and legislation to deny all prisoners the right to participate in the democratic process by denying them the right to vote. This is the Government that introduced a profit motive into the management of prisons—a Government apparently committed to committing extraordinary sums of money to building more prisons despite its own Minister of Finance assuring us that prisons are moral and fiscal failures.  
So when we started to read this bill in that context and started to see that actually it seemed to be quite a sensible and practical piece of legislation that could achieve some good ends we had something of a crisis of confidence—we thought we must be missing something. But closer analysis led us to believe that this is actually a piece of legislation we can support. It does have some worthwhile aims. The content of the bill—its provisions—will improve the situation in terms of the administration of community sentences. For that reason we will certainly be supporting this bill at the first reading and with a reasonable expectation that we will support it throughout the following readings.  
All the evidence is that for the great majority of offenders community-based sentences are a better option than putting people in prison. There is a great deal of research that indicates as a rule of thumb that probably about 15 percent of people in prison actually need to be there as there is nothing else that could have been done with them. For their own safety and critically for the safety of the public we need to have those people denied their liberty. For the other 85 percent community-based sentences are going to deliver much better outcomes than the failed experiment of putting more people in prison for longer.  
The Department of Corrections is now costing us well in excess of $1 billion per year. Some $850 million of that is spent on simply containing people simply keeping people locked up inside concrete boxes surrounded by wire. This delivers an extremely poor return on that investment to the extent that we are actually spending a great deal of money essentially to make matters worse. That is not intelligent governance. That is not sensible policy. It is not good law. We do not need to spend more money to produce better outcomes. We need an intelligent sensible programme of justice reinvestment—spend less money to get better outcomes—and this legislation does take us a step towards that it would seem. We need to focus on crime prevention rehabilitation and reintegration which will deliver considerable economic as well as social benefits. Mr Chauvel earlier gave us some numbers about the efficacy of community-based sentences. A rule of thumb I have heard is that typically with community-based sentencing and treatment you can spend about half as much yet double the quality of the output. Surely that is something that every Government should seek to attain.  
This is an important bill. It is quite a technical bill it amends existing legislation and it does seek to make more effective provision for the management of community-based sentences. It is not so much complex as very detailed—quite complicated. It seeks to amend three pieces of primary legislation of course: the Bail Act the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. It makes something like 50 amendments collectively to all of those Acts. Although none of them is a particularly old piece of legislation—they date back to the early 2000s—the passage of time has demonstrated that there are gaps failures of integration and shortcomings in all of that legislation. In some respects provisions are contradictory or opaque. They do not give a clear steer to the judiciary or to those charged with managing community services. So it is entirely appropriate—in fact a very good idea—to look at that legislation and make it better. The point has been made that the legislation does not really align well with some of the technologies that 10 years on are now available to us so bringing it up to date is a good thing.  
The regulatory impact statement identifies some of the issues to be addressed in the bill. I would like to comment on just one or two of them. One of the changes to the Sentencing Act will be around the matter of pre-sentencing reports—basically assessment of suitability for home detention. I am pleased that there is going to be some light shone on that whole question. I have recently been in some dialogue with a number of people who are seeing some serious shortcomings in the reporting. Judges make sentencing decisions decisions about whether or not home detention is an appropriate sentence based on information the reports are giving. It is clear that the gathering of some of that information about particular sites and about particular offenders is less than it could be. We are seeing poor practice both with Government agencies and indeed with private contractors. And I think this process of going through this legislation will allow us to shine some light on to the whole matter of the quality of the assessment and of the reporting upon which judges are relying to determine whether or not particular offenders are eligible for home detention. 
 In terms of further provisions the matter of electronic monitoring has been brought up and the fact that if physical boundaries and the boundaries of the technology do not align it creates problems and we need to deal with that. It seems perverse that individual offenders can be subject to two regimes of electronic monitoring that do not align with one another and it is not clear which has priority. These are the sorts of issues that the passage of time has thrown up and it is entirely appropriate that these should be dealt with to give a clear steer to those whose task it is to make sure that these community sentences do work.  
I look forward to the select committee process on this bill. I think it is even more than usually important that we engage civil society. There are numbers of very well-resourced sensible and proactive NGOs that work in this whole area of corrections and have some very good progressive ideas and I think it is important that we offer them every opportunity to make submissions. As I said this bill makes something like 50 amendments to three already reasonably complex pieces of legislation. I believe that engaging those civil society groups those NGOs will inform us and reassure us that we are not overlooking issues that could come back to bite us or more important could come back to bite those who are affected directly by the provisions of this new legislation. I do think the select committee consideration will be particularly interesting. I have some confidence that the Law and Order Committee will be very open to hearing and responding positively to input from civil society from NGOs.  
So against our general practice I am simply pleased again to say the Greens will engage with this bill. We will support it and we look forward to the conversation that it will evince. Kia ora. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 As usual I will not waste a lot of words on the bill but I have to comment on the fact that this is the first time in this House that the Greens have agreed with something I am going to speak on. So I am very pleased about that. There is a first time for everything I suppose.  
This bill the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill removes barriers to better practice in the disciplinary area of our communities and I certainly support the bill to the next stage on the basis of that. I am also a strong believer in community-served sentences. I think that this bill will improve the processes around that and make it easier for us to implement those in the future. I think that will play a very important role in the future of our disciplinary processes in this country as we move forward. My own community of Feilding has had a significant amount of investment in this area and in the facilities to ensure the successful outcome of these types of sentences. So anything that this bill does to make that system more efficient and to allow better processes to take place around community sentencing I think is a great bonus for us. I am certainly in favour of it from that perspective.  
The bill as has been said modifies a number of Acts that are not all that old in this process but none the less some important changes to those Acts will take place. I cannot help but agree with a lot of the changes I have read about in this bill. I think it is the way forward for us in New Zealand to improve the processes we work on to improve the lot of our communities and our prisoners and people who have I guess offended in some way.  
I look forward to serving on the Law and Order Committee during the process of this bill. Certainly serving on the Law and Order Committee has given me a much greater understanding of the processes that our communities and our law and order institutions go through to get the results they get. I think that in New Zealand we should be very proud of the results we are getting now around law and order and the reintroduction into our communities of prisoners and people who have offended. I think that is an aspect that this Government has taken a strong lead on in the last 3½ years and I think this bill will progress that significantly in the future.  
I want to talk briefly about this Government’s record in the field of law and order. I think it is pretty spectacular to some extent that— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Did I hear you say Kris Faafoi’s got a record? 
IAN McKELVIE 
: I did not say that at all! I really was wondering though whether the coat of the member for Hutt South was made in the Hutt as usual. As I said I want to talk briefly about this Government’s record. There has been a significant reduction in crime and as a former mayor as Andrew Williams is one of the things that concerned us was when we had a reduction in crime in our area because we inevitably got a reduction in service from the police as a result. They would take police away from us and put them in some place where crime was increasing. But none the less we have reduced crime significantly in the last 3 years. We have reduced prison numbers which I think is a pretty significant factor as well and I hope that that continues although I realise as the last speaker did that we need to contain prisoners who are a danger to both themselves and society alike. We are also improving prison conditions and we are making it easier to receive discipline in your own environment and that is what this bill is all about. With those few words I have no problem commending this bill to the next process. I look forward to discussing it at the Law and Order Committee. Thank you. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill on behalf of New Zealand First. I acknowledge the effort by the Minister of Corrections to have this bill introduced to the House. It was March 2009 when an expert panel was established to work with Community Probation Services in releasing a comprehensive change programme. Three years since then another bill is being introduced to the House in order to address what was meant to be addressed by the so-called change programme which had been allocated huge funding through the Department of Corrections. The change programme focuses on sentence compliance which means better targeting of time effort and resources according to the risks each offender presents.  
There is a need to ask as to what the Minister and her staff have been targeting given that a sex offender had been working with school students under multi-identities and one can only hope that it was not another case like that of a former ACT MP. Furthermore how is the security screening being processed? The change programme led by Paula Rebstock had six key recommendations from the expert panel. Sentence compliance will continue to be a major focus but Community Probation Services will also concentrate on two other key areas. Those two areas were reducing the likelihood of offenders reoffending and minimising the risk of harm to others. The other part was about establishing the position of chief probation officer and I hope that has been done. There is a recommendation to shift from clarification of risk to the management and reduction of risk and to move from a highly prescriptive and procedure-based framework to one where more professional judgment is used. I suppose in other words that means applying common sense. It was recommended to promote clearer accountability and greater responsibility among staff and significant gains can be made from a fundamental rethink and redesign of probation activities.  
I looked at the general policy statements of this bill. The general policy statement says that certain provisions have been identified as barriers to managing offenders in the community in a manner that is safe secure humane effective and efficient. To say that current legislation provides a sound framework for operation of the corrections system is interesting though. If current legislation was effective and sound then we would not be debating this bill right now. I think it is astounding that the Government has taken so long to introduce a bill to address administrative issues arising from sentencing and parole reforms.  
The bill considers nearly 50 legislative amendments to be made concerning the Bail Act 2000 the Parole Act 2002 and the Sentencing Act 2002. Each amendment proposed seeks to remove certain legislative barriers involved in the administration of sentences and orders so that clarification is reached and many governmental agencies involved improve their operations. The legislative amendments would change policies concerning home detention community-based sentences and electronic monitoring regimes. It is imperative to have complete transparency when it comes to community sentencing. It is alarming that with the current law in place there is room for uncertainty which can often result in legislation interpreted in different ways and can be ambiguous to concerning parties. Ensuring compliance with sentences and orders and managing offenders safely and humanely is of course essential. It is important when we are dealing with offenders who are sentenced to home or community detention to clarify every circumstance faced or proposed including assessment of home situations the effects of subsequent sentencing of imprisonment and prevention of impositions of sentences with those existing. Compliance from the offender with his or her community sentence should not be waived because of electronic monitoring faults.  
Responsibility for preparing reports for the Parole Board on suitability for residential restrictions requires clarification. The current allocation of responsibility to probation officers does not cover the provision of information relating to the offenders’ behaviour in prison.  
Despite many meetings at all levels over a number of years between the prison service and Community Probation Services in regard to ensuring a seamless flow of information between the two agencies very little beyond lip service has happened. I would have to say that the issues are simply around patch protection. Frankly this is not good enough. Community Probation Services must have access to the prison service’s integrated offender management system to allow access to key personal information that covers the prisoner’s behaviour while he or she is in custody. This would include access to prison file notes incident reports and misconduct relating to the integrated offender management system. For years this has been a request that has been continually put off.  
There will be very little in the way of fiscal or administrative impacts to allow such access. There should be no loopholes concerning the protection of our communities against potential reoffenders who have committed sexual offences and extended supervision orders are an important prevention. Extended supervision orders conditions should apply immediately even if the release date is on a non-release day. The legislation concerning extending supervision orders must be clear so that parole boards have the power to impose release conditions on extended supervision orders. With the current cases faced of undetected sexual offenders working within our education sector it is no laughing matter. Ensuring this not happening again is essential. Victims’ rights need to be reinstated as the Parole Amendment Act 2007 has left victims with no entitlement to accessing information on the hearing or its processes. New Zealand First agrees with the extensive changes needed to allow for transparency. We will support this bill on its first reading. However a look into the scope of accessibility of prisoner information for Community Probation Services staff is one that needs consideration. This bill will do well with the introduction of the New Zealand First short sharp sentencing bill. I support this bill to the Law and Order Committee. Thank you. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 I am somewhat dumbstruck. I am shocked and I am amazed because for the first time in a very long time if ever we have the Green Party New Zealand First and the Labour Party all supporting a bill the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. I am starting to wonder whether we are actually doing the right thing with all those parties finally supporting a piece of legislation that the Government— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Why are we supporting it then? 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: They actually have a majority. They do not need us to support it. They have a majority already just about with all that support from the parties. I am pleased to be supporting this bill on behalf of the National Party and my colleagues. I will not speak for long because it is clear that we have so much support in the House around the Chamber to see this bill go smoothly through to the Law and Order Committee. 
 This bill is about improving the justice system and the corrections system even further. We have heard already tonight that the National-led Government has passed 18 new laws in the justice sector since it was first elected. I do think it was a bit unfair of the Hon Phil Goff to discount the effort that the National-led Government has put into the law and order area. I do struggle sometimes to disagree with and question the judgment of someone who has been in Parliament longer than I have even been alive but I have to say to the Hon Phil Goff that it was a little unfair of him to be questioning our strides of progress in the law and order area.  
Before we came into power crime was on the increase the corrections system was out of control prisons faced a critical shortage of beds P was seriously damaging communities— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: And it’s not now? 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: —and repeat violent offenders were being freed on parole. We have passed 18 new laws to help make this country safer. I do not think it is fair to discount that. We have removed parole eligibility for the worst repeat violent offenders. We have repealed the use of provocation as a partial defence for murder. We have increased the penalty for possessing a knife from 2 years to 3 years. All of those things would probably not have been achieved had Mr Winston Peters been in this House. We have doubled drug and alcohol treatment places for prisoners. We have increased the number of prisoners who are receiving skilled work training by 1000 as we promised at the election.  
Hon Simon Bridges 
: How did we pass them if Rajen Prasad was here? 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: I do not know. That is a question we all ask ourselves every day Mr Bridges. This bill is about taking the next step forward. It is about simplifying and working on making the bail system and the sentencing system more administratively acceptable for the public. It is about making it easier for people in the justice system to administer the important sentencing and bail issues that they have to deal with. I am looking forward to the select committee’s consideration of this bill. I even look forward to perhaps seeing Mr Winston Peters sitting on the select committee with us. He is so interested in the bill given his interjections here this afternoon. 
KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 I say to Mr Ross that maybe it is the super moon; maybe it is the super moon that has changed our opinions of the Government so much that we think we should support this piece of legislation but it is true that this is one of those rare occasions where the moon is shining bright and a number of parties other than ACT and National support a piece of National legislation. So we can be forgiven if our balance is maybe a bit thrown off by the unusual tides of the super moon and the fact that we are supporting this piece of legislation.  
At the risk of an interjection by the Hon Simon Bridges about my having a record I would just like to clarify for the House that I have been in court only once and that was for my inability to pay a fine for not having lights on my bicycle in the early 1990s. So I just want to clarify that for Mr Bridges. I have been to court once but I got away without having to pay that fine because I was only 16 or 17 years of age.  
Labour does support this Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. It is a relatively technical bill and it amends three Acts as has been mentioned before. It amends the Bail Act the Sentencing Act and the Parole Act. There are 50ish amendments in total. As the Hon Phil Goff mentioned earlier in the debate this bill makes these amendments to ensure that we can do away with some barriers and ensure there is more effective management of community sentences and orders. As it stands now the three Acts that cover this area are either silent or unclear on a number of areas around community sentences or home detention orders. We need to do away with the farcical situation that Phil Goff mentioned before whereby if someone is on home detention and then scarpers that time when they are missing in action still counts towards their sentence. For those technical reasons we are supporting this bill.  
Labour does support a corrections system that secures the public safety and of course there are only certain types of offenders who can be eligible for a non-prison sentence. We support that position. We also support ensuring the rehabilitation of offenders. As Mr Goff mentioned in his earlier contribution there is a much better rate of non-recidivism for those who have home detention sentences and community sentences and orders than for those who have short prison terms.  
The barriers that are in the current legislation really impinge on Department of Corrections staff and hopefully this bill will help the department’s staff and the judiciary to effectively deal better with offenders who are given non-custodial sentences. There has been a huge increase in the use of non-custodial sentences. I understand it is slowing down as of late but in 2006 to the year to June I understand there were 33965 non-custodial community sentences handed down. In the year to June 2011 that number had increased to 63168—a doubling of those sentencing options around non-custodial community sentences. Home detention also received a similar increase. In the year to June 2006 1293 home detention sentences were handed out but in the year to June 2011 over 3700 home detention sentences had been handed out. So this bill is an important piece of legislation in terms of the context of the increasing use of the non-custodial sentence. Hopefully the changes within this bill will ensure that in terms of the way we deal with these offenders we can be much more efficient and effective.  
There is a relatively good fiscal argument as to why we should be looking to non-custodial sentences for offenders who are low risk. At the moment the taxpayer pays around about $58 per day to keep someone in home detention and that is roughly a quarter of what it costs to keep someone in prison the cost of which is $249 per day. So it is fiscally responsible to examine a widening of the use of home detention rather than dismissing it. Some see it as not being tough on crime and certain people who are out there in the community say we should be locking people up more and more often but they should take note of the fiscal argument as to why we should not be locking more people up.  
We also need to ask the question as to why we convict and sentence people. We do it to punish them if they have transgressed against the law. We take away their freedom and that is a relatively serious punishment. While they are either in prison or they are serving a home detention order or another order we ask them to ponder their actions and to see the error of their ways and hopefully they can think in the future they might modify their behaviour. We also should be dealing with any issues that they may have whether they be within their family or mental health issues or behavioural issues. But I think most Kiwis would agree that when people transgress they should be punished whether by a custodial or a non-custodial sentence.  
We also want to make sure that these people do not reoffend. Recidivism is something that both this Government and Judith Collins have said we have to put a lot more emphasis on in terms of rehabilitation. But in that respect the rhetoric does not necessarily match up with the reality. Mr Goff mentioned earlier on about the great success of home detention sentences around recidivism. Between 2007 and 2008 the number of those who got home detention sentences who were reconvicted in the next 12 months was at 21.5 percent. For the next year it was 23 percent. But for those who were serving relatively similar short-term prison sentences in the same years the reconviction rate was 50.3 percent and 52.6 percent in 2008 and 2009. So it shows you there that the use of home detention orders and community sentences is much more effective in terms of reducing the rates of recidivism for those who are subject to those sentences.  
 In terms of the rhetoric not meeting the reality that was also picked up by the Salvation Army in its state of the nation report earlier this year. It said in its report around recidivism: “As in previous years the rates of re-offending and re-imprisonment have remained disappointingly consistent with the reported outcomes for 2010/11 showing no discernible trend of improvement or deterioration from previous years. This constancy is shown in the data provided … Spending on prisoner … rehabilitation [only] rose marginally [around] a 1.1 percent increase” taking inflation into account. In terms of what Judith Collins said around putting a lot more emphasis on rehabilitation we have not seen it at that end. We think this Government should take more action in terms of using home detention. It has as I pointed out no statistics. It had a lot better result in terms of recidivism.  
So we will support this bill because it does make some very good changes to those three Acts that I mentioned before but we do believe that this may be another attempt by the Government to look tough on law and order. I also look forward to looking at this bill at the Law and Order Committee. I am sure it will get a thorough looking at and I encourage people to make submissions to that Law and Order Committee so that we can look at some of the real issues that we are dealing with around recidivism in terms of those who serve non-custodial and custodial sentences. We support this bill. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure that I take a call on this the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. It is clear to me that this bill will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the administration of corrections sentences and orders in the community. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: What does Colin Craig say about this? 
MARK MITCHELL 
: You know Mr Peters I am interested to see you down here today. You are so interested in this bill and I just wonder whether it is because it is about home detention. I am not sure but that is the only thing I can come up with. This is another part of our great programme of reform in which we have passed 18 new laws and made other policy changes to improve public safety— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: 18? 
MARK MITCHELL 
: —and the rights of victims. That is right—18 new laws. This is one of our next steps to further strengthen sentencing bail and parole laws. 
We promised to stay tough on criminals and we are staying tough on criminals. We are focused on making sure the rights of victims are looked after within our justice system. Before this Government came into office in 2008 crime was on the rise gangs were growing stronger prisons were bursting at the seams P was seriously damaging our communities violent repeat offenders were being freed on parole and our courts were clogged and congested. National is turning that round. Our comprehensive programme of reform has directly resulted in less crime tougher sentences and parole laws more police on the front line a crackdown on illegal drugs and millions of dollars seized from gangs. We have averted the prison crowding crisis as well.  
Generally the current legislation is providing a sound corrections framework. However in our focus on improvement certain provisions have been identified as barriers to managing offenders in the community in a manner that is safe secure humane effective— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Iraq was never like this. 
MARK MITCHELL 
: —and efficient. We do want people Mr Peters who are under home detention to be treated humanely and to feel they are secure and we want the public to be safe. The bill will remove those barriers. It is with great pleasure that I stand in support of this bill and I look forward to its arrival at the Law and Order Committee. Thank you. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a split call? 
Kris Faafoi 
: Yes it is. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Thank you. 
RINO TIRIKATENE 
: —speak at this the first reading of the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. This is going to be a very short call. I think the member who has just spoken Mark Mitchell definitely has been moonstruck because it was very clear that crime was on the decline before this Government instigated its whole suite of 18 sentencing-related bills. But in terms of this the first reading Labour supports having a corrections system that secures public safety and ensures rehabilitation. This bill is a step in the right direction. Community-based sentences are an initiative that should be fostered and we have long been advocating for that.  
This harkens back to many years ago when we look at what is the purpose of sentencing. Is it there to punish the offender? Is it there to rehabilitate the offender? Is it there to deter the offender or to deter others who might actually see that someone is locked away or is facing a stiff sentence? Or is it there to look at it from the point of view of the victim and therefore we need to be punitive to compensate for the harm that has been inflicted on a victim of the crime?  
I do commend the bill for actually looking at this from the point of view of rehabilitation and also of the reduction in recidivism. It also is fiscally responsible as well in terms of minimising the costs through greater administration of community sentences. This is a very technical bill. It covers a suite of amendments to around three other Acts and I am sure that the Law and Order Committee will give it proper consideration when it gets referred there. I would just like to wrap that up and say that Labour supports this bill’s referral to the select committee. Kia ora. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora e te Whare. As the Green Party spokesperson on justice I am very pleased to rise to follow my distinguished colleague David Clendon to speak on the first reading of the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. I am very pleased to say as Mr Clendon also noted in his first speech that the Green Party will be supporting this bill’s referral to a select committee.  
The amendments in this bill are largely minor policy changes that will ensure community sentences are adequately implemented. The Green Party places a high emphasis on the role of community sentences in achieving a fair and sustainable Aotearoa. Prisons really are a sign of failure in society—I believe even the Minister of Finance has said they are a moral and fiscal failure—and they are self-perpetuating. Prisons as they currently exist in this country are academies of hard crime. Non-violent offenders whenever possible should not be sent to prison where they will be further alienated from society will be exposed to violence and will network with other more hardened criminals. I would tautoko what my colleague Charles Chauvel and the Hon Phil Goff said earlier tonight. They very rightly pointed out that the Ministry of Justice review of home detention has conclusively shown that community sentences are significantly more effective at reducing recidivism than prison sentences and at a fraction of the cost. Justice is more than just locking up criminals and doing away with their rights. It is about making our communities safer and rehabilitating offenders.  
I noticed that Mr McKelvie and Mr Ross noted that it is very rare that the Green Party can be enthusiastic about a National Government justice bill. Already this year I have spoken on a number of bills—not the least of which was the Corrections Amendment Bill—from this Government that seeks to undermine the basic human rights of prisoners and I think that must be because the National Government and the ACT Party have a very narrow view of human consciousness willpower and choice. In fact their view is not backed up by the latest in human psychology. What I hear from the Government side of the House is usually a desire to exercise vengeance on those who have been convicted of transgressing the law. That is punishment for the sake of punishment and it is incredibly costly. It costs significantly more. It is a very narrow view and it is incorrect to hold that an individual is always entirely and solely responsible for the crime they have committed. There are complex factors at play. We need to recognise that all of us make mistakes and that many of us if not all are capable of learning from our mistakes and changing our behaviour.  
So our approach to justice is more pragmatic and more fiscally responsible than the Government’s. It asks how we can best minimise the harm to society that comes from transgression of the law and how we can prevent it from happening again. It is not usually by locking non-violent offenders in a traumatic violent and alienating prison and taking away their rights but through factors like restorative justice which puts victims at the centre of the process. I am hopeful that this bill could result in a more effective use of community sentences and help us see a true reduction in crime rates at a much lower cost and a more just and fair Aotearoa New Zealand. Kia ora.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take the last call in the first reading on this very important bill the Administration of Community Sentences and Orders Bill. For the benefit of less experienced colleagues in the House I think it is fair to say that it is not that unusual that peace breaks out around much of the Government legislation. Indeed there are many times when the Greens will support the Government on certain bits of legislation and indeed New Zealand First although it is extremely hard to tell sometimes certainly from those members’ speeches.  
We have heard some really interesting discourse though throughout this first reading debate. I want to touch on issues that were raised by both Messrs Chauvel and Goff at least in my listening and then by Ms Genter right at the end here about this apparent causation with the correlation between sentencing and reoffending. Mr Goff I think used the following statistics and I trust that they are correct: 22 percent of offenders on community sentences reoffend and 50 percent of offenders on short prison sentences reoffend. The inference then is that the shorter the sentence the less the likelihood of the reoffending and he said: “We need to use sentences that work”.  
Hon Simon Bridges 
: No it’s because there’s more serious offending. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well that is absolutely right Mr Bridges. What we are actually talking about is not a scientific study where the scale of the offending is equal in each case. It is actually an insult to the justice system to suggest that for the same level of offending some will get community sentences and some will get prison sentences.  
Charles Chauvel 
: Now I understand. It’s clear now.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Well that member may be better off going and speaking to that inexperienced member Mr Goff because frankly it is absolutely spurious to suggest that less is better automatically when it comes to sentencing because that is what we have heard in some of the contributions tonight. The simple fact is: the greater the level of offending the greater the sentence. The very important responsibility that this House has and then the judiciary is to ensure that the punishment fits the crime and that those three principles—four actually if you count the deterrent factor that Mr Tirikatene mentioned—are actually achieved.  
So I do wonder what a community sentence would be given for and members on the other side might be interested in this perhaps. Theft for example might warrant a community sentence. Perhaps receiving stolen property and passing it on when that authorisation has not been granted I do not know or maybe assault or fighting in a public place where diversion clearly has not worked with the particular individual. I think there are certain members on the other side who need to read this bill very very carefully and take some heed because there is a degree of recidivism in some offenders where community sentences simply will not be appropriate again in the future.  
I support this bill.  
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Law and Order Committee. 
Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 I move  
That the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill be now read a first time. 
 I nominate the Local Government and Environment Committee to consider this bill.  
It is great to stand here tonight to continue the proud National tradition of providing strong support for arts culture and heritage because National’s arts pedigree is excellent. Sid Holland’s Government formed the Historic Places Trust which is the subject of the bill we debate tonight. Keith Holyoake’s Government established the Queen Elizabeth II Arts Council. Rob Muldoon appointed the first Minister for the Arts in 1975 Allan Highet regarded by many as the best Minister for the Arts in our country’s history. He established the Film Commission in 1978 and in Jim Bolger’s time Doug Graham got Te Papa built and reformed the arts council. So tonight is nothing new; it is but another chapter in National’s ongoing excellent support of culture and heritage in this country. We are not known as the “Party of Arts” for nothing.  
The New Zealand Historic Places Trust has had a very distinguished track record in the protection of our historic heritage ever since it was established by the National Government in 1954. Just as National created the trust and over the years has strengthened it this bill now seeks to ready it for the 21st century. Specifically the bill enhances the effectiveness of the Historic Places Trust through structural change and greater efficiency. In so doing it will repeal and replace the Historic Places Act 1993.  
The National Party signalled a review of the Historic Places Act in our 2008 election manifesto. We recognised that it was time to take a good look at whether the existing structure was the best one to ensure a smart and effective organisation.  
The subsequent review confirmed that change was needed. A key finding was a lack of clarity around the organisation’s statutory and membership roles. This meant branch committees risked being constrained by the priority-setting the rules and the conventions of a Crown entity. It also meant elected board members were constrained in their ability to represent the interests of those who elected them. What this bill seeks to do is to separate these roles by consolidating the statutory function of the Historic Places Trust and ensuring strong and independent heritage advocacy. So the bill disestablishes the branch committees removes the three positions for elected members on the trust board and creates two new positions for members who are to be appointed by Ministers.  
Only a very small proportion of the trust’s members are actually on branch committees. Under the proposed changes former branch committee members will still be able to support the work of the trust and will continue to receive the benefits that membership offers. They will not however be involved in the Historic Places Trust’s governance or statutory work.  
Let me be very clear: nothing in this legislation undermines or lessens local heritage advocacy. Political and statutory action has long been underpinned by support from heritage advocates in the community. Groups do not need to be large or expensive to achieve significant heritage wins. What they need to be is free to speak up for their local heritage and to challenge authorities where they see fit.  
Alongside changing the structure of the trust the bill seeks to change its name. The new name proposed is Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. The key aspect of the change is the removal of the word “trust” a term that is inconsistent with the organisation’s regulatory responsibilities and its status as a Crown entity. The change will also clearly distinguish the newly named Heritage New Zealand from any independent trusts that may be formed by former branch committee members in the future.  
The most significant reforms proposed by the bill are to the protection of New Zealand’s archaeological heritage. Under the existing Act no person may destroy damage or modify an archaeological site without prior consent from the trust. Current archaeological consent processes are far too complex and are poorly aligned with the Resource Management Act. They also lack opportunities for Maori input. They require significant reworking to bring them up to date.  
The bill reforms archaeological consents ensuring they will be faster simpler and more efficient for applicants. It aligns the time frames with those in the Resource Management Act reducing maximum time frames for the future Heritage New Zealand to process applications for modification of archaeological sites. It provides a simplified application process for proposals that have only a minor effect on archaeology and it requires Heritage New Zealand to consult on and publish its policy for administering archaeological consents. Importantly these changes also recognise the significance to Maori of many archaeological sites.  
In the wake of the Canterbury earthquakes the bill also proposes a separate emergency archaeological consent system that can be invoked in the event of a natural disaster including a special emergency consent. This will give Heritage New Zealand the discretion to reduce the documentation required for applications and will shorten time frames both for decision making and for appeals. It will ensure that we can continue to record and investigate our heritage but without putting lives at risk or impeding reconstruction.  
Another aim of the bill is to reduce costs and difficulties for property owners. Under the current legislation if the trust carries out an investigation of the archaeological value of a site but there turns out not to be any value the costs of investigation are still recoverable from the owner. The bill removes the power to recover costs in such cases so that private citizens are no longer disadvantaged by this practice.  
The bill also removes ambiguity in the circumstances where the trust may have regard to Government policy. Under the current legislation the responsible Minister is prohibited from giving a direction to the trust on heritage matters. The bill clarifies this provision in an approach that is consistent with the Crown Entities Act. The bill permits the Minister to provide policy direction to which the organisation must have regard but the Minister cannot direct the organisation on heritage matters that relate to particular historic places historic areas wahi tapu or wahi tapu areas. Given the Government funding of what will be Heritage New Zealand and the regulatory powers it exercises some level of ministerial leadership is appropriate to ensure the organisation is more accountable to taxpayers in its policy direction.  
When I introduced this bill in October last year I announced a separate review of the registration provisions in Part 4 of the bill. Any changes to these provisions will need to be consistent with the legislative amendments being developed in separate reviews of earthquake-prone buildings policy and the Resource Management Act so I intend to introduce a Supplementary Order Paper regarding the registration provisions when these other pieces of work are further advanced. I believe it would be appropriate for the select committee to seek public submissions both on the bill and on the Supplementary Order Paper at that time.  
The changes proposed by this bill will improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of the protection of historic places while maintaining the strong national leadership for which the Historic Places Trust is rightly recognised. I commend this bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Government held a review of archaeological consenting processes within the Historic Places Act in response to some anecdotal evidence that those processes might not have been as streamlined as they could. The focus of the review was solely on ensuring that statutory processes were efficient and streamlined and in particular to reduce any potential for duplication with processes under the Resource Management Act. It is instructive to compare the results of that review with the regulatory impact statement on this bill. The statement notes there were three different types of relevant provisions under the current legislation: there was not really an alignment of processing times between archaeological authorities in resource consent; there was excessive processing time in some cases up to 6 months; and the Maori Heritage Council of the trust did not have input into all applications for archaeological authorities affecting sites of interest to Maori. Although it is interesting to note that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage in the regulatory impact statement notes that that overall problem is likely to be small with only 350 applications a year so the rationale for the review was based not on direct evidence of a problem but on perceptions of a problem.  
To the extent that the review was one of the prompters for a redraft of the Act it is helpful I think to look at the provisions of the bill and to consider the main changes it would make. We have heard a summary of some of them from the Minister. Obviously there is going to be a change of the name of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga—Heritage New Zealand—and a reform of the organisation’s governance and structure. Currently the trust has a board it has the Maori Heritage Council and it has branch committees which comprise fee-paying members. As the Minister observed the bill will disestablish the branch committees it will remove the three positions for elected board members that currently exist on the board and it will create two new positions for the board members which will be appointed by the Minister himself. 
 On processes the bill proposes to reduce the maximum time frames for Heritage New Zealand to process applications and will align those time frames with the now well-known procedures that exist under the Resource Management Act. It introduces a simplified application process for proposals that have only a minor effect on archaeology.  
As far as emergency authorities are concerned Heritage New Zealand will have the ability to process archaeological authorities’ applications more speedily following a state of emergency basically by shortening time frames and including weekends and public holidays in the calculation of time frames.  
Labour supports the sending of the bill to a select committee—the Local Government and Environment Committee I believe was the committee the Minister nominated—and it is appropriate that the bill should receive scrutiny at that committee. One of the issues the Opposition will want careful scrutiny paid to is the dispensing with branch committees. We are concerned whenever public input into an entity is diminished and it does seem to us that getting rid of the branch committees does need some thought—does need some examination—at the select committee. The Minister I am sure would not want to see public input and input from members jeopardised. We need to see I think clear evidence that that is not going to occur as a result of removing branch committees from the structure.  
Likewise the risk with the removal of the three members of the existing board who represent the branch committees is obviously again a diminution of public input into the affairs of what is now known as the Historic Places Trust. We would want to see and hear assurances from advisers and others at the committee and to test the evidence on that point that that is not going to lead to the current membership of the trust feeling that they are disempowered and that their opportunities for input into the organisation which at the moment are an important aspect of the affairs of the trust are not diminished or discouraged.  
It will I think be important in the select committee process to exercise vigilance to ensure that the bill in fact strengthens governance and input opportunities and does not come at the expense of archaeological heritage and public participation in safeguarding that heritage. That is I think the prime concern that the Opposition would express at the way in which the bill is drafted and is probably the primary issue that we will want to test at the select committee.  
I think it is also appropriate to make the point that although Labour supports measures to reduce unnecessary costs and delays as I said earlier in respect of the regulatory impact statement on the bill the ministry has noted that one of the major overall problems that the bill would seek to address is small and likely to remain so. The evidence is that there were I think only 350 applications a year that would be affected by one of the major reforms in the bill. So there is a legitimate question in the face of stagnant economic growth record migration to Australia persistently high unemployment and increasing numbers of children suffering from poverty-related illnesses as to whether this is really a priority issue for the Government at this time but if it is then the question has to be asked why it has taken the Minister 2 years after Cabinet asked him to report on the consent process to actually bring changes to Parliament. 
 We will be keen as I say at the select committee to test whether or not this is in fact a measure that will lead to better processes better governance and better public input for the entity that will be known as Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. Despite the reservations that I have mentioned and the nasty little partisan speech that we heard before on the introduction of the bill Labour will support this legislation going to the select committee.  
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I rise to support the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. As you heard from the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage this bill will replace the Historic Places Act 1993. It changes the governance structure of the Historic Places Trust and it introduces new archaeological provisions and new emergency provisions. It will also update the drafting of the bill and improve the workability of the Act.  
The New Zealand Historic Places Trust was established in 1955 as a voluntary organisation but it is now an autonomous Crown entity with statutory responsibilities and over the years it has developed into a professional organisation with over 100 fulltime-equivalent staff. Over the years the members of the Historic Places Trust have done wonderful work. Volunteers have worked long and hard to identify to protect to restore and to raise the profile and appreciation of the heritage of our country. However as the organisation has become more professional and mostly funded by the Crown there has been some confusion and some tensions between the volunteers the members of the branch committees and the staff of the organisations and their statutory responsibilities.  
The Crown now provides 80 percent of the Historic Places Trust’s funding of a total budget of about $15 million. Less than 5 percent of that income comes from membership subscriptions. The new bill will allow for ongoing membership but it disestablishes the branch committees. Volunteers will be encouraged to support the work of the organisation. For example they do a lot of work in terms of managing guiding and being involved with the 48 historic places that are administered by the trust. But others who want a more active role in advocacy will be encouraged to form new independent organisations and Heritage New Zealand is interested in working in partnership with these organisations.  
As the MP for Christchurch Central I am particularly interested in the provisions of the bill that concern emergency authorities. But before I discuss this further I would like to pay tribute to the Historic Places Trust and the work that it has been doing in Christchurch since the earthquakes. Malcolm Duff and his team have worked tirelessly. We have seen them day after day under really difficult circumstances in and out of civil defence headquarters trying to get the best possible outcomes for heritage and for our special buildings in Christchurch.  
The problems were absolutely magnified by the significant number of earthquakes simply because they had to keep on looking at analysing and re-deciding what to do with buildings. In many cases restoration plans had to be re-thought through and then re-thought through again and then finally re-thought through again—and in some cases actually abandoned as the earthquakes continued. In some cases earthquake strengthening emergency propping work and even remedial work did not save valuable buildings.  
Although some of our special buildings in Christchurch have survived—for example the Christ’s College complex the museum area and the Arts Centre—and although that has been damaged it will be restored—many of our well-loved buildings have been extremely badly damaged and only some will be rebuilt.  
We have two cathedrals—we have the neo-Gothic cathedral which was designed by George Gilbert Scott and Benjamin Mountfort in our Cathedral Square and then we also have the Frances William Petre cathedral which is a French-style neoclassical Catholic basilica in Madras Street—and both these cathedrals are in that category. The provincial chambers are also a particularly significant building but the provincial chambers are in public ownership and I am hopeful that we will be able to rebuild those although I suspect that it is going to be a very long and probably gruelling task.  
Christchurch has been fortunate to have two distinctive cathedrals and I have always enjoyed the story about George Bernard Shaw who visited Christchurch in 1934 and complimented his hosts on the beautiful cathedral. Of course they thought he meant the cathedral in Cathedral Square but “No” he replied “it was that one down by the gasworks.” Of course that is the Catholic cathedral the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament which is well known as probably one of the most beautiful buildings in Australasia.  
 But I will come back to emergency powers. The bill establishes a separate emergency authority process that applies in the case of natural disasters. These are the disasters that could cause or are likely to cause loss of life injury or serious damage to property. The process will give Heritage New Zealand the ability to process archaeological authorities more speedily following a state of emergency. The time frames are shorter reflecting the emergency context and are not limited to working days. In other words weekends and public holidays must be included in the calculation of times.  
It will be very pleasing if something good can come out of the Christchurch earthquakes and if we can use the experience to ensure that this legislation is fit for purpose and can be used in future disaster situations. I think it is timely that we review this present Act and I think it is important that we get the legislation right. Therefore I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Speaker. I stand to follow on from what have been relatively non-controversial speeches about the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. In fact the first time I must say that I came across the word “pouhere” was when the Anglican Church decided to reorder its constitution and give equal recognition as I recall to the three tikanga. So now when I participate in debates to do with constitutionalism and Maori I will be able to find the right word. I hope though that the word ends up sort of reflecting content but that is for the future. So we support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee.  
I want to focus on three things. This bill reflects a transition that authorities have been through in terms of how they treat how they categorise and how they prioritise the protection and safeguarding of Maori heritage interests. There is a great debate as to how much information a hapu or an iwi should provide to State authorities. That is often a debate that is driven by the loss of information that is inevitable as a consequence of people leaving rural areas people moving to the city the impact of colonisation and the fact that so much of Maori knowledge was regarded as lowbrow in the earlier decades of the last century. Indeed in some parts of New Zealand it is probably still the case. So it is amazing that information about Maori place names sacred sites and other areas of historical and heritage significance subsists.  
And then beyond that there is the genuine concern that Maori cultural information should be tightly guarded and that before it is shared with the general public it should be passed on to the members of the whanau or the kin group who are most directly affected by the decisions that happen when progress meets heritage etc. or development meets heritage.  
Those are some of the forces but the fact that the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill retains a Maori committee structure maintains a Maori Heritage Council and provides an opportunity for very learned people—as we would say in Maori nga pukenga—to actually provide direction to developers and to other statutory decision-makers is a reminder of the transition we have been through since 1975. I often use that as a watershed year—the year that the Labour Government of that time decided to enact the Waitangi Tribunal legislation or whatever it was formally called back then. 
 But this bill does not just impact on those interests of heritage that are near and dear to me. It also exhorts us to think about other icons of heritage not the least of which is the built environment. I will not say much about what has happened in Christchurch because those are exceptional circumstances and MPs who either represent Christchurch or who live in Christchurch no doubt are probably better placed to extend our knowledge about the loss of heritage buildings in that regard. But I am thinking more of Tamaki-makau-rau—Auckland. As Auckland has expanded and people have looked to modernise Auckland we have lost a lot of the historic building infrastructure and heritage items in Auckland.  
This bill retains extraordinary powers for the new organisation which will be a Crown entity as opposed to a somewhat ambiguous trust structure. What it does is it provides for staff for people authorised by the organisation Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga to actually enter on to property where they fear that sites of significance might be coming into danger or are actually being damaged as a consequence of people not abiding by the conditions of whatever statutory consent they might have. This is likely to annoy property owners and it may actually annoy the people they are working with i.e. the developers but I think it tries to strike a balance between the organisation that the State has posited with these powers and people who have capital at risk. I have some sympathy quite frankly for a number of people who do take risks and who want to expand our infrastructure. It may be central government or local government authorities wanting to improve the delivery of essential services. But most important this sends a clear signal that you cannot carry on in an untrammelled fashion if what you are doing is putting at risk archaeological sites or Maori heritage sites.  
What it also does is it builds a wee bit of a precautionary approach. If you want to enter into a building you require a District Court judge’s permission and that should have I would have thought a moderating impact in the unlikely event that future employees of this organisation respond to local neighbourhood pressures. For example we had in the Mission Bay area not all that long ago a building that the super-city had permitted to be demolished and the local people were concerned that another monstrosity would occupy the skyline or the environment of “Parasite Drive”—Paratai Drive rather. This bill actually provides a basis for a more measured approach.  
But I want to come back to the Maori side because although this bill does afford a level of recognition and protection Maori have shown that the real protection lies in being able to use the avenues that take them to either the Environment Court or more often than not the High Court. The fact that there is a Treaty of Waitangi reference in here the fact that there are deliberate black-letter law references to Maori interests is the ultimate safeguard. It is disappointing that from time to time tangata whenua groups are required to absorb the costs of litigation but given the nature of our constitution unless your interests are clearly elaborated and clearly contained in a statutory provision it is very difficult for a judge or a court to read into the letters of the law a level of meaning that might satisfy Maori interests.  
We have had some fantastic jurisprudence over the years and I think back to the late 1980s. I think the case was the  
Habgood 
 case and in those days we all relied upon a thing called section 3(1)(g) in the old Town and Country Planning Act which talked about the special relationship between Maori and their ancestral land. After thousands of dollars had been expended by people trooping backwards and forwards and suffering the withering language of Judge David Sheppard and others we finally managed to capture some of the jurisprudence that built a reasonable basis. And then of course that was augmented by the decisions of Justice Chilwell and others.  
I offer these potentially irrelevant remarks only to remind us how far we have come and that in this bill there are elements that will inevitably need to be tidied up in the select committee. We should remind ourselves that it is not just the current group of politicians or the current bureaucrats or the current Minister—no deprecation to the current Minister. This has been a long and gradual journey. This will not be the final step that we as a country take in the protection of our heritage.  
The fact that it is very explicit both in the duties and in the justiciability of Maori environmental and heritage interests is a wake-up call for people up and down the country. Unless we can maintain the physical representation of these Maori interests all that is going to be left is the names. We do not want Maori heritage interests to all of a sudden start to appear like some taonga brought back from the Netherlands or America from the Boston whalers where the provenance of that taonga is now so confused and lost in time that no one can really tell the story of the greenstone mere or the tiki that disappeared from the 1790s to the 1820s. We have an opportunity by protecting and using a number of the provisions in this bill so that the names are actually married off to the physical representation and are a reminder that the indigenous people had their own way of life. They had their own system of recording their history and passing it on.  
For those reasons I am very happy along with my senior colleague Mr Chauvel to support this bill to the relevant select committee. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is supporting the referral of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill to the Local Government and Environment Committee because it is generally consistent with Green policy and makes some useful reforms. We do support the name change and some of the key provisions—some but not all. We are very supportive of the continuation of the Maori Heritage Council with delegated powers including the powers to excavate and of the affirmation of Te Tiriti o Waitangi responsibilities. Few bills are so clear that the Crown must give effect to te Tiriti which is not surprising given that this bill deals with wahi tapu and taonga katoa which are guaranteed to tangata whenua in article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. However I do note that Te Puni Kokiri has expressed some concerns about these clauses and I would be interested in finding out what those are before we go through to the next reading.  
However in supporting this bill’s referral to the select committee we need to flag some concerns. We would like to hear from the public at the select committee about the disestablishment of branch committees of the former Historic Places Trust. We know they are variable in their effectiveness but we know some communities have regarded them very highly. They may well be redundant from a national perspective but we would like to hear from those citizens who are active in heritage issues as to their views of these proposed changes.  
As I said before the new Treaty clauses appear much stronger on te Tiriti issues and responsibilities and the requirement that local authorities must have particular regard to recommendations made by Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga or the Maori Heritage Council is long overdue. Local authorities do have a responsibility to assist in the protection of wahi tapu and with wahi tapu areas and these changes are needed. In my direct experience there have been councils that have no heritage plan and no records of wahi tapu and that have taken no responsibility for the protection of these vital heritage areas.  
However we do have one more concern and this is the greatest concern that we have at this stage of the first reading. It is associated with the clauses related to archaeological sites. I want to address a clause that we would argue must be changed at the select committee. It is clause 42(1)(b). This clause states that if an effect of an activity on a site will be “no more than minor” then it appears the developer is exempt from consulting with tangata whenua. There is no definition in this bill as to what is minor. How will this be defined and by whom? Even if an archaeologist does an initial survey they are often not in a position to determine whether the development activity on a site will have a minor effect or not because the status of many sites cannot be determined until their archaeological work has been carried out. 
 So the 5-day decision-making process and the use of the minor activity clause could be disastrous for some significant sites of vital importance to tangata whenua who do not even have to be informed according to clause 42(1)(b) if this is invoked. Clause 43 then clearly lays out the proper process that should be followed for consultation on sites except if they are exempt under clause 42(1). We have great concerns about that exemption and that word “minor”. If we have understood this correctly it could be a fast-track nightmare that could destroy heritage and avoid consultation which could be music to the ears of some developers but not a protection of heritage.  
I want to give examples of this. My partner was a professional archaeologist in Te Tai Rawhiti for a number of years. These issues I am referring to were a daily source of contention as he sought to work alongside tangata whenua while being employed under contract by developers who wanted him to find as little as possible and to hurry up about it. One site that could be used as an example of this is one where it could have been judged that the activity would have a minor effect so I will just paint the picture of what I mean by this. It was a small shell midden just a small site on a piece of private land that a developer wanted to turn into holiday homes on the Mahia Peninsula. This shell midden looked like nothing very significant. You could have walked past it and just seen a few shells. We see that all the time—you walk past some sand with some shells. But the extraordinary thing about it is that after the process was well under way with full consultation and full tangata whenua involvement—who actually worked on the dig itself with my partner—it turned out to be a unique 14th century shellfish-drying hangi site. It was very rare and very far from minor in its significance. This new bill could have seen that destroyed without either consultation with or recognition of the tangata whenua.  
Another example also on the East Coast was a housing development in the settlement of Okitu just north of Gisborne where my partner found some prehistoric gardens and terracing that looked to the untrained eye like nothing much at all. But this was a rare site because most gardening sites on the East Coast have already been destroyed and have been ploughed in. There was going to be a road put through the middle of these prehistoric gardens. If the archaeologist had been acting under this law and had decided that the proposed effects of a road on what looked like some faint terracing were no more than minor then that site would be gone. It would have been destroyed. So we are very concerned about that. The “no more than minor” clause needs to go and the whole issue of who decides what is minor is problematic. We have seen that with the Resource Management Act with the issue of the word “significance”. Who decides what is significant? We are setting up another real problem for ourselves in the use of that word “minor”.  
The payment issue is very significant in relation to these clauses. Who pays the archaeologists must be addressed. This is an opportunity—and I welcome the bill because it is an opportunity—to make these things work better for the benefit of the heritage of this country. The payment would be better managed by a heritage body that could charge the developers for the work then remove the inbuilt conflict of interest for archaeologists. At the moment if an archaeologist from a Pakeha perspective who is not particularly te Tiriti orientated is hired by the contractor who is encouraging them to find nothing then nothing can be found but that does not mean that nothing is actually there. I have witnessed this a number of times in my own experience working alongside people and often tangata whenua themselves who have not known whether or not a site is significant. So this whole issue of payment must be organised better. The heritage body would be a logical place to do it because it is removing that inbuilt conflict.  
The final issue that I want to raise at this stage of the process of the law is the choice of archaeologist. Currently a developer chooses a contract archaeologist; therefore they get to decide when working with a Maori site—and I am talking mainly about Maori sites here. The tangata whenua get no right to choose who will work with their heritage. It is not up to them; they do not have any say. This may be an ancient site of particular significance to the hapu but they have no power to decide how that site will be dealt with; it is up to the contractor. Of course in my experience of this sector there are some archaeologists who will fast track your development for you and there are others who will not. Therefore the conflict of interest is really problematic. We believe that mana whenua should have the power to choose who is going to do that work and perhaps the safest way is via the Maori Heritage Council which the Minister has quite rightly maintained as a key part of making sure this bill is culturally appropriate. I believe this is giving effect to the clause relating to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  
We are very keen to see this bill supported but we must have these changes. We must make sure that it fulfils the functions of protecting Maori heritage which is actually a highly political and contested issue. If you have not worked in this field you might think this is an area of minor contention but it is not minor. This is a battlefield between people trying to protect their history and heritage and their whakapapa and their wahi tapu versus people who want to fast track development. If you are the archaeologist in the middle of it it has not been a pretty sight. It has had huge issues that have been fought through the courts. The previous speaker referred to the bad old days when we struggled in front of Judge Sheppard. I personally have experienced that as well. So what the Greens are asking for is a change on that issue of “minor”. It needs to go from the bill. It needs a recognition of tangata whenua having the choice of archaeologists because that is what those Treaty clauses mean. Giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi means giving the power to hapu to make some decisions about their heritage.  
We want to continue to support the bill but we will be looking at the select committee to hear from people who have raised these issues with us about these clauses because it is too important to write a bill and take this opportunity to improve the law as the Government has done in many aspects but then allow an inbuilt contradiction between more effective administration of our heritage and more facilitation and fast tracking of development through the use of a word like “minor”. These words are contested in the courts daily so we really need to do this. I would like to see it supported. We will be supporting this bill provided these changes can be brought in. Kia ora tatou. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 In the first reading of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill I say that I am looking to this bill to make the Historic Places Trust a more user-friendly organisation and also to be more responsive to the wishes of the wider community. I am going to give a few examples of what I mean by my desire to see that in this bill and what I am seeing in this bill and I draw the House’s attention in particular to clause 80 of the bill which covers these matters. The Waitaki electorate is rich with built heritage whether it is Oamaru itself and the built heritage the Edwardian heritage which is a notable feature of the town or whether it is the signs of early Chinese occupation in Central Otago and early settlement there. All around the electorate there are the gold diggings and all sorts of built heritage features. You should not really start naming them because you will leave some out. But 
there are a few instances that have come to me as the local member and one of those I want to talk about as an example of how I want to see the Historic Places Trust change. I think the bill will allow it to give wider consideration of some of the issues that come to it.  
One of them is the stamper battery which is on the Old Man Range out of Alexandra. It is an old gold mining relic and the stamper battery is this wonderful contraption that literally has batteries that stamp. They crush ore and gold is extracted. It is driven by a waterwheel. The waterwheel sits outside the Central Stories Museum in Alexandra and is enjoyed by thousands and thousands of people every year. In fact the Central Stories Museum in Alexandra is a wonderful example of a regional museum telling the story of New Zealand’s history and built heritage.  
A group was formed that had the desire to bring the stamper battery which is the other part of this waterwheel contraption for extracting gold down from the Old Man Range and to restore it—because of course it was lying in bog—and put it on display for everybody to enjoy. They had quite a long battle with the Department of Conservation which ultimately in about 2008 gave its consent for the stamper battery to be brought down from the Old Man Range but we still had the barrier of the Historic Places Trust. Its objection ran along the lines of no it has to stay up where it is high altitude sitting in bog decaying away and can be reached only by four-wheel drive and then you have to walk down a very steep slope so it requires a good deal of mobility. Really it is under snow for a lot of the year and safely accessible for only about 36 days in the year. It seemed to me that that fixed position is more of a barrier than making our built heritage accessible to more New Zealanders.  
There is also the Oamaru basilica—a beautiful building a category I building but the presbytery associated with it is not. It is a mishmash of many years of alteration on behalf of the Catholic community and the Catholic community who own the building wish to have it reclassified. They have found it extremely difficult to have that done. I am hoping that consideration will be given to that and I see clause 80 and I think that that might provide a way forward for that community for the future of their building.  
Also I have had a number of people come to me. There was the private homeowner in Palmerston with a beautiful old manse. It had a heritage classification and they were most upset at the prospect of Historic Places Trust people coming into their home and classifying it. It was a bit like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There are ways of doing these things working with the community and I hope that the changes signalled in this Historic Places Trust bill will enable that to happen. I certainly know that that is the will of the Minister who is promoting this bill so I hope it is going to happen.  
This bill will provide for a new process for archaeological consenting which will be faster simpler and more efficient. It will reduce costs and also difficulties for property owners. We must never forget that a number of our built heritage properties are in private ownership. We have got to think about their interests too. I commend the bill to the House. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I am proud to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak to the first reading of this Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. New Zealand First supports it going to through select committee process but in my first reading speech I intend to cover some of the broad themes that ripple through this bill. I believe that it is essential to the harmony of our country that we ensure that both Maori and European heritage are brought into the modern world.  
To know where we are going we have to know where we have been. This is a phrase that is often heard but how many of us actually listen and absorb? Indeed this current Government would do well to take heed and if it did then perhaps we would not see its reborn rehashed back-to-the-future asset-selling failed economic policies of the 1980s. Indeed perhaps there is a way that we could reclaim the Taranaki oilfields through heritage status. We need to strike a balance where the importance of heritage meets the appetite of progress and by progress I mean the development of infrastructure and the provision of recreational and essential services.  
As parliamentarians we need to realise that heritage includes sites icons and buildings and other features that have taken root and have defined us as New Zealanders since the onset of colonisation. I give as examples sites such as Arrowtown and the Wesleyan mission house in the beautiful Hokianga. One of the pitfalls of modern society—and some would say a by-product of the austerity regime that this Government has orchestrated—is that as a whole we fail to truly celebrate our shared heritage. To justify that statement I say that it is very difficult to celebrate when you have to work 70 hours a week to make ends meet in a forced low-wage economy.  
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member’s comments are fascinating but I notice that he is reading this speech. It would be great to see him raise his skill levels by ripping the notes up and speaking from the heart—or just using his notes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: When a member makes a point of order it should not include some imputations and I think the member has crossed a line in actually doing that. But in saying that the Standing Orders Committee did make it quite clear that members were not to speak from full text. 
Metiria Turei 
: Point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Look we have had a point of order and I have ruled on it. Is this a separate point of order— 
Metiria Turei 
: Yes. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: —because I have already ruled on that point of order. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders do not—and the Standing Orders Committee did not—say that members must not speak from their notes. What it said was— 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I have already—[ 
Interruption 
] Please sit; I am standing. I have already ruled on this. I have just said that the member must not speak from full text. 
Metiria Turei 
: Point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I am on my feet. The member can speak he can use full notes but he is not to read full notes. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Thank you for that clarification on your ruling. I also would seek your clarification that under Standing Orders it is not the role of members of the House to complain to you about whether or not members are considered to be reading from their notes but it is in fact your role as Speaker to identify that where you see there is a problem. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Similarly I could say it is not your role to tell the Speaker what they should do. 
Metiria Turei 
: Speaking to the point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: No I have ruled on it. Please sit down. 
Metiria Turei 
: Point of order. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Is this a separate point of order? 
Metiria Turei 
: It is a separate point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear it. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can you just clarify the ruling then as to when a member is to be identified and by whom when they are not supposed to be speaking from their notes. What are the provisions as to who is allowed to identify that and make a ruling? 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Any member can raise a point of order in the House. It is up to the discretion of the Speaker how they actually interpret that and the member who jumped to her feet immediately would see that I did not deal harshly with the member at all. 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: Thank you. I am just referring to my notes casually. I would like to thank that member over there. You know we all on this side of the House hope that one day that member will use his head for something other than his mouth but that day is not here yet.  
As I was saying to know where we are going we have to know where we have been. Perhaps an example of this is our two main traditions of a heritage nature meeting each other as personified in the famous—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry Mr Deputy Speaker I cannot hear myself. As I was saying this is personified in the famous Otaki Ngati Raukawa Anglican Church known as Rangiatea. Tragically this building this taonga was razed by an arsonist. I am happy to report however that this sacred sacrilege was forcefully met by a secular response. It has since been rebuilt and there was a blend of missionary interest and Maori tradition.  
I wonder how many New Zealanders know that Hoturoa the captain of the  
Tainui 
 canoe brought the institution the kaupapa of Rangiatea to New Zealand in the form of soil from Hawaiki and deposited it at the base of the altar of the church. New Zealand First’s view is that sites such as these are taonga they are sacred they should be cherished they should be preserved but most of all they should be celebrated.  
I would now draw your attention to clause 13 which gives authority to Heritage New Zealand to enter on to land for the purposes of protecting heritage. This is an awesome power and I would hate to see it ever used indiscriminately.  
Moving on I have had the pleasure of visiting the Bay of Islands a site of great heritage importance. We all know that this Government is enamoured with Skycity and it may daily boast of its pokies but a greater den of vice existed in Russell otherwise known as Kororareka—the sweet penguin. I share the story only to remind us that European heritage deserves the same protection as that afforded to Maori. How many New Zealanders know or celebrate the colourful history of Russell?  
I remind us how aggrieved Maori were about Russell in the 1840s. It was ransacked and burnt. Now we have such incendiary thoughts rekindled by the current mess presided over by the current Government involving Skycity and I lament that perhaps one day Skycity will be viewed as a heritage site. But that day is not today. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It already is. 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: There is obviously an interesting debate to come as to what constitutes or comprises a heritage site and what comprises taonga. I would like to reiterate that the first casino in Auckland and its pokies are definitely not taonga. New Zealand First supports this bill going to the select committee. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. I think it is really important. Many of us will have had situations in our electorates where community groups have come to us seeking to protect some of the heritage sites within our particular areas. I personally have had a number of situations in Auckland. We have unfortunately lost many buildings in Auckland Central and also right across Auckland partly because we have not done the work and the research to actually understand where our heritage is but also because I think we do not have the right legislative framework that would encourage direct conversations between the community and developers. If we can achieve a couple of things out of this bill I hope that one of those things is that we are able to achieve much more direct conversations between communities and developers.  
I think when we reflect on how we have come here that we must reflect on the fact that there were a couple of key issues as to why this bill has come to the House. The first issue is that we know that the archaeological authority provisions of the Historic Places Act have been unnecessarily complex. We know that there has been no alignment of processing times for archaeological authorities and resource consents and we also know that there has been unnecessary duplication. I just want to focus on a couple of key areas in the bill because I think they are very important. The first one concerns those archaeological provisions. We have had two phases of reform of the resource management legislation and what this bill aims to do is to align the archaeological provisions with the resource management legislation. The second area concerns emergency provisions within this bill. This is very important obviously in the wake of everything that has happened in Canterbury. I have just come this evening from the Speaker’s Science Forum held in this Parliament and attended by a number of members of Parliament where we have been reflecting on potentially new investments and technologies that will ensure that our heritage is protected in the future. I think it is very important that we are here today to be guiding this legislation through the House with the support of many parties and to really be looking at those clauses that will enable in the event of emergencies much quicker responses from authorities. So I think that is a really important aspect of this bill.  
The other important aspect of this bill is actually around transparency. There is a very key provision within the bill that requires the new organisation Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga to consult and publish its policy. If I can give one plea from all of my experience in terms of local heritage issues in Auckland I do believe that there is a lot that can be done in the protection of our heritage in terms of greater transparency and notice of people within the community.  
That brings me to what I think is really at the heart of a number of heritage battles and at the heart of this legislation and is something that all members across the House will be interested in. That is the role of individuals and sometimes smaller organisations who advocate for local heritage situations. I recently had a situation in Auckland Central around the Birdcage and the Campbell Free Kindergarten. We were able to do a lot and to save the historic Birdcage as a result of really direct conversations between the community and the developer. 
 I think this bill is very good in that not only does it align key provisions around archaeological consenting in terms of the Resource Management Act but it makes it much more efficient in terms of simplifying and streamlining those provisions. But there are also some very core transparency provisions and I think it also retains that core role that we all know within our electorates around local heritage advocacy. There are so many organisations and individuals right across New Zealand who are involved in the protection of our heritage.  
I am very pleased to be supporting this bill to the House. I think that as long as we are members of Parliament there will always be tough decisions to be made in terms of the balance between developers the protection of private property rights and protecting our heritage. But I am confident that this bill will go that bit further to reduce complexity and to reduce the amount of time that is spent on consents while ensuring that we have direct conversations between the community and the developers. So I am very pleased to be supporting this bill. 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Speaker. I am pleased to be standing and speaking on the first reading of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. Labour and I support this bill going to the Local Government and Environment Committee. This bill really marks quite a big change I guess in terms of bringing the New Zealand Historic Places Trust into being a focused regulatory statutory function - type body as opposed to a broad membership-supported volunteer-based heritage protection organisation which it was originally established as back in the 1950s.  
The Historic Places Trust is the leading national historic heritage agency and under this bill it is moving from those volunteer roots through to a completely autonomous Crown entity with its own Act and a new name Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. So a completely new organisation is constituted under this bill—its own legislation—and the major changes really are to focus on the regulatory side of what it does. That is around the regulation of destruction investigation of archaeological sites identification and maintenance of a register of historical and cultural heritage and managing its portfolio of some 48 properties.  
 Heritage New Zealand as it stands will see a real significant change with its new organisation and a change at the governance level. Currently the Historic Places Trust has a nine-member board: six are appointed by the Minister and three are elected by the members. This is the major significant change: the disestablishment of the 24 branch committees which were representing some 20000-plus members of the Historic Places Trust. Those committees are no more under this legislation.  
The new Heritage New Zealand will be a member-based organisation. However it is difficult to see what scope will be given to its non-regulatory - type roles given that the branch committees will no longer exist and therefore there will be no real say from the members of the organisation on the governance and the activities of the new organisation.  
The new governance arrangements will mean that there will be an eight-member board all of whom will be appointed by the Minister and sort of operating alongside that board will be an eight-member Maori Heritage Council. I am pleased to see that the bill has retained the full composition and membership of the Maori Heritage Council four members of which will be from the board and another four appointed from Maoridom at large from appropriately qualified and skilled people in the heritage area. The eight-member board alongside the eight-member Maori Heritage Council signifies a good in terms of numbers alignment in terms of the Treaty principles which have been embodied in the Treaty clause within the bill.  
Just looking at the Maori Heritage Council there are some very esteemed members from within Maoridom who make up that council. We have Sir Tumu te Heuheu the chair and paramount chief of Tuwharetoa; Naida Glavish a well-known kuia from up in Ngati Whatua; Apirana Mahuika paramount chief of Ngati Porou; Manos Nathan from up north; and whanaunga Gerard O’Regan from the south. It is good to see some representation from down in the south; Gerard has done a lot of work in terms of the rock art down south way. We also have Jamie Tuuta the rep from Taranaki. He is a Maori Trustee and wears quite a lot of hats these days; he is also on the Maori Heritage Council. There is also Che Wilson from up the Whanganui River. Those current members of the Maori Heritage Council are a very esteemed group and they have a very important role to play and it is encouraging to see that the bill not only retains that full Maori Heritage Council but makes sure that its role has been expanded. It will now be consulted on all applications regarding the modification of archaeological sites or for archaeological authority.  
Returning back to the governance arrangements the whole emphasis regarding the changes that have been made in this legislation has revolved around the conflicts that arose between the trust trying to exercise its statutory responsibilities and regulatory functions and staff being able to take positions on heritage issues versus contrary views by particular regions or branch committees that were promoting heritage in their own regions. That led to situations where it was not very clear who spoke for the trust and also what the position of the trust was.  
The emphasis has now moved to purely a regulatory statutory function and in light of that I guess the hope is that those branch committees and organisations will now being disbanded become independent heritage advocates in their own right or also join up with existing heritage organisations in their particular locality. There are quite a lot of those as I mentioned. There were 24 branch committees. I understand not all were functioning. There were about 20 functioning committees which still represents a large cross-section of individuals interested in heritage protection. Some 10 of those committees are situated within the vast electorate of Te Tai Tonga from Wellington all the way down to the far south. Those branch committees will be no more but that is the intention of this bill and it will be in the hope that there will be more expeditious processing and decision-making achieved by the new Heritage New Zealand.  
I want to conclude by just touching on the archaeological consenting provisions. I concur with the remarks by Ms Delahunty that it is on the face of it encouraging to see that the Maori Heritage Council will be consulted on all applications. However there is the exception that it will not be consulted if the development is of a minor nature. So I look forward to hearing back in terms of what submissions are made to the select committee in terms of how in the push for expeditious processing of applications and granting of authorities we do not disregard the importance that wahi tapu archaeological sites have to the tangata whenua. I would hope that the Maori Heritage Council will be extremely busy in terms of making sure that with the 350-odd applications that on average are being made for the archaeological authorities each year it will be fully involved on behalf of the tangata whenua to make sure that Maori heritage is protected under this new set-up in this bill.  
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 It is with great pleasure I rise to talk to the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill in its first reading. The Hon Chris Finlayson is the sponsor of this bill. He introduced it last October and when he rose to speak a bit earlier he reminded us of National’s proud tradition of supporting culture and the arts and that Sid Holland was the man who established the Historic Places Trust back in 1954. So it is entirely appropriate that this National Government continues the leadership that it has undertaken in arts and culture and heritage. As with many bills this Government introduces it reduces ambiguity and clarifies provisions.  
This is a bill whose time has come. The Historic Places Trust needs a new name to reflect its modernity in the 21st century. The word “trust” for example is not appropriate. I think that the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill properly encapsulates the intentions of all of us as we seek to look after our heritage. Nikki Kaye has talked of some of the examples in Auckland. We have heard the Greens talk about examples. They have done a bit of archaeological digging themselves around this bill to find some fault with it and I think that within the Local Government and Environment Committee which I sit on it is entirely appropriate that we look at the definition of “minor” and that we look at the archaeologists who pays them and the provisions. It is a good thing for this to be nutted out in the select committee. So I commend for me anyway the relatively rare sign of inter-party support around a bill that really does seek to do what needs to be done.  
Nothing about this bill lessens people’s ability to complain and protest about heritage problems; it only enhances it. The structure is important. There need to be changes around the regulatory and community advocacy roles. This needs to be done to improve and increase the efficiency. One of the many legacies of the Canterbury earthquake has been to show us that there need to be emergency provisions to protect life as well as heritage. It is about getting that balance right. I think this bill addresses these things with a degree of intellectual rigour which is essential to something as precious as our historic legacies.  
The Treaty of Waitangi clause which again is a clarification of an interpretation is also overdue. The new clause includes specific provisions of the Act that must require a level of consultation that will ensure that iwi have a part in what goes on. There is strengthening around the provisions for Maori consultation—the requirements rather than the laissez-faire-faire “let’s consult them but when it’s too little too late”. That sort of stuff will go by the by. It is really quite the opposite of some of the concerns that have been raised but it is right to raise them at the first reading. I am sure as I said earlier they will be addressed.  
But this is not a bill that is going to silence heritage advocates—quite the opposite; it is going to encourage them. It provides a framework that is easier to understand that simplifies laws that need to be tightened up. I think that it will in fact make our heritage and its protection more viable than it is currently and that has to be a good thing. I think the Maori Heritage Council has done a great job. I agree with the Labour member who spoke before about the science-heritage advocacy role and about the way that in fact the eight-member Maori Heritage Council will be consulted. It think it is appropriate that that be done and that it is now a requirement. I think sometimes you can leave people to sort out their own measures but at other times there needs to be provision for ensuring that that is done. Without taking too much time on this matter at its first reading I am entirely in support of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill and I look forward to it coming before the Local Government and Environment Committee. Thank you. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a split call. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. As my colleagues have ably expressed Labour supports this bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee and I think my colleagues have done a very good job of outlining our issues our concerns and also why we are supporting this bill so far. There are just a couple of comments I would like to make if I may.  
Labour does support good governance and any effort to strengthen agency governance is supported. However we are not convinced that removing three elected board positions and replacing them with two board positions appointed by the Minister necessarily strengthens governance or improves the responsiveness of the body to the public. So through the select committee process Labour will ensure that this bill does in fact strengthen governance and the performance and operation of current processes and does not come at the expense of our archaeological heritage and the public participation in that process. Of course although Labour supports any measures to reduce unnecessary costs and delays we also note that the Ministry for Culture and Heritage has said that the overall problem is small and likely to remain so with just around 350 applications a year.  
Finally can I just comment that if this issue is such a priority for the Government we do wonder why the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage has taken 2 years after Cabinet asked him to report on the consent process to actually bring changes to Parliament. With those few comments I am pleased to affirm that Labour supports this bill’s referral to the select committee. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. As we have heard from my colleague Catherine Delahunty the Green Party will be supporting this bill’s referral to the Local Government and Environment Committee but we do retain some concerns about certain provisions within it that we would like to see addressed at the select committee stage. We agree that the Historic Places Act is in need of updating. That Act was originally drafted in 1975 and amended in 1993. As an example of why it does need updating under the existing Act the technical date by which a place is considered to be historic is whether it is a place that pre-dates 1900. At present there is a lengthy and difficult process to get a site of historical value post-1900 listed as a historic place. Clearly this needs updating so that places like World War I training camps and Napier with its art deco heritage can be more readily considered and recognised as historic places. So there is a very clear need to consolidate update and streamline some of the provisions of the Historic Places Act 1993.  
Arguably the most high-profile change in this bill is to change the name and reform the structure of the Historic Places Trust (Pouhere Taonga). The trust will become Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga and its structure will be reformed. As we have heard from previous speakers the trust currently has a board the Maori Heritage Council and branch committees consisting of fee-paying local members.  
The Green Party acknowledges the tensions referred to in the bill’s explanatory note created by the combination of statutory responsibilities on the one hand with active branch committees and elected board members on the other and we can see how this structure could make it challenging for the trust to efficiently carry out its statutory responsibilities. However we do see a risk with the proposed changes—particularly disestablishing the local branch committee structure and removing elected board members—that some of the energy commitment and local expertise of those local branch committees will be lost. It would be a great shame if that were to take place. Local Historic Places Trust branch members have invaluable local knowledge and give freely of their volunteer hours for the cause of furthering our national heritage and in many ways these changes could be seen as disenfranchising or disempowering those local volunteers.  
I am keen to hear more at the select committee about how branches feel about this change. I am also keen to hear more from the Government about how the hard work and dedication of local branch members will be appreciated and retained under the new regime especially if the fees of branch members will still continue to be collected and retained by the organisation without the consequent representation that the current structure provides. We have a number of concerns about that. 
 In the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes heritage is an issue of particular concern at the front of their minds for many New Zealanders and many people with an interest in Christchurch’s heritage will be watching this bill closely. We are therefore pleased to see that the bill establishes a separate emergency authority process in the event of natural disasters to give Heritage New Zealand the ability to process archaeological authorities more speedily following a state of emergency. It will be important however for Heritage New Zealand in the aftermath of a future disaster to follow a comprehensive process that takes heritage protection into account even though it will be in a shortened time frame. We think it is important that that is preserved.  
Regarding the bill’s changes to the granting of archaeological authorities which has dominated much of the debate on the bill in this first reading the House has already heard from my colleague Catherine Delahunty about our concerns about clause 42(1)(b) of the bill allowing applications for activities that may harm an archaeological site if the effects of that activity are “no more than minor”. As we have heard there is no definition of what a minor effect is in the bill and we think this is particularly problematic when clause 43 exempts developers from consulting with Maori if the effects are thought to be no more than minor. Without a robust and appropriate definition of what “no more than minor” means in the context of this bill we are concerned that this could lead to the inappropriate destruction of significant sites without reference to or consultation with mana whenua. So I am pleased to hear from the previous speaker some enthusiasm to address that at the select committee.  
That is just one of the concerns we have raised. We will be supporting this bill going to the select committee. We do look forward to teasing out these issues in more detail there. Kia ora koutou.  
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 It is very pleasing to be speaking on a bill that enjoys such widespread support across the House as this one the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Bill. Based in Epsom as I am we are surrounded by a great deal of the country’s greatest heritage in terms of building sites—my next-door neighbour’s house was bought in the 1840s. Of course the community is still I suppose grieving the loss of one of the great houses of Remuera Coolangatta which was demolished several years ago and unfortunately there is still an empty site there today.  
There are real dilemmas when you are dealing with such heritage such as who pays for retaining these things when the owner would potentially lose a lot of value. As a society we want to retain this heritage but we have to grapple with how to go about doing that in the most efficient manner. The thing that appeals to me about this bill is that it develops I think a more robust process and a more efficient one and it more effectively resolves that tension between separating local volunteer branches which are focused quite rightly on advocacy from the statutory decision-making board which is the basis of this heritage bill. I will not go any further than that in the interests of getting this completed tonight. Thank you.  
Bill read a first time.  
Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee. 
Sittings of the House 
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to lift 2 minutes early.  
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There is not.  
The House adjourned at 9.59 p.m.