Volume 709 Week 32 - Wednesday 4 November 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 709 Week 32 - Wednesday 4 November 2015[Sitting date: 04 November 2015. Volume:709;Page:7687. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 4 November 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Questions to MinistersEmployment Rate—Government Measures to Address1.JAMES SHAW (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his Government’s policies?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister)on behalf of thePrime Minister: Yes.James Shaw: Is it his Government’s policy to increase the number of unemployed people in New Zealand and at the same time decrease the number of jobs?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.James Shaw: Is it acceptable to him and his Government that the number of unemployed people in New Zealand has increased by 11000 this quarter or more than the entire population of Gore?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not a surprise that the employment market is a bit softer because in the first half of this year national income dropped by billions of dollars when the dairy prices dropped and also the Christchurch rebuild has flattened out. That has led to an economy that is softer than people expected. That has been showing up in all the other economic numbers and now it is showing up in the employment numbers. However we are confident that the economy is on track for 2 to 3 percent growth over the next 12 to 18 months.James Shaw: Given that this is the fourth quarter in a row where unemployment has risen would he say that his Government is as his party’s website says “Helping families get ahead”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly stand by the statement that the Government is helping families get ahead illustrated by the fact that the quarterly figures show another real increase in wages which I think is 4 or 5 years of progressive real increase in incomes of course of those who have jobs. Of course we are concerned about those who do not and the best that we can do about those who do not have jobs is do what we can to encourage businesses to invest the next dollar and create the next job and that is what we do through the Business Growth Agenda.James Shaw: Does he think that his Government is working for all New Zealanders when Māori and Pacific people’s rates of unemployment are both more than double the overall unemployment rate?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes and in fact within Government we are working very hard to overcome decades of low performance by the Government—for instance in an education system that does not succeed in leaning against socio-economic disadvantage. It is disappointing that Opposition parties have opposed a lot of the measures the Government has taken to overcome that critical disadvantage among Māori and Pasifika young people.James Shaw: Given that regional unemployment is getting worse does he now anticipate that more unemployed people will be showing up at his backbenchers’ Provincial Priorities tour?Hon BILL ENGLISH: They are most welcome because what they would hear on that tour is discussion about how to build on the strengths of some regions—only some regions—where unemployment is a bit higher and how to encourage businesses in those regions to invest another dollar and employ another person. Certainly policies such as banning fossil fuels and creating a very expensive emissions trading system and getting rid of dairy cows which are Green policies are not likely to create jobs.James Shaw: What was the unemployment rate when you took office in 2008?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot recall the figure—it was pretty low. But it is a shame that the Greens have drunk the same Kool-Aid as the Labour Party and forgotten there was a global financial crisis and a significant recession and a world economy that is struggling to grow. If the Greens want to go back—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question was answered immediately.Employment Rate—Forecasts2.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Why did he say in July last year that “We think unemployment will be down to 4.5 percent in the very foreseeable future”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of thePrime Minister: Because in July 2014 when the Budget forecasts were published that is what Treasury forecast and it was somewhat similar in the pre-election update. I would have to say that Treasury was at about the middle of the consensus for the unemployment rate. It turned out they were all wrong—unemployment is higher.Andrew Little: What responsibility if any does he take for unemployment rising to 6 percent?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course if unemployment was a direct choice of the Prime Minister of New Zealand there would be none of it. You would just decide to have none. But of course it is not. It is a product of the world economy and its low growth rates and of particular circumstances in New Zealand where the rebuild in Christchurch has flattened out and there has been a drop in national income of billions of dollars from the decrease in dairy prices which was always going to affect the number of jobs in New Zealand and now it is happening. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just request a little less interjection from my immediate left. I do not want anybody having to leave the House but the level of noise yesterday from that particular quarter was unacceptably loud. I will not tolerate it to the same extent today.Andrew Little: What responsibility if any does he take for the loss of 11000 jobs in the last quarter alone?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I just responded of course if it was a direct choice of the Prime Minister he of course would just choose thousands of new jobs. The Labour Party seems to have forgotten that you might be able to choose to do that in the old Russian economy but in the modern open economy you do not have those choices. What we are doing is better and that is backing our businesses to invest more and employ more people. Fortunately they are proving to be pretty resilient to the poor global conditions and the right adjustments are happening: a lower exchange rate lower interest rates. These things will lead to a pick-up in the economy and the creation of more jobs.Andrew Little: How high does he think unemployment will rise given bank economists are warning it could get to 7 percent—back to the bad old days of the global financial crisis?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is a range of bank economists’ forecasts. Two or 3 months ago they were forecasting the end of the world. That has not quite happened. Now some of them are forecasting 7 percent unemployment. Let us see. The fact is that new jobs arise from businesses that are confident enough to invest another dollar and employ another person. That is how jobs happen. So the Government is working through dozens of policy initiatives to encourage that and protecting some of them from criticism like the 90-day trial period which enables people to get a foot in the door and prove themselves. Of course the Labour Party is against that.Andrew Little: How are Kiwis meant to get ahead and live the Kiwi dream when they are facing job losses rising unemployment and stagnant wages under National? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I say to the Hon Steven Joyce that he might get a chance later to answer a question but it is not your question at the moment.Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the Minister has pointed out wages have been rising surprisingly consistently ahead of inflation. Fortunately most New Zealanders are not as miserable and angry as the Labour Party.Andrew Little: When does he expect to finally get unemployment back down to 4.2 percent the level he inherited?Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have some confidence that in an economy that can and is likely to grow at 2 to 3 percent despite some real challenges and some real headwinds from the world economy we will see unemployment peak and start to drop. It would be much better of course if it was 4.5 percent as was forecast in the Budget in 2014. But this is the real world that businesses and households are dealing with every day and that is why confidence in the Government’s policies and the future of New Zealand is so important. We have that confidence. Unfortunately our opponents do not.Andrew Little: As he enters his eighth year in Government when is he going to stop blaming an old Government and take responsibility for his own failure to bring unemployment down and his failure to create secure well-paid jobs for Kiwis?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I did not blame an old Government for the current unemployment. If the member asks “When is the Government going to create secure well-paying jobs?” well over the last 4 years there have been about 180000 new secure well-paying jobs on top of the hundreds of thousands of jobs that currently exist. The New Zealand workforce is enjoying on average real increases in incomes year on year and they deserve some credit for that. In the world environment that we have had to deal with our businesses and households have proven to be remarkably resilient. That is why we have net inflows from Australia for the first time in a generation even though our growth rates are pretty similar. People see better job prospects here than in Australia. That is a good problem to have not a bad one.Housing Affordability and Availability—Government Measures to Address3.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s programme to improve housing supply supporting a growing economy and macroeconomic stability?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The issue of the housing market is proving to be one of the challenges for macroeconomic policy. Last week Statistics New Zealand announced 26000 building consents were issued in the year to 20 September 2015 the highest number in 8 years and double the number issued in 2011. So the supply of housing is growing about as fast as it ever has in New Zealand but there is much more to do. Red tape around land use can affect growth and elevated house prices increase the risks and the costs of a house price correction affecting economic and financial stability. We will continue to work on growing the number of consents by working with the councils that actually make the decisions.David Bennett: What progress has the Government made in improving housing supply?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Probably the most important shift was passing the special housing areas legislation and there are now over 100 special housing areas and accords signed up with eight councils. We also are now getting into growing the supply of housing on Government land—in Auckland for instance in Hobsonville Tāmaki Weymouth and more to come. We are continuing to reform the Resource Management Act to enable councils to make changes that they now all really want to make. They were initially sceptical about such changes but now would prefer to have easier quicker planning processes so they can accommodate growth.David Bennett: What steps is the Government taking to support first-home buyers and ensure investors pay their fair share of tax?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because it is a challenge for first-home buyers to get into the market earlier this year the Government rolled out the HomeStart scheme—a $420 million commitment which will help 90000 Kiwis into their first homes over the next 5 years. In respect of investors on 1 October just a month ago the Government introduced a brightline 2-year rule to clarify the tax treatment of gains on the sale of residential property excluding the family home. Earlier this week on 1 November the Reserve Bank introduced loan-to-value ratio rules for investors to reduce financial system risk. This may also help to moderate house price growth.David Bennett: What other steps are being taken to improve housing affordability?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Probably one of the more important steps for the Government has been to take part in the formation of the new Auckland Unitary Plan. Although the unified Auckland Council has been in place for some years it is still technically working off the plans of the previous seven or eight councils. The Government has been a significant submitter to the independent hearings panel and we will be taking a close look at its plan when it reports back to ensure that the plan allows for the kind of growth that is forecast for Auckland.Schools Funding—Student Achievement4.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her reported statement that student achievement would “absolutely” be a factor in a review of the school funding system?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Yes in the context of the statement in which it was given which was: “We’re very much at the beginning of this process so no decisions at all have been made as to which variables and in what way they’ll be used but will student achievement and learning be one of them? Absolutely.” I emphasise for the member that this is a review and that no decisions have yet been made.Chris Hipkins: Will she rule out imposing financial penalties on schools that do not meet student achievement targets; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I said in my answer to the primary question we are in a review. We are at the very beginning of the process and I am not ruling anything in or out.Chris Hipkins: Why did she categorically rule out considering a greater role for national standards and National Certificate of Educational Achievement data in school funding and teacher-pay decisions in March last year only to then say that those things would absolutely be part of the funding system?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member is confusing industrial relations with funding for student achievement.Chris Hipkins: When she was asked about the use of national standards data in November last year and said “What we always planned to use it for and what we are now using it for is to help target resources to where they are most needed.” did she mean that the data would be used as a component to determine how much funding schools receive?Hon HEKIA PARATA: What she meant was that we will use it to inform teaching practice in schools and I am pleased to tell you that more and more of that is occurring.Chris Hipkins: Did the tender process for the new $100 million funding system state that the objective was “to manage the investment in the education system by linking enrolment attendance achievement and funding”; if so why?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member is confusing a review of resourcing—Hon Member: Answer the question.Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am trying to do that. The member is confusing a review of resourcing and an ICT system that is being designed to support the current and future systems.Chris Hipkins: Will she now rule out the linking of student achievement information to school funding decisions; if not why not?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I say again that we are at the beginning of the review process. We are neither ruling in nor ruling out a full discussion about what a new funding systemshould comprise of but that it should focus on how well kids are learning and achieving which is after all the core business of education.Chris Hipkins: So it’s still a no.Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is not a discussion that we are having at the moment.Pest Control—Northland5.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by all her statements made in the House yesterday in answer to oral question No. 12; if so why?Hon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister of Conservation) on behalf of theMinister of Conservation: Yes; because the only good possum is a dead one.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister explain—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. I apologise for interrupting the member but I need to hear the supplementary question. That requires certainly less noise from my immediate right.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister of Conservation explain why she disagrees with this statement: “Taskforce Green has been expanded recently to employ long-term unemployed people in possum control in areas of high priority.”?Hon NICKY WAGNER: Unfortunately trapping has not proved to be very effective and it is particularly ineffective in places like Northland which has very palatable vegetation and rugged areas. Evidence says the combination of both of those means that the attracting of possums to traps is very difficult. So we can use 1080 because it is distributed right across the terrain and also during the time of year when there are very low amounts of food so possum kill is maximised. Actually at the Warawara Forest local iwi have agreed that they need to use 1080. It is particularly suitable for their forest because it is so steep and has such difficult terrain.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Are the Department of Conservation her own ministry and former National Ministers deluded as she said yesterday for supporting “the fur recovery industry by providing access to some areas of conservation land to trap possums especially where there are conservation benefits.”; if not why not?Hon NICKY WAGNER: No; because not many trappers have pursued trapping in Northland and that is for two reasons: the smaller size of possums and the particularly rugged country in that area. The commercial trapping that has been done there has not resolved the decline of the forest’s health.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Will the Minister climb off her high horse and apologise to the Northland Regional Council and the 350 mainly young Northlanders who since 2011 under National—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just finish the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: —have earned National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 and three credits and potential jobs by way of its possum project; if not why not?Hon NICKY WAGNER: No; because we think there are better ways to increase economic action in Northland. And I would like to note that the data released this week from the household labour force survey from Statistics New Zealand shows unemployment in Northland has decreased by 0.5 percent in the last quarter it has decreased by 1.5 percent over the last 2 years and 4300 more people are living in Northland. If the member visited Northland—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer has gone on quite long enough.Student Achievement—Socio-economic Factors6.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Education: Does she agree with Massey University education professor John O’Neill that students’ home background including factors like transience dysfunction and a lack of resources were responsible for up to 80 percent of a child’s school success?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I do not agree with Professor O’Neill. What I do agree with is the OECD study in 2012 involving over half a million 15-year-olds from 65 countries of which one was New Zealand. In fact 5000 students from 177 schools in our country participated. That OECD study found that 18 percent—18 percent—of the difference in student achievement can be accounted for by socio-economic factors. That means that 82 percent of student achievement is not statistically explained by socio-economic factors. The other factors that collectively had a much greater impact on student achievement included the quality of teaching performance expectations school leadership and positive relationships between parents and teachers that focus on learning. That is why as a Government we have focused on those factors.Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister agree with the OECD experts that what a child brings to school is more than just their parents’ income but also access to books and a warm healthy home in which their family is secure?Hon HEKIA PARATA: By definition without the assistance of the OECD kids bring to school their background.Catherine Delahunty: If her review of the Education Act is focusing on rewarding those schools already doing well what does she say to low-decile schools whose students routinely turn up hungry and sick and not in the best state for learning?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member is just wrong. There are schools that are in different deciles that do very well and there are schools in those same deciles that are not doing well. What I am proposing in the Act is that for those schools that are not doing well whatever decile they are in we have tools to intervene early so we can help them to be turned around and to be successful for every child.Catherine Delahunty: Does she really think that a child who is hungry all day at school and who has no books at home has the same chance of doing well as a child with plentiful books at home and a lunch box full of food?Hon HEKIA PARATA: That is why this Government introduced for the first time in 43 years an increase in benefits for those families living in hardship worth $790 million. That is why we have invested in breakfasts in schools for every school that wishes to take advantage of it. That is why we are targeting resources to those who need it most. This Government has a very strong social investment approach and we are using it to target those most at risk.Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s answer but my question was—Mr SPEAKER: Can I have the point of order please.Catherine Delahunty: —has the same the chance of—she did not answer that question.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I just invite the member to study the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings. If she has the time to do so would she look at Speakers’ ruling 195/7 which states that when the member seeks an opinion as she did in that question which was “Does she really think etc. …” then it invites a very wide type of answer which definitely addressed the question. It may not be an answer that the member is happy with but it addressed the question as the question was asked. If the member wants to sharpen up her questions and get sharp straight questions then I can assist but when the question that was just asked was delivered in that way then the answer given certainly satisfies the Speakers’ rulings.Chris Hipkins: How can she claim that a student’s socio-economic background does not impact on the educational chances when the vast bulk of support that students with special needs received for the National Certificate of Educational Achievement exams is going to students with the wealthiest parents and after 4 years as Minister of Education she still has not done anything to fix the problem?Hon HEKIA PARATA: The member clearly did not understand the answer that I gave. I did not say that socio-economic status does not have an impact; I disagreed with the 80 percent that that member alleged and referenced an OECD report that said it was 18 percent. So yes it certainly does have an impact. It is one of the variables that is targeted but it is not the only one. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the two members wish to carry on the conversation they are welcome but would they do it in the lobby.Trade Agreements—Europe7.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Trade: What recent steps has the Government taken to further New Zealand’s trading relationship with Europe?Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): Last week the Prime Minister together with the European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker and European Council president Donald Tusk agreed to start discussions on a comprehensive free-trade agreement. This is obviously a very significant step forward. It would take no doubt a fair bit of time to bring to completion but it is a huge new and additional opportunity for New Zealand.Jonathan Young: How important as a trading partner is Europe to New Zealand given our position in the Asia-Pacific region?Hon TIM GROSER: In spite of the tremendous success that New Zealand has had over the past 30 to 40 years in diversifying away from one European country Europe collectively still is of vital interest to New Zealand. It is our third-largest export destination in services it is our second-largest and it is our second-largest source and destination of overseas investment. So this will be a very significant step assuming we can bring this to a successful conclusion.Jonathan Young: How does a free-trade agreement with Europe fit with the Government’s wider programme for economic growth?Hon TIM GROSER: Of the six work streams building international connectivity and building export markets it is clearly one of the key elements of the Government’s plan. This is an absolutely vital issue for New Zealand to improve its export performance and opening up opportunities across the board is part of that deal. What this does of course is further diversify our opportunities—or the opportunities of New Zealanders running the businesses that provide income for us—and avoids too much dependence on any one market a lesson we have learnt to our great cost 30 or 40 years ago.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister honestly believe that New Zealanders will buy this pixie dust of huge benefits in respect of the European Union free-trade deal when between 2014 and 2020 the European Union will spend €408 billion or $672 billion supporting its farmers?Hon TIM GROSER: Considering that the situation is that it is already our third-largest export market any liberalisation will be a darn sight more than just pixie dust.Employment Standards Legislation Bill—Zero-hour Contracts8.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: Is he satisfied that the Employment Standards Legislation Bill will end zero-hour contracts?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): Yes the Employment Standards Legislation Bill will support families by extending eligibility for paid parental leave it will help protect hard-working New Zealanders by strengthening the enforcement of employment standards and it will address unfair practices such as zero-hour contracts. While the term “zero-hour contracts” does not have a legal definition it generally refers to agreements that require an employee to be on call and available for work without providing a guarantee of hours or payment in exchange for that availability. The Government has made it clear there is no place for these types of employment relationships in New Zealand’s labour market. The precise detail of the legislation is currently being considered at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and I look forward to its recommendations in due course.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he acknowledge that zero-hour contracts do not currently exist in law but will if his bill passes as it stands?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I acknowledge the first part of that question. I think it is a matter of debate on the second part and that is being discussed at the select committee currently.Iain Lees-Galloway: Well then does he agree with Human Rights Commissioner Dr Jackie Blue who said that the bill “leaves too much room for zero-hour contracts as there is still no provision for minimum hours to be offered in individual employment contracts.”?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not think that Jackie Blue is the Human Rights Commissioner.Iain Lees-Galloway: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think that is a fine point. I may have slightly got the name wrong—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Indeed that may well be the case but that is hardly a point of order.Iain Lees-Galloway: Does the Minister really expect the public to believe that everything is going to be just fine when the last time he did this he ripped the right to health and safety reps off tens of thousands of Kiwis and broke his boss’s promise to the Pike River families?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: He is simply incorrect as he was in the previous supplementary question. The Government is working very hard to ensure that this matter is properly addressed and I am sure the member in his quieter moments is contributing at the select committee.Iain Lees-Galloway: Is this not just more of the same from a Government that is making life less and less secure for working Kiwis just like when it took away New Zealanders’ meal breaks weakened their health and safety on farms cut negotiating rights—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Bring the question to a conclusion.Iain Lees-Galloway: —let employers walk away from the bargaining table—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The question must be delivered in line with the Standing Orders. That one is not. I warned the member to bring it to a conclusion. I will give him one chance to ask a question that is in line. If he cannot manage to do so we are moving on immediately.Iain Lees-Galloway: Well is this not just another example of him ripping away rights from Kiwi workers?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. I appreciate that the member is probably auditioning for the Labour Party conference this weekend but the reality of it is that this Government takes a sensible and measured approach to these matters and the new workplace safety and health legislation is a very big step forward on the past law.Wine Industry—Geographical Indications9.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs: What steps is the Government taking to promote and protect the reputation of New Zealand wine?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): This Government is committed to supporting the wines and spirits industry to promote and protect the premium value of our marvellous wines. Yesterday I was pleased to introduce the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Amendment Bill to the House. The bill amends the Geographical Indications (Wine and Spirits) Registration Act which was passed in 2006 but never brought into force. It will establish a geographical indications registration regime for wines and spirits similar to the trademark registration regime. It will also amend the Act to ensure that the process for registering geographical indications runs smoothly.Stuart Smith: How will a geographical indications registration regime benefit New Zealand’s wine industry?Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: Being able to register regional names for our wines and spirits such as Marlborough or Martinborough will reinforce the qualities and reputations of those products. Enabling firms to register geographical indications for wines and spirits will make it easier for our winemakers to enforce their rights in New Zealand. A geographical indications register will also make it easier for our exporters to promote and protect their wines and spirits products internationally. We know New Zealand wines are amongst some of the best in the world and this National Government is committed to guarding and enhancing the reputation of our products and ultimately helping to grow our wine exports.Land and Water Forum—Performance10.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statement that the Land and Water Forum represents a “very constructive process”; if so can he explain why Fish and Game felt compelled to resign due to restrictions on their ability to speak out?Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries) on behalf of theMinister for the Environment: Yes I do indeed stand by my statement. The Land and Water Forum has been the most comprehensive collaborative process of its kind with contributions from over 70 different organisations. Although it is disappointing that Fish and Game has decided to withdraw at this late stage the Land and Water Forum is still due to deliver its fourth report to the Government in the very near future. The allegation that Land and Water Forum participants are being muzzled over speaking is not correct. Participation is a collaborative process and it requires commitment in good faith towards other participants.Meka Whaitiri: Is he concerned that any other members of the Land and Water Forum may resign; if not why not?Hon NATHAN GUY: No.Meka Whaitiri: How can the public trust in his Government’s commitment to water quality when after 7 years of this Government and 5 years of the Land and Water Forum our rivers and streams continue to become more polluted?Hon NATHAN GUY: I am afraid that the member has got her facts completely wrong. This Government has done more to deal with freshwater issues in the time that we have held the Treasury benches in comparison with those members sitting over on that side of the House. What we have done is introduce the first National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management. We have also increased by five times the funding for dealing with freshwater clean-ups and we have done more to support and make sure that we have the frameworks in place to allow everyone to get on board with the plans that we have to ensure that we are enhancing our freshwater policies. Actually these are intergenerational issues; they cannot be fixed overnight. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will call the member when we get a bit of—[Interruption] Thank you. Meka Whaitiri—supplementary question.Meka Whaitiri: What faith can the public of New Zealand have in the work of the Land and Water Forum when Kiwi children will not be able to swim in most of our rivers and streams because of high pollution?Hon NATHAN GUY: The member needs to understand that there are something like 425000 kilometres of rivers and streams and 4000 lakes in New Zealand; not every one of those is able to be in a swimmable state. What we have done is introduce minimum standards. What we have done is bring in national bottom lines at wadable levels. What we have done is allow it to be up to regional councils and their communities to make changes if they so wish while bearing in mind that there are economic considerations as well as protecting and enhancing the environment and we believe both of those can indeed—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is little point in carrying on with the answer when the Opposition is not listening to the answer.Meka Whaitiri: Why should the public have confidence in the work of the Land and Water Forum when his Government has used it to silence environmental voices to the benefit of farmers?Hon NATHAN GUY: I refute those comments. What we have done for the first time in the history of the Government is pull together 70 different organisations to come together to work on the importance of maintaining and enhancing fresh water. Seventy organisations have come forward together. Yes there will always be tension in the room but importantly they are working on their fourth report. We are looking forward to receiving it and we will continue to make progress in this area unlike the previous Labour-led Government which did nothing.Iain Lees-Galloway: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Human Rights Commission. It is a list of human rights commissioners including one Dr Jackie Blue.Mr SPEAKER: I will put the leave. It will be up to the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that particular document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Cycling—Urban Cycleways Programme Auckland11.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has been made on the Government’s commitment to build the Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive urban cycleway in Auckland?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Transport): I was delighted to recently turn the first sod on the Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive urban cycleway which is the biggest urban cycleway to ever start construction to date in New Zealand. The $40 million cycleway is a key project in the Government’s Urban Cycleways Programme. When completed in 2018 it will allow people to walk run or cycle from the east of our biggest city to the harbour and city centre. Can I just also acknowledge the collaboration and great work by the Auckland Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency in starting this transformative project.Simon O’Connor: What benefits will the Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive urban cycleway provide for the people of Auckland?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The Government’s goal is to make cycling a safer and more attractive transport choice. We recognise the rapid growth that Auckland is experiencing. That is why we are investing $200 million in cycling across the city over the next 3 years to make cycling a safer easier and more enjoyable transport option. The Glen Innes to Tāmaki Drive urban cycleway will be another significant step towards joining cycleway routes across Auckland. It will ensure that cycling will be an integral part of Auckland’s future transport network contributing to healthier and more environmentally friendly communities.Limited Service Volunteer Programme—Funding12.DARROCH BALL (NZ First) to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by all her statements; if so why?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): Yes when taken in context; because I believe them to be true and accurate based on the advice I received at the time.Darroch Ball: Does she stand by her statement in the House when justifying her decision to cut funding to the youth Limited Service Volunteer programme to just 800 places that “I rely on advice from my officials who are working with these young peopleevery day”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes.Darroch Ball: How can that be the case when she directly ignored her officials’ advice that specifically recommended to actually increase funding for the programme; for the number of places to be at 1200 and not 800; that a Budget bid be prepared for such recommendations to Cabinet; and that the New Zealand Defence Force would be informed of those plans?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Because that is only one part of the advice that I received. Another part of the advice was that in the September quarter figures showed the number of 18 to 24-year-olds on a main benefit had fallen by 24 percent since 2010. I repeat: the idea of the Limited Service Volunteer scheme is to make available a work-ready programme for young people who are on a benefit. The numbers are now at 800 and I am confident that we have the right number of young people going into that course.Darroch Ball: How can her justification to reduce places to 800 be because “the number of young people on benefit has fallen as the economy has recovered” when her own officials advised her that their recommendation for 1200 places was based on “employment climate for young people” and “reflects the current economic situation” and the demand of the “target cohort”?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am not sure what document that member is quoting from but what I can tell him is that in fact the September quarter figures show the number of 18 to 24-year-olds on a main benefit has fallen by 24 percent. Accordingly because we were having difficulty filling the full number of places with suitable candidates who had a good chance of completing the course we have reduced the numbers to 800—remembering of course that we increased the numbers as a response to the global financial crisis.Darroch Ball: Can she explain why her officials have stated in the Ministry of Social Development’s own strategic plan document dated June 2015 that the ministry will be “investing more” into the Limited Service Volunteer employment scheme and yet at the same time she is actually reducing places and funding?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes I can explain it because this Government has a number of initiatives aimed at young people and helping them into work. So the Youth Services Strategy has been produced which provides wraparound services for young people and that runs alongside the Limited Service Volunteer employment scheme. In addition to that we are continuing to trial new methods of working with young people to help them into work because we know that the chances for them to lead a successful life depend on our getting them into work before they turn 20.Darroch Ball: I seek leave to table the advice given to the Minister obtained through the Official Information Act dated December 2014 which does state all—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need to know more information. [Interruption] Order! The member needs to behave himself. I will put the leave. The paper has been described adequately. I will put the leave. It will be for the House to decide. Leave is sought to table that particular information from an Official Information Act application process. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Darroch Ball: I would like to seek leave to table the strategic intentions document from the Ministry of Social Development—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No that is available to all members.Carmel Sepuloni: Does she stand by her statement “moving off a benefit and into work is good for the whole family [as] it puts more money in the pockets of parents”; if so why then will she not support my Social Security (Pathway to Work) Amendment Bill which incentivises part-time work so those same parents can earn a little more without being penalised?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Certainly this Government is encouraging people to come off benefits and into work because we know that that gives them and their families better lifetime outcomes. However the member’s proposal in her member’s bill has the opposite effect on people at the other end of the scale where they are able to work up to 30 hours a week and still remain on benefit. So it actually reduces the incentive for people to come off a benefit and go into full-time work.Point of Order—Amending AnswersCHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 200/4 which states that Ministers who make incorrect statements must correct those in the House at the earliest available opportunity. I want to seek your guidance as to whether that applies in a situation where a Minister refuses to answer a question on the basis that they claim that there is an incorrect assertion in the question as was the case with Mr Joyce earlier today and whether once the information has been presented to demonstrate that in fact that was correct he needs to correct that.Mr SPEAKER: No. I think on this—[Interruption] I do not need any assistance thank you. The question the member is referring to was asked in that particular question. A suggestion was made which the Minister disputed. That is a legitimate answer to that question. If subsequently information becomes available then it is for the Minister when he becomes aware of that information if he considers it relevant and important enough to come to the House and correct it. I presume the Minister will do so if he sees it relevant.General DebateHon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health): I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. The Labour Party ironically and unwisely chose 21 October as the day it announced its deputy leader. That was ironic and unwise because 21 October was the official Back to the Future day. That was the day that was supposed to be so far in the future that everything would be completely different. And of course the world is completely different—apart from the fact that Mrs King is still here. But in one weird wacky tiny little enclave the world has not moved on. And that is the New Zealand Labour Party.So as Labour delegates move towards Palmerston North this weekend for their annual conference—held in the seat of King’s College old boy and closet aristocrat Iain Lees-Galloway—it is timely to revisit notes from Labour conferences past. What better place to start than the last time the Labour Party held its conference in Palmerston North back in 1991? That was an occasion of searing self-examination for the party. I have here the official notes from that 75th conference in Palmerston North and I am happy to quote from them. It says in those notes that the Labour Party “Council received an audit of the 1990 Election. … An analysis of [questionnaires] gave familiar phrases. … we declared ourselves disunited and under that label came all the comments”—on caucus the party and musical leaders—“despite declaring our policies inappropriate we also declared that we had lost our direction. … our policies were both wrong and nebulous.”It is indeed back to the future for the Labour Party at Palmerston North this weekend. I wonder whether Dunedin South communications and strategy expert Clare Curran will take a breakout group perhaps updating us on international politics. She might like to update Labour Party members on her 13 September post where she said: “Now the UK has Jeremy Corbyn. And I feel a greater sense of hope … This is good news.” Yes resident hipster Jacinda Ardern will still be mixing the decks and bloke’s bloke tighthead prop Grant Robertson will be trying to give everyone a rundown on the Rugby World Cup but in actual fact nothing has changed.But wait—there is one small announcement. Deputy leader Annette King tells us that she will be saying something small about health policy. Mrs King why not make it absolutely huge? Why not blow the budget like you did in the mid-2000s when you poured more and more money into it and delivered less and less? That is the way to go. Because she has had 7 years to come up with a big idea—why make it a small one?Meanwhile back on “Planet New Zealand” the rest of us are celebrating a great Rugby World Cup win—and what a great win it was. I had the privilege of being over there at the Rugby World Cup. There were thousands of Kiwis there. I met only one Kiwi there who was a passionate advocate for Labour Party policies and that was Andrew Little himself. But apart from that people were saying that not only was it a lucky escape from the Springboks but a very lucky escape from a Labour Government. Kiwis are very grateful that that mob over there is not in power. They know what its tax and spend policies would do to this country.When you look at our 7 years it is a record of solid achievement. The average wage is up $10000 in the last 10 years ACC levies have been reduced and of course record low interest rates mean Kiwis are able to borrow money at a lower cost and get on with their lives. There are more people in jobs. The future is looking up. If you look at the health system—I was down at Canterbury yesterday at the rebuild of the Burwood Hospitalthere. That is $1 billion the Government is putting into the rebuild in Canterbury in terms of health and an extra $16 million of revenue poured into Canterbury yesterday.Hon Annette King: They only needed $46 billion.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There are 5500 more doctors around the country 60000 more appointments and 50000 more operations per year. Mrs King would pour money in for fewer results and blow the surplus. That is what would happen. There is no sense over there of an overriding fiscal strategy.So if anyone is at a really loose end this weekend pull on your vintage Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union t-shirt get to Palmerston North and party with Grant and Jacinda like it is 1991. Kia ora.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): In 2009 New Zealand recommended as a high priority that Australia sign up to the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture. Despite agreeing to the recommendation Australia has yet to sign the agreement and New Zealand needs to ask why. On 9 November the Australian human rights record comes under scrutiny as part of the Universal Periodic Review. New Zealand needs to call out Australia on the indefinite detention of New Zealand citizens in conditions that are tantamount to torture. When I was over on Christmas Island checking out the human rights abuses being perpetrated on New Zealand citizens by the Australian Government and the Australian system where was John Key? Where was the Prime Minister? He was on Radio Hauraki talking about playing with himself and peeing in the shower.I was absolutely disgusted to hear that while I am over there checking out abuses on New Zealand citizens here he is being a clown and pulling his own political stunt. If he wants to talk about that sort of stuff when New Zealanders are suffering in detention—indefinite detention—then he needs to have a good look at what sort of a Prime Minister he is. We do not need a clown who is just going to manage our economy. What we need is a leader to start standing up for New Zealanders. It does not matter whether the New Zealanders are here in New Zealand or whether they happen to choose to live in Australia. If they are being abused—if their rights are being abused—then we need a Prime Minister who is going to stand up and look after their rights and their interests.Those men in the detention centres—they are scared they are hungry and they are traumatised. They are full of despair. They are empty of hope. There is no light at the end of the tunnel for them simply because there is no light and there is no tunnel. All they can see are walls and wires and electric fences. I know—they went to prison because they committed a crime. But in New Zealand we have the right not to be punished for double jeopardy. These guys are being punished for the crimes they have committed and they are at the lower end of the scale. They are not as Peter Dutton the Australian Minister for Immigration and Border Protection says all rapists and murderers. The guys whom I met have offended at the lower end of the scale. They do not deserve then as they walk out of the prison and walk into the prison car-park to be picked up and detained indefinitely. Some of them have been detained in the detention centres for longer than they were in prison. Not only that if at the end of the detention they are actually deported then that is triple jeopardy. We have got New Zealand citizens who are being punished three times for one crime. If they do need to be deported I have got no problems with that. But if you happen to detain somebody detain them in conditions that are humane and at least have a bit of compassion. But these people are being locked up they are being beaten up they are being starved—the conditions are tantamount to torture.This is happening in Australia a country that we say is—and it is—our closest ally; our trading partner. And yet here it is abusing not just New Zealanders but all manner of people such as asylum seekers. There are any number of accounts of asylum seekers who are so at their wit’s end that they are self-mutilating. In fact today I received a 134-page document describing when the Australian forces staff have used force on detainees. One of the main reasons that they use force in these centres is to stop people from self-harming. We have to ask ourselves why they are self-harming in the first place. Why is it that they have no hope in their hearts and the best way out for them is to actually kill themselves? Let me talk briefly about a New Zealander Czarian Strang. The riot squad charged into his cell. He was in segregation which basically means isolation. The riot squad put the shield on him and whacked him about with the black pill as they call it. The black pill is the baton because I bet the baton actually cures a whole heap of ailments. They whacked him they tried to immobilise him by twisting his limbs they ended up popping ligaments. He was denied medical treatment. He was hosed down in his cell. He was made to sleep in wet clothes for two nights. The only way he kept warm was by turning on the hot shower during the night until the water ran out. New Zealand needs to do something to help these New Zealand citizens.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Statistics): Seven years the National Party has been in Government—7 years with one leader and one deputy leader providing consistency certainty and aspiration for all of New Zealand. Compare this with the Labour Party—five leaders trying to oppose our leader John Key. Helen Clark—remember the good old days Labour? Phil Goff—what happened there? Mr Shearer—“Snapper Shearer”—and Mr Cunliffe. Those were the days. And of course now Mr Little. One deputy leader under National while we have been in Government and I do not know how many deputy leaders under Labour. I was trying to write them down before. And of course there are all the wannabe leaders all the wannabe deputy leaders—Mr Parker Mr Robertson Mr Jones of course and of course Mr Nash and Jacinda Ardern. It seems like half the caucus over there perhaps even more want to be leader or deputy leader. The factions are still alive.New Zealand is just so much better off—so much better off—for having had a National Government in power over the last 7 years. Under every single measure under every single metric New Zealand is in a better place and a better space than it was when we inherited government from the previous regime. We continue to have solid and consistent support across New Zealand because we engage because we consult because we do what we say we will do and we do not do anything that we do not take to the electorate—from economics economic growth a Consumers Price Index of around zero percent as opposed to 5 percent under Labour.Our economic growth has been one of the best in the OECD in recent years. We have a lower taxation environment moving from PAYE to consumption taxes. Education attainment is much much improved. Welfare reform is providing incentives for our people. The Better Public Services policy is driving reform through Government getting a better deal for all New Zealanders and particularly taxpayers. We are coming into surplus. We do not hear Labour talking about that any more. The list continues.And of course exports. There are free-trade agreements opening up markets for New Zealand—the Taiwan closer economic partnership the Korea free-trade agreement and of course the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Why on earth Opposition members do not support the Trans-Pacific Partnership I do not know but they seem to be very quiet on the potential for a free-trade agreement with the European Union. Let us see if they support that one. As Helen Clark even said how on earth could a New Zealand Prime Minister or Leader of the Opposition wake up one morning and not be part of an agreement for 40 percent of the global economy or 800 million potential customers? How on earth could Labour reverse a long-standing bipartisan position? How could New Zealand be left out?Speaking of being left out Mr Nash is making a bit of a play I see. He has resorted to blogging to try to get his points of view across for Labour. Apparently the most pressing issue in New Zealand right now is Mr Nash’s thoughts to the Labour Party members which is actually pretty good advice. Quite why they ignore him I do not know but he is doing the “Playbook”—he is doing the “Playbook”. He has got a profile up. He investigated organising and forming another political party. He has got a book under way I understand. I hope all Labour Party members read that book. I am having a lot of fun working out what the title to Mr Nash’s book might be.We have had 7 years of consistent certain leadership for New Zealand; five leaders under Labour over the last 7 years. New Zealand is now a confident positive aspirational place—a Rugby World Cup - winning country by the way. It is confident and ambitious for our future our people and we do not accept—we do not accept—the rose-tinted glasses of how socialism once apparently was under previous Labour regimes. If they only read Mr Nash’s advice perhaps then their fortunes might turn.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First): They say that bad news comes in threes and for New Zealand’s farmers—actually for our agricultural sector as a whole—it seems that under this Government there is no end of threes to work through. What farmers cannot do anything about are the things that affect all of us. They cannot do anything about international commodity prices they cannot do anything about the exchange rate or the cost of imported feed and the cost of imported machinery and they cannot do anything about the weather which is the single most important variable affecting farming. So they cannot do anything about the weather but apparently they can do something about the climate—or so Minister Nick Smith seems to think.Nick Smith wants to bring agriculture in from the rain and bring it under the umbrella of the emissions trading scheme. Well that is clever is it not Dr Smith—on the back of a drought on the doorstep of what is apparently going to be the worst El Nino since El Nino records began and after an absolute shocker of a year for dairy prices. Only just last night while we were sleeping—while all of New Zealand apart from the farmers who cannot sleep with worry were sleeping—the global dairy trade auction was taking place and dairy prices were taking another tumble. On the back of all that Minister Nick Smith wants to hit our farmers with yet another whammy—he wants to bring agriculture into the emissions trading scheme and the beleaguered farming sector gets hit with yet another stack of costs. Well done Dr Smith. Prices are down returns are down farm incomes are down the rain is drying up farmer suicides are at record levels and Dr Smith thinks this is just a perfect time to hit the farmers and the provinces that depend on them with yet another tax.You know this might be what Dr Smith is ordering but it is certainly not what the doctor ordered. Why? Why is Nick Smith calling for this? What is he hoping to achieve? Well it is all about being seen to be doing our bit. It is about looking good in front of other countries. We have to slash our emissions because everyone else is doing it—supposedly—and we do not want to be left out. We do not want to look like we are not doing our bit or pulling our weight. Nick Smith wants to be able go to Paris and hobnob it with the rest of the world’s climate change jet set. My word there is an oxymoron if ever there was one—all these people being terribly concerned about their carbon footprints but they are flying all around the world in huge fossil fuel - burning aeroplanes to tell each other about it to express all their concerns about the environment. Dr Smith wants to be able to crow to the rest of the world that little old New Zealand is right up there on the moral high ground slashing and burning our emissions.Except that we really do not have any—apart from agriculture of course. And so we are going to include agriculture in our emissions trading scheme because we have to have something in there and we really have not got anything else. No one else in the world has agriculture or food production in their part of the climate change game because they have other industries that they can pick on. Countries that produce far more than we do in terms of agricultural output and countries that have far larger dairy production and many times as many livestock do not have agriculture as part of their carbon tax schemes. They are not carbon taxing food production. Other countries have factories they have mills and foundries and refineries and shipyards and other things that produce lots and lots of emissions and they can play the game of climate mitigation using those. But we do not and so back in 2008 Helen Clark decided that agriculture should go in the emissions trading scheme because she had to be seen to be doing something and there was not anything else she could do.Then the next Government the incoming National Government decided to put it on hold because back then National was still paying lip service to the idea that it was the party of the farmers that it was the party of the provinces that it was the party that reflected and upheld the values of the heartland. Well not any more. Today National is the Queen Street party. It is the party of bankers and financiers and overseas ownership. National members are perfectly happy to chuck the farming sector and provincial New Zealand under the bus for the sake of looking good in the eyes of the international climate change jet set. It is a status symbol. Putting agriculture into the emissions trading scheme is nothing more than tokenism and it is nothing more than a status symbol for Nick Smith just as it was for Helen Clark.What is a status symbol? A status symbol is something that you do not need and do not want bought with money you have not got in order to impress people you do not like. Nick Smith wants this status symbol and he wants New Zealand’s farmers to pay for it: $863 million—that is 50 times more than what this Government spends on research into reducing emissions. No one else is doing it. Other countries do not have agriculture in their emissions and they are waiting like everybody else—like New Zealand should be—for somebody else to be the first cab off the rank. The big producers—the United States China—have all set targets but they are not doing anything about just yet and Nick Smith wants us to be first. He wants the farmers to pay for it.Well we say enough. New Zealand First says that New Zealand should be a follower here and not a leader. We produce less than 0.2 percent of the world’s emissions and we should be the last cab off the rank. So we challenge Dr Smith. We challenge him to come out and guarantee that he will not dump this new additional tax on an already struggling agricultural sector at the worst possible time for the most pointless of reasons. Thank you.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs): That was a very interesting contribution by Richard Prosser from New Zealand First talking about the rural economy—from a party the New Zealand First Party that has consistently over the last few decades refused to have any support for reform of the Resource Management Act which is an important part of the economy. It has always opposed any reforms never voted for reforms and so I do not have any time for its views on helping get the New Zealand economy ahead.This is an exciting time for the New Zealand economy and for New Zealanders as a whole. This is an exciting time. If you look back over New Zealand history you keep being told about the time back in 1951 when New Zealand was the third-wealthiest country in the world and it has all gone downhill since then. That was one of the times of course—it was a very unusual moment—when most of the developed world was still sort of recovering from the Second World War. So it was the most unusual moment that you could possibly pick out butthe main point of our prosperity in the 1950s and 1960s was the fact that we had an open door to the UK market and the UK was one of the wealthiest countries in the world.That was taken away from us in the 1970s when the UK joined the European Economic Community and since then New Zealand has been wandering in the wilderness in a tough world where nobody has to take our produce and nobody has to be kind to us or not put up tariffs and make life difficult for our exporters. We have struggled in that difficult environment for 30 or 40 years and New Zealand’s living standards have fallen. We have slowly over the years been piecing together a way to get back into global markets and we made great success in the 1980s with CER in Australia. We ground our way through the World Trade Organization processes over a long time and great progress was made with the free-trade agreement with China which has greatly boosted our living standards—Hon David Cunliffe: Thank you to the Labour Government.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH: —and has carried us through the global financial crisis and the recession so much better than we would have been otherwise. And I do congratulate the Labour Government on its foresight and its contribution in that way. That is why I grieve that Labour’s commitment to open economies and free trade seems to have altered.So for now we have had the great success over the last few weeks of the agreement around the Trans-Pacific Partnership which would give New Zealanders access to the largest economy in the world and 40 percent of the global economy and what a marvellous opportunity that will be for New Zealand. We will be well and truly back in the game internationally with access to China access to the largest economy in the world through the Trans-Pacific Partnership and now on top of that we have got Mr Groser doing his excellent work in the EU and we have prospects of getting into that very difficult market. So I have great optimism looking ahead to the next couple of decades that New Zealanders have the opportunity to do so well and I back New Zealand businesses to do well in that open context.In my area just today or yesterday we announced some work in the geographical indications side of the wine industry. The New Zealand Winegrowers Annual Report 2015 shows that New Zealand wines actually have the second highest average value after the French wines internationally and that all ultimately comes down to the strength of the stories that lie behind our wine industry and our places—a Marlborough sauvignon blanc and Martinborough and all those places like Gimblett Gravels and places that I am sure members will know quite a lot about. This piece of legislation will help buttress and strengthen that brand and that story behind the New Zealand wines and it will enable our winemakers to defend that in the New Zealand market. Also once you have a geographical indicator signed off in New Zealand that makes it a lot easier to get that recognised internationally.The other thing I wanted to mention was that New Zealand came second in the world for the World Bank Group’s ease of doing business index out of 189 countries continuing to do well—first in starting a businesses first in protecting minority investors—and we continue in so many ways trying to make it easier for New Zealand businesses to do well. The patents bill which I introduced just yesterday brings a single trans-Tasman patent regime—just another way to stop having to duplicate your patent applications. But the most important thing that a Government can do is actually provide that strong stable environment and be fiscally sustainable such as having a Budget that is back in surplus. When you have that sustainability that leads to confidence and when you have confidence in the economy that leads to investment and it is only investment that leads to growth and jobs and that is how we raise our living standards in New Zealand.I am very interested to see who invited Jeremy Corbyn to be the guest speaker at the Labour Party conference this weekend. I think it was Mr Little. Why should it not be time—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.DENISE ROCHE (Green): Under this National Government we have a tale of two sectors. On the one hand there is one sector that is the Government’s sweetheart—it includes companies like Serco Warner Bros Skycity and individuals like the Saudi businessman Al Ali Khalaf. Of course they are given the sweetheart deals and the sweetheart five-star treatment. On the other hand we have the Public Service and the people who provide those services such as the people who work for the Department of Conservation. About 1500 of those people are taking industrial action this week—minimal industrial action. They are working to rule simply for a pay increase and what have they been offered—0.4 percent. These are the people who are charged with protecting our precious flora and fauna who fight for our endangered species and who are working harder than ever before because of constant redundancies restructuring and funding cuts. Actually they are almost becoming an endangered species themselves.What happens when we underfund the Department of Conservation? Well we risk our “clean green” 100 percent pure reputation. The destruction of our Northland conservation estate is one example which my colleague Kevin Hague touched on yesterday during question time. He never got a straight answer from the Minister of Conservation about whether the department is using a multi-pest approach to try to conserve our wild places. That is just one example of underfunding. Another area is the use of volunteers whoare really cheap of course and it is good to have communities involved but when you have the slaying of four endangered takahē during a cull on Motutapu Island because they were mistaken for pukeko you have to question whether it actually makes financial sense.The people who work for the Public Service do so because they care about the country and they care about the people of New Zealand but that commitment is hardly recognised—and certainly not for Department of Conservation staff. Tomorrow 1000 Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment staff will also be taking industrial action. They will be going on strike. These are the people who deal with immigration and with passport control. They are the people who give advice to businesses who ring up asking for advice on minimum employment standards. They are the labour inspectors who actually enforce minimum labour standards. These are the people who are at the front of our industrial relations advice; yet these people are having to take industrial action because they too are not getting a pay increase.It is not just the lousy pay they are striking about; it is also the culture of mistrust that is so prevalent at the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment. I guess that is not surprising given that there has been constant restructuring in the superministry since it was formed only a few years ago. At the same time that that has been happening there has been crazy spending on things like TV screens signs hair straighteners and goodness knows what else.The chronic under-investment of public resources under the National Government is a false economy and it has done it simply for a meaningless surplus in the Budget. And that underfunding includes $1 billion missing from the health sector. It has underfunded the labour inspectorate so that we have only one labour inspector for nearly 54000 New Zealanders which is less than half of what you would get if you were in Australia. And it means that there is more exploitation of workers like the group of workers at Masala who were paid $2 an hour—and it took years to process by labour inspectors. You also get bridge collapses and maintenance short cuts at Department of Conservation sites because of that underfunding.The people who work in these places are struggling. There has been a 14 percent increase in house prices and a 4 percent increase in power pricesover the past year and wages are not keeping up. Certainly there is competition for jobs now which also forces wages down with 151000 people currently unemployed. So how would the Greens fix it? We would fix it by redirecting money from those sweetheart deals to the people who deserve it and those are the people who provide our public services.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Seven years ago the people of New Zealand made a great decision and that was to vote in a John Key - led Government. National received 45 percent of public support. In 2011 it was 47 percent in 2014 it was 47 and on 19 October it was 47 percent. Nothing has changed. Here we are we are in Government we are looking after the people of New Zealand and they are supporting the John Key - led Government.And what do we see in the Opposition? We see a confused group of people who do not know who they are do not know what they stand for and have to have all these people from offshore come and tell them who they are. The people of New Zealand absolutely state in their lack of support of the Opposition that they have no confidence in a Labour-led Opposition.It is quite interesting. Just in Taranaki in these last number of years the number of Treaty settlements that we have progressed is quite phenomenal when you compare that with what was not done under the previous Government. This is the Taranaki region that suffered for many years—raiding parties from Waikato. But what we are experiencing these days is raiding parties from Wellington. We have Andrew Little come up and we have Grant Robertson come up trying to undermine the great work that the National Government has done in our region.Recently there was a headline in the Taranaki Daily News that read “Labour big wigs”—I am not sure whom they are referring to—“visit on regional reach-out”. We know that this is work that they are trying to do. “Taranaki hosted two Labour tours of the province on Thursday as the party continues their reach-out to regional New Zealanders.” Grant Robertson Stuart Nash Damien O’Connor—they all came up. They went out to the Contact Energy power station at Stratford. “Robertson said there was an increased interest in the Stratford power station since Contact Energy had shut down their Otahuhu power station for good on September 30.” This is the person who is the spokesperson on finance on the Labour benches and he said: “However the power station like other regional infrastructure was in desperate need of upgrades to bring it into the 21st century”. I find that quite unusual and I find it quite interesting that that was said. I guess what we can see is that Labour is out and busy finding out about what is happening in the regions. That is what Robertson said—that a desperate upgrade was needed to bring it into the 21st century.So needing to understand his sublime commentary on energy generation infrastructure I wrote a letter to the editor seeking the paper’s wisdom. “Sir in Grant Robertson referring to regional infrastructure [needing a desperate upgrade] I wasn’t sure which of the Contact Energy power stations in Stratford he says needs upgrading. Could it be the 377MW station that Contact describe as ‘a large efficient and modern plant being one of the largest gas turbines in the world housed in a single building constructed from special metals and featuring advanced cooling systems.’ ” Was that the one? Or perhaps it was the other power station needing to be brought into the 21st century. “Could it be Contact’s 200MW gas-fired peaking power station in Stratford—the one that Hekia Parata Chester Borrows and myself accompanied the Prime Minister to which the PM opened on 31 May 2011?”. So I am not sure whether it is the modern one with fantastic 21st century metals or the one the Prime Minister opened in 2011 that Grant Robertson refers to as decrepit infrastructure that needs bringing into the 21st century.What I do not understand is how Labour members can go to that place say that stuff get it quoted in the paper and have people think that they are credible. This is one of the reasons why people do not support the Labour Opposition because there is a lot said without credibility. There is a lot of rhetoric but the facts speak for themselves. The facts are that this Government has for 7 years supported this nation has supported people who have struggled has supported businesses through the worst economic times in this world has supported Christchurch and has supported the people of the west coast. We have stood strong and we stand strong by the regions of New Zealand. Thank you.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): Today is a blue-letter day. Today is the day that unemployment hits 6 percent that dairy prices are down another 10 percent and that 6 years after the global financial crisis in the middle of a new global credit boom the New Zealand economy is going backwards.Craig Foss—Hawke’s Bay’s answer to Rip Van Winkle—was crowing about National’s leadership conveniently forgetting Bolger to Shipley Shipley to English. Well that did not go too well so what about Don Brash? And then who jumps ship at the last minute? John Key. To hear Craig Foss it reminded me of the Lego movie. Remember the theme song “Everything is awesome”? Everything is awesome—oh actually it is more like Monty Python with “What have the Romans ever done for us?”. Well what those Romans have done for New Zealand is higher unemployment lower economic growth more families in crisis people being unable to afford their own homes and Kiwis losing hope. So why are the Romans still in Rome? Why is the National Party there? Well it cannot be Steven Joyce and his talent for inflatable sheep; it cannot be John Key peeing in the shower and the pockets of the All Blacks. It has got to be more important than that and it is.So I want to just reflect on the means of control by this Government because in rugby terms it is very simple. It is not that it has a faster back line it is not that it has faster forwards; it just screws the scrum. Here is how it does it: creeping influence in the media undermining Public Service neutrality politicising community groups and threatening those who object to it. And of course there is the legendary National Party dirty-tricks machine.It is a standing joke that prime-time TV is a choice between right—Paul Henry National candidate—and righter the irreplaceable Mike Hosking irreplaceable because he pops up just about everywhere. If you do not believe me just ask John Campbell Carol Hirschfeld Julian Wilcox Brian Rudman John Drinnan and so on and so forth. Contrary independent voices that have been removed from prime-time TV and newspapers and have taken refuge in the ark—Radio New Zealand. Well I wonder what is going to happen to Radio New Zealand given that New Zealand On Air is controlled by the Prime Minister’s electorate secretary. Is the Government going to stop funding that broadcaster that is run by a former National Prime Minister’s chief media adviser? Tell me it is not screwing the scrum ladies and gentlemen.The NGO sector has fared no better—cowered into submission. Tony Soprano would be proud. What about when the Problem Gambling Foundation was declared to be the problem? What happened to its funding? Everybody noticed. It was cut off at the knees.You might say that at least the Crown’s independent watchdogs are better. Well sorry no. The High Court just found that the Ombudsman acted illegally in not forcing Tim Groser to disclose more about the Trans-Pacific Partnership background brief. It is a shocker when the Ombudsman is found by the High Court not to be defending the public interest. No wonder it has got a year’s backlog—and that is why Ministers act with impunity not answering Official Information Act requests or parliamentary questions because they know that by the time the appeal is heard it will be too late. Why would it fund the Ombudsmen—it is just a nuisance. And so is the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and every other independent watchdog that has not had real-terms funding maintenance under this Government.Around Wellington public servants are saying in hushed tones that the Westminster tradition of free and frank advice is gone. When was the last time that you heard Iain Rennie the State Services Commissioner standing up for Public Service neutrality and independence? He has not said boo since the Roger Sutton debacle.So where to from here?Hon Craig Foss: He tried to and you hammered him about CERA.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Well what about the Serious Fraud Office—Craig Foss knows all about that the Minister of commerce. Well it has gone belly-up because it no longer talks about taking criminals to justice; it just wants to recover a few pennies for National’s mates the investors. Oh yes the last Serious Fraud Office chief executive that actually stood up for New Zealanders’ rights got garrotted by Judith Collins and Cameron Slater—Cameron Slater who was exposed by Nicky Hager whose banking records were given to the police voluntarily by Simon Power’s bank. If that is not a scandal of top proportions!New Zealanders are sick to death of a do-nothing know-nothing care-nothing Government that is screwing the scrum and running down the democratic freedoms and institutions—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member’s time has expired.BRETT HUDSON (National): I have got some free tinfoil for the member who just took his seat David Cunliffe. He can make himself a quality hat out of it. I would just like to take this opportunity to congratulate the All Blacks on an outstanding performance. The team is back in New Zealand. I am looking forward to seeing them here on Friday morning. They have done a great job. What we see there is a collection of individuals who had a plan who had confidence in each other’s abilities and who focused on the things that matter. They have brought home the cup New Zealand’s cup.For the last 7 years this country has had a National-led Government a team full of bright and capable people who know what they are doing who have a plan and who are focused on the things that matter to Kiwis and their families. Seven years ago almost to the day was a watershed moment. It was the day when Parliament was sworn in after the Kiwi voters had turfed out and had rid themselves of a Labour Government that was out of touch—out of touch with Kiwis’ needs and aspirations—a Labour Government that thought that the real issues of the day were light bulbs and shower heads and that had increased Government spending by about 50 percent for no increase in return and in quality of services or outcomes. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan the Labour Government is like a baby’s elementary canal with a healthy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. That is what New Zealand saw.But what they saw in National at that time was a party with policies that were in step with New Zealanders’ aspirations. They could see that we were relevant to them and they continued to see that in 2011 and a year ago when they re-elected this National-led Government back into office—a Government with a plan that saw New Zealand come out of the worst recession around the globe in decades. New Zealand came out of that recession stronger and sooner than all of our other trading nations and most of the nations in the OECD.It is a Government that has seen about 180000 jobs created over the last 4 years; a Government that has seen a $10000 increase in the average wage since 2008; a Government that is seeing living standards for New Zealanders improve with average wages growing a lot faster than inflation; a Government that understands that in order to help the prospects for its people it needs businesses that are growing and selling more around the world; and a Government that is open to opening markets with free-trade agreements such as the New Zealand - Korea free-trade agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement successfully negotiated recently by the Hon Tim Groser and his team. It is an agreement that opens up 40 percent of the global market to Kiwi businesses.Hon Member: How much?BRETT HUDSON: Forty percent and 800 million customers. We will see tariffs reduced over almost all of the products and services that New Zealand businesses deliver and will deliver. It is an outstanding result for Kiwis; it is an outstanding future that we have to look forward to under this National-led Government.Outside of the area of trade and the economy what more has the Government done? Well we have given increased doctors’ visits—free doctors’ visits—and free prescriptions up to under-13s. We have got record levels of investment in education particularly in early childhood education to raise participation. We are helping Kiwis get into their first homes through our HomeStart package. We have removed about $1.2 billion worth of ACC levies with a forecast of a further $450 million over the next 2 years. And this National-led Government is the first Government to increase real benefits in 43 years—43 years and two Labour administrations. Labour claims to be there for the working people and those most in need; it certainly did not raise their benefits in real terms—it took a caring National Government to do that.In the area of technology where I come from I would also note with our ultra-fast broadband and rural broadband programmes chugging along that we are going to be delivering faster broadband to New Zealanders. The ultra-fast broadband programme is already 50 percent complete. Over a million Kiwis can now sign up to real broadband speeds either through the Ultra-fast Broadband Initiative or the Rural Broadband Initiative. This is a Government that is focused on the things that really matter. This is a Government that will continue to focus on the things that matter to Kiwis whereas with the Labour Party in the words to paraphrase Mark Twain no man’s life liberty or prosperity is safe when a Labour Government is in office. Thank you.MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party): Kia ora Mr Speaker. Nei te mihi ki a koe. Last week during the adjournment I was invited to deliver the keynote address to the National Congress of Australia’s First Peoples in Sydney. While I was there I took the opportunity to meet with groups that are providing services to those people who are disparaged those people who find themselves homeless those people who need assistance. And when I spoke with the community groups that are delivering those services they told me that of the 500 meals that they deliver on the streets of Sydney in one evening 40 percent of those people who are lining up for meals are Kiwis.In Queensland the highest rates of suicide are committed by Māori. They tell me that students in high schools across Australia who are coming to the end of the year who are sitting their exams are deciding whether or not they should bother because until Malcolm Turnbull had made his decision after 14 years of waiting to allow Kiwi students—young people who have grown up and lived their lives in Australia—to gain tertiary qualifications by getting a student loan as of 1 January next year those students would turn up at school and say: “What’s the point?”.Kiwis are being treated as less than second-class citizens. In fact under the new legislation last year and in 2001—the immigration policy—Kiwis now have fewer rights in Australia than an American tourist. That is right and it is a shock to people. When I go to Australia and talk to “Joe Ordinary Aussie” they do not know—they do not know what is happening in the detention centres. It is not being broadcast and if it is it is being broadcast as the “killer Kiwis”. A 12-month sentence in Australia could see you thrown into jail for traffic violations for shoplifting—and for that these Kiwis who may serve only 8 months of that sentence are being thrown into a detention centre some of them offshore as Mr Davis has pointed out. Those people have been removed from their families having already served their sentence and having already been deemed by a judge in a court to have committed a crime and been given a sentence that they have finished.Some of them are released on parole conditions and if they were released to their homes to await a decision about deportation they would be walking into a job tomorrow. If they were released to their homes they would be paying taxes in Australia tomorrow. But wait it gets worse because under that section 501 paragraph (d) you can be deported from Australia because of questionable character. Already we have a 60-year-old gentleman in Taumarunui who is there now because when he came home for an unveiling and tried to get back into Australia he was held up at immigration and despite having no criminal conviction in Australia despite having lived there for 36 years and having paid taxes for 34 of those years until he became seriously ill 2 years ago—despite all of those things because of a petty crime he committed in New Zealand when he was 20 he was denied access back into Australia back to his family back to his wife who had been caring for him because he is seriously ill.This is abhorrent and our Government needs to speak up about it. We need to be doing more than we are doing. And I have to commend Amy Adams actually because she has rung—herself personally—the people who have been advocating for those people in the detention centres and given them advice on how they can seek help by sending them to the New Zealand consulate there in Australia. Well one of those people did turn up at the New Zealand consulate and was turned away. They did not know what to do. This is not good enough.On Monday 9 November Australia will sit in the UN in front of the Universal Periodic Review and we will have the ability—this Government for 3 minutes—to put those questions to the Australian Parliament and demand answers. Lastly we have the opportunity to oppose its bid to be sitting on the Human Rights Council and we should be taking that opportunity to oppose it based on Australia’s appalling history of human rights abuse.DARROCH BALL (NZ First): Over the last few weeks and today as well I have been asking one simple question of the Minister for Social Development and that is: why has she decided to cut the funding to and the numbers of the very very successful Limited Service Volunteers programme? Unfortunately over the last couple of months and today the answers that we got were just rubbish. They were bereft of fact and I think the sad thing is that the Minister does not even know that herself.Chris Bishop: You didn’t even listen to her.DARROCH BALL: When I come to the House Mr Bishop I bring some facts and if the Minister wants some facts here are some facts about the course itself. In 2013 over 1300 trainees went through the Limited Service Volunteers course and over 80 percent graduated. Sixty percent of those moved into employment or training and the ministry’s own research shows that after 4 years those Limited Service Volunteers compared with any other cohort are the ones who spent the most time off the benefit. So we have got some facts there.Where the Minister wants to put the funding is into the Youth Guarantee scheme and just 52 percent of those in the Youth Guarantee scheme in 2013 graduated. So the Minister wants to cut a highly successful programme from 1500 to 800 places; she wants to close the Trentham base which is already happening; and she wants to close the Auckland base which is happening but the Minister did not even realise it was happening and I have brought that to the attention of the House.But do not take my word for it. Let us ask Paula Bennett. What did Paula Bennett say? She said: “Actually Limited Service Volunteers is making a difference and we have seen the numbers.” Paula Bennett: “I have seen first hand the light that switches on for young people while on LSV. They gain confidence they learn about themselves and what they are capable of.” But let us not just take Paula Bennett’s word for it. Let us ask the Prime Minister himself: “I’ve seen first-hand the dramatic effect LSV has on young people who volunteer to go through it … I’m proud of the increased investment we have made in LSV since coming into Government …”.Why is this Minister wanting to cut a very successful programme for our most needy youth? We have got 25000 youth on the benefit right now. What the Minister is trying to get us to swallow is that only 800 of those 25000 are suitable for this course and it is absolute rubbish. Not only that but as I stated in the House today during question time her own advisers in the ministry advised her not to decrease the baseline funding but to increase it from $1.1 million to $3 million.They actually recommended to the Minister to keep those numbers at 1200 places not 800 places and yet she stands up here week in and week out and says that the reason why she is cutting it down to 800 is—what? Because she has listened to her advisers? No. She is saying that the other reason is youth unemployment. No. Those figures which her advisers gave her to stay at 1200 and not 800 were based on the youth unemployment figures of today and I have actually got those lists right here.We have got the “neets” number from 2008 when this Government came in and when John Key campaigned on increasing funding to Limited Service Volunteers. We had 66000 youth unemployed. What is it today? In March 2015 the figure was 76000. That is actually an increase. In June 2014 there were 3000 on the youth payment and the young parent payment. In June 2015 there were 3100. There is an actual increase in the number of people on the benefit. Not only that but for youth between the ages of 15 and 24 which is the target cohort that the Minister is saying is reducing in the first quarter of 2010 when the 4-year funding package for youth employment was put into place by the Prime Minister himself—$55 million—64600 were unemployed. The figure at the exact same time in 2015 for the first quarter was 64000.So what we have got here is a Minister who does not know what is going on. She comes into the House and spouts rubbish. She says her advisers are telling her to cut that number and that the evidence she is basing that on is a reduction in benefit numbers but that is absolute rubbish. I will tell you the real reason why this is happening. In June 2015 the building that the Limited Service Volunteers were using in Trentham was sold. The lease ran out in 2015. The funding—the 4-year funding that was kicked off in 2011 by this Prime Minister—ran out in June 2015 and the Minister wants to say that all of those things are a coincidence.One last thing: I actually found this today. It is an article from a few months ago and it notes what is happening at the expense of our youth. It is entitled “Govt might make surplus after all” and guess what date that statement was made? It was in June 2015. This Government does not give a damn about those youth and this Minister—Mr SPEAKER: The member’s time has expired.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I want to join with other Kiwis today to welcome the All Blacks home to celebrate their success and to give them accolades because their success is our success. To the team the management the coach and their whānau: welcome home. And it is great because we can show that as a small country we punch well above our weight on the world stage but we need to come back home where the rubber hits the road.There is a sobering reality here in New Zealand that the Government cannot get away from. Growing inequality and poverty are hurting the great majority of New Zealanders. I have been listening very carefully to the debate and it goes like this. It is as if National is sitting in front of a roomful let us say 99 percent of New Zealanders and saying to them: “In 2008 we gave you a promissory note to be able to purchase a home but it’s not valid until 2016 or maybe 2019. Well hang on just trust us. Things will get better.”Well many New Zealanders have heard that message and 7 years after National sat down on the Treasury benches they are finding that that promissory note may well become null and void. Inequality and poverty are increasing in New Zealand and unless we recognise the detrimental effects that they are having in our communities on various population groups then we are dooming the next generation to some very significant challenges. That should not happen in a country like ours.The challenge is real and it must be addressed because it goes like this: there are more vulnerable children several living in poverty many of them in benefit-dependent households and that does not look like it is getting better. It is getting worse and at the coalface families feel the struggle in very real ways. They are going to budget advisory services and going to food banks because there are increasing fixed costs that are becoming a huge burden on families.Let us look at the Māori population in the electorate I represent and across our country. The median Māori household income is $28000. Well after you take out rent and power and food and costs for the kids to go to school and costs to get to and from essential services if there is no public service network the struggle is real. Of Māori in the labour force 12.6 percent are unemployed. It is really difficult. When you go to faith-based services and social services they will tell you that now the profile of the demographic coming to seek assistance is actually the working poor. Why is this that we are now having gradients of poverty? This is New Zealand and things need to change.Last year only 59 percent of Māori school leavers completed the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. Notwithstanding the Minister of Education’s ambition to have 85 percent of students reaching NCEA level 2 it is not being achieved. And if we cannot make a fundamental difference to improve the learning outcomes for our young people how will this country ever benefit and gain the economic opportunities that the Government talks about? There is a significant challenge there.But this is where it gets real: truancy remains high. There are high levels of transience in pockets of New Zealand because of housing inaffordability. There are numbers of families living in multiple-family households where people simply try to pool their limited resources together to get by. Is that a better opportunity for children or a worse one? I ask you. People will quickly say that it is actually a worse situation than ever before. We need to do better.The whole thing about housing affordability is not just a matter for Auckland. In fact what you will find when you go out into the regions and even into small semi-rural towns is that the encroachment of the Auckland effect artificially inflates housing prices everywhere. Aucklanders will buy houses anywhere else in the country except in Auckland to lump some of their ability to invest out into the regions. It makes it unaffordable for people living in small communities.I listened to the Minister of Education during question time and she made a very simple statement in response to questions by saying: “We are targeting our resource the education resource to meet those most at risk.” That is not happening. The Government has no plan to lift the opportunities for children and young people. Income inequality has not gotten better; it has gotten worse but if we really want to ensure that the prosperity of this country transforms opportunities for everybody we have got to address this issue now. It cannot wait.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Third ReadingsHon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development)on behalf of theMinister of Justice: I move That the Crimes Amendment Bill the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) the Extradition Amendment Bill the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill the Financial Transactions Reporting Amendment Billthe Income Tax Amendment Billthe Limited Partnerships Amendment Billthe Misuse of Drugs Amendment Billthe Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Billthe Policing Amendment Bill andthe Secret Commissions Amendment Bill be now read a third time. These bills implement a number of measures to strengthen New Zealand’s response to organised crime and corruption both domestically and abroad. Organised crime is a global problem that undermines public safety economic development good governance and national security. Unfortunately New Zealand is not immune to the threat posed by both international and domestic criminal networks which operate on many fronts. New Zealand has strong legislative frameworks in place to obstruct organised crime. However the amendments in the bills will address a small number of gaps in our law and improve the efficiency of existing processes aimed at disrupting the activities of organised criminal groups. Bribery and corruption in connection with international trade are the focus of a number of international conventions underlining the growing recognition that corruption is a substantial barrier for economic and social development. It is now widely accepted that bribery is bad for business creating uncertainty and risk in commercial transactions. Corruption also has negative consequences for a country’s financial stability and economic performance draining resources from more productive economic activities.New Zealand businesses trade on our hard-earned reputation as one of the least corrupt countries in the world. However we cannot rest on our laurels and must continually work to prevent and address the threat posed by corrupt activities. To that end the legislation ensures that our laws reflect the seriousness of this conduct by increasing penalties for bribery and corruption in both the public and private sector introducing new offences and setting out the circumstances in which corporations can be liable for bribery of a foreign public official. The provisions also highlight how important it is for New Zealand businesses to adopt anti-bribery policies and conduct risk assessments and training. To avoid liability under New Zealand’s anti-bribery laws all businesses should have a zero-tolerance approach to bribery and corruption. In addition to the measures in the bills the Government has progressed a number of other initiatives that reflect this commitment. These include passing new legislation targeting match fixing and shell companies formally joining the Open Government Partnership and conducting a review of New Zealand’s extradition and mutual legal assistance laws. Together these measures will enhance New Zealand’s compliance with the OECD anti-bribery convention enable New Zealand to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption and send a strong signal that New Zealand values and is committed to maintaining corruption-free institutions.In addition to bribery and corruption the 2011 all-of-Government response to organised crime recognised a number of other areas where New Zealand could further enhance its efforts to tackle organised criminal activities such as money-laundering identity theft and people-trafficking. Money-laundering is an insidious crime that undermines the integrity and stability of financial systems discourages foreign investment and distorts international capital flows. Criminals are now using smarter and more complex ways to disguise the illegal origins of their activities exploiting both the complexity inherent in the global financial system as well as differences between national anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism laws and systems. To combat this New Zealand has recently overhauled its anti - money-laundering and countering financing of terrorism regime meaning that individual firms are now much more aware of the money-laundering and terrorist-financing risks that they face and the obligation to implement compliance programmes to migrate and address those risks. Under the changes New Zealand’s financial institutions casinos and trust and company service providers are playing a much larger role in detecting suspicious financial activity and alerting authorities to this. The legislation expands on the existing reporting regime with new requirements for financial institutions to report international wire transactions of over $1000 and all physical cash transactions of $10000 or more to the financial intelligence unit within the New Zealand Police. We know that criminals use these transactions to launder money and finance terrorism and the amendments will improve our ability to detect and investigate money-laundering and terrorist financing. In addition the legislation amends the existing money-laundering offence to remove unnecessary hurdles to police prosecutions and deter those who exploit the current limitations of the offence.The legislation also addresses gaps in New Zealand’s identity crime framework introducing specific offences that prohibit criminals from selling or distributing unlawfully-obtained identification information or possessing goods intended to facilitate identity crimes such as credit card skimming devices. Other important amendments will enhance the courts’ ability to restrain assets strengthen New Zealand’s human-trafficking offence and provide police with the power to share information including fingerprint information with international counterparts. A further amendment will ensure that DNA data bank information can be provided to assist in criminal investigations and prosecutions overseas. The Government has great confidence in New Zealand’s law enforcement agencies which have a history of successful prosecutions against those who engage in organised criminal activities. However the measures outlined above will improve international law enforcement cooperation and capability enhancing New Zealand’s reputation in the international community. Collectively the amendments in the legislation signal this Government’s commitment to combat organised crime and corruption everywhere on every level. The wide-ranging measures in the bills will ensure that New Zealand has a robust legislative framework that complies with international best practice and augments New Zealand’s reputation as a trustworthy trading partner with strong reliable and corruption-free institutions. I commend these bills to the House.Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill): The Labour Party supports the 15 bills that are before the House for third reading today which derive from the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. Of course the Labour Party would strongly support legislation that is designed to deal with offences like corruption and like organised crime.Organised crime is huge in this country. The methamphetamine market by itself is estimated to be worth $1 billion within New Zealand—money going into the pockets of organised crime and gangs. Money-laundering in this country is estimated at an even higher level: $1.5 billion. We have residual problems in human trafficking. All of these problems are domestic problems but they are also international problems and it behoves us to cooperate with like-minded countries overseas and international organisations to suppress that sort of criminal activity. So we support it but we do not support it without criticism of the way that the Government has handled this measure.For a start it has taken so long to get these measures—outlined by Minister Tolley and mainly measures that make a lot of sense—before this House. We should have acted years ago. Judith Collins as Minister of Justice stood up in 2012—3 years ago—and said: “I will have this legislation before the House and through the House by the end of next year.” Well we know what happened there: Judith Collins herself got caught up in a scandal involving Oravida and it did not happen. But this bill itself represents the tardiness of the Government in dealing with the problem for which we have been criticised internationally. We signed the United Nations Convention Against Corruption 11 years ago—11 years ago. It does not come into effect until we legislate to bring it into effect to do what has to be done under it and then we can ratify it. My question to the next National speaker is why has it taken this Government 7 full years to get to the point of allowing us to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption if this legislation is so important? And I believe that it is.There is a key weakness in this bill too that I now want to focus on. It was a weakness that was raised before the Law and Order Committee by major organisations that we would respect: Transparency International the experts in this country on measures that a country needs to take to prevent corruption and to prevent bribery; the Human Rights Commission; and the Victoria University of Wellington School of Government. All of them drew to the Government members’ attention a fatal flaw in this legislation which tries to distinguish between a bribe and a bribe on the basis of the size of the bribe. That distinction is kept in the Crimes Act. It is section 105C(3) of the Crimes Act. It says that the foreign bribery offence “does not apply if—(a) the act that is alleged to constitute the offence was committed for the sole or primary purpose of ensuring or expediting the performance by a foreign public official of a routine government action;”. I am sorry—that is what bribery is. You pay the official to carry out the action; that gives you an advantage. Secondly: “(b) the value of the benefit is small.”Amy Adams the Minister of Justice continued that false analogy. It is OK to make a bribe as long as it is small she said. She said—Jonathan Young: She didn’t say that.Hon PHIL GOFF: She said let me quote: “It is in the usual course of activity to make payments as long as the payments are small.” Well I am sorry—bribery is akin to pregnancy. You cannot be a bit pregnant and you cannot exercise a corrupt act in bribing an official and say: “But it’s only a bit. It’s a small bit not a large bit.” That distinction is not recognised in the Convention Against Corruption nor is it recognised by like-minded countries. The UN convention makes it clear that the corrupt act is giving yourself undue advantage by making a payment to an official which ends up in that official’s pocket. That is what the UN convention says and this legislation does not come up to the standard set out in the UN convention.Not only that but it is contrary to what the OECD requires of us. The Minister mentioned the OECD and how these bills enhance compliance with the OECD anti-bribery convention. But actually we do not do what the OECD says we should be doing because the OECD says that we should not be making facilitation payments. It does not come up to the standard of APEC. That is an organisation that we are a regular attendant at and we come up to its standards in most effects but APEC says that businesses should eliminate this practice and we legislate specifically to allow it. APEC says to eliminate it OECD says to eliminate it and we legislate to allow it. The Serious Fraud Office and Business New Zealand run training programmes to allow New Zealand businesses to operate in overseas countries without making facilitation payments. Both of those organisations recommend against facilitation payments but this legislation explicitly allows them. And I have mentioned the United Nations Convention Against Corruption.What really upsets me about this legislation is that there would not be a member in this House who is not proud of the fact that year after year New Zealand is rated as one of the two least-corrupt countries in the world. We deserve to be proud of that accolade. That accolade is given to us by Transparency International but Transparency International railed against what we were doing in this legislation. And I want to quote the four key points that that organisation makes. They make the first point that it would be illegal to make a facilitation payment to an official in New Zealand. So why is it not a double standard that the same business that would be committing a crime in New Zealand to make a facilitation payment to a customs official here is not committing a crime if they do it overseas?Secondly they make the point that allowing facilitation payments lets us perpetuate corrupt systems abroad. And I want to quote their submission: “Paying these low-level bribes perpetuates a corrupt system imposes additional costs on the host country’s companies and citizens and undermines efforts by the host country’s Government to stamp out corruption in their public service.” But our legislation explicitly allows companies to do it.Thirdly Transparency International makes it clear that we are falling behind like-minded countries. The United Kingdom Bribery Act 2010 prohibits facilitation payments. It does not make an exemption for them as our legislation does; it prohibits them. Canada has done the same thing and the United States and Australia are going in the same direction. We are the odd one out in that grouping of countries who would claim to be amongst the least-corrupt countries in the world.And fourthly Transparency International makes the point that you do not have to make facilitation payments to do business in these countries. And it quotes the 2009 business survey by TRACE International that found that more than three-quarters of businesses said that with proper management they did not have to go down the track of making facilitation payments. An outright ban in this legislation would back up all of the organisations that have told us that there is no place for facilitation payments. It would remove doubt and it would provide clear direction to businesses but this Government in its weakness has failed to put that provision in this legislation which would otherwise be a perfectly good piece of legislation.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): Thank you Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to contribute to the third reading of these bills. I acknowledge the previous speaker Phil Goff and I will try to address some of the points he has raised.New Zealand is one of the least corrupt countries in the world as has been said time and again. And it is not just us who are saying it; it has been said by a lot of international agencies. The Hon Phil Goff mentioned Transparency International. That organisation has just released a press release that has good news about New Zealand’s Defence Force. The 76-question Government Defence Anti-Corruption Index shows the New Zealand Defence Force is leading our region. This 2015 index just released by the United Kingdom Special Defence Project gives the New Zealand Defence Force high marks for a strong integrated system across every risk area assessed by the index such as “personnel procurement operations political and finance.” This proves that New Zealand is not just the least corrupt but that it is also working very well for us in all areas.This National-led Government has worked on many fronts to ensure that we maintain and also continue to honour some of the international treaties that we have signed. To maintain our country’s reputation and keep it being a responsible member of the international community we are working in that direction. Organised crime is a global issue and we need to make sure New Zealand is not vulnerable to attacks that are easily spread through illegal frameworks in financial systems and through technology from the organised crime network.The Hon Phil Goff also mentioned some of the issues such as methamphetamines money-laundering and human trafficking. He said these are the domestic issues but I do not think these are just domestic issues—they have a connection internationally. And that is why we have been working hard to ensure that we are ready to tackle these issues. The Government has worked on many fronts in the previous 7 years. The Hon Phil Goff mentioned that we signed a treaty 11 years ago and he asked what this Government has done in the past 7 years. I would like to ask him what he did in the 4 years he was a Minister—nothing. At least we are working in the direction of honouring those treaties.We also passed the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act in 2009 which allows law enforcement agencies to recover the proceeds of crime. This money is then used for other law enforcement initiatives. The Act is working very well. The police have recovered millions of dollars from criminal proceeds and that money has been used in other areas. Another law that was passed was the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009. That Act helps law enforcement agencies to detect and deter serious crime such as drug dealing tax evasion and fraud. This Act makes it easier to recover money gained illegally and it has helped to close those loopholes that criminals use for money-laundering.Before I go any further I would like to acknowledge the officials for their contribution and their support and I would also like to acknowledge the contribution of the Law and Order Committee members during this process. I would like to highlight some of the key issues that have been dealt with in this bill such as banks now being required to report to the financial intelligence unit within the New Zealand Police all wire transfers that are above $1000 or any physical cash above $10000 being deposited into the banks. This ensures that the transactions are very transparent and can be tracked right back to the bottom. Redrafting of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 to specify that intent to conceal is also not required any more—we have to declare all those transactions to the financial intelligence unit.Some of the issues that were raised by the Hon Phil Goff have been addressed and I think he will be happy to learn that these issues have been resolved. With these words I commend this bill to the House.KELVIN DAVIS (Labour—Te Tai Tokerau): It is my pleasure to give a contribution in the third reading of the legislation arising from the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. There are a number of parts to this legislation. It is a very complex and complicated piece of legislation and it has been divided into a number of parts.The Hon Phil Goff has covered in some detail our concerns around the practice of facilitation payments and I will come to that shortly. A few other areas that I would like to touch on are in this legislation. One in particular is the part around human trafficking.Human trafficking is generally thought of as about people being moved across borders. Often we hear of incidents in Europe where somebody in the United Kingdom for example will hear noises in a shipping container they will open the shipping container and dozens of people will fall out in various states many deceased. And that is our general impression of human trafficking—that it is this sort of smuggling of people across borders.This legislation though makes sure that human trafficking is no longer only subject to people crossing borders—in fact human trafficking can be internal within countries and there can be domestic trafficking. I think that is a big distinction to make and something that is good to clarify—that simply trading people for servitude or slavery is unacceptable and that they do not actually have to cross through or over any border for people to be guilty of human trafficking.This legislation also addresses identity offences through forgery of documents. These days we all know about identity theft and the use of the internet to scam people. This legislation also strengthens that.There is a part on addressing money-laundering and strengthening the laws around that as well. Previously there had to be some intent to conceal money for it to be considered laundering. That intent to conceal has now been removed. You do not actually have to have concealed money or hidden money away to be guilty of money-laundering. In fact I remember a story of somebody who I knew who worked—it sounds a bit cloak and dagger—for the FBI and had uncovered a money-laundering scheme in the United States where money was laundered and trafficked and hidden away. But it actually had to be physically moved into the United States and would you believe that the cash was physically held in the tyres of airplanes? So there are many ways—many imaginative and creative ways—that money can be laundered but the intent to conceal money is no longer an issue. Laundering of property is no longer part of a crime punishable by 5 years’ imprisonment.On the sharing of DNA for the purposes of criminal investigation New Zealand has improved our international cooperation around the sharing of DNA for criminal investigations. The police can also share personal information with their overseas counterparts a lot easier but subject to certain safeguards. So police cannot just hand over information willy-nilly about people. There are certain safeguards to make sure that personal information is used in the most appropriate way.Phil Goff has spoken at some length about the facilitation payments and the whole issue about when a bribe is not a bribe. The discussion has been that even a small bribe is seen as just a facilitation payment to help people conduct business overseas. A bribe can be $5 $10 $50 $100 that could help speed the process of business or the process of goods through customs or through various border agencies and staff. We oppose that. We believe that it does not matter what size the facilitation payment is a bribe is a bribe and it needs to be treated as a bribe.We had the strange situation where we would not let overseas and foreign officials come here and use facilitation payments in New Zealand but we could have New Zealand officials overseas actually using facilitation payments. That is just not right. We have heard how Transparency International appeared before the Law and Order Committee. It was vehement in its opposition to the use of facilitation payments.We have also heard how the OECD and other reputable organisations do not believe it is necessary to have facilitation payments to conduct business. We have heard how the Serious Fraud Office does not believe that facilitation payments are necessary to conduct business. We pride ourselves in New Zealand on being one of the least corrupt countries in the world—in fact we have often held the No. 1 position in the world for being the least corrupt country. That though is starting to slip.Our reputation has been tarnished. It is tarnished when we have incidents like Ministers of the Crown for all intents and purposes going overseas to conduct their ministerial business only to hear that while they were overseas they have actually been dabbling in personal business and in the interests of personal companies.Jonathan Young: Have you got any evidence for saying that?KELVIN DAVIS: Well there are photos of a certain Minister in the office of her husband’s company overseas.Jonathan Young: Pretty dangerous allegation.KELVIN DAVIS: They say it is a dangerous allegation. All I am alleging is that the Minister was there doing ministerial business—Hon Anne Tolley: Bet you wouldn’t say it outside the House.KELVIN DAVIS: I ask you to defy this Anne Tolley—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You are not asking me to do anything. I suggest you carry on with your speech.KELVIN DAVIS: She was there to do ministerial business and instead took quite a long diversion from the airport to the offices where her husband works. That is the sort of thing that tarnishes and taints our reputation.Hon Anne Tolley: Yeah like Ministers taking their partners on jaunts all over the world.KELVIN DAVIS: That is the sort of thing that taints our reputation. Here we have a Minister defending that sort of thing—that sort of behaviour where when a Minister is meant to be overseas on Government business and is instead taking these big diversions and going around and having photographs taken in another business of her family’s.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Move along.KELVIN DAVIS: This is the point I am making about our reputation—our reputation as a country for doing business. It should not be tarnished. We cannot have this sort of behaviour. We know what the Ministers’ guidelines—the Cabinet Manual—says about doing this sort of thing. And yet here we have the National members who are pretty touchy when we raise these issues and these concerns.Hon Anne Tolley: No we just want you to say it outside the House—have the courage of your convictions.KELVIN DAVIS: Well I challenge the Minister to show me the part in the Cabinet Manual where it says it is OK.Hon Anne Tolley: Bet you won’t.KELVIN DAVIS: Well show me the part of the Cabinet Manual that says it is OK—I bet you that you cannot. This is the point. Our reputation is being tarnished because of those sorts of behaviour by Ministers. Here we have Ministers defending other Ministers for behaviour that we know was inappropriate. I ask the question: why is that Minister no longer a member of Cabinet?Jonathan Young: You’ve got nothing to say.KELVIN DAVIS: Nothing to say. So if there is nothing to hide and if there is nothing inappropriate about what occurred why is that Minister no longer a Minister?The Labour Party supports this legislation in its third reading despite how tetchy those members are about certain issues that have happened in their own party. We do have concerns about the facilitation payments. We believe that there is no need for facilitation payments to be made to expedite business and that something—[Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! There is one member who has the floor.Hon Annette King: I’m sick of Anne’s speech.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sick of a number of things but we are going to hear the end of Mr Davis’s speech and we are just there now so he should sit down.KELVIN DAVIS: Basically I cannot help the way the Minister is feeling in defence of her colleague but we do support this bill although we do have reservations around the facilitation payment. Kia ora.TODD BARCLAY (National—Clutha-Southland): It is a privilege to be able to speak on the third reading of the legislation arising from the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. I just want to touch briefly on the comments made by the previous speaker Kelvin Davis about the Hon Judith Collins. I would like to make one short remark before moving on to the contents of the legislation. It was quite short-sighted of that member to be making remarks about a former senior Cabinet Minister in this Government when half of those people making judgments of Judith Collins have not been in Cabinet themselves and probably will not for quite some time. It would be of quite some concern to the New Zealand public if they ever did make it into Cabinet. I think she has done a fantastic job as the Minister of Justice over the last 3 years and this piece of legislation is actually in large part her doing. It has been ably taken over by the Hon Amy Adams who is doing a fantastic job as well. I think that to make those personal remarks says more about that member’s integrity than it does about Mrs Collins’ contributions to this Government and this country.I just wanted to touch on a number of points about this legislation. The first was around requiring banks to report all international wire transfers over $1000 and the more physical cash transfers over $10000. I just want to acknowledge the banks and the Bankers’ Association which played a pivotal role in the facilitation of this legislation through the select committee process given their expertise both here and in Australia to develop more detail around this. I just want to acknowledge that. The changes that we are requiring to adhere to international standards for these organisations to implement within their business will come at a significant cost and their proactivity and cooperation in the development of the detail of this legislation was greatly appreciated by the Law and Order Committee.On that note a few people have raised whether or not the threshold set at $1000 for reporting international transfers is the right level—whether or not it is too low. The reason for it sitting at $1000 is that it is us keeping in line with our international obligations which were imposed by the Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering which basically was an international standards-setting body that was set up to combat money-laundering and terrorist financing. The countries are required to ensure that the information about the originator and beneficiary of wire transfers is immediately available. The threshold that they recommended and set was for US dollars or euros of $1000 and for simplicity reasons New Zealand decided to adopt that as well.Just closing off on that remark I then want to offer my support for the legislation and all of the submitters who took the time to come in and spent a lot of time talking us through the individual implications that these changes will have on them and their cooperation going forward. Thank you.DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take a final call on the legislation arising out of the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. I will endeavour following on from what we have heard to perhaps offer at least equal amounts of heat and light to the debate.The Minister madereference in her opening remarks to the desirability of zero tolerance when it comes to corruption and I am sure that is something we would all support. I think she was particularly referencing the business community at that point but that certainly rolls over into the public sector as well—the Public Service.It is critically important that we do get as close as we can to zero corruption and a zero-tolerance approach to that is not only an ethically and morally correct thing to do but it is also an economically very smart thing to do. We know that high levels of corruption are highly destructive of economic well-being. Look anywhere in the world where there are high levels of inequality of poverty and even of violence. Almost without exception you will find high levels of corruption sitting beneath or around that. So zero tolerance for corruption is a very desirable thing to achieve.When it came to the crunch in the Committee stage of this legislation I am pleased to say that 60 members of this House expressed their preference for a zero-tolerance approach when they supported my Supplementary Order Paper that would have removed a clause from the Crimes Act that basically facilitates and legitimates small bribes being paid offshore. Unfortunately 61 members of this House chose not to go for zero tolerance—maybe 0.002 or thereabouts is OK; just a little bit of corruption just a few drops in the bucket. I think that is unfortunate. This legislation has some desirable elements but it was a missed opportunity. This was an excellent opportunity to remove that clause from the Crimes Act and really move ourselves closer to being truly anti-corruption and to demonstrate that in our statutes. I will return to that point.But I would comment that the legislation does some useful things such as the business of reporting of money being transmitted overseas from New Zealand usually electronically in this day and age of course. Some of the most spirited and interesting debates at the select committee were about that issue. The banks came and gave some quite substantive submissions and appropriately so. I continue to be a little bit surprised that the electronic transmission of amounts in excess of a thousand dollars must be reported. I still feel that that limit is somewhat low. There are many reasons why people would and do legitimately send a thousand dollars overseas be it to family be it for purchases whatever it might be. Nevertheless that is where we have landed up. But just to put some scale around that I recall that the Westpac submission indicated that Westpac bank could make approximately 2000 reportable transactions per day—up to 2000 a day. It is not hard for that bank then to be thinking in terms of perhaps half a million transactions a year. Multiply that by four for the four major banks plus the very high number of private companies and individuals making transactions and that is an enormous volume that needs to be reported and recorded. That of course is one reason why part of the commencement date of this legislation has been put back simply to allow the banks and the companies the time to build the necessary software and to create the infrastructure that will allow for that.The Privacy Commissioner was somewhat unhappy with this legislation to the extent that there is less privacy protection for information about New Zealanders dealing offshore than there is in the domestic environment. She thought there needed to be some stronger constraints around that. The select committee did agree and there is a requirement on the Police Commissioner for example to consult with the Privacy Commissioner when setting or altering agency to agency information-sharing agreements and that is a good thing; that is a good step forward. But I think it is something we will have to continue to monitor. When the Privacy Commissioner is making a fairly strong submission to say “Hang on. This is a little bit over the boundaries.” then I think we need to take that seriously and I would hope that in time it will be proved that in fact we will get that balance right.The point has been made that this legislation has taken rather a long time to come to the House. One of the declared purposes in fact one of the primary purposes of this legislation is to enable us to make those legislative changes that are necessary for us to ratify the United Nations Convention Against Corruption that we signed in December 2003. It took about 6 years before that matter got as far as the select committee. There is a certain symmetry. The first reading of the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill was exactly 1 year ago today on 4 November 2014. So we are just rounding that off quite nicely—perhaps we should put a little candle in the middle of it when we do vote. It is true that the Minister at the time indicated in August 2013 that the original bill would come to the House by the end of that year. In fact it was June or July of 2014 before we had the bill tabled in the House and then as I say a year ago today we finally got the first reading. That is peculiar because all parties I think all sides acknowledge there is a significant economic benefit in ratifying the convention and of course this legislation is necessary for that to happen.That well-known left-wing commentator Phil O’Reilly head of Business New Zealand is on record as saying that New Zealand’s high trust public sector is its single greatest competitive advantage. That is quite a strong statement from a fellow who does on occasion find reason to criticise the public sector. I do think that it just highlights the fact that in order to maintain and develop good economic relationships with other countries particularly those countries that have already ratified the United Nations Convention Against Corruption it is important that we progress to that position ourselves. It is odd that that has taken such a very long time and I do wonder whether we need to take a lesson from that.Again just to return to the matter of the facilitation payments which unfortunately continue to be allowed—the so-called facilitation payments. These are actually little bribes. New Zealand businesses do have a very good reputation for operating honestly within the law and with integrity. Long may that be the case. The fact that we missed the opportunity to take out that unfortunate clause in our legislation that legitimates payment of small bribes does degrade the quality of that reputation.The point was made in earlier debates in respect of some of our key and very important trading partners—critically China but also India as it becomes an increasingly significant trading partner in terms of products services education and tourism—that it would be a great thing if New Zealand companies abroad were seen to have a zero-tolerance approach. But unfortunately we can have that 0.002 approach we can continue to allow countries to behave in ways that they would not be allowed to behave in in New Zealand and I do think that is unhelpful. The leaders of both China and India have made very very strong statements that they are determined to drive corruption out of their economies. That will take a very long time. That is a very significant undertaking and may they have success in it. It would be nice to think that New Zealanders abroad would be setting the example rather than this rather tarnished example that maintaining the legitimacy of what are small bribes unfortunately does propagate.So in final comments I say we do support this legislation. As I say it does some useful things about sending money overseas about making money-laundering more difficult about increasing the protections against human trafficking and the like. It is a good and useful piece of legislation. It could have been a great piece of legislation but that is work for another day for a more progressive Government. Kia ora. Thank you.MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First): It is a privilege to rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak on the legislation arising from the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. The intent of this legislation is to strengthen the law to combat organised crime and corruption. The intent is also to improve New Zealand’s ability to collaborate with other like-minded countries to interrupt organised crime and work effectively with the other countries’ public officials and law enforcement agencies to respond to future challenges. We like the intent of this legislation. The intent is to improve New Zealand’s compliance with the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. I will come back to this part later in my presentation.Now touching upon the human-trafficking part of the legislation the legislation has gone to some extent in tidying up the current provisions in terms of simplifying the provisions on human trafficking. The provision has now been added to cover the purpose of human trafficking for prostitution and slavery as well as illegal human organ transplants.Coming back to the bribery part of the legislation there has been a change made in the provision with regard to corruption or bribery by foreign public officials. New Zealand citizens New Zealand permanent residents and those corporates based in New Zealand will come under the purview of this legislation. However the waters have been left muddy—we suspect deliberately—with a view to leaving some space there for New Zealand corporates as well as private businesses to provide for facilitation payments which in plain English is bribery. There is no clarity around how corrupt a foreign public official can be before he or she gets into trouble. Facilitation payments—or in plain language bribery as I have said—have been given a wide scope to thrive in.As pointed out earlier it is a matter of shame that the Minister has conceded that small facilitation payments are OK and at times necessary to get the job done. We think that has been a deliberate attempt to actually weaken this brilliant legislation. Had David Clendon’s Supplementary Order Paper been accepted by the other 61 members of this Parliament this legislation could have been stronger and better. However it was unfortunate that only 60 of us supported that and 61 did not.We have serious issues with this approach. Who decides how much is OK for a bribe? Whether it is small or big a bribe is a bribe. This approach will contribute towards damaging our image as a transparent and relatively corruption-free country. Having travelled in both the larger countries that David Clendon just mentioned—India and China—I say that it will take them a long time to change their old culture but they are working at it. What we are working at is actually damaging our reputation. Our businesses are relatively transparent relatively clean. However this sort of anomaly in our laws will give them a wide scope to indulge in bribery or facilitation payments.Touching on the now infamous Saudi sheep debacle had this legislation been appropriately strengthened in good time a certain Minister could have been answering some serious questions as to whether those millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money were a facilitation payment or were a plain simple bribe. Thank you.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand in support of the legislation arising from the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill under the name of the Hon Amy Adams Minister of Justice.We have heard a lot of rhetoric today about corruption bribery—using terms like that—and even the previous speaker Mahesh Bindra made a comment that he felt that the Minister was giving way. What needs to be known is that this issue of facilitation payments has not been authorised by this legislation. They have been lawful in New Zealand for many years. In fact this legislation tightens and narrows the application of them.The previous speaker in I think his first or second reading speech made a comment that it is normal practice in many countries of the world that a small facilitation payment—a small payment to facilitate a service—takes place. We can live in our own little glass bubble; we can live in our high moralistic world here and never be able to transact business in some of those other countries without those facilitation payments—we would be at the end of the queue.I remember the very first time that I as a young man went to the United States of America and paid a tip for service. What is acceptable in that culture was foreign to us and I did not like it but I have come to understand that it has become more and more acceptable when we show appreciation for service and we do it in New Zealand quite often.So what has happened in this legislation is that this issue around facilitation payments has been narrowed and tightened quite considerably compared with what existed before under a Labour Government. It is very high and mighty of Labour members to crow from the rooftop on this issue when we are actually doing something more about it because we understand that in the global world of trade progress is being made. We are ensuring that facilitation payments can be applied only in situations where no undue benefit accrues to the person involved. This is what the Minister said in the Committee stage of this legislation. In these situations businesses must record and keep detailed records of any such payments made to ensure that we get the balance right. This is the balance between ensuring proper high standards of business practice in New Zealand and protecting innocent New Zealanders against unintentional criminalisation as they transact business across this world.I believe that for businesses that are going to nations of the world where facilitation payments are normal business practice then we need to put protections around our people so that according to New Zealand law they are not criminalised for entering into normal business practices. I believe that we have got this balance right. I commend the good work of the Minister in this legislation and I commend it to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Denise Roche—5 minutes.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take a short call for the Greens on the legislation arising from the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. My colleague David Clendon has already outlined lots of reasons why we are supporting this legislation.It is great that New Zealand is exercising our international responsibilities and moving to align ourselves with the various conventions that we have signed up to like the United Nations Convention Against Corruption; the Agreement on Enhancing Cooperation in Preventing and Combating Crime between the United States and New Zealand; the OECD’s Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions; the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime; and the UN Protocol toPrevent Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and Children. The public submissions on the original bill were largely in support with groups as varied as the New Zealand Bankers’ Association the New Zealand Police Association and Transparency International all expressing support.However I would like to raise some of the concerns that were raised in some of those submissions as well. Transparency International for example stated the importance of this bill making it explicit that facilitation payments to Government officials are bribes. It rightly notes that facilitation payments are widely recognised in many countries and are common practice and it also says that many of our close allies and friends actively prohibit facilitation payments including the United Kingdom with the UK Bribery Act.I hope this Government has not deliberately stymied this legislation because of its own embarrassment over its facilitation payments to a certain Saudi Arabian national. There are important principles at work here and I hope that the Government’s deserved embarrassment over its own poor conduct has not resulted in New Zealand condoning a poor practice.I guess a timely reminder of how important it is that New Zealand maintains a strong stand against facilitation payments is the developing case in the Philippines that was covered recently. It is the case of the laglag bala or the “fallen bullet” scandal where Filipino airport customs officials were allegedly placing bullets in people’s luggage to extort from them later and demand a facilitation payment. As far as I know no New Zealander has been caught in it so far but if an official from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade or another staffer elected to pay that type of payment it would be completely legal and it disturbs me that it would not be illegal under our own law. Our Filipino New Zealand citizens with ties back to the Philippines who visit their home country as well as other New Zealanders with interests in the country could potentially be affected by this and my heart goes out to them.We are by failing to criminalise this behaviour in New Zealand tacitly supporting corrupt systems empowering corrupt officials and normalising a culture of corruption and we have to stand up and make it clear by our words and by our deeds that corruption and facilitation payments are unacceptable whether they are to secure an agri-hub in a Saudi desert or to make sure the baggage that you are travelling with goes through airport security unmolested. We should take a stand on this. Corruption is a bit like tooth decay: if you allow a little bit through and do not clean it up it spreads and trashes the whole mouth. It also causes other feedback loops within systems and by not taking a firm stand against it we are partly enabling cultures of corruption and that is a lost opportunity with this legislation. We do not believe this legislation goes far enough to stamp out facilitation payments. We could do better and with the Greens in Government we certainly will.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to add my contribution at the third readings of this suite of 15 bills that are strengthening our legislation against organised crime and corruption. The bills that we are debating this afternoon are wide-reaching. They cover topics as diverse as money-laundering credit card skimming human trafficking and match fixing all the way through to organised crime and bribery and corruption. We do support these measures. They are long overdue. It has taken a while to get this far and to progress these bills through the House but they bring our country into line with overseas conventions and treaties and protocols that we have signed up to. By and large they are measures we do support.I want to add my comments with regard to the facilitation payment issue. Where does a facilitation payment end and a bribe begin? That is a moot point but I do take on board the fact that New Zealand is a trading nation. We are reliant on trading with the outside world and I myself have experienced at first hand the business culture that exists in other markets in other countries from far-flung places like North Africa through to countries closer to ourselves in our neighbourhood like Papua New Guinea. Pretty much every country around the world has its own culture and there is an element of baksheesh in certain nations or greasing the wheels or tipping or charitable giving you might want to call it—or you might call it bribery. That is the commercial reality that New Zealand exporters deal with day in and day out right around the world.I do regret that this Government was not bold enough to raise the bar and say yes we should live up to our ranking of fourth-most transparent in the Transparency International rankings. Let us try to lift that ranking a bit higher. Let us try to get back to the top and take that extra measure to outlaw facilitation payments and set the bar high. We know that the commercial reality is such that it is very difficult but I think that if it is good enough for the Canadians if it is good enough for the UK and if it is good enough for APEC and various other major international clubs that we are part of to frown upon the practice of legalising facilitation payments then we certainly should be rising to that challenge and doing the same.Just to conclude my contribution can I acknowledge the New Zealand Customs Service which is included in one of these bills the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3). It was great to celebrate the 175th anniversary or birthday of the New Zealand Customs Service the very first Government department of Aotearoa New Zealand. On the shores of Kororāreka in Russell under a tent before we even had a Treasury there was a New Zealand Customs Service. So I am very pleased that I was able to share with the Customs Service and the Minister the Hon Nicky Wagner last night the great work that it does and the passage of this legislation is strengthening that good work and policing our borders. I commend these bills to the House. Kia ora tātou.IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitīkei): It gives me great pleasure to take a very short call on the bills arising from the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill at their third readings. The original bill of course went through the select committee that I am part of and it took quite a considerable time I guess for me to get my head around the bill. I think I have said that in here before and got into trouble but it is part of the Government’s response I guess to organised crime basically.The National Government has done some work in the organised crime area already with the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act which commenced some 4 or 5 years ago and also around the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Bill in 2009 which recently commenced—in fact in June 2013. So we have started some work. This is a continuation of this work.This law covers all sorts of crime as the previous speaker mentioned. I think that unfortunately if we all in New Zealand had the same or perhaps a higher level of standards—in fact if we all around the world valued our freedom and the way we behave we would not need legislation like this but unfortunately that is not the case. So I think this piece of legislation is a very good initial response to some significant challenges that we face.Only at lunchtime I sat by a member of the Microsoft team in New Zealand and we were talking about cyber-security. It just shows how the world has changed so dramatically in the last I guess 15 years that we are now needing to protect people’s information effectively in space. So we put the information out there we hope it is stored securely—maybe it is not—and consequently there is a significant amount of work going into ring-fencing that information and trying to keep it secure.The world changes so quickly that we need to keep our legislation ahead of or certainly up with the changes as best we can. This legislation is an effort by the Minister of Justice to do that it took a lot of work from the Law and Order Committee to get it to the point it is at now and I think it will play a very valuable part in the future of protecting New Zealand and New Zealanders from organised crime. Thank you.PEENI HENARE (Labour—Tāmaki Makaurau): Tēnā koe e Te Māngai o Te Whare kāti rā tēnā tātau katoa. Ka āta haere taku kōrero i te wā nei ka takaroa. Ka takaroa tā te mea āinei ka uru mai tōku tuahine ki roto i Te Whare hai kōrero ki a tātau katoa ko tōna kōrero tuatahi. Kāti e mihi atu ana ahau ki a tātau tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā tātou katoa.[Thank you Mr Speaker. Well then greetings to us all. At this point in time I will prolong my address and really drag it out because my sister colleague is going to enter the House to address us all; it is her maiden speech. So my appreciation accolades and acknowledgments then to you and to us all collectively.]I rise to speak on the legislation arising from the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill. Much has been said about this particular legislation in its third reading and in my kōrero in my contribution today I would like to touch on some of those points that were raised. More important I would like to talk about the underlying themes that I think were not really spoken about too much. It is important to note that we the Labour Party do support this legislation. I was not on the Law and Order Committee but I do understand that there was some significant debate that took place around this particular legislation. And I guess that is a reflection of just how complex it is—complex in nature just by the fact that there are a significant number of bills incorporated into this omnibus bill. Some of the members this evening have already mentioned some of them and I would like to just briefly touch on some of those too.My mind casts back to the contribution of probably one of the most experienced and one of the most skilled members of this particular House—of this august institution—the Hon Phil Goff; who in his former capacity had a lot of experience in particular in international trade. He spoke very passionately and very wisely about his experiences with regard to our reputation offshore. And we all know that our reputation offshore is a key part in why countries come to New Zealand and why countries look towards New Zealand as a shining light of not only trade but global citizenry. It allows New Zealand to hold its head high in places like the United Nations in places like trade talks and trade negotiations and also in debates around security. It allows New Zealand to take that position as somewhat of a guiding light in those particular scenarios. So it is important that we when we consider this particular legislation have that in mind. We bear in mind that our integrity must come first. So the underlying theme is the integrity of our country not only as a trade partner but as a global citizen as a responsible country as a country that believes in democracy and as a country too that has served its time in conflicts around the world in support of democracy. So therefore it is only befitting that this particular legislation allows and strengthens that democracy internally here in New Zealand.I want to talk briefly about some of the other amendments made across the many bills arising from this particular omnibus bill. One of them talks about cybercrimes. We know how in this ever-changing world you buy a phone in the morning brand new and it is generally out of date that evening so it is important that our legislation keeps up with that technology and makes sure that citizens feel safe in what they do not only here in New Zealand but of course abroad and that when they make financial transactions that when they go online and that when they check their emails they feel secure in what they do.Match fixing is another issue that has been raised and it is good to see that there is a particular piece there that will tighten up some of the match fixing that goes on—Poto Williams: Like in the cricket.PEENI HENARE: Like in the cricket I daresay. We all pat ourselves on the back because we have got a great team and we have had some great experiences and wins over the past decade and indeed many decades past but you know a lot of us are left scratching our heads as to whether or not that support was misguided or that support was misplaced when we consider some of the antics and some of court trials that are going on currently. So I think it is a good thing to tidy that up.Also I want to talk about the human trafficking. Mr Davis has already mentioned it but a lot of people when they think of human trafficking they often think back to the slave trade that was prevalent around the world quite a number of years ago but it would be ignorant to say that it does not continue to this day. So it is important that we look after our people not only those here domestically but of course those offshore given the operation of human trafficking of our own citizens offshore or more important that of citizens who do live overseas to make sure that wherever they may be in the world we have legislation that will look after them their rights and of course our citizens as they travel freely to the far corners of the earth. That particular bill also tightens up the penalties for those who do involve themselves in human trafficking and are found to be guilty of it and I think that is a good move. If you want to be serious about making so many changes it is important that we have the right deterrents in place to ensure that those things do not happen moving on into the future.It has already been mentioned in the House by many colleagues in particular on this side of the House that this particular piece of legislation was a great opportunity to really do something to really put a stake in the ground and to make sure that corruption does not infiltrate into this great country and all that we do. Earlier it was mentioned around bribery and around facilitation payments. I will not go on about that as I feel it has already been well mentioned in this House. I do however want to say it is important that we tidy these things up and I am a little bit dismayed that we did not take this opportunity to indeed fix that kind of conversation of bribery because it is a terrible word and when you say it in this House and when you say it out in business transactions and in our country’s dealings with other nations bribery is a filthy word. So I am a little bit dismayed that we could not get rid of that one. This particular legislation also improves New Zealand’s compliance with a number of other international conventions including the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. That is why I am talking about its great intention but I do not think it quite goes far enough. The legislation also has a range of other anti-corruption measures that many of the members have spoken about.In conclusion I would just like to add my final statements touching back on my contribution at the beginning around the themes that really run under the debate today on this particular legislation. What are those? I will mention them again: they are about the integrity and mana of this country. I think about our captain of the All Blacks Richie McCaw and the mana he conducts himself with and I would like to think that whenever any of our officials or whenever any New Zealand citizen makes their way offshore or conducts themselves in business or in trade or in sport or in anything else that they do it with mana and they do it with the integrity that I think the likes of Richie McCaw do well in leading us in. The legislation touches on the need for us to be responsible global citizens and I think this legislation certainly is a right step in that direction. It makes us a responsible country—a responsible country that people look towards not only for leadership but for the kind of advice that would be expected on all of the global forums such as the UN. Finally I want to conclude by saying that Labour does support this legislation. Kia ora tātou katoa.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National): Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā tēnā koutou katoa e ngā mema o Te Whare Pāremata.[Mr Speaker and all members of the House I greet you.]In taking a brief call on the legislation arising from the Organised Crime and Anti-corruption Legislation Bill I would like to say that we are proud on this side of the House that New Zealand remains one of the top one or two least corrupt countries in the world. But we must not rest on our laurels; there is always more to be done. This is a very practical and balanced bill. We have to make sure we do not go too far and put in place restrictive criteria that would make it difficult to observe cultural traditions such as koha gratuities and the presentation of small and appropriate gifts but we do want to make sure that we do not have financial corruption of the sort that is found in other countries in the world.I welcome today the announcement by Transparency International New Zealand that New Zealand is the least corrupt and most transparent country in terms of defence procurement. This goes along with the many other areas of our economy and Government that function in a very transparent way. This bill further advances that cause. I congratulate the Minister Amy Adams and commend the bill to the House.A party vote was called for on the question That the Crimes Amendment Bill the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Amendment Bill the Companies Amendment Bill the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Bill the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Amendment Bill the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill (No 3) the Extradition Amendment Bill the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Amendment Bill the Financial Transactions Reporting Amendment Bill the Income Tax Amendment Bill the Limited Partnerships Amendment Bill the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Bill the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Amendment Bill the Policing Amendment Bill and the Secret Commissions Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes 109New Zealand National 59; New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes 12New Zealand First 12.Bills read a third time.Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment BillThird ReadingHon NICKY WAGNER (Associate Minister of Conservation) on behalf of theMinister of Conservation: I move That the Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This bill amends the Waitangi National Trust Board Act 1932 which vests the Waitangi Treaty Grounds and the wider estate in the Waitangi National Trust Board to be held in trust for the nation.Waitangi is the place where the story of New Zealand’s nationhood began where the representatives of two peoples gathered to debate how they could live together peacefully and equitably. It is a place of significance to all New Zealanders: Māori Pākehā people of all the many cultures who now make this country their home. Waitangi is a place of particular importance to the hapū and the iwi of the Bay of Islands. This is recognised in Heritage New Zealand’s recent decision to list the Waitangi Treaty Grounds as a wāhi tupuna in light of the site’s strong ancestral associations as well as its more recent history.This bill recognises the Waitangi National Trust Board’s longstanding role in ensuring that the Waitangi estate is maintained as a place of historic interest recreation and enjoyment for all New Zealanders. At the heart of this bill is a commitment by the Government to working constructively with the board to protect Waitangi for current and future generations. At the same time the bill establishes a clear separation between the board and the Crown removing the potential of conflict between the constitutional and the trustee roles of the ex officio board members. The provisions in the bill are the result of the targeted review of the Waitangi National Trust Board Act by the Ministry for Culture and Heritage. The proposed changes resulting from that review and included in the bill are supported by the board. The wide support the bill has received at both the second reading and the Committee of the whole House reflects the positive and workable nature of what it is seeking to achieve. I am delighted that the bill is now approaching the end of its journey.Over 80 years ago the Governor-General at the time Lord Bledisloe and Lady Bledisloe showed enormous foresight when they acquired the Waitangi estate and gifted it to the nation. As with all New Zealand Governors-General before 1972 Lord Bledisloe was British and he lived in New Zealand for only 5 years. Yet during his time here he showed an interest in New Zealand’s heritage that would put many native-born New Zealanders to shame. Sometimes it takes an outsider to help us see what is important to our own country. The Waitangi National Trust Board Amendment Bill helps fulfil his vision of putting in place arrangements that allow the Government and the board to work together each respecting the important role of the other to ensure that the Waitangi estate is protected and cherished forever.I have been very encouraged by the broad support that the bill has received throughout all of its phases. Thank you to all of those who have contributed to the process including the members of the House members of the public who have made submissions the members of the Māori Affairs Committee and in particular thank you to the Waitangi National Trust Board members for their positive engagement in the development of this bill. Thank you.Debate interrupted.Maiden StatementMARAMA DAVIDSON (Green): Ēhara i te mea ko te hāngūtanga o te wahine he taonga tuku iho nō tāukiuki nō ō tātou kuia e kāo! Māku e kī atu ēhara tēnei kauhau mō te wahine e whai mana ana ēngari kē ia ko te mana o te wahine he mana wahine he mana tūturu nō mai rā anō tai timu tai pari e kore e mutu!Ko Whetūmatarau te maunga ko Waiapū te awa ko Te Whānau ā Hinerupe ko Te Whānau ā Tāpuhi ōku hapū ko Ngāti Porou te iwi. Ki te taha o tōku pāpā ko Te Ramaroa me Pangarū ngā maunga. Ko Whirinaki me Hokianga ngā awa. Ko Te Hikutū me Ngāi Tūpoto ngā hapū. Ko Ngāpuhi me Te Rarawa ngā iwi. Ko ahau tēnei tihei mauri ora!Mihi atu ki a koutou e pupuri tonu ana ki te mana o te whenua nei tēnā koutou e Te Ātiawa Taranaki whānui hoki kia ora![Do not believe for a moment that a woman’s reticence is a necessary legacy that has been passed down from your ancient grandmothers. So now I clarify. This is not about women in power but the power in women. This is not about feminism but mana wāhine—women’s inherent power. Watch the tide. It is unstoppable.Whetūmatarau is the mountain Waiapū is the river Hinerupu and the family of Tāpuhi are my subtribes and Ngāti Porou is the tribe.On my father’s side Te Ramaroa and Pangarū are the mountains Whirinaki and Hokianga are the rivers Te Hikutū and Ngāi Tūpato are the subtribes and Ngāpuhi and Te Rarawa are the tribes. This is who I am; behold the breath of life!I acknowledge you Te Ātiawa and also Taranaki broadly who maintain local stewardship over this land; greetings to you collectively!]I have been inspired by grassroots leadership all of my life. This is a real leadership that understands that the throbbing heartbeat of a community lies with the collective well-being of our people and our environment. I owe my political analysis and my stand in this House to the visions and support of so many grassroots groups. These are the people who uphold our duty of care to each other and our planet. This includes our Green Party activists and members who have entrusted me to enter Parliament only 2½ years after I became a member of the Greens. I am honoured by your faith. The support that my family and I have received is a taonga that enriches my heart daily. My neighbourhood my friends and my wider whānau have looked after us in many a demanding moment—you know that I know who you are. I am clear that you ask for nothing except my ongoing contribution to an uplifted future for all of us. In this debating chamber I am honoured to be a voice for the Green Party and for my communities.My nana is Patricia Charlotte Broughton née Hancy of Ngāi Tūpoto in Te Rarawa. She was born in Motukaraka in Hokianga in 1926. She grew up there apart from attending St Joseph’s Māori Girls’ College in Hawke’s Bay. She was a native speaker of Te Reo a staunch Catholic a mother to seven tamariki grandmother to nine mokopuna and great-grandmother to 23 so far. Nan married my papa Boyd Alex Broughton of Te Hikutū in Ngāpuhi. I had less time with papa as we lost him when I was 9 but I remember him as a beautiful gentle and kind loving man whom my nana loved deeply.My nan and papa were part of the Māori migration to urban centres in the 1950s. They left their tūrangawaewae in Motukaraka and brought their young tamariki eventually to live in Ōtara in Auckland. I was 14 years old when my nan passed away so that was a long time ago but the fact that I can almost never talk about her publicly without crying is testament to the impact she still has on my life. From the start my nana was warm overly doting and exemplified our whakataukī: “He taonga te mokopuna”. My beautiful older cousin Jean is the oldest mokopuna but we did not find out about her until I was 6 years old and we have been grateful for her ever since. But I in effect was the first person to make my nan an actual nan and I was born on her and my papa’s 25th silver wedding anniversary. I have been told I was a fantastic anniversary present.My nan to me felt physically and spiritually like a soft squishy gentle and caring nana. From a young age I got a sense of us her mokopuna being the absolute centre of her universe. What I did not know of until later was her stubborn commitment to justice. I must have been about 12 or 13 when my nana took me to her work one day. She ran the lunch cafe at a large firm in Ōtara. Extra help was needed on this particular day and the boss had asked my nan if she knew of anyone. Nan’s boss agreed that I could come in and help them out for the day. I remember helping my nana prepare kai for the workers wash dishes serve customers and clean the kitchen. It was a good day of mahi. At the end of the day my nana’s boss refused to pay me. He tried to worm his way out of the agreement saying that I had come in for “work experience”. I will never forget my nan’s face as she glared at her boss in the eye. She sent me away to wait in the hall while she sat opposite her boss trying to sort it but even from a distance I could feel her staring the unfairness down. Here was my soft squishy gentle-voiced lovable nana whom I had never seen face conflict in my life putting up a relentless fight for her wronged granddaughter—for me.I cannot actually remember what became of that heated debate but what I can remember is how nan made me feel. To this day my whole being recalls her fierce determination to right a wrong her courage to not let the power imbalance dominate her her commitment to ensure that those most vulnerable had someone sticking up for them and her gumption to hold her line no matter what. If I could bring a tiny bit of my nana’s mana to my work then I will know that I have succeeded. My name is Marama Davidson and I come from a long line of stubbornness.Indeed my own parents met on these very steps of Parliament. They were young urban displaced Māori in the 1970s. They came to protest the loss of land and language that our people had shouldered. They were just hungry for their whakapapa. I am honoured to be a member of this House today continuing their fight on the very same steps.Our world desperately needs us to reconnect with each other and our living systems. The challenges that we are facing today are born from disconnection. Everything is supposed to be connected. We are supposed to be connected to each other as neighbours and as a global community. My well-being is supposed to be connected to yours. We are supposed to be connected to the life systems that nourish us. We are supposed to be connected to the future we are designing for our mokopuna and generations to come. My pride in my whakapapa is supposed to be connected to your pride in yours. When we are disconnected we create grossly unequal societies that are unstable and we damage our living systems and our climate.These are the challenges of the 21st century and they are inextricably connected. Inequality and climate change perpetuate each other. Indeed to tackle either we have to tackle both. What I have seen happening is successive Governments protecting and penalising the wrong people. They have got it completely backwards. They have pulled out the red carpet for the big corporations that have at their core the pillaging of Earth the extraction of its natural resources and the exploitation of its people. They want to share the risks but not the benefits. Meanwhile they are penalising the people who protect and strengthen our communities our economy and our natural world.What I am inspired by globally are the indigenous peoples who are fighting against the short-sighted agendas that will destroy their place and their people. We have to understand that affirming indigenous rights and supporting our traditional wisdoms is essential to combating climate change and inequality. Thankfully tangata whenua and non-indigenous people everywhere are melding our wisdoms and our strategies to demand a new way together because we can see that the very few protecting the status quo want most of us kept out of their fancy club. Together we all have a bigger club than theirs.At the beginning of this year my family were priced out of our rental property and so we sought another cheaper house in Auckland to rent. I looked at 30-something houses and applied for 20-something of them. For some properties there were more than 30 other applicants. I did not get called back for any of them and I started to feel every bit of whatever it was that meant that we were not preferred renters. Finally we got a call-back and it was for a house that no one else was lining up for. It is the house that we are renting now and we will love it and are grateful for it. It is a great house. Fast-forward 9 months—I am now an MP looking for accommodation in Wellington and the reception I have had could not be more different. I have gone from being at the back of the house-hunting line to being right at the front. You know what? You should not have to become an MP to get a house to live in.I will relish the opportunity to make a difference with my social housing portfolio. I recognise that even then when I was searching for a home in Auckland compared with others I was still dripping with privilege. I know that for too many the search for a home is far more desperate. In my community of Manurewa nearly 30 percent of young people were unemployed at the last census. It was only 18 percent in 2006. In my community people are living in homes so filled with mould that it is making kids sick. In my community people are working two or more jobs and are still struggling to pay for the food their children need. Families are literally struggling to survive.Protecting that failed economy is cowardice. Creating a long-lasting economy and society that works for all of us will take some guts and the communities who have the guts need this place to back them. They need us to feel the urgency and excitement that they feel about creating change.E Te Māngai o Te Whare ka huri au ki tōku Reo Rangatira. Kātahi anō au ka tīmata i taku ohonga Reo. E tika ana ka tuku mihi hōnore ki a koutou e hāpai ana i Te Reo arā ngā kaiako ngā kaiāwhina ngā tohunga o tēnei mahi kia kōrerotia Te Reo. Ā mihi mahana ki a koutou o Te Whare Pāremata kua whiu atu tēnei taonga tuku iho ki ngā wāhine matatau. Reka rawa ana te whakarongo atu ki ō koutou tū ki runga i Te Reo anā a Nanaia Mahuta a Hēkia Parata a Mārama Fox mā. Nei rā taku aroha ki a koutou!Ēngari te maha hoki o ngā tāngata pēnei i a māua ko Mētīria kāre anō mātou kia whiwhi! He Māori tonu mātou! Kai a mātou tonu te aroha mō tēnei Reo ātaahua ahakoa te whakamā ki te kōrero ahakoa te mamae! I tenei wā ka mihi ki te ao pāpāho i tō koutou akiaki i a au ki te kōrero ahakoa ngā hapa auē te maha! E ai ki te kōrero mā te hapa ka ako! Ā me haere tonu mātou kia ako tonu ai. Nō reira ka tino tautoko au i te mahi whakapiki Reo he mahi whakapapa he mahi mokopuna he mahi Tiriti o Waitangi iti nei![Mr Speaker I turn to my esteemed language which I have just started speaking. It is appropriate that I honour those of you who support the Māori language namely the tutors helpers and experts in getting the language spoken. A warm tribute to you of Parliament House for tossing this treasure that has been handed down for competent women to use. How sweet it is to listen to you Nanaia Mahuta Hēkia Parata Mārama Fox and others in terms of your position in regard to the Māori language. Here indeed is my empathy to you collectively!But there are many like Mētīria and I who have not yet acquired that eloquence. But we are still Māori! We have the empathy for this beautiful language despite our shyness to speak it and the hurt it creates. At this point I acknowledge the media and how you have encouraged me to speak Māori despite the mistakes and alas there have been many! According to the aphorism one learns through one’s mistakes. And so we must continueso that we can learn. Therefore I really support activities relating to Māori language. This work upholds genealogy it upholds our grandchildren and it upholds the Treaty of Waitangi.]I am proud to be wearing this korowai which represents my Ngāi Tūpoto whakapapa my nana’s people. My uncle said it would be good to get a bit of Ngāi Tūpoto kākahu in the House because there are too many Ngāti Hine in here they reckon. Ki ōku whanaunga o Ngāti Hine Winston Peters Rino Peeni Ria mā anei taku patipati ki a koutou![To you my kinfolk of Ngāti Hine Winston Peters Rino Peeni Ria and others all I seek of you is that you go easy on me!]My whole family has travelled here for this moment because it belongs to all of us collectively. I love you all so much. Thank you. Hari huritau ki a koe e taku pirinihi taku irāmutu he kōtiro kaitiaki o Te Reo ko Hana-Āmaia Maringi Paratene aroha mutunga kore mōu! Kua waru a ia![Happy birthday to you my princess my niece; a girl guardian of the Māori language is Hana Āmaia Maringi Paratene; my affection for you is endless. She is eight years old.]My six off-the-charts stunning incredible children whose sacrifice is about to get very real: you are my everything. Hīria Ana Dakota Manawa Horouta Teina—I love you. To a beautiful man Paul who absolutely hates the limelight does not care too much for politics and would rather sit in the hidden spaces: I am sorry that you married into absolutely the opposite. Ironically you still stand with me and ironically it is all that you are and that you do for us that are the only reasons I can be here in this very public very political space. I love you and I am sorry.I cannot wait to get started with this amazing Green caucus. Oh! There you go—we like to keep our water clean and for everybody. I am really humbled by people who made sacrifices to come here—I see you—and people who continually make sacrifices for our causes. You are why I am here. Every time I stand in this House I will remember that because this place is here to serve the people; the people are not here to serve the Government. As my co-leader Metiria has said the power in our country belongs to the communities and part of my job is to get the Government to step aside: to set up systems so they work well and then to get out of the way and let communities take control of what they need and deliver for their people. Nō reira nei te mihi aroha ki a koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou huri noa ki a tātou katoa kia ora![And so my fond regards to you collectively; accolades greetings and salutations to you and to us all throughout; thank you!]The House adjourned at 5.37 p.m.