Volume 711 Week 40 - Thursday 10 March 2016Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 711 Week 40 - Thursday 10 March 2016[Sitting date: 10 March 2016. Volume:711;Page:9595. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Thursday 10 March 2016Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Business StatementHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday 15 March the Government will look to make progress on the Land Transfer Bill the New Zealand Horticulture Export Authority Amendment Bill and a number of other bills on the Order Paper.CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour):I wondered whether the Leader of the House wanted to mention at this point the fact that we will be extending the sitting on next Wednesday.Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I made the general mistake of assuming that members read the reports of the Business Committee digest those reports and then commit them to their diaries but indeed the shadow Leader of the House is correct: the House will sit in extended hours next Wednesday morning for the passing of a number of Treaty settlement bills.Mr SPEAKER: Does the member want to pick him up on anything else?Questions to MinistersDairy Industry—Debt1.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes in the context in which they were made and I think the member probably knows that.Grant Robertson: How does he reconcile his statement that the debt problem with the dairy industry is confined to a small group of farmers with dairy consultant Peter Fraser’s view that a quarter of dairy farmers are vulnerable to going under?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I suppose in both cases—as the member is doing himself—we are making forecasts about what might or might not happen. I think there is a bit of a tendency at the moment to generalise that there are wide-ranging and severe debt problems in the dairy industry; I think it is yet to be tested. We have yet to see the extent to which farmers can adjust and the extent to which the banks continue to support farmers—which might be more than people expect—because of their long-term confidence in the industry.Grant Robertson: Does he consider dairy consultant Peter Fraser’s view to be unrealistic that a quarter of dairy farmers are vulnerable to going under?Hon BILL ENGLISH: It would depend on what he means. I mean Peter is a—Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well when he says “vulnerable to going under” he is not saying that they are actually going under and even if he said that they would certainly go under we have yet to see whether that is what is actually happening. So we can have a contest of forecasts of doom here—and I am sure that there are worse ones than his—but we have confidence that with a resilient sector and a supportive banking industry they can see their way through some pretty tough times.Grant Robertson: How does he reconcile his statement about the impact of the loss of 40 percent of land value for farmers “It looks like farmers will get through.” with the statement of Paul Glass of Devon Funds Management: “Unless we have a strong recovery in dairy prices I think … it is heading towards a bit of a car crash.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think there is much doubt that there is going to be a decline in dairy land prices but we need to keep in mind that that is against a background of very considerable increases in land prices over the last 10 years or so. So all of these things are possible but in our view the dairy farmers are pretty resilient and the banks will be supportive. There will certainly be some casualties. I do not think there is any doubt that farmers with high debt levels and high cost structures are going to find themselves under some real pressure.Grant Robertson: Will he make good on his statement that he has the flexibility to use fiscal policy to stimulate the economy and play his part now that the Reserve Bank Governor has lowered interest rates?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Reserve Bank Governor as he outlined today sees the economy growing by 2.5 to 3 percent for the next 2 to 3 years which is not the circumstances in which the Government would try to fine-tune fiscal policy to support the economy. There will be a Budget on 26 May and it will outline the Government’s plans and the member will have the opportunity to comment on them.Grant Robertson: Why is he outsourcing to the Reserve Bank addressing the housing crisis in Auckland and stimulating a sluggish and vulnerable economy or will he step up on 26 May and play his part to lift real per capita growth and create a sustainable housing market in Auckland?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is doing what the member says. We have the extensive programme of the Business Growth Agenda—the microeconomic reform that goes with that—which right at the moment is aimed for instance at more infrastructure in Auckland and reregulating its housing market so that we have sensible housing prices in Auckland. These are tasks that the Reserve Bank cannot carry out. It does its bit on inflation; we do our bit on policy.Chris Bishop: What is the Reserve Bank’s outlook for economic growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Reserve Bank forecasts take into account both lower interest rates—because the Reserve Bank Governor has lowered the rate today—and also lower dairy prices and they see economic growth averaging 2.8 percent over the next 3 years. So it is an unusual situation. We have an outlook of very low inflation but a relatively strong outlook for economic growth.Julie Anne Genter: Does he agree with Treasury which says there is a current tax advantage towards housing?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No not particularly. There are some aspects where its argument is stronger than others.Julie Anne Genter: Does he not agree with Treasury that there is a current tax advantage towards housing and that the ideal tax reform to fix this problem would be a comprehensive capital gains tax excluding the family home?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Either Treasury or the Inland Revenue Department has given that sort of advice for the last 20 or 30 years. When it has come to it we have also had official advice that the implementation of a comprehensive capital gains tax would be complex without much benefit. I note that other countries that do have them such as Australia have even more inflation in house prices than New Zealand has had.Julie Anne Genter: Is it not the case that house price inflation in Auckland has outstripped Australia and why will he not act to help the Reserve Bank Governor lower the risks to the New Zealand economy of an overheated housing market by enacting a comprehensive capital gains tax excluding the family home?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has acted. As I think the House knows it is not the policy of this Government to bring in a comprehensive capital gains tax but we have had a couple of significant moves. One was abolishing depreciation on commercially operated buildings including houses and the other last year was bringing in a brightline test where if people turn the house over within 2 years they do pay a tax on the gains.James Shaw: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Part of the supplementary question asked whether he knew that Australia’s housing market was booming less than Auckland’s.Mr SPEAKER: The problem was that there were two legs to the question. One was indeed as the member has just described but the second part of the question was more about whether a capital gains tax would actually solve that problem. The Minister certainly addressed the second part of the question. A supplementary question that contains two legs like that one did will often have only one answered.Economic Outlook—Reports2.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the outlook for the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The most recent report has been from the Reserve Bank forecasts. They show economic growth averaging 2.8 percent over the next 3 years. So where the Consumers Price Index inflation is a bit more than zero wages increased about 3.1 percent last year and we expect continued real wage growth.Alastair Scott: What is the impact for New Zealand families of an economic outlook for low inflation and low interest rates but sustained moderate growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Many families of course are enjoying the benefit of mortgage rates that are already near 50-year lows. A family with a $400000 mortgage is currently paying $370 less per week in interest costs than they were in 2008 when floating mortgage rates were close to 11 percent. There have also been low increases in the cost of living which means that when people get 2 to 3 percent wage increases they are getting real increases in their incomes.Alastair Scott: What steps is the Government taking to support New Zealand families with economic policies to promote sustained moderate economic growth?Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of those steps is the Government’s Business Growth Agenda which is designed to assist and support businesses where possible to invest another dollar and employ another person because that is the substance of economic growth. Within that is the rolling out of ultra-fast broadband across the country and we have one of the fastest uptake rates in the OECD. Another step this year is the launching of three new ICT graduate schools over the next 12 months to help graduates obtain the skills necessary to participate in the fast-growing IT industry.Alastair Scott: What risks to the economic outlook did the Reserve Bank highlight in the Monetary Policy Statement?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Reserve Bank highlights the challenges faced by the dairy sector which I think are now pretty well understood. But that is in the context of a domestic economy supported by strong inward migration which has stayed up for a surprisingly long time record tourism numbers and a growing pipeline of construction activity. It of course also highlights the growing global risks. Some weeks it looks like those risks are getting worse; some weeks it looks like they are getting better.Flag Referendum—Hindi Wording3.MAHESH BINDRA (NZ First) to the Deputy Prime Minister: Is he aware that in the Hindi version of the instructions booklet for the flag referendum an additional word has been added?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister): I am aware that claims surfaced yesterday that there is an additional word in the text. I understand the Electoral Commission has looked into the issue and has confirmed that the text reads as it should but I would point out to the member that neither I nor any other Minister has responsibility for how the Electoral Commission conducts a referendum. It is by statute independent. It decides how the voting works and it decides on the content of the voting paper.Mahesh Bindra: Is the Minister concerned that 80000 Hindi-speaking New Zealanders were given different instructions from the English version and could have already voted; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There appears to be some dispute over whether the text is different or not different and not being an expert I am not able to give the member an opinion. But in any case it is a matter for the Electoral Commission. The member’s party would know about the independence of the Electoral Commission because it recently took the commission to court and I think won. I think it won over an issue that did not matter much.Mahesh Bindra: Does he have confidence in the accuracy of the Electoral Commission’s statement that the commission’s translation service provider confirmed that this translation accurately represents the first instruction in Hindi or is he questioning my integrity and ability to read Hindi?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I respect the member’s integrity—being a New Zealand First MP he has a lot of it. But also I respect the independent role of the Electoral Commission. The member has the same right as I do as a Minister to approach the commission and debate the issue of the translation if he wants to.Mahesh Bindra: Why is he treating this matter in such a cavalier fashion when Hindi language experts are suggesting legal action to stop this subversion of democracy and distortion of their original language?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I pointed out it is the Electoral Commission’s job to make these decisions. I think New Zealand First members would be pretty excited if they found out that the Minister of Finance was running the ballot for the flag or for the election for that matter. Anyone who is an expert on Hindi is free to take the Electoral Commission to court.Family Violence—Legislative Review4.JONO NAYLOR (National) to the Minister of Justice: What response has she had to the Government’s review of the law addressing family violence?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Last week I released a summary of submissions on our review of the law addressing family violence. The review received almost 500 detailed responses giving constructive contributions to the process and expressing broad support for legislative change. The submissions included support for the creation of specific family violence offences the need to create non-court pathways to stop violence without involving the criminal justice system and improving the way agencies work together and share information within Government. We are now putting together a package of potential changes for Cabinet consideration and I look forward to making further announcements soon.Jono Naylor: How will this work reflect law changes recommended by the Law Commission this week around strangulation?Hon AMY ADAMS: I asked the Law Commission to consider this issue because strangulation is an abhorrent form of domestic violence that our criminal law does not currently respond to well. Treating it as an ordinary criminal assault does not properly reflect the full harm to the victim nor does it adequately recognise the significant risk factor that we know a non-fatal strangulation to be with strangulation victims 7 times more likely to go on to be murdered than other victims of domestic violence. The Law Commission makes a number of recommendations for specific offences around strangulation and I intend to consider these as part of our broader legislative review and my recommendations to Cabinet.Partnership Schools—Te Pūmanawa o te Wairua5.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: How much of the $5.2 million spent by the Government on the 40-student Whangaruru charter school if any is expected to be recovered following her decision to close the school in January?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. As I have stated on numerous occasions in this House and to the media the recovery of funds from Ngā Parirau Mātauranga Charitable Trust is subject to commercial negotiations. These negotiations are ongoing.Chris Hipkins: Which clause in the contract with the Whangaruru charter school allows for the Government to recover the funding granted now that the school has been closed?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have the contract in front of me so I cannot give the specific clause but I can assure the member and the House that those negotiations are in progess.Chris Hipkins: Why did the school receive an additional $400000 this year weeks after she signalled the school would not re-open and what educational value has been achieved with that $400000?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Under the provisions of the contract quarterly payments are due on specific dates. By the time the Deloitte report that had been commissioned had been received and analysed it was past the date when that particular provision was enacted. Therefore it was due at law. In terms of what educational value those students have now been transitioned from Whangaruru when the school closed on 7 March. So in the period January to 7 March the school was still working with the placement of those young people.Chris Hipkins: Is she seriously telling the taxpayers of New Zealand that they had to pay $400000 to a school that had been closed and no longer had any students because the Government in its wisdom entered into a contract that required it to pay that?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am seriously assuring the taxpayers of New Zealand that this Government operates within the law and that the school closed on 7 March 3 days ago.Chris Hipkins: Why did she approve the opening of the Whangaruru charter school given that the Education Review Office’s readiness review raised serious concerns and the Ministry of Education provided her with advice that highlighted reservations with 58 percent of their application with 32 percent of those being categorised as “serious” or “unacceptable”?Hon HEKIA PARATA: A readiness review was commissioned from the Education Review Office. We have been over this a number of times in the House but to repeat a readiness review was provided by the Education Review Office. The office identified that there were issues that needed to be dealt with. By the time the school was opened the ministry’s concerns had been dealt with and the authorisation board had been asked again whether it still felt that this was a worthwhile prospect. The board repeated that it was and on the basis of both sets of advice the school was opened.Chris Hipkins: Why did she allow the school to stay open in 2015 given that the major issues raised in 2014 included bullying drug use poor student engagement 60 percent of the school leavers that year did not get National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 1 and the school had 2503 unjustified absences against a target of 243?Hon HEKIA PARATA: From the get-go this particular kura was opened on the understanding that the students were some of the most vulnerable some of the most at risk and those least likely to be attending other schools. So from the outset we knew that there was high risk. Nevertheless we were committed to ensuring the possibility that these young people might be successful and that is why we persevered with it. It is well documented and it is fully on the record the steps that we took and at what stages we took those. In the middle of the year last year a school year on the basis of a new board being appointed it was my view that we should see whether or not they were capable of addressing the issues that had been outlined. As it turns out they were able to address two of the three issues: financial viability and governance. But I was not satisfied that they would be able to recover on the educational front and that is why the final decision was made to close the school.Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister accept that she made the wrong decision to approve the Whangaruru charter school given that she was given advice not to approve its opening major problems emerged during its operation and it took her 2 years to close it down?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No. I do not because when the school opened with 70 kids and a very compelling educational vision and in the context that they were significantly at risk and given this Government’s commitment to try every possibility to deliver some potential of educational success then yes we did make that effort. It turned out not to be successful in this one particular regard. The other eight are still functioning.Dr David Clark: What a waste of taxpayer money—unnecessary waste of taxpayer money.Hon HEKIA PARATA: Oh grow up David. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not hear the start—[Interruption] Order! The Hon Hekia Parata when I rise to my feet I expect you to stop the interjecting. I did not hear what started it but the continuation of the interjection will only lead to disorder.Dairy Industry—Farm Foreclosures6.RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “there is no evidence—no good reason—to believe that there will be widespread farm foreclosures”?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes. Clearly many farmers will be under pressure. There is a lot of uncertainty about the forward path for milk prices but this is a resilient and adaptive industry and it has a supportive banking sector. Although there will almost certainly be some real difficulty for farmers we are yet to see just how widespread that would be. It is certainly our view that because there is long-term confidence in the future of the dairy industry the banking sector and the farmer sector will stick together because it is in their mutual interest not to have widespread farming foreclosures.Richard Prosser: How does he reconcile that belief with the fact that 35 farms in Southland—his old electorate—have been told by one bank that they will have to sell at the end of the season because the bank is pulling its funding?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I suspect that will not be the first such rumour. Any bank contemplating that action would have to consider the impact of putting 35 farms on the market in Southland because they may find that that would have a significant impact on the security of their debt held in hundreds of other farms and I suspect they will be giving that matter that sort of consideration.Richard Prosser: Is he aware that both the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority and the Reserve Bank of Australia are concerned about the level of exposure to New Zealand’s dairy industry on the part of Australian banks; if so is he also aware that those banks are likely to come under instruction to reduce that exposure?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware of the regulatory authority’s concern and I think that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand has done a good job actually of describing its concerns over the last 12 or 18 months. As to what Australian banks instruct New Zealand banks to do I do not know but I would just say what I said before and that is that it is in the interests of the banking sector and the farming sector to stick together through these tough times.Richard Prosser: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library outlining concerns held by Australian—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: There is objection. Well I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that document. There is objection.Richard Prosser: Is he concerned that decent hard-working salt-of-the-earth Kiwi farmers and their families will be evicted and forced off their land making them homeless by banks and receivers; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I am concerned but I have to say that even in Southland it will not be the first time. I can recall all those sorts of things actually happening in the late 1980s in the sheep and beef industry but what I also know is that those same farming families are resilient. They took commercial risks knowing what those risks were and they borrowed money from responsible financial institutions. If they all stick together then most of them will get through.Richard Prosser: I seek leave to table an email from the lawyer representing the South Wairarapa farmer who is going to be evicted off his farm the week after next by Rabobank-appointed receivers for no reason other than that they can.Mr SPEAKER: Before I put the leave are there any privacy issues that the member has covered off within that email?Richard Prosser: They are all taken care of.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular email. Is there any objection? There is.Richard Prosser: Does the Minister believe that there are sufficient New Zealand - resident farmers in a financial position to purchase large numbers of foreclosed farms at current and forecast payout rates or will the banks and the receivers attempt to sell these farms to foreigners instead?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not think I have any ministerial responsibility for that. What we are responsible for is the Overseas Investment Act which was largely written by New Zealand First back in the early 2000s. Any application to buy farms will have to pass through that Act. The thresholds are pretty high as a result of the court case over the Crafar farms and Shanghai Pengxin.Health Care Research—Funding7.MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Science and Innovation: What investment is the Government making in research to promote new forms of precision healthcare?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Science and Innovation): This morning the Minister of Health Dr Jonathan Coleman and I announced that the Government will invest $14 million over 7 years in a new $37.8 million health research partnership in the area of precision health care. This partnership will focus on developing and conducting groundbreaking health data analysis and optimisation technologies for health assessment and management. New Zealand is becoming a world leader in the area of health IT. This investment in longer-term and higher-risk research will look to commercialise New Zealand health innovations for global export and capitalise on the international growth in health IT and data analytics.Melissa Lee: Why is the Government investing more in health research?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Health research is already a real strength for New Zealand but we do want to see more patient-centred individualised health care and to better utilise technology to empower patients to self-manage aspects of their own health. Using complex data sources and predictive modelling can have an important role to play in helping to enable more precise and timely health care. We are pleased that this partnership with software developer Orion Health the Waitematā District Health Board and the University of Auckland recognises that high-quality research in improving health outcomes is important across the sector. The partnership will receive $14 million in funding through the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment’s research partnership programme along with co-investment of just under $24 million for industry and end-user funding.Melissa Lee: What other investments is the Government making in high-quality medical science and research?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As a Government we have grown our total science and innovation spend by around 70 percent to more than $1.5 billion a year and quality health research is a key part of that. As an example we have recently launched three health-related National Science Challenges: A Better Start for children and young people; Healthier Lives looking for better methods to prevent diagnose and treat conditions such as diabetes cancer cardiovascular disease and obesity; and Ageing Well seeking to improve the lives of older people. There are also two new health research centres of research excellence—the Medical Technologies Centre of Research Excellence and the brain research centre of research excellence.Social Development Ministry—Client Management IT System8.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston) to the Minister for Social Development: When was she first made aware of issues with the roll-out of the upgrade to the client management IT system?Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development): The Ministry of Social Development interacts with 1 million people each year and is introducing a new client management system that provides a single client record. This enables case managers to spend time with their clients instead of entering information. The ministry has been developing this system since 2014. It went live at 7 a.m. on Monday and at 12.24 p.m. an email alerted my office to some capacity issues which meant some clients were experiencing delays. I understand that staff are working hard to resolve the issues and the system is continuing to improve with an expectation of being at full capacity in the next day or so and the backlog cleared next week.Carmel Sepuloni: Why did she not note earlier that there were issues with the IT system given that Work and Income staff have said that the IT upgrade roll-out was pushed back three times due to serious failures in the system?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said this system has been developed since 2014 and part of that development was parallel testing and off-ramps if they were not satisfied that when they went live they would not experience system problems. So yes there were a number of occasions when they decided for various reasons including that there would be too much disruption for the Work and Income clients to delay the implementation of the system. But that went live as I said at 7 a.m. on Monday.Carmel Sepuloni: Did the ministry know there were going to be major issues before it rolled out the new IT system; and was she made aware of these issues?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat that there are no performance issues with the system. The difficulties have been around the capacity. Indeed the ministry did anticipate some of that capacity which is why it prepared for the go-live by delaying some of the scheduled appointments and some of the systems were taken down so that they would have the least impact on the transfer of the clients’ data into the new operating system. I repeat that the system is progressing well every day. I understand we are at 90 percent today and anticipate being at full capacity by tomorrow.Joanne Hayes: How will the new client management system improve Work and Income’s interaction with clients?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said in the primary question the new system allows case managers to have a single client record from the first meeting instead of entering information into different systems. For instance currently someone applying for a benefit in a 1-hour appointment gives information that needs to be entered on to five or six different screens in two or three different parts of the operating system. They would be lucky to have 15 minutes of face-to-face interaction with that case manager and that is simply not good enough. The new system allows all that information to be entered into one screen at the same time and retrieved from that one screen which allows a much better time for interaction between the client and the case manager.Carmel Sepuloni: How many Work and Income benefit superannuation and emergency grant applications have not been processed as a result of the IT system not working?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My understanding is that all payments—all regular payments—have been made.Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: The question may well have been misheard. I invite the member to re-ask the question.Carmel Sepuloni: How many Work and Income benefit superannuation and emergency grant applications have not been processed as a result of the IT system not working?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have that figure available but what I can say is that the staff have put into place manual workarounds to make sure that everyone—everyone—gets the opportunity either to have their benefit paid or for the information entered into the system. As I say we are at 90 percent capacity today and it is anticipated that we will have everything caught up next week.Carmel Sepuloni: What time frame for fixing the system can the Minister give to the thousands of Work and Income clients and staff affected by the roll-out of another major Government department IT failure?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I totally reject every assertion in that question; it is based on no fact whatsoever. I would have to say that throughout the country the Work and Income staff are delighted to have this new system because it means they now get more time to spend with clients and that is what the clients like too.Carmel Sepuloni: Why did she not front the serious IT failure by her ministry given that it affects thousands of New Zealanders—instead waiting to be exposed on this Government failure today?Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not know how I can put it more—Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know it is not your job to judge the quality of questions but at what point does a question become completely absurd because the answer has been given that completely negates it?Mr SPEAKER: If I was—[Interruption] Order! If I was strictly adhering to the Standing Orders then a question like that may well have been ruled out of order. It is a question that I think gives plenty of licence to the Minister in answering it. I invite the Minister to answer it.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Actually the system is working well. I totally reject everything that that member is saying and she would be far better off supporting what is going to be a better operating system for both the beneficiaries and the staff and helping people make sure that it gets working.Burglary Recidivism—Imprisonment Rate9.DAVID SEYMOUR (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Is she satisfied with the imprisonment rate for convicted burglars?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice): Criminal law sets the penalties for burglary offences all of which include significant imprisonment terms as a possible penalty. Sentencing decisions in each case are the responsibility of trial judges who decide what sentence to impose based on the facts of each case. I am satisfied that the range of available penalties provided in legislation for convicted burglars is appropriate.David Seymour: Has the Minister seen evidence from the 123rd edition of The Economic Journal showing that in the Netherlands enhanced sentencing for the most prolific recidivist burglars lowered overall burglary and car theft rates by as much as 40 percent?Hon AMY ADAMS: To date I have not seen any evidence that more use of imprisonment terms for convicted burglars will lead to a reduction in reoffending. What we have seen is that imprisonment is already the most common sentence for burglary offences and yet there is still a recidivism rate that is too high.David Seymour: Is the Minister aware that in 2013 28 percent of convictions for burglars who already had two burglary convictions did not result in any prison sentence; if so would she consider a policy change to target such recidivist individuals?Hon AMY ADAMS: I have not seen the statistics the member is quoting. What I have seen is advice that suggests that in more than 50 percent of cases for recidivist burglars they are sentenced to an imprisonment term. In terms of considering changes to policy I am always happy to discuss them but I am not going to commit to policy changes in question time.Lower Interest Rates—Small Businesses10.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill) to the Minister for Small Business: How are small businesses benefiting from Government policies that are contributing to lower interest rates?Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister for Small Business): Small businesses continue to benefit from the Government’s policies such as prudent fiscal management which contribute to low inflation and low interest rates. Many small business owners mortgage or borrow against their own family home to create to grow and to fund working capital for their business. Current low interest rates and low mortgage rates of under 5 percent make it easier for small businesses to grow and invest in assets creating jobs for Kiwis. Compared with these low rates of 5 percent it must have been extremely difficult for small business owners when those same mortgage rates were at 10 percent or higher as they were in 2008.Sarah Dowie: Has the Minister seen any reports that show lower interest rates are contributing to small businesses growing their revenue and investment intentions?Hon CRAIG FOSS: The most recent Westpac Business Growth Monitor showed that 49 percent of those businesses expect to grow revenue over the next 6 months. Of those businesses with plans for revenue growth 19 percent—Grant Robertson: How many people are they going to hire?Hon CRAIG FOSS: —19 percent Mr Robertson—planned to borrow and finance the growth mainly to buy assets and new equipment. The ANZ Business Micro Scope survey showed an increase in investment intentions across the small business sector. The survey also showed that interest rates now rank as one of the lowest problems faced by small and medium sized businesses in New Zealand. New Zealand’s small businesses would be extremely wary of any alternative policies that would put our now low interest rate environment at risk.GCSB—Surveillance of New Zealanders and Independent Review of Intelligence and Security11.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for National Security and Intelligence: E kore a ia e aro atu ki ētahi whakarerekētanga ki te ture kia tukua ai a GCSB ki te kohi raraungameta e pā ana ki ngā tāngata o Aotearoa?[Will he rule out any law changes that will allow the GCSB to collect metadata on New Zealanders?]Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of theMinister for National Security and Intelligence: The Government is not ruling anything in or anything out. The Intelligence and Security Committee received the independent report on Tuesday it was made public yesterday and we are now seeking advice on all recommendations.Metiria Turei: Will he rule out any law changes that would allow the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) to conduct mass surveillance of New Zealanders?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government isnot ruling anything in or anything out. The Intelligence and Security Committee received the independent report on Tuesday it was made public yesterday and we are now seeking advice on all recommendations.Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that the Government is now open to the mass surveillance of New Zealanders?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government isnot ruling anything in or anything out. The Intelligence and Security Committee received the independent report on Tuesday it was made public yesterday and we are now seeking advice on all recommendations.Metiria Turei: Will he rule out any law changes that would allow the GCSB to intercept the private communications of New Zealanders?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government isnot ruling anything in or anything out. The Intelligence and Security Committee received the independent report on Tuesday it was made public yesterday and we are now seeking advice on all recommendations.Metiria Turei: Will he rule out—[Interruption] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am asking a question.Mr SPEAKER: Well I can sense why the disorder is descending on the House because I imagine that if the question is going to be like that I probably with most other members of the House will predict the answer.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not responsible for the Minister’s answers. If the Minister is repeating his answer that is his problem not mine.Mr SPEAKER: That is certainly true. The member’s—[Interruption] Order! I do not need assistance from Mr Brownlee though it is always—sometimes—gratefully received. The member is certainly entitled to continue with her line of questioning. There is no problem there. If there is an unreasonable amount of interjection I will assist the member but if there is some interjection it will not be unexpected. The member can continue with her supplementary question.Metiria Turei: Will the Minister rule out proposing any law changes to the spy agencies until the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security has reported back on all of her current investigations?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Let me say this: the previous answer applies. But let me also say this: if she asks nicely I am sure that the Minister responsible for the GCSB and the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service would be delighted to meet with the Green MPs to go through the report.Metiria Turei: If the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security finds that the GCSB or the SIS have acted illegally during any of her investigations will the Minister assure the public that he will not then change the law to make those actions legal either retrospectively or for the future?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The question is hypothetical. What I think is appropriate is to await the inspector-general’s reports and then a considered response can be given to those reports.Metiria Turei: Does he agree with today’s Dominion Post editorial that the review has “recommended a huge extension of the spies’ powers and a very modest strengthening of the oversight system.”?Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It will be a very strange day when I agree with anything that is said in any editorials written by that particular editor.Workplace Health and Safety—Agriculture12.SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety: How many deaths and serious harm injuries have occurred in agriculture since the Health and Safety Reform Bill was passed in Parliament in 2015?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I am advised that there have been 203 serious harm notifications to WorkSafe New Zealand and 8 fatalities reported in agriculture since the legislation was passed on 27 August 2015.Sue Moroney: Given those statistics and the fact that agriculture accounted for over half of workplace deaths in 2015 why has he issued health and safety regulations where agriculture is missing from the list of high-risk sectors or industries?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Firstly although it is a relatively short period of time the fatality rate since 27 August has fallen by more than a third when compared with the corresponding period in the previous year. The fact that a worker representation system is not compulsory when asked for in agriculture is not a reflection of the fact that there are not significant risks in agriculture but it is also by a country mile our largest industry and will always I think have a reasonably significant proportion of the injuries that occur at work.Sue Moroney: They once used to be ambitious for New Zealand but there you go.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question.Sue Moroney: Is he aware that the death rate among agricultural workers was more than 19 times that of non-agricultural workers in 2015 and if that is not high risk what is?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: That may very well be the case. I am also aware that the road toll in the UK was significantly higher than New Zealand’s but when measured on a proportionate basis its road safety record is twice as good as ours. So it really depends on the size of the industry and the trajectory that it is on. It is a very very large industry and it is trending downwards.Sue Moroney: Just in light of that answer I seek leave to table for the Minister’s information—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No it is not for the Minister’s information it is for the House’s and the member does not need to say that. Just seek leave to table the document; I may put the leave.Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a document showing that on a proportionate basis—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think we are getting nowhere here. What is the source of the document and the date?Sue Moroney: The source of the document is the Parliamentary Library. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! I will count that as one all. Would the member simply describe the document and the date of it. I may put the leave and we will see what happens.Sue Moroney: I was—sure. So—Hon Gerry Brownlee: Closed shop—depository for dust.Sue Moroney: —the source of the document is the Parliamentary Library—Mr Brownlee—the date is 10 March andit shows that proportionately non-agricultural workers—sorry that agricultural workers—Mr SPEAKER: Order! We have heard enough. I will put—[Interruption] Order! The member will resume her seat. I will put the leave. Leave is sought to table that particular information which may be of use to members. Is there any objection? There is.Sue Moroney: Well is the Minister aware then that ACC confirmed at the select committee 4 weeks ago that agriculture is a high-risk industry?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The question is not whether or not agriculture is a material risk to workers—I accept that. There is no question about that. But it also needs to be recognised that anybody who is not required to have a mandatory worker representation system is not being let off the hook in respect of the Health and Safety at Work Act which has not come into force yet—it is coming into force on 4 April. There are very onerous obligations on all workers and all employers in this country to participate effectively in health and safety practice in New Zealand.Sue Moroney: Well given WorkSafe’s stated position that it is reluctant to prosecute for deaths and serious injury on farms because the chair does not “think that’s a productive way to bring change in that sector” is it now the situation that under his leadership farms are outside the full protection of health and safety laws?Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: Speaking to the last part of the question that is nonsense. What Professor Coster said to the select committee and which I support is that WorkSafe New Zealand is required—and I expect it—to be a partner in business not a punisher of it and the first part of partnership is to engage and to educate. In 2015 there were more than 10000 serious harm notifications across all industries in New Zealand but only 105 prosecutions. Overwhelmingly the task is for it to work with business not against it to ensure that workers go home safely in the evening.Third ReadingsHon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety): I move That the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Amendment Bill the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 3) the Holidays Amendment Bill the Minimum Wage Amendment Bill and the Wages Protection Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Between them these bills will make significant improvements to the fairness and productivity of all workplaces across the country. Employees such as casual and seasonal workers workers who have recently changed jobs and workers who work for more than one employer will now be eligible to receive parental leave payments. Primary carers other than biological or adoptive parents who none the less still have a primary responsibility for the care development and upbringing of a child under the age of 6 will also be entitled to parental leave payments and leave. This includes whangai arrangements.Employees will be able to keep in touch with their employer during the period of parental leave payments undertaking a limited number of hours of work if both parties agree. This will enable them to take part in a training day for example without losing their entitlement to paid leave and they will have a greater flexibility and choice in how they take their unpaid parental leave. Going back to work during this time will not end their paid leave entitlement. Alongside the extension to 18 weeks of parental leave payments from 1 April this year these changes will make a significant difference to families raising children in New Zealand. The changes support families during an important time in the child’s life while supporting attachment to the labour market so that it is easier to transition back into work when the time is right. The parents of babies born prior to 37 weeks’ gestation will be entitled to additional weeks of parental leave payments—which could be as many as 13 weeks extra—to better support them during what can be a particularly challenging time.The provisions strengthening the enforcement of employment standards will ensure that we have a robust compliance and enforcement regime for these minimum standards. There is a comprehensive range of sanctions available to deal proportionately with all non-compliancefrom infringement notices for breaches of record-keeping requirements to significantly higher penalties for the most serious breaches. Employees’ rights will be better protected and compliant employers will be able to compete on a more equal playing field.The main change to these provisions as the original bill passed through the parliamentary process has been to the record-keeping provisions. The work done both at the select committee and in the Committee of the whole House has significantly improved these provisions. All employers are required to have a record of the hours their employees work each day and the pay they receive for those hours. This record is essential both for correctly calculating minimum entitlements and demonstrating compliance with those entitlements. Guidance is provided as to how this requirement can be met. This guidance balances the need to have an accurate record of hours and pay when necessary for calculating and demonstrating compliance with minimum entitlements while avoiding imposing unnecessary compliance costs on employers.The provisions also make it harder for individuals or other third parties to hide behind corporate structures of the employer and evade responsibility when they are knowingly and intentionally involved in breaching employment standards. Being able to target both individuals and companies will strengthen the incentives to comply with these important legal obligations. Finally the changes in these bills get rid of zero-hour contracts and other unfair practices in employment relationships. I have always been confident that the original bill was in very good shape in this respect and that it struck the right balance of mutual and reciprocal obligations for employers and employees. However amendments have been made in the Committee of the whole House to availability provisions the notice period for shift cancellations the obligations to put matters in writing in the agreement and a number of other minor technical amendments.Hon Members: Minor technical amendments!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: The crowing has started already. I did think they would leave it until the end of the first speech but no. As a whole these clauses will make employers consider carefully whether they truly need availability provisions while still providing flexibility in circumstances where there is a genuine need for them. This means a better balance of flexibility for employers and certainty for employees.In conclusion I want to reiterate my thanks to the submitters for their contribution to improvements to the bill to members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee under the sage chairmanship of my friend Jonathan Young and to the officials who supported the committee and me in what were very important and complex drafting challenges. I also want to thank members of this House and of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions who worked with me to make some minor changes to the bill.Hon Members: Oh!Hon MICHAEL WOODHOUSE: I have no doubt—the crowing has started—that in these final debates we will hear many members of other parties giving themselves high praise and pats on the back for their vital and earth-shattering contribution to improvements to the bill. Good on them. Let them claim whatever victory they think they deserve. I claim no such praise but I do reflect with a small amount of pride that I may have achieved a rare thing—a significant change to employment law that looks likely to have the unanimous support of all parties in this House right across the political spectrum. Perhaps this is a victory for Parliament as a whole.I also want to add this. The real winners today are not we members who congratulate ourselves so heartily on whatever victory we may claim. The real winners are New Zealand employees who when these bills are passed will have a materially improved parental leave entitlement strengthened requirements on their employers for record-keeping and other obligations and the end of pernicious conditions known as zero hours. They are the real winners. I commend these bills to the House.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition): I agree with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety that this is a most unusual—in fact I would say unprecedented—occasion on which a piece of employment legislation which typically divides this House certainly as it went through the Committee stage received as I recall unanimous support from members of this House. There may have been one exception and it is the dog-tail to the National Party but we do not have to dwell on that. The idea that all but one member in a House of 121 MPs should support a piece of employment legislation is I think an important occasion. But there the pat on the back will end.They say that success has many parents—whether or not on paid parental leave—and failure is an orphan. But we will take credit for making changes to a piece of legislation that would have entrenched what the Minister described as a pernicious device that employers were in fact using during the course of this legislation passing through this House.Let us be clear about what the legislation does. It does make improvements to paid parental leave. It does not go as far as the changes that Sue Moroney has been campaigning for and had huge support for for many many months. There is a sense in which the Government is responding to the demand of the people not leading the people. But that is not unusual for National Governments when it comes to employment law employment rights and workplace issues.As for the enforcement regime I cut my professional teeth as a lawyer on what was then regarded as pretty basic work called time and wages book inspections of employers. It was pretty routine. Actually it was a legal obligation and has continued to be since for employers to keep a record of the hours their employees work and what they are paid for them. The idea that things have become so bad on such a widespread basis that in 2016 we have to pass another law reminding employers that they have to keep a record of the standards and terms and conditions under which their workers are employed is an outrage frankly and reflects poorly on this Government and I want to come to that.I want to say this too: as I said this legislation represents a step forward on many fronts for workers—and I have outlined those aspects. It was encouraging to see that at least at the Committee stage there was widespread support and that was unprecedented. But let us go to some basic principles. Having a set of rules about how relationships are conducted in the workplace is absolutely vital. Those rules have to be clear they must be fair and they must reflect what society regards as right.You know there is a moral element when it comes to workplace law and workplace rights. Public debate in New Zealand about workplace rights and employment law so often descends into meaningless claims about flexibility about red tape and about costing jobs. So it was disappointing that the Minister in his introduction of this third reading debate could not avoid references to having “a more equal playing field” to “unnecessary compliance costs on employers” or having “a better balance of flexibility”.Let us get one thing absolutely clear: it is the common law of employment which still exists in New Zealand and which statutory law—the law that this Parliament passes—so often has to grapple with. It is common law that creates the unequal power relationship in employment. It is the common law duty to obey. The ACT Party will understand this because it thinks that all statutory law should go and we should revert to common law which by and large in the workplace is the law of the jungle. The duty on the worker to obey is what creates the inherent imbalance of power in the workplace relationship. That is why what this House does on employment issues and on workplace issues is so vital and so important and what we do in this House every time we pass a law relating to employment and workplace rights sends a signal.The Minister can claim credit for saying “Here is a piece of legislation that improves workplace rights.” but if we look at the other 29 pieces of employment legislation passed by this House under this Government with its majority each and every one of them takes away workplace rights—each and every one of them changes that inherent imbalance of power in the workplace towards the employer. And now 8 years on 29 pieces of legislation later here we have a piece of law that just starts to crawl in the other direction but that is about all it does.Consider this: there never was a law or anything mandating zero-hour contracts. What there was was a record of employment law changes that sent a signal to employers that the rules are in their favour or in some cases that the rules do not apply or in some cases that the law just does not matter—go for it do what you like do what you can get away with.Something about our employment laws something in our workplace culture has given a signal to employers that they can do what they like. The idea that anybody—an employer their highly paid high street lawyer—thought that it was OK to draft an employment agreement with a clause in it that said: “You are obliged to turn up to work but I’m not obliged to offer you any hours of work and if I haven’t got any hours of work for you I will send you home and you will get no compensation for it.”Where in our egalitarian tradition did that ever come from? Where did it come from? I regret to say that in my view it came from this House passing law after law after law that said to workers: your rights do not matter anymore; we are interested in the interests of only one group of people—the powerful and the privileged who happen to be your employers. That is what they have done—that is what they have done.And here is the real test: how is it that in a country whose employment jurisprudence has been driven by two basic principles—the principle of mutuality and the principle of reciprocal obligation—driven through our employment jurisprudence. Employment Court judges Court of Appeal judges and even Supreme Court justices more recently are saying that the principle of mutuality and employment is an absolute founding principle. And yet we have a culture in this country that has allowed employers to sign up workers and to bully workers into accepting that this was an OK practice. Something has been seriously wrong. It is not acceptable and it is not right. It is right that we have laws that establish a moral standard of acceptable conduct for employers.The idea that we would have agreements that create that provision and they never go to court to be tested is testament to something else and that is the fear of workers to test their legal rights—to challenge the wrongful conduct of employers. How could we possibly be surprised about that when we have Government departments—giant Government departments—including the department responsible for administering our employment legislation that cannot even get it right and cannot pay its staff right.I hope that passing this legislation—I hope it will be unanimous although I am even prepared to concede that ACT’s vote is not that important; I hope it will be unanimous. I hope this will be the start of a process of New Zealand workers now receiving a signal that they matter that they count—that this Parliament does not just side with the powerful and the privileged; that it sides with ordinary working New Zealanders that there are moral standards—not just minimum legal standards but moral standards that we expect of employers and others about their conduct towards the people who work for them. These are the people who do have a duty to obey the people who do not have the means to go to court and who do not have the means to engage high-paid powerful lobbyists to preserve their interests.We will support this legislation—it is an important step. I want to acknowledge the work not only of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee but also of Iain Lees-Galloway Sue Moroney—our representatives on that committee—and others who have stood firm and fast and realised and accepted that our culture that our values must change and that a signal will go from this day forth to New Zealand workers that now we will start to make laws that look after them that respect them and that give them a chance to get ahead and to pursue their Kiwi Dream.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): Can I just acknowledge the speeches so far in this very important debate. This legislation has been touted as a great victory for workers in New Zealand. I am not going to speak on that but I want to say that it also shows the great response of the select committee process that works in this Parliament. A bill went to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it had aspects that submitters disagreed with and through the process of submissions the committee’s 11 members heard the views of employers and employees. The committee came to some great discussions and with the assistance of some very intelligent and very balanced officials came up with recommendations that by and large as the Minister has said addressed this issue around zero-hour contracts.I acknowledge my colleague on the other side of the House Iain Lees-Galloway. He brought further amendments to the Committee of the whole House which the Committee supported and which have taken what the select committee did one step further. It is important for us to understand—and I make my remarks today to acknowledge its work—the select committee process. Mr Lees-Galloway’s description given on Tuesday evening of a zero-hour contract as being “a permanent part-time agreement with no fixed hours” is something that I added a further dimension to in my speech on Tuesday evening when I said that a zero-hour contract is a “permanent part-time agreement with no fixed hours and a requirement to be available to the exclusion of other employment opportunities.” It is this definition that our select committee addressed and in my mind brought an end to zero-hour contracts according to the definition that I have talked about this afternoon.A casual employee can have an agreement or an understanding with an employer to be a permanent part-time employee with no fixed hours of work on an “as and when needed” basis. They can simply agree to that and it can become a casual employment arrangement which fulfils Mr Lees-Galloway’s definition but they are still free to pick up other employment as it is available. There are many many thousands tens of thousands of casual employment agreements that work for not only the employers but the employees in our nation. But as soon as the employer says “You are to remain available in case I need you and that means you can’t accept any other employment but you’ll only get paid for the hours you work for me.”—as soon as that is stipulated—it becomes a zero-hour contract. There is no mutuality of obligation certainly from the employer to the employee.It is that definition that expression of an employment arrangement that I believe everybody in this House completely disagreed with. Everybody on the select committee also disagreed with it and we worked hard to ensure that it was changed. In fact if you read the commentary on the bill as reported back you will see the committee’s comment that “We do not believe that availability provisions should be banned. Employment situations exist where these provisions are used appropriately and benefit both employer and employee. Maintaining flexibility in employment relationships is a legitimate policy goal. However we agree with submitters that the bill could better express the policy intent of upholding mutual obligations in these relationships.” It goes on to say: “We therefore recommend amending proposed subsection 67E(3) to require genuine reasons based on reasonable grounds for including an availability provision in an employment agreement.”The crux of a zero-hour contract is the availability requirement. So what we did is we altered the bill we deliberated on it we agreed on it and we brought it back to the House. We said an availability provision must not be included in an employment agreement unless the employer has genuine reasons based on reasonable grounds for including the availability provision and the availability provision provides for the payment of reasonable compensation. The reason we wanted that is that we wanted to ensure that employers were very very careful about actually genuinely needing to have the availability of a worker and that if they genuinely did need that—and it was not because they were lazy in rostering and lazy in managing the workflow but that the job actually required some extra availability—they would ensure that there was reasonable compensation for that.So there was never ever going to be a time when somebody would be held back from doing any other work would not be paid for it. So I think we did some great work on the select committee. I want to congratulate the officials. I want to say thank you to the members of the select committee. Andrew Little the Leader of the Opposition made a comment today that I think is worth noting—that this Parliament has done a good job for the people of New Zealand.IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North): The passing this afternoon of this legislation arising from the Employment Standards Legislation Bill represents a significant and decisive win for the labour movement in New Zealand because we have got here today because of the efforts of thousands of ordinary working people—people who got out on the streets and protested people whose unions bargained with their employers to get rid of zero-hour contracts. But they were not satisfied with that and wanted to get rid of them for every other worker in the country and so they came to Parliament to get us to make the change. It is a significant victory for people working collectively for the industrial and the political arms of the labour movement—working together to get better outcomes for working New Zealanders. Have no doubt about it. When this legislation is passed working New Zealanders will be better off because zero-hour contracts will be gone for good.That is something not just for this House to celebrate not just for New Zealand to celebrate but also for the labour movement to celebrate together. Andrew Little was absolutely right when he said that success has many parents and failure is an orphan. I think it is a testament to just what a significant change this is to our employment law that so many people have wanted to share in this success. But I do want to make some acknowledgments today because this has been a team effort. That is how we work on this side of the House. We believe in the collective and this has been a team effort so I want to acknowledge everybody who has been involved.I want to start with Unite union because that is where it all started. It was Unite union representing its members who work in fast food who actually introduced the term “zero-hour contract” to New Zealanders. Nobody in New Zealand understood what a zero-hour contract was until Unite informed us and told us that this is something that we needed to work on. I want to congratulate Unite union on its success—some time ago now—in eradicating those zero-hour contracts from most fast food employers but also on its work in ensuring that we went further than that. Unite can consider itself the real hero in this and Unite union should pat itself on the back today because New Zealand workers—all New Zealand workers; whether they are Unite union members or not—are better off as a result of this.I then want to acknowledge the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions because when we in the Labour Party wanted to put a member’s bill forward to attempt to address this issue it was the Council of Trade Unions that worked with us to get that member’s bill written up appropriately and lodged here in Parliament. So that was the first point at which the Council of Trade Unions got involved. Of course there have been many many many points since. The submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee along with the submissions of many other unions and the submissions of employers as well made it clear that we had to do a lot more than what was in the original legislation if we were to truly eradicate zero-hour contracts. Thank you to the Council of Trade Unions for that and thank you for the work over the last fortnight or so working with the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety working with officials and working with us in the Opposition to ensure that we got this across the line. The Council of Trade Unions has been absolutely pivotal in making that happen.The next group that I want to acknowledge are the other Opposition parties especially those who are on the committee with us the Green Party and the New Zealand First Party because another pivotal factor in this was the fact that Labour the Greens and New Zealand First produced a shared minority view. We were of one mind on this and it was clear to the Government that it had a united Opposition that was working together on eradicating zero-hour contracts. It was on that foundation of the united Opposition that we were able to reach out to the minor parties.I want to acknowledge Marama Fox because Marama and I have been talking about this a long time—not just since the select committee but before that as well. Marama took an interest in this and wanted to be informed. That meant that when we came back from the select committee and we were not satisfied with the result Marama was ready to pick up her role as part of one of the Government’s support parties. Of course that was always where we knew we had an opportunity—to work with our friends in the Māori Party to make sure that we could pull together around this House a majority of parties that wanted to eliminate zero-hour contracts.I want to acknowledge Peter Dunne for noticing when we had a lot to say about this after the select committee process and for starting to question why it was that the Opposition was not happy with the legislation in its form as it came back from the select committee.I want to acknowledge the Minister because when we did come back from the select committee and when there was clear opposition to the way the legislation was written and when it was clear that we needed something much stronger the Minister did reach out and for the last fortnight or so we have been working together to get this legislation into its final form where it truly could be a victory for working people. So thank you Minister for being prepared to do that work and thank you Minister for making officials available so that all the amendments that went up were properly drafted and were able to contribute to a good piece of legislation.Minister I want to say that I understand your predicament. I understand why you want to tone this one down a little bit and why you want to perhaps suggest that these are minor changes. I must admit to being a little bit nervous myself about whether or not this would get through the National caucus. We perhaps wanted to just keep things toned down whilst things were a bit delicate as well. But Minister it is true that this is a significant change and is a significant turn-round in this legislation. We took this legislation from a bill that entrenched zero-hour contracts and turned it into a bill that eliminates zero-hour contracts. I do not know what planet you would have to be on to call that a minor change. That is a significant change and workers out there across New Zealand recognise that that is a significant change. We should celebrate the fact that this is not minor; this is significant. That is why everybody wants to be on board this bus; that is why everybody wants to be part of this celebration because working New Zealanders are considerably better off as a result of this legislation.I think what has happened in the last couple of weeks has been a very good example to people of how the next Government is going to work. Not only is the next Government going to stand up for working people not only is the next Government going to fight when it sees injustices being done to working people but the next Government is also going to work very very hard to significantly improve the lives of working people. We are going to do that by being absolutely staunch in our values by not being prepared to give an inch when it comes to the things that really matter to us and really matter to working people and also by being able to work with parties around the Parliament to get real change. That is how the next Government is going to work. I think what people have seen over the last little while is a very good example of the way the Andrew Little - Labour-led Government is going to work in the interests of all working people.I do just want to very quickly remind the House what this legislation does and why it is so important. Obviously the bit that I have focused on is zero-hour contracts. It means that working people will no longer have to sit at home waiting for a phone call desperately waiting to know whether or not they are going to get work. People are going to be more likely after this legislation is passed to have guaranteed hours. It means that they know what their income is going to be it means that they can plan ahead in their lives it means they can go to the bank and ask for a loan and it means that they can go and buy a TV or a fridge or a bed on hire purchase and know that they are going to be able to make the repayments.It also means that people are going to be able to live a decent life because they are going to be able to know when they can have a life outside of work. That is important: to be able to have a life outside of work to be able to join sports clubs to be able to go to your kids’ school and see them playing sport or being in a play or see their assembly. It is important to be able to do the things that ordinary working people ought to be able to take for granted. Those were the things that people on zero-hour contracts could not do. That is why we had to get rid of them. That is why it is such an important change for working people.But I also want to acknowledge the aspects of paid parental leave that let us face it are in the legislation because of the advocacy of the Labour Party and of Sue Moroney and of the wider labour movement. So we are pleased to see that in the legislation as well. We are pleased to see the improvements to employment standards as well so that rogue employers will be far more heavily penalised if they see fit to flout the law. As I have said this is a day for celebration for the labour movement for this House and for New Zealand as a whole. After this law is passed zero-hour contracts are history in New Zealand and that is a fine thing.ALASTAIR SCOTT (National—Wairarapa): Thank you for the opportunity. I rise in support of this legislation. All facets of this legislation support the employee: the paid parental leave aspect the enforcement rules and of course the elimination of the on-call feature of zero-hour contracts.The Opposition members think they are the only ones who care about the employee. This legislation demonstrates that this side of the House under the leadership and initiative of Minister Woodhouse does care about the employee. Alongside increasing minimum wages alongside voting for the Trans-Pacific Partnership we are a party that supports jobs. We support the employee.With regard to zero-hour contracts which were the case the issue was about reciprocity within the existing law. There was not an appropriate balance between what the employee and the employer had in that relationship. It was really around the consideration that the employer was giving to the employee for the services that the employee was making available in the giving of hours available to that employer. This balance has been rectified. The balance is much more fair. There is adequate consideration for the service that the employee now gives to the employer and that is through the call feature that is still there. Employers can still have an employee on call but of course now there must be reasonable justification or in fact certain justification with reasonable consideration. That is all in new section 67E(3) inserted by clause 87 of the Employment Standards Legislation Bill. Those two conditions must be met before anyone can be on call. That to me is the nexus of this legislation.There are considerations inside the legislation—some guidance to the employer and employee when they need to consider what is reasonable. The proportion of hours is one of those things. Where an employee has been given only minimum guaranteed hours say of half an hour per week in the extreme example but is expected to be on call for the other 39 hours then you would expect that reasonable consideration to be much larger than if the situation was more balanced. It is good that this legislation has those considerations inside it to give guidance to the employer and the employee. That reciprocity that balancing of consideration is also there in new section 67G inserted by clause 87 of the original bill which relates to the cancellation of shifts. Of course it is only fair that if an employee turns up and having been given very little notice or no notice of cancellation that adequate and fair and reasonable consideration should be given.This is very good legislation. It is fantastic legislation for the employee in all respects. I thank and note and acknowledge the collaboration across parties as other speakers have done before me. I commend this legislation to the House.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the first call for the Greens on the final reading of the legislation arising from the Employment Standards Legislation Bill—it has now been split into five different separate pieces of legislation. Today is a very rare day in politics. For a lot of the time in this House we focus on worthwhile but actually quite mundane work. We make incremental changes. We change things bit by bit shift things and try to make things better. But today is the day where we actually stand united in the House to introduce real change that will make a difference in the lives of hundreds of thousands of workers across New Zealand. But make no mistake—this is only the start of a campaign for fair pay and decent conditions across New Zealand. Yes we have dragged National kicking and screaming into outlawing zero-hour contracts but there are more battles to fight.This victory to end zero-hour contracts was won by three main factors—the leadership shown by ordinary people through the union movement; the democratic dividend caused by MMP and through the select committee process; and last but not least the fundamental decency of New Zealand people and the fact that we all believe in a fair go. I salute the coalition of people who got us here—a coalition led by ordinary working people through the union movement that has led to this point where we are banning zero-hour contracts.I would like to acknowledge the Unite union for leading the campaign and making those massive changes through bargaining in the restaurant sector. I would like to acknowledge the other unions that participated as well—FIRST Union E tū the New Zealand Nurses Organisation the Public Service Association and of course the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions as well as countless other people who had the bravery to stand up tell their stories and lobby for change. The struggle is never easy but when we get a day like today it is definitely worth it.The story here is a story typical of New Zealand politics. It is the story of the community driving change. There has always been power in the union movement since the inception of the union movement with the Tolpuddle martyrs through to this campaign against zero-hour contracts. People have mobilised in this country to make change whether it was to introduce the 8-hour working day to abolish child labour or to make New Zealand nuclear-free. Ordinary men and women have made those changes and fought for a better place and we have been proud as Greens to stand alongside and support the union movement in the struggle for social justice. We have supported unions and our MPs have sponsored legislation like that abolishing youth rates under the last Labour Government and we will continue to support unions today in the fight for dignity at work and fair pay.Although unions are responsible for creating the public pressure in this victory it is MMP that saved us from the Government’s legislation which would have seen the sanctioning of zero-hour contracts. I have had my fair share of disagreements with Mr Dunne but I applaud him for digging in. I also praise the Māori Party for standing up for its principles and forcing National to accept many of the changes that we proposed along with Labour’s Iain Lees-Galloway and New Zealand First during the select committee process and outlined in the minority report. And although we celebrate the success we have all won today we still have a long way to go.We have outlawed zero-hour contracts but the reality is that there is still a lot that we have to do around insecure work. The 2013 New Zealand Council of Trade Unions report Under Pressure: A Detailed Report into Insecure Work in New Zealand outlined the sad reality that we have over 635000 people in insecure work 95000 workers with no usual work time 61000 with no written employment agreement 573000 workers earning less than the living wage and almost a quarter of a million Kiwi people saying that they have experienced discrimination harassment or bullying at work. That same report outlined five recommendations to fix it: stronger legal protections to prevent insecure work improved income support mechanisms for insecure workers support for the living wage Government procurement to promote decent work and union campaigns and bargaining to get secure work.We have made some progress on the first one but there are lots and lots that we have to do and in fact we have gone backwards in the last 7 years in some of the other areas. Yes we applaud National’s backdown on this legislation but let us not kid ourselves about the nature of this Government. Under the Key Government National has passed legislation that has made it harder for unions to organise. It has made it harder for working people. And let us not forget the Hobbit bill written for Hollywood executives to target unionising in the film industry; the Health and Safety Reform Bill which classified worm farms as higher risk than dairy farms; and of course the Employment Relations Amendment Bill which took away tea breaks and weakened—absolutely weakened—the ability for working people to organise and for their unions to bargain.This combined with the fact that the highest third of our population have seen their pay rates increase by eight times as much as the lowest third makes me cynical about where National’s heart truly lies when it comes to ordinary working people. But I am always willing to keep an open mind. I hope that the passage of these bills is the start of a genuine programme of engagement by National to actually serve the interests the best interests of New Zealanders—all New Zealanders not just their rich mates.I think I will start to close off now by again paying tribute to the courage and the conviction and the hard work of the hundreds and thousands of ordinary people who have made this success possible. I think we need to remember that whatever law we pass even this one is not a panacea. Exploitative bosses will continue to exploit. Yes in this legislation we have increased fines—in the Wages Protection Amendment Bill. However those fines depend on firstly investigation and secondly on court action and individual working people will find that very hard to pursue. Vulnerable working people on their own in their workplaces find it hard to access that.The only protection that working people can rely on consistently is their unions. If we want to build fairness in the workplace we need them. If we do believe in fairness we need them. I encourage every New Zealander to get behind the unions in their workplaces because it does and it will make a difference. We can celebrate today but we have got a lot more to do. But I commend this legislation to the House.CLAYTON MITCHELL (NZ First): I would like to start my contribution today with a heavy heart by sending the Melgren family my sincerest heartfelt condolences on the loss of a great man Peter Melgren who passed away suddenly and unexpectedly this morning in Tauranga. We are thinking of him and his wife Troye; his children Chontelle and Sheldon; and his brother Philip. He has been a pillar of our community for many many years. He was involved in the Tauranga City Council for 30 years and was recently the Mount Mainstreet manager. He will be greatly missed.I stand with pride also today to speak to the legislation arising from the Employment Standards Legislation Bill and also—something that I have not done a lot of in my last 18 months of being in Parliament—to actually commend the bills to the House in full support. It was a fantastic feeling going through the Committee of the whole House on Tuesday and seeing the solidarity right around the Chamber. I just have to say that that was certainly something very very good. We would certainly like to see more of that.I do think however we have got a failure to communicate which we saw last week when to my shock and many others’ surprise we heard Labour come out and support the legislation despite there being no amendments made in the select committee being brought through. It made me stop in my tracks because we did as Mr Iain Lees-Galloway said together write up the minority report showing the solidarity of opposition and the comment that comes to mind is: “We cannot support what amounts to a broken promise of working New Zealanders.”This Government let us be honest has had many broken promises over the year—in fact I brought a folder full of broken promises—so it was a big shock to New Zealand First and to myself when we thought: “Oh no what’s going on here?”. But it was that failure to communicate an obligation that we saw of this Government to approach New Zealand First and all Opposition parties to involve them in discussions and conversations. I leave it at this point purely just saying that we are happy with the outcome but I think it needs to be brought to the attention of the House that if you are talking about an open transparent Government that is working for the best outcomes of all then you really need to have that bipartisan approach with all members of Parliament.It does make me also talk about the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee process where we saw the lines being drawn and the fight being given to try to get this resolved when it came to zero-hour contracts and yet at times it was like butting our heads up against the wall because the members of the Government were not wanting to rock the boat; they were wanting to keep it straight and steady. That I would like to see changed in the future so that we can actually have open genuine dialogue where you can have an opinion on it and you can challenge your own party’s position to put something forward that is going to be for the betterment of New Zealanders. This is an example of exactly that where we had to go out of the select committee to correct something—that was inherently wrong.I was also a little bit embarrassed as a politician on Tuesday night when I saw on the news members of parties who were squawking and fluffing up their feathers trying to take what they saw as their role in fixing up this problem. It is no wonder that New Zealanders sometimes hold politicians in such low regard when we see this sort of sanctimonious pomp and self-imposed importance—where we saw members of parties thinking that they were eagles flying above our heads when they actually need to realise they need to come back down to Earth get real and realise they are turkeys like everybody else. We have got a job to do we are public servants and we are there to come out with the best possible outcomes for New Zealand and New Zealanders.That aside this bill is a fantastic bill. There is probably one main area that I will spend some time talking on which I see as a flaw that will need to be fixed. I believe that with support from around the parties in this House we will resolve that and that is around casual employment contracts.This bill though does address the imbalance that we have had in this country for many years where employees are held back by some employers—not all. I know a majority of businesses operate and have always continued to operate in a professional manner with their employees and have treated themselves and their workers as equals. This bill brings back the balance in that relationship. You cannot have any relationship whether it be a sporting one a personal relationship or otherwise if there is a power struggle between one person with more than the other. This bill addresses that and brings that balance into line.Casual employment agreements do have a place in a modern workplace and the Minister himself did actually come out at the Committee of the whole House and make that very very clear—that a casual employment agreement if dealt with correctly is going to make up a large part of employment agreements around the country. We heard from submitters many thousands of submitters—12260 in total who took the time out of their day to submit—and hundreds of them who came in specifically to talk to us. I can only talk about one in particular and this was a professional lawyer. When we talk about vulnerable workers we think of uneducated people but here we had an educated lawyer who was a mother who was struggling under a casual employment agreement to get enough hours and enough certainty in her workplace to give her a quality of life that we would expect somebody of that education to be able to handle.Conversely I had conversations with other people in similar situations with another lawyer in fact who was on a casual employment agreement. It suited her to be virtually on call as and when required—the difference being that there was a need for work by one person who was a young mother and the other was a semi-retired lawyer who really just did it as and when she felt. So the balance was naturally there. But when the balance is not naturally there you do find that people on casual employment agreements can find themselves in a vulnerable situation where they are begging almost for the scraps of time from their employer to get work done. There is no incentive for the employer to actually get this person on to fixed employment—whether it be part-time or full time or on a contract basis. There is no incentive whatsoever.What New Zealand First strongly proposes and it is supported by the Greens and Labour—and we would like to see some support across—is to get a casual loading system for casual employment agreements. It works very very well in Australia. The proposal is a 19 percent loading on a casual employment agreement to incentivise the employer because it is costing them more to get that employee off the casual hours and on to fixed part-time or full-time hours.How that 19 percent was broken down was 1.6 percent for bereavement and sickness leave. Of course in a normal agreement you are not entitled to those until you have been working for 6 months so that would be a loading. Then you have got 4.4 percent of statutory holidays which part-time and full-time employees have the benefit of so that would be considered a loading. So that is a total of 6 percent. Then we added 5 percent for the employee to say: “You’re casual; we want to give you a bonus for that.”—and that comes to 11 percent. And then of course the 8 percent that is an entitlement to all workers. So we are talking in actual fact about 11 percent. When I asked the Minister the question of what this Government is proposing to do for casual employees he obfuscated and passed the buck to Jonathan Young the chair of our committee for him to stand up and give me an address on that and an answer.I was a little bit shocked because all I got was the Supplementary Order Paper read back to us verbatim and the statement that they cannot support this because there is no incentive for the employer to take them off that because you are only talking about a small amount of a boost and that would not be enough to take people off that. I was shocked. I said: “Well why don’t you make it 25 percent?”. I did scream that across the House so it may not be picked up in Hansard. The reality is we need to address that and I hope we get some cross-party support as we go further through this year.Paid parental leave was fantastic—16 to 18 weeks. We would like to see that further increased out to 26 weeks. There is much better enforcement in this new legislation. The inability for employers to take deductions out of wages has been removed. It is a much clearer much more open and transparent employment agreement and we do commend this legislation to the House. Thank you.Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga): I am happy to take a very brief call in the third readings of this legislation and just say to members that it is amazing how with the passage of time much that was once considered almost not even thinkable becomes the norm. When I grew up in the workforce very early on the idea of paid parental leave would have been a complete—well you would not have even thought of it. I have got three fantastic kids. They are all adopted so I did not even get the enjoyment part of it; I just got the kids and the spending part of it. I did not get any of the money from the Government or anyone else for bringing them up.But I accept fully that the world moves on. I accept that the Government has made quite a few changes—in fact I think we have gone from 14 to 16 weeks of paid parental leave and then on 1 April this year there will be 18 weeks of paid parental leave. That is just the way the world is moving. That is just the way other countries are going and I have to accept that I am a dinosaur and living in the olden days—thinking that everyone should look after their own costs and pay their own way. I accept that; I fully accept it. I am happy to put it down on the record—in Hansard—dinosaur; there you go. But I also think that some of the flexibility that has been brought into the paid parental leave—so you know the identification of who was the primary caregiver and under what circumstances you could have variations and so on—is important and that is done.I come to the next one which is zero-hour contracts and again I thought I was a dinosaur on this one and then I realised I had misunderstood what was meant. When I worked in the aviation industry and particularly in America there were lots and lots of women—mainly—who had zero-hour contracts with the airlines to be flight attendants. And they actually loved it because they did not have to take the call when it came; they did not have to be available. They could work at a florist or whatever but one day they would get a call asking whether they wanted to do a New York run and they would say: “Hey why not?”.And that is what I thought zero-hour contracts were. And then I realised that they have got a more sinister element. That sinister element is: you will not be able to work for anyone else and you will be sitting at home by the phone waiting for me to call you and if I do not you will not get paid but if you work for anybody else you breach the contract. That is just complete madness. That is simply completely and utterly mad. If you are going to hold someone’s time in your hand then you have to pay for it unless you say to them: “I’ll call you up and if you’re free and you’d like to come and do a few hours good on you but if you’re not available or you don’t answer the call that’s fine. I’ve got five or six people on my list and I can phone around.” I would actually like to have that say in my electorate office—have two or three people whom I could call up from time to time and ask “Would you be able to do some covering hours on Friday because one of my permanent staff is going to a meeting?” or whatever.So I think it is really good that this legislation addresses what I think is quite a pernicious element that says: “We’ll hold you in our hand. We’ll lock you in from any other employment.” By the way you actually could do it with someone you did not like. You could say “I’ll lock you into a contract. You can’t work for anybody else.” and then never give them any hours which is just wrong. And so I congratulate all of the parties on getting this.I think I have pretty much expired my time here so I am just going to say—the last thing to try to do was enforce labour laws. I am a big fan of if you have got laws—and there are rules about what makes up a good employer—that you actually enforce them. I am not a big fan of all the laws that we have got. I think some of them are way too Draconian and way too over the top but I am a fan of if they are on the books and they were passed by this Parliament those rules being enforced. This legislation goes a long way to improving the enforcement so I support this bill in all of its phases.JAN LOGIE (Green):He aha te mea nui o te ao? He tangata he tangata he tangata. What is the most important thing in this world? It is people it is people it is people. I want to congratulate all those thousands of working New Zealanders who independently or more often through their union shared their stories and managed to claw back a modicum of dignity for themselves and other working New Zealanders. Achieving in this legislation the elimination of zero-hour contracts in this country and the extension of paid parental leave is something to celebrate. It is something for the people that has been achieved by the people. And it is an incredible honour to speak in this third reading of these bills and to see this passed into law.Work is a contribution to our society that should be valued but for all too many New Zealanders work is a place where they feel undervalued and exploited. The consequence of that is that all too many people in this country are struggling to pay their rent. They are having problems even paying for the petrol to put in their cars to get to work or when their car breaks down to be able to keep their bike in condition to be able to get to work. People in this country are struggling to put food on the table to feed themselves and their kids. That is the consequence of our current legal environment and how out of balance in favour of employers it is. This bill will sadly not fix that problem but it will and it does claw back a modicum of dignity and set that standard just that little bit higher and is a recognition of the importance of dignity in work and the value and importance of people being properly remunerated and enabled to have some stability in their lives.There were 12000 submissions on the original bill. People care people fought for this and it is a wonderful moment to see this House listening to the people. Alongside this and prior to this was Sue Moroney’s Parental Leave and Employment Protection (Six Months’ Paid Leave) Amendment Bill for 26 weeks’ paid parental leave on which there were 3809 submissions calling for extended paid parental leave. Actually only 3795 were calling for that but it was an overwhelming call from the people of New Zealand to look after our families to give that support to our families. It is fantastic that although the Government painfully—oh so painfully—resisted delivering on the bill that was in front of the House last term the call of the people and the fight of the people have won out in the provisions that were delivered in this legislation where we see paid parental leave extended to more workers so casual and seasonal workers will now be eligible for paid parental leave. It will be provided to primary caregivers which will include the ability for foster and whāngai parents to be able to take paid parental leave a reflection of our society in legislation—about time.This legislation will also provide extra paid parental leave which Sue fought so hard to get and for which all the evidence was there for families who have babies born before 37 weeks. So this legislation is going to make a real-life difference to our families. The zero-hour contract aspect will have a particular impact for many of our children because so many families are headed by sole parents 84-plus percent of whom are women who we know are far more likely to be in part-time and casualised work. This is something for them and the Green Party is so proud to be able to give our respects to the workers who have fought and delivered this for the country. It is a start that we should be proud of.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Marama Fox—a 5-minute call.MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party):E Te Mana Whakawā nei te mihi atu ki a koe e Te Whare i tēnei rangi harerūia harerūia.[I acknowledge you Mr Deputy Speaker and the House today; hallelujah and glory.]It started last night and it carries on today. I am proud to stand and take a call on this legislation and I want to acknowledge Iain Lees-Galloway. He is right—and he was quite generous in his speech to the House—to recognise the combined efforts. In Māori we have a saying that says: Mā pango mā whero ka oti ai te mahi. Pango whero in this casekahurangi kākāriki pango anō kei reira atu i te kōwhai kua ea tēnei pire.[Through black and red the job will be done. Through black and red and in this caseblue and green and black again is there beside yellow and this bill has been fulfilled.]This is a collaborative effort and in fact we have to recognise that this is more than just a whole-of-Government response to the rights and the security of workers in this country; in fact it is a whole-of-population response. Our country our people our workers have come out and said “We need to have security for ourselves and our families.”At this point I just want to acknowledge the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety. The Minister has worked with our officials—and our officials in our office have gone back and forward and back and forward through many phone calls and discussions—and the Minister himself has been flexible. He has recognised that there is a duty of care for workers in this country and he has made the changes necessary to protect workers through guaranteed hours and through adequate compensation for work. So I want to recognise him for doing that and also the pressure that was brought to bear by the collective efforts of the people in this House and our nation.Those collective efforts ensure that workers are paid adequately in the workplace—well given guaranteed hours actually; they all need a pay rise—but we want to recognise paid parental leave and the efforts of Sue Moroney to bring this into the legislation. But we also had been advocating for whāngai parents who had not until now been recognised. They now have the ability at the most pivotal time of a child’s life to stay home. There is a quote that I use often which I firmly believe in that the most important work we will ever do is within the four walls of our own home and that no worldly success can compensate for failure in the home.This legislation has seen the extension of paid parental leave from 16 weeks to 18 weeks. We would like to see it go further to 26 weeks but it now has extended to ensure that the tikanga of whāngai is being recognised. Here the National Government has again accepted that a principle of tikanga—a kaupapa Māori principle—can be accounted for inside the law so I want to acknowledge the National Government for that.Before I finish—and I am not going to take too much more time—I want to acknowledge the efforts of the Council of Trade Unions which has continually come and discussed things in a productive way with us not bringing any pressure to bear. We have checked things off with it as we have gone along as well and so I want to acknowledge the council for the way in which it has conducted conversations with us about the parts that it was concerned about in this legislation.It is with great happiness actually that I stand to take a call to support this legislation recognising the efforts of the Minister recognising the efforts of the Opposition parties—specifically Mr Lees-Galloway—and also of all of the members of this House and our nation. Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā.ANDREW BAYLY (National—Hunua): You have to say that today is really a good day. I think what we are discussing with these bills arising from the Employment Standards Legislation Bill is truly a very important piece of legislation and a credit to everyone in the House. But at times I have listened to some of the speeches and wondered whether in fact everyone on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—and I certainly was a member of that—actually participated in this select committee consideration because I think there have been a lot of contributions in that select committee not only from the officials who were very helpful in working through the various issues in this legislation but also in a general way and as a forum for discussing many of these positions that we finally ended up with in this legislation. I want to acknowledge everyone on the select committee and certainly my colleagues who I do not think have been acknowledged properly because I think that through genuine discussion we actually have arrived at a great place for New Zealand workers.I think just in the migration of the discussion of this legislation as it passed through the select committee it has been an interesting transition particularly from an employer’s perspective because most employers do understand what is right and what is wrong. We had a number of submissions from employers who certainly had issues with what are termed zero-hour contracts and we heard those submissions and respected those and listened to them very carefully just as we heard the position of the unions which were also very thoughtful in their deliberations. So I think—as a former employer myself—where we have arrived with the legislation is that we have ended up with something that is pragmatic is fair and actually is very useful in terms of achieving an outcome that will help both businesses and employees. I think the key question of this is how we treat our employees particularly. There were certain circumstances where they were unfairly disadvantaged and the rules that we have put in place around that deal with those and go to the heart of it.But I just wanted to remind the House that there are still occasions when casual employment arrangements are fair are appropriate and are required by the contractors who are seeking those types of arrangements. So although we have made substantial changes and improvements to the zero-hour contract aspect for employees where we have arrived at also caters for the flexibility that both employers and employees or contractors require. So I just want to thank everyone and I also thank the Minister for the way he has driven this legislation through the House. I think just paraphrasing Mahatma Gandhi that the culture of a country is demonstrated in the way we treat our people. I think where we have ended up with this legislation is the right thing to do and I am very proud to be associated with it. It is a good day in Parliament. Thank you very much.SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is a pleasure—a real pleasure this time actually—to rise and speak on the third reading of this legislation which actually started out being called the Employment Standards Legislation Bill and anyone listening to that title would have thought: “What on earth is that all about?”. Well it turned out that it was about people’s basic rights: people’s ability to actually have dignity at work people’s ability to have time to spend with their families and people’s ability to focus on their children and help them to get the best start in life. Those are some very basic requirements for what should be people’s happy and fulfilling lives but sadly in this House we have become so used to debating things that actually take away from people and that actually diminish people in their place in the world that yes we are feeling somewhat relieved to be able to celebrate this victory today.And it is a victory. It is a triumph of democratic participation and that is the thing that I feel most moved by with what we have achieved here today because it is through people working collectively in their large organisations like unions down to individual people coming along and making a difference and everything in between that has made this work. We in this Parliament could be used to doing things in this fashion much more if we had a progressive Government that was listening to the people more frequently and understanding what the issues were because it should not be an infrequent victory for us to be able to do the right thing by New Zealand people. It should not be that we as members of Parliament feel that this is almost a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for Parliament to come together and do the right thing in such a common-sense way and in a way that actually improves people’s lives. Today I think people are getting a glimpse of the Government-in-waiting. They are able to see that a Labour-led Government under Andrew Little—who started off this debate for the Labour Party—will be able to lead and will make sure that the issues that really matter to people’s day-to-day lives are addressed. And Labour will work with a range of other parties some of which we are used to dealing with.And I want to thank all the parties that have worked with us in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to achieve what we have been able to achieve together over the previous months—and also parties that we are not so used to working with. I want to acknowledge Iain Lees-Galloway who has done a magnificent job in leading the fight for getting absolutely rid of zero-hour contracts—not just tolerating them and moving around the edges with them but completely getting rid of them. That is the work that has been led by Iain Lees-Galloway and in order to do that he has been working with the National Party and I have been giving him a little bit of gyp about that from time to time. But hey he just has to remind me that in order to actually increase paid parental leave I have been working with the ACT Party and I quite quickly remember that it is all a matter of degree.But it is worth it because it makes a real difference in terms of people’s lives and that is certainly what I came here to this House to do and I know that that is what my Labour colleagues came here to do as well. The zero-hour contracts and the fact that they will no longer exist in New Zealand is a big victory. I think zero-hour contracts continue to hamper workers internationally and no one has yet found a solution. I think we have found a solution. I think that here in little old Aotearoa New Zealand we have found a solution. It sounds pretty simple and Minister Michael Woodhouse wants to diminish its importance but workers now have to have guaranteed hours of work before they can be required to make themselves available for this type of work. It is a substantial movement.For the Labour Party we were not prepared to put our name to this legislation until that occurred because the guaranteeing of minimum hours of work will make a big difference for all manner of workers. I stand here as the mother of teenaged children who are about to enter the workforce—I hope—and for me knowing that they have that security makes a big difference to how I feel about them making their way in that part of the world. But it is not just young people. It is women—women who have worked for many many years and who are very expert in their roles who have been exposed to and subjected to zero-hour contracts. It is migrant workers who have been subjected to zero-hour contracts and it has increasingly been going into other areas. We had a lawyer come along to our select committee and tell us about her experience of being expected to be on a zero-hour contract. She put herself through that training and gained that knowledge and that qualification only to find that zero-hour contracts were the only thing on offer for her.So it is substantial and it is significant but the story I really want to talk about is the very good extension to paid parental leave that has occurred under this legislation. I want to thank the 26 for Babies coalition because it has worked relentlessly on this issue and it will continue to work relentlessly on this issue until we do achieve 26 weeks’ paid parental leave. But some of the measures that have ended up happening in this legislation are because of its work. Large organisations like Plunket and Barnados the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and many other trade unions in this country have contributed to that debate and led that debate.But it is also about what a difference one woman can make. Actually the idea of having additional support for families where a baby is born pre-term came from a simple submission that was made on a bill that went through Parliament last year in my name. It was the submission of a woman by the name of Donnelle Belanger-Taylor. She came along to our select committee and she simply told her story. I say “simply” but actually I looked around the room after she told her story and I do not think there was a dry eye in that room and that included the officials and that takes some doing. But she was just talking about her life. She talked about the pressures on her when she gave birth to twins and she had another young child as well. So she had three young children under the age of 5 two of whom were new entrants into the world. They were twins and she through financial circumstances had to go back to work when they were 5 months old. She talked about what her day looked like. That is the simple story she told; that is what had us in tears. It was about being completely and utterly sleep deprived being up feeding one twin or the other and then taking public transport to her job the next morning. Well no—it was taking public transport to an early childhood education facility to drop her twins off and then getting on public transport and getting to work and then on three occasions through the day going back to feed those twins getting back to work finishing at the end of the day exhausted getting on the train going home again and then going through the exercise all over again—for 5 days of the week. It was her submission that kept me awake at night.It made me think about whether on the off-chance my bill did not proceed all the way though its final stages and that if I got the opportunity to amend it it was this group of families that I would work to support. I took an amendment like that to this House last February in 2015. I really thought it was going to get the full support of the whole House because it was so affordable and it made so much sense. Sadly on that occasion the National Government let us down. It voted against that very small measure. However subsequently after a lot of lobbying and a lot of campaigning Government members have found it in their hearts to finally come good on this issue and I thank them for doing that.But I want to say to the voters out there in the public listening to this debate let us just cut out the middle man. Let us just cut out the middle man in these sorts of debates. We could get progress much sooner much faster with a Labour-led Government being supported by a range of other parties in this Parliament and the parents of babies born pre-term in the last 14 months could have had this measure. They could have already had additional paid parental leave if it was not for politics being played over their lives. Today we have learnt—I hope we have learnt—as a House how to stop playing politics with people’s lives and simply get on with it. I am going to continue to push for 26 weeks of paid parental leave for all families who are eligible for paid parental leave and I hope that the Government will do what we have exhibited today and come on side with that; not play politics not threaten to use its financial veto but do the right thing for families because it is the right thing to do. I want the Government to take a lesson from what this side of the House has been able to do in this instance in order to do the right thing for New Zealanders.SARAH DOWIE (National—Invercargill): It is a pleasure to round off this debate with a brief call on the legislation arising from the Employment Standards Legislation Bill. I do want to echo the sentiments of all of my colleagues from around the House that this is momentous legislation. It is very good legislation and it supports good employment practices in New Zealand.I have only a short amount of time but I did want to focus on the outlawing of zero-hour contracts as we once knew them. There were employers who are abusing the privilege or the flexibility that was supposed to be afforded through those contracts by holding people almost to ransom in their employment and not allowing them to seek supplementary work to help them obviously have a good lifestyle and do the things they should be able to do in a fair New Zealand. So it is wonderful that this legislation is prohibiting that and putting some minimum standards around what is and what is not allowed—to still allow flexibility but allow people decent employment practices that are fair and reasonable.I talked during the Committee of the whole House about paid parental leave. Ms Moroney holds herself out to be an advocate and she is but there is also support on this side of the House to extend paid parental leave and all the great things that go along with that to support the bonding between parent and baby or primary carer and baby. We will do that in a fiscally responsible way as we manage different and competing priorities throughout the portfolios that this Government has. But let us not lose sight of the fact that this is Government legislation. It was introduced by the Minister for Workplace Relations and Safety who saw an issue and wanted it rectified.So with that I thank the submitters for their time when they came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to talk to us. I want to thank the officials for their advice and their patience with us. I thank the select committee. We took the time to listen to the submitters. I thought it was very well chaired. Finally I want to thank the Minister who had the will to bring this legislation into the House and to take advice from all of his peers and put this in a form that is acceptable to everybody around this House. This is good legislation. It entrenches good employment practices in New Zealand. It is fair and I am very pleased to support it.Bills read a third time.Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) BillSecond ReadingHon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister for Land Information) on behalf of theMinister for the Environment. I move That the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill be now read a second time. Firstly I would like to thank the Local Government and Environment Committee which put a lot of hard work into this bill and also the people and organisations who made submissions. The committee considered over 1100 submissions on the bill and the result of that effort is a clearer and more workable piece of legislation. The most significant amendment recognises and reinforces the relationship that Environment Canterbury has developed with Ngāi Tahu over the last 6 years by allowing Ngāi Tahu to recommend two appointments to the transitional governing body.This bill creates a mixed-model governance structure for Environment Canterbury for a transitional period between the 2016 and 2019 local government elections. It will help the timely completion of a robust clear and effective framework for the management of fresh water and nutrient management in the Canterbury region. The main components of the bill are to establish a mixed-model governance body that has a majority of elected councillors and provides a pathway to transition to a standard regional council with all councillors elected in 2019. It will continue the limited appeals process under the streamlined Resource Management Act planning processes and repeal the special water conservation order and moratoria on resource management processes which are no longer needed by the new governing body. This package of measures aims to ensure that the good work started by the commissioners in 2010 will be substantially completed prior to Environment Canterbury’s return to a standard regional council in 2019.Before going into the detail on these measures it is important to understand why they are needed. In 2010 the Government appointed seven specialist temporary commissioners to lift Environment Canterbury’s performance. This followed unprecedented requests for urgent action from Cantabrians Canterbury mayors and the outcome of an independent report. The regional council was failing to manage Canterbury’s natural resources and serve its diverse communities. There was no operative freshwater planning framework and internal divisions in leadership stood in the way of progress. Although the commissioners transformed Environment Canterbury into a highly effective organisation and used the alternative Resource Management Act processes given to them under the 2010 Act to good effect the commissioners’ terms were extended in 2013 as there was still much work to be done. There was also a strong need for regional stability particularly in light of the earthquakes.When the commissioners’ term expires in 2016 after 6 years in office this will represent a significant change. Such an abrupt change in leadership will bring inevitable challenges to the focus and momentum of ongoing work programmes. It is vital that this change is carefully managed so that it does not slow the progress made so far especially in establishing an integrated planning framework and applying collaborative local solutions to manage fresh water sustainably.During their term the commissioners have also developed excellent relationships with stakeholders which will need to be re-established once the mixed model is in place. The level of stakeholder confidence in the new governing body will contribute to the speed with which this can take place. In addition a coordinated transition is vital to ensure that Environment Canterbury has the skills and experience to fulfil its statutory responsibilities and effectively engage with ongoing priorities projects and work programmes.The bill provides for a mix of seven councillors to be elected from four constituencies across Canterbury communities and the appointment of up to six councillors by the Government. The Government-appointed councillors will be chosen to complement the skills of those elected by the Canterbury communities. The bill will provide that all councillors whether elected or appointed will have the same roles and responsibilities at the council table. All councillors will have their pay rates set by the Remuneration Authority in the same way that the authority determines remuneration for all regional councils.The Local Government and Environment Committee has recommended that two of the appointments to Environment Canterbury should be made on recommendation from Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu. I support this recommendation given their guardianship role and the strong partnership that has developed between Ngāi Tahu and Environment Canterbury while the commissioners are in place. It is appropriate to ensure that this partnership continues in the mixed model to recognise Ngāi Tahu’s significant and unique interests in Canterbury’s environment and the management of its natural resources.The bill provides that the term of the mixed-model governance body will end on the day after the day on which the official election result is declared for the full council following the 2019 local government elections. The bill provides that the mixed-model council will review the regional representation arrangements in Canterbury prior to the election taking place.The bill carries forward the limitation on appeal rights on development and amendment to regional plans and regional policy statements relating to freshwater management. To achieve this the bill provides that appeals can be made only by certain individuals to the High Court on points of law. This power along with the rest of the bill will be repealed on the resumption day in 2019. However if a planning process remains incomplete a transitional clause ensures that the limitation on appeals will continue to apply until it is complete.The bill repeals the provisions in the 2010 Act that gave Environment Canterbury additional powers to make moratoria on resource consents. It also repeals with some transitional measures the special powers in the 2010 Act by which Environment Canterbury considered water conservation order applications. The Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill is a sensible next step for Environment Canterbury. The mixed model returns it to a level of democratic accountability while also ensuring that the skills and expertise exist to continue work streams.The minimum alternative resource management powers have been retained to allow Environment Canterbury to complete the freshwater planning programme started by the commissioners which we see as critical to the economic and environmental future of the region. In short this bill provides for a low-risk and well-managed transition to a fully elected regional council for Canterbury in 2019 and the Government commends it to the House.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I am taking a call on the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill to signal that Labour will not be supporting this bill. We will be opposing it vehemently and we will continue to oppose it through all stages in this House. The reason is very simple: there is simply no justification for this legislation. The Minister Louise Upston has just given us the pap that we have become accustomed to hearing when it comes to this situation.I just want to put on the record the very shoddy nature of the consultation period that went with this legislation. This is a piece of legislation that the Government has known was going to be required since it last cancelled elections in Canterbury. It had 3 years to get its act together but instead we had rushed process with submitters having barely enough time to submit let alone make their voices heard at the table. This simply is not good enough and this was made very clear to the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee who sat through those hearings in Christchurch. I would have thought that the Christchurch-based Government members of that committee should hang their heads in shame for being part of a process that silenced the people of their region on such a fundamental issue as their democratic rights.I have said that we are opposing this bill. The reason is very clear: there is no justification. So I want to go through some of the reasons that we have heard about why it is required that we once again cancel elections in part of our country. First of all the Minister for the Environment Nick Smith came out and said that democracy was simply too risky. Well this is a very surprising sentence to hear uttered from the mouth of an elected representative. I think the people in Nelson would be very interested to know that their member considers that democratic elections are just fundamentally a risky business and something that should be feared.We have just had the Minister Louise Upston tout the other line that is sometimes heard that such an abrupt change in leadership just cannot be had—so we can have only some of the people elected. Well there is absolutely no logical basis for this comment. Both for this House and for local bodies we go through elections every 3 years in other parts of the country—except Canterbury that is. There could well be a whole turnover of councils or of parties going out. This is the stuff of democracy. It happens. And that is why organisations have staff. Staff are very good at continuing the work streams that the newly elected members want to see continued—so that they are passed on. This is simply a bogus argument with absolutely no logical or intellectual merit and is beneath anyone to advance as a case for having this bill in place.We then had earlier on another justification: “Well it’s just like the DHBs.” Well there are two answers to that: look what the Government is doing to district health boards around the country at the moment and see whether they are organisations that this Government wants to hold up in some kind of esteem. The second answer is that it is illogical. They bear no resemblance. District health boards are responsible for the disbursement and the governance of centrally collected tax money. Regional councils are not. And this is where it gets to the crux. This is a very basic point about representation following along with taxation. Ratepayers in Canterbury do not have that most fundamental protection of having no taxation without proper representation. This simply is not good enough.Then we have the other one “Well it had to be done.”—the regional council that was in place in 2010 before it was sacked was simply so bad that the Government had to come along and save the environment. That is one that we often hear trotted out by members of this Government. That is simply wrong and has no basis in fact. Any scrutiny of the facts does not bear up that assertion. Let us have a look. When we had the commissioners they came in and said that they were going to set a target of 80 percent of Canterbury water—rivers and lakes—being swimmable by 2015. This was their target—the new commissioners. They were already at 74 percent when they set this target in 2010. That is what our elected representatives had delivered us before they were sacked in 2010. But the commissioners came in and they said: “No we’re going to do it better. We’re going to make it 80 percent.” Well today in Canterbury 67 percent of our rivers and lakes are swimmable. We have seen a decline in water quality in our region. So anyone who has the audacity to stand in this House and say that we have seen environmental improvement because of this regime is simply not right.It is not just us in Labour who get a little bit het up about this piece of legislation. We had submitter after submitter. In fact the Minister Louise Upston said there were 1167 submissions received on this legislation—1152 submissions opposed this legislation. There was overwhelming opposition to this legislation. We had the Christchurch City Council which labelled the Government’s move in this area as extraordinarily arrogant and said that Canterbury deserved more. I agree with our elected Christchurch City Council that we in Canterbury do deserve more. We do not deserve to be controlled by appointees of the Government in Wellington; we deserve to elect our representatives. There is no justification for the treating of Canterbury any differently to the rest of the country. When we have the Minister standing there and saying that it is part of a transition back—well we heard that when the first legislation was put in place in 2010.The Government then broke its promise and enacted another piece of legislation in 2013 and here we are in 2016. I have no faith in those members opposite if—God forbid—they are still in Government in 2019 that they will not still extend it. Why do I think that? It is because the Ministry of Primary Industries was lobbying in Cabinet papers to have this as a permanent situation. This Government does not want to ever give Cantabrians their vote back and it has made that very clear so have no faith that this is a transitional arrangement. If you look back in Hansard you will see the words “transitional arrangement” all through the 2013 legislation so beware any falsehoods that are spoken on the other side.We had a very good submission from the Law Society when it came and it gave a very considered and sophisticated submission. It said that “The proposed further suspension of full democracy is inconsistent with core constitutional values. The justification for the proposed mixed-model governance structure is not sufficiently convincing and the need for the continuance of appointed Commissioners has not been demonstrated.” This cuts to the core of why we cannot and will not support this legislation. There is no justification; there is no need. No one has made a case and I am looking forward to hearing one made on the floor in this House today. There are plenty of Government members who sit on that committee from whom I am interested in hearing long and full contributions on the justification to the people in their electorates of why it is that their votes should be taken away from them. For elected representatives to do this is simply reprehensible. There is no justification for it.I want to take the opportunity at this second reading to acknowledge one submission that was made. It was made by Christina Loughton a Christchurch woman who has for a long time been an activist and has spoken on a number of issues. Christina has died since she made that submission but she made her views very clear. She made it clear that she saw this as an affront to her and her fellow Cantabrians. She made it clear that she found this yet another arrogant and out-of-touch move from a Government that is intent on keeping power and not considering ordinary people. I ask Government members and particularly the Canterbury-based Government members of that select committee to vote with their conscience to realise what they are doing to the people of their region and to do the most basic thing that an elected member can do—that is to stand up for democracy. Thank you.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Anyone listening to that speech and contribution from the current member for Wigram could be led to believe that the people of Canterbury and Christchurch are up in arms about this piece of legislation. In fact that is not the case. At first reading we were promised by that member that there would be tens of thousands of submissions on this bill. We were told that there would be an uprising in Canterbury and across Christchurch on this bill.In fact what we found when we got to Christchurch—because the Local Government and Environment Committee sat in Christchurch and I want to acknowledge at just this point the gracious hospitality of the Christchurch City Council and the mayor the Hon Lianne Dalziel who made the Christchurch City Council chambers available to hear submissions in—was that we heard from only a relatively small number of the 93 individual submissions received. What we heard from was in fact 42 submitters because of those over 1000 submissions more than a thousand of them were in fact form submissions generated by a third-party email harvesting programme that was sponsored by no less than the Labour Party. So what did arrive was not a tsunami of opposition; it was measured and it was useful to the committee in our deliberations.What the previous speaker did not tell this House—because she was not in Parliament at that stage—but it is well known is that the previous Labour Government back in early 2008 in fact considered intervening to solve the conundrum that was a completely ineffectual and dysfunctional Environment Canterbury and the Labour Government chose to neglect its duties to the people of Christchurch and Canterbury and it did nothing. It did nothing. It was scared of what might happen ahead of an election that it was so clearly going to lose and it did nothing. It abandoned the people of Christchurch and Canterbury and when its leadership was most needed the Labour Party actually forsook its responsibility and left the people of Canterbury in the lurch.What happened at our select committee was that we worked through this transitional piece of legislation. As Louise Upston speaking on behalf of the Minister said in her speech a few minutes ago we have come out of that process with I think an even improved piece of legislation that we are submitting to the House for second reading today.Environment Canterbury has gone from being perhaps the worst-performing council to now one of the best. Decisions have been made and progress has been made on all the important water decisions in particular that so affect the people of Christchurch and Canterbury. What has been more important is that the relationships that were so broken have been renewed refreshed and new credibility has arisen from that process.This is a piece of legislation that will take us through a transitional stage from the local government elections to be held later this year through until the next local government elections in 2019. Right and proper as part of this transitional process is that a majority of Environment Canterbury councillors will in fact be elected at the election in 2016 later this year. I think that Environment Canterbury has made huge progress in the period of time that the commissioners have been in place. I think they have done a terrific job and this is a transition that will mean that the knowledge the understanding and the credibility that has been built up over the last few years will be maintained through until 2019 when full elections will take place.One of the matters that the select committee did change from the first reading was the one relating to the nomination of Ngāi Tahu representation. I want to acknowledge the contribution of my colleague and friend Nuk Korako who has I think very strongly advocated on behalf of Ngāi Tahu. They came to the select committee seeking three nominations. In the original piece of legislation at first reading the suggestion was that they should nominate one. The committee I think wisely and sensibly has recommended that they nominate two. I was pleased to hear the Minister Louise Upston say that she supported that process when she was speaking earlier on.This is a very good piece of legislation for the people of Canterbury and Christchurch. In fact it is part of a suite of Canterbury legislation that the Local Government and Environment Committee has been guiding through the House in recent months. It forms an important part not only of Christchurch’s future pre the earthquakes but post the earthquakes as well. It is an important part of the building blocks of getting Canterbury back to where it needs to be. I am very supportive of this second reading debate. I support the legislation and I commend it to the House.Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills): If any legislation demonstrates the arrogance of this Government and the litany of broken promises that it now reigns under it is this legislation. In 2010 when Nick Smith announced to the country through this Parliament that he was removing the right of Cantabrians to vote for their regional council he said things that were not accurate about the reasons for that removal of our right to vote. He said that it was because of the regional council’s inability to function properly which is code for “the irrigators had not won”. He said that in 3 years’ time our right to vote would be restored. He repeated that 3 years later when he continued to remove our right to vote and said that it would be restored in 3 years’ time. And 3 years on the chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee whom I frankly used to think better of said that this is a transition to democracy. We have heard it before Mr Simpson. We heard it 3 years ago and we heard it 3 years before that.Cantabrians are not prepared to be lied to by Cabinet Ministers about something as fundamental as our right to vote. We might vote for people whom the Minister does not like. In fact I could guarantee that I would be voting for people whom the Minister does not support politically. We are in different political parties. Is that not what democracy is all about? I did not vote National in the last election and I am unlikely to ever do that. But I support the National Party leading our Government—Hon Simon Bridges: That’s right.Hon RUTH DYSON: —despite my opposition to it because that is what a democratic process is about. But Mr Bridges and his cronies in the National Party think that we do not deserve that right in Canterbury. I think he is wrong.Mr Simpson criticised the lack of submissions on this bill. There were 1167 submissions on this piece of legislation with a very truncated period of time for the calling of submissions—less than half the usual period that is allowed; less than half. It was rammed through the select committee process. The submitters were laughed at by members of the National Party on the committee. Submitters were distressed at the way they were treated at the select committee. There were 1152 submitters who opposed this legislation in totality. They said they did not support it and did not want it progressing through the House. So how many does that leave out of 1167? Do the maths Mr Simpson. It leaves 15 submitters who supported it. That is 15 out of 1167. So what does the National Party do? It says: “Who cares?”. Who cares about democracy? Who cares about the submitters? Who cares about a proper process? Not the National Party members. All they care about is ramming this bill through and once again for another 3 years denying Cantabrians the right to vote for our regional council.Every other region in the country has that right to vote. When Nick Smith tried to explain it to Canterbury he said: “Wow! Full restoration of democracy.” as if it was an unheard of thing. Hello this is New Zealand. He said: “Full restoration of democracy. We can’t have that because it’s too risky.” It is too risky to allow people in Canterbury to vote for the people whom they want to make decisions around the regional council table.In opposing this legislation I want to put on the record that Labour has always tried to work constructively with the Government on earthquake-related issues. This is not about those issues. I commend the committees that have been doing work on other parts of our recovery and rebuild and working constructively. This is not what this is about. This is about irrigation. This is about the battle over water in Canterbury and what is the healthiest way of progressing.That is something that the Environment Canterbury commissioners themselves promised to address. In 2010 they said: “We will have a target of ensuring that 80 percent of rivers in the Canterbury region are safe for swimming.” That is well above the National Government’s aim for water quality in New Zealand. At that time 74 percent of our rivers were in that category—safe for swimming. In 2016 67 percent of rivers in our region are safe for swimming. So where is that ambitious goal of 80 percent compared with a decline in the quality of our water in our rivers in the 6 years that we have been denied our right to vote? Where is the drive? Where is the action for improving the quality of our water? The commissioners whom the National Party appointed—good people all of them actually—made a commitment to reach a target of 80 percent when the current level was 74 percent and now it is 67 percent. They are going in the wrong direction.When my ancestors came to this country—well-inhabited though it was already by that time—they came because they thought New Zealand would offer a better opportunity for them and their children and grandchildren. And they were right because New Zealand was founded by people who had a vision of a better future: a place where people would look after each other an egalitarian society—it seems to be an old-fashioned term nowadays but I still like it. I still like the idea that we live in a country where it does not matter where you were born if you work hard you will be able to achieve your dream. That is the country I grew up in. That is the country that my ancestors came here for. Some of our ancestors came by water some by air; people are still coming because they see New Zealand as a country where people can have the best life. That is a dream that I want to continue to aspire to.We are very proud in New Zealand of being the first country in the world where women won the right to vote. We are very proud of that fact. We show off about it and so we should. So for that pride to be dented by the Government’s deliberate removal of our right to vote is something that the National Party members should be hanging their heads in shame about. We boast about being the first country in the world where women won the right to vote. Well women in Canterbury are now being granted so generously by the Government half a vote: we get to vote for half of our council. So are the National women members going to boast about that around the world? Are they going to say: “We were the first to win the right to vote but now we have got only half a vote for a regional council.”? That right to vote was given to everyone in New Zealand regardless of gender regardless of their wealth regardless of their property. It was something that very few other countries had; in fact some still do not. Democracy and the right to vote—the requirement to pay taxes in exchange for a right to representation—is something that should be at the heart of this Parliament.Removing that right is something that should happen in extreme circumstances and it certainly should be done only with the understanding—not necessarily the support but the understanding—of people whose rights are being taken away. There must be an extraordinary reason for taking away New Zealanders’ fundamental rights. But the Minister not only has taken them away but has misled us about re-granting those rights. Nick Smith said in 2010 “I’m taking this right away.”—not half of it in total; we did not have any vote for a regional council. He might have thought we were a bit stressed because of the quakes and that he was doing us a favour. Well he was wrong because he took away a fundamental right that every other New Zealander had and we deserve that right back. He said: “You’ll get it back in 3 years’ time.” Three years later he misled us again by saying: “I’m sorry I’m not ready. It’s too risky. I’m taking away your rights again for another 3 years. You’ll get them back in 3 years’ time.”And tonight in this House ramming this bill through in the last hours of the Parliament we hear Mr Simpson from Coromandel where they get every single right to vote telling us that in another 3 years we will get our vote back. Well that is not good enough. It shows an arrogance—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Her time has expired.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty): I stand to speak in favour of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill and I am looking forward to being able to retort some of the shrill hyperbole that I have had to listen to over the last quarter of an hour or 20 minutes. Let us actually start this conversation by going back over a little bit of history. Prior to 2010 the Environment Canterbury set-up was appalling. Members on the other side talk about the importance of participation but they had councils across that region that would not talk to each other could not get together around a water plan were not progressing the natural resource framework for their region and they talk now about it being denied them. It was a complete stuff-up of a set-up—and I say that deliberately—and they know it and they should bow their heads in shame.Since 2010 we have put in commissioners who have applied phenomenal experience and competency to highly technical and difficult issues of natural resource management in the Canterbury region and they have created a framework zone by zone community by community and Māori participation by Māori participation. Everything that they call for on the other side we have created under the leadership of environment commissioners who have brought incredible skill and expertise: Dame Margaret Bazley the Hon David Caygill Professor Peter Skelton. These people have assisted the community in developing a framework that will resolve natural resource issues in the community.To hear members on the other say that somehow the elections are cancelled—well there are seven directly elected councillors whom this bill enables. But what we are doing is sensible common-sense management when you have essentially a board in the form of these commissioners with the capability that they have brought to this region in the middle of a process to identify water use which is completely progressing with their oversight. To completely separate them from that process is ignorant and that is why I am hugely supportive of this model. There will be direct elections. I think those members need to read the bill. There will be direct elections—seven and those seven will be augmented with the skills that we have seen be applied to the Canterbury region over the last 6 years.Dr Megan Woods: Oh please sir thank you.Hon Ruth Dyson: Oh we’re so grateful for half a vote.TODD MULLER: They can cry all they want but at the end of the day what counts is outcomes for Canterbury and under this Environment Canterbury regime we have delivered outcomes for Canterbury. We have put talent in place capability in place—[Interruption]The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I have cautioned members about using the word “lying” and Speaker’s ruling 48/1 is very clear. I do not want to hear it again. It has happened on a number of occasions. That word is out of order and unparliamentary. I do not want to hear it again. [Interruption] The member will stand and withdraw those comments and apologise for them.Hon Ruth Dyson: I stand withdraw and apologise. May I explain what the word was—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): No. [Interruption] We have ruled on that. Todd Muller has the call.TODD MULLER: In conclusion I stand very much in support of this bill. I acknowledge the leadership of both Minister Nick Smith and of Scott Simpson who has been appallingly maligned. He has I think assisted a very effective reflection on what the appropriate way forward is here and the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority was very supportive of what we now bring back to the House. It is sensible for Canterbury it is transitional and it takes the best of the current model welds it to direct elections and has a transition through to a 2019 outcome which will be fully elected. I believe it will deliver a fantastic result for Canterbury and I am very very pleased to be able to support it. Thank you.EUGENIE SAGE (Green): E Te Māngai o Te Whare tēnā koe. I think it is extraordinarily rich for the largest geographic area of any region of New Zealand one that has got the second-biggest population—second only to Auckland—to be patronised by Government speakers saying that all we deserve is a half-pie democracy and seven elected councillors. The Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill halves the number of elected councillors in Christchurch: we used to have eight; we will get four under the bill. It means there is only one elected councillor from South Canterbury one from Central Canterbury and one from North Canterbury. We have got this nonsense that the Government members have been coming out with about how we have had such a wonderfully performing set of commissioners. If they have done such a marvellous job in the 6 years since 2010 why are we not getting regional democracy back now? If they had been so highly effective as the Minister Louise Upston said if they had been one of the best-performing councils why have they not already in that 6 years corrected the issues that the Government claims were present in Environment Canterbury prior to 2010.There is absolutely no justification for this bill. It is all about ensuring that members appointed by Ministers in Wellington can continue to dominate Environment Canterbury’s policy-making agenda to ensure that water is provided to the irrigators. It was very interesting with submissions to see the 15 individuals and organisations who supported the bill—a mere 15 out of 1167. Those who supported the bill were Irrigation New Zealand Federated Farmers the Waitaki Irrigators Collective—all of those—Matt Doocey: Six out of 10 councils.EUGENIE SAGE: —and the rural councils; not the Christchurch City Council which represents the majority of the population in the region Mr Doocey but the rural councils. All of those interests want water to be easily available for irrigation. They want a light hand in terms of Environment Canterbury’s regulation of land use so that water pollution can continue and we do not get high standards of environmental management. That is what this bill is about; it is about ensuring that the pro-irrigation agenda and the weak commitment to water quality and environmental management continue.The Green Party strongly opposed this bill at its introduction and we continue to oppose it. Public submissions were strongly against the bill but once again the Government has failed to listen. Mr Simpson talked about only a few submissions. When the Government ran such a truncated process of submissions and consultation on the review document when the Government has shown that it is intent on proceeding with suspending democracy why would people bother when their views have been consistently ignored?Submitters opposed the bill because they recognised the importance of local democracy: it provides a check and a counterbalance on the powers of central government and the executive. As one of the submitters Professor Emeritus Chris Kissling said in his submission and I would just like to quote from it: “This bill is a denial of democracy in a country that prides itself on being democratic. … Continuance of central government appointed commissioners can be likened to the reservation of 25% of the new parliament in Myanmar for the military under their military dictated constitution. They do not trust their people. Neither does the National Government in New Zealand trust its Cantabrians. Here it is a dictatorship without guns but still a denial of constitutional propriety.”Every other region in New Zealand gets to vote for a fully elected regional council and there is absolutely no reason why Canterbury should be any different. It is interesting that in Kaipara we had a district council completely fail to implement its legal and its accountability responsibilities: it had a wastewater scheme that totally blew out costing over $53 million. There was a major doorstop-sized report by the Office of the Auditor-General into that failure to implement its responsibilities. It was what the Auditor-General called a story of poor governance poor decision-making and inadequate management of both the organisation and the project. That led to commissioners being appointed there yet in Kaipara people will be voting for their council again in October. In Canterbury we had no investigation by the Auditor-General no massive blowout of the regional council’s budget and yet people are being denied their right to vote.This is setting a precedent for the undermining of local democracy throughout New Zealand by having a second-class hybrid model. The Minister has claimed previously that it is like district health boards. District health boards are fully funded by the Crown they do not receive any rates funding—yet around this table come October there will be six appointed commissioners. I suspect that this hybrid model will discourage people from standing. Minister Upston said that the commissioners and the councillors will have a similar role around the table. We know that commissioners have been meeting regularly with Ministers—they have got a hotline to Ministers—so will the appointed commissioners also have a hotline to Ministers? It will be a second-rate form of representation for those who are elected because they do not have that hotline to Ministers. Yet Cantabrians are being expected to pay the salaries of these appointed commissioners. Government puts in its yes men and women but it does not pay their costs. So that is a double denial of elected accountability.This bill is a total crock. It strikes completely the wrong balance because it denies Cantabrians our democracy. It shows that the Government does not trust the citizens of Canterbury to elect a competent regional council to manage land and water pests the coast and air. One of the other major problems with this bill is that it means there is a different standard of law—different provisions applying—in Canterbury from around the rest of the country. We do not have the right to appeal regional plans to the Environment Court which people in Nelson and Marlborough and Tasman and Southland and the Waikato have. Why should two different sorts of law apply to different regions? Again it is because the Government wants to ensure that its appointed commissioners dominate the plan-making process to ensure that there are provisions in those plans that are permissive about irrigation and permissive about land use so that we allow this region of New Zealand which is responsible for 60 percent of the water that is allocated for irrigation in New Zealand to continue to have a weak regulatory regime. This is not about good resource management; it is about being pro-irrigation and it is about denying democracy so that the Government can continue to influence regional plans in Canterbury.We oppose it; submitters oppose it. The Government is being arrogant in the way it is ignoring public sentiment. It is undermining democracy which is consistent with what the Government has done throughout this term to increase the powers of central government and to put its thumb on local government and seek to dominate local government. There is no justification for this bill and that is why we have heard so many short speeches from Government members so many comments and so much criticism of the previous council and yet there is a failure to recognise that in 6 years commissioners should have fixed any of those problems if they existed. They obviously have not been able to do that so how can the Government continue to justify commissioners if they have not fixed the problems that the Government claimed were there? This bill is a crock. It denies democracy to Cantabrians. The Green Party opposes it.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): New Zealand First dissociates itself from and disagrees with the positions—and I think rather extreme positions—taken by all of the three other parties we have heard from today. We think that there has been far too much prejudice far too much puff far too much emotion and not nearly enough common sense. But New Zealand First cannot support this bill in the way it has been presented here today.Nine years is clearly far too long before a return to a fully elected regional council in Canterbury and 6 years is easily long enough for the commissioners to have done their work. We think actually that the commissioners have done a good job. They have overseen the establishment of an excellent Canterbury Water Management Strategy on the basis of very comprehensive public consultation but enough is enough. That job—the commissioners’ job—is substantially done and the strategy is now firmly in place providing order and direction. The strategy properly balances economic development with sustainable freshwater objectives. It is time for the commissioners to leave. Their job is done.The Minister claims that a partially appointed council is needed so that the commissioners can complete their work. Well that is poppycock because there is little or nothing left for them to do. And there is no way of going back now that the strategy is in place. For example stage one of the Central Plains Water scheme—by far the largest in New Zealand—is already operational and construction of stages two and three will commence this year. That is how far we have gone over the last 6 years. Other schemes are being properly processed under the strategy and environmental parameters and limits have been set including nutrient allocations.Central Plains Water established its benchmarks almost 2 years ago against which its performance will be closely monitored not just by Environment Canterbury but by a variety of other parties as well. It will be required to comply with the principle of continuous improvement and so will all of the other irrigation schemes that may start in the future. Most particularly all such schemes will now and in the future have to apply the matrix of good management under which sustainable farm practices will be mandatory.So as I have said we have come a long long way in the last 6 years. There is nothing really left for the commissioners to do. With diversification as well as intensification with modern irrigation schemes it is important that those requirements for good management are in place and they are. They will in time transform New Zealand agriculture with positive outcomes for the environment and that is what farmers also want. It is not just the Greens and it is not just environmentalists; it is also the farmers themselves.New Zealand First did support the appointment of the commissioners in 2010 because actions by the then Environment Canterbury simply undermined perfectly valid and proper applications for water consents threatening an orderly process for consents for takes and uses of water for irrigation that we had then already in train without having a strategy in place for over 15 years—over 15 years—and without properly consulting councils communities or the public. No wonder then that the district and city councils at the time supported and pushed for the appointment of commissioners—they were right to do so—but not for 9 years. That is far too long. If the commissioners could not do what they set out to do within 6 years they should never have been appointed but in fact they have achieved that. They have done enough; it is time for them to go.Local government is fundamentally about representative democracy. Where commissioners are needed—and they were needed in that case—the term must be short. A mixed—elected and appointed—Environment Canterbury is the worst of both worlds because neither is it genuinely representative of the people of the region nor would it be an entity with any political independence. A worse system could not possibly be imagined. Inevitably a them-and-us attitude will develop on that council and that will not be positive.I note that Ngāi Tahu are to appoint two of the Government’s first three appointments out of a maximum of six. New Zealand First policy is that no such appointees should be made to elected councils or other elected bodies. We think that is a very good policy that reflects what most people in this country think. To have such appointments compromises democracy in the same way that democracy is compromised by the appointment of the other commissioners. It is not necessary for Ngāi Tahu to have any appointees at all. Māori are already elected in satisfying numbers to councils all around the country—that is a fact. New Zealand First opposes the bill for that reason as well.The bill does nothing to sort out the real issues with Environment Canterbury. There have always been four problems we have had to deal with. One is that in 2010 there was a lack of a properly developed strategic plan for fresh water in Canterbury. Environment Canterbury’s process then was nothing less than shambolic. It did not reflect local values or needs and it did not bring local councils or communities with it. It needed to go it should have gone and it did go.Nobody really ever had any confidence that that elected Environment Canterbury would actually get anywhere with a water management strategy for Canterbury. Applicants for water consents had to operate in a vacuum—and that was the fault of Environment Canterbury—up until 2010. Thirdly to make matters worse its management acted like a law unto itself would not listen to people and gave very poor advice in my opinion.Fourthly and lastly there is an inherent problem of an urban versus rural schism in Canterbury because of the urban population dominance of Christchurch with urban attitudes and little understanding of agriculture and rural issues. That is something that this bill simply does not address. New Zealand First thinks that we need a much more comprehensive review of how regional governance should be carried out for the future in Canterbury. That has not happened; it does need to happen.In the end it is wrong to treat Canterbury as different from other regions for so long. The Government claimed that a stable Environment Canterbury with specialist skills is needed but you get that through elected regional councils. You see it all around the country: good people elected because they have the skills. So all this nonsense about the skills required for management of fresh water local authority governance tikanga Māori and knowledge of the Canterbury region and its people—these are all things that elected people can deliver. The reasons given by the Government are no reason for a continuation of any appointed commissioners for Environment Canterbury in the future.New Zealand First cannot support the bill. It cannot support this unelected body going on for so long. It will be dysfunctional it does not address the real issues and it is time the Government stopped and took a long hard look at what is really needed for Canterbury. I would encourage the other parties to abandon their extreme positions adopt some common sense and look at what the region really needs for both environmental sustainability and good productive sustainable agriculture in the future.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri): It is a pleasure and an honour to rise in support of the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill in its second reading. Can I first start off by saying I was fortunate to attend the Crusaders-Blues game on Friday night. It was great to see the Crusaders out there beating the Blues. We know that when Canterbury rugby goes well New Zealand rugby goes well and good luck to the Crusaders. I know I will be out there barracking for them for the rest of the year.Can I also acknowledge members of Parliament from all sides of this House for their continued support for Canterbury post-earthquake. But I would put a challenge to the Labour Party which is constantly saying that it is in support. How come its top Canterbury-based MP is No. 10 in its caucus? It has got fewer than two dozen MPs in its caucus and yet you have to go down halfway to find its first Canterbury MP.Hon Simon Bridges: I couldn’t even name who that person is.MATT DOOCEY: Ha ha! I challenge Labour to put its first Canterbury MP up high and show its support for Canterbury.Really Labour’s position on this bill demonstrates it is the “Two-position Party”. What I am saying about that is that Labour was against the Greater Christchurch Regeneration Bill because it did not like the power the elected representatives—the Ministers—had and it wanted to give more power to the appointed members of the Regenerate Christchurch board. That is in stark contrast to its position on this bill where Labour members are now claiming they do not want to put power in the hands of appointed members. The “Two-position Party” strikes again on the referendum on free-trade agreements and now on Canterbury legislation.What this bill is about is confidence and stability and this bill is going to provide confidence and stability to Cantabrians. When you look at the legislative process the bill was referred after its first reading to the Local Government and Environment Committee and we had a range of submissions with differing views. We have made a few amendments and now it is coming back into the House. That shows it is a good bill and we are proud to support that. When you look at the departmental report it said the bill meets the policy intent to provide appropriate mechanisms to continue the progress made under the current commissioners while acting as a transitional measure to a fully elected council in 2019.What we know is that the good work of the Environment Canterbury commissioners has taken one of the worst-performing regional councils to now being one of the best and I know constituents in my electorate of Waimakariri trust the process Environment Canterbury has taken. It has taken the noise out of water quality and nutrient leaching discussions because it is a collaborative process in the zone committees and zone implementation plans. That is why Cantabrians are supporting this bill and that is why they are supporting this Government. They trust this Government and its confidence and stability. I support this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. Jan Logie—5 minutes.JAN LOGIE (Green): It is quite difficult to follow that last contribution and hear that this bill is about confidence and stability and to follow on from previous members on that side of the House telling us that the commissioners are offering incredible skills that it is sensible common-sense management and that really those opposing it are ignorant. Well in response to that and at the risk of being called shrill I would like to quote the Law Society and its submission on this bill. It said: “Representative democracy is a fundamental principle that gives legitimacy to government and the exercise of state power. … The proposed further suspension of full democracy is inconsistent with one of New Zealand’s core constitutional values namely a ‘free and democratic society’.”I am deeply offended to be listening to the members on that side start their speeches by offering congratulations to the Crusaders while this House is continuing to remove the core constitutional foundations of this country for Cantabrians. It is absolutely offensive and if you call me shrill for being upset at the removal of democracy I will take it because the only thing that validates our ability to stand here in this House is people’s right to vote for their leadership. To say that the skill and the management of Environment Canterbury was not doing its job—it is not this House’s job to decide that. It is the job of the people who are paying their taxes and are electing their representatives to decide that. That right has been taken away from the people of Canterbury by this National Government and what this bill does is give them back a half-pie democracy.We are told that the people of Canterbury support this bill. Even with the truncated select committee process and ability of the people to put in submissions there were still 1169 submissions of which 15 supported this bill. That is not support for this bill. There is not support for the ongoing denial of democracy in Canterbury. We hear that the purpose of this bill is the management of the resources and that Environment Canterbury was incompetent and it had to be removed. There has been no investigation. There is no actual evidence of that. We have heard from the Minister that Environment Canterbury was incompetent in managing water. Well actually it was going through a process and all of the work that it did was used by the commissioners 2 months later I understand after they were appointed to put in place a plan for water management across the district. There is no actual evidence of that incompetence. Although I have heard from different members that they thought there was incompetence that is actually a political point to be debated during an election process. It is for the people of Canterbury to decide.I am passionate about this because I think democracy is a core value and is something we have fight to protect—although actually I am ashamed to think that we still have to fight to protect it—but also it is important because we know that democracy is one of the things that helps us protect our environment. Without our environment we are nothing and this is so starkly true in this particular case. What this is about ultimately is a fight over the rights to our environment—the protection of the water in Canterbury. The 15 submitters who supported this bill were those representing the interests of irrigators. It is the irrigators and those who want to exploit the resources against the people and the environment and it is absolutely a shame to see this Government taking away the rights of the people to protect their environment because you know with no environment there is no economy and none of us survive.MEKA WHAITIRI (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. E ngā mema o Te Whare nei tēnā tātou katoa. I rise proudly as Labour’s spokesperson on local government. I also rise proudly as a member of this House the New Zealand House of Representatives. We all—121 of us—journeyed to this place in a well-established well-maintained and a well-protected democratic system so if it is good enough for us as members of this House to be elected to come here then why is it not good enough for the good people of Canterbury to have their say? That is the question that I pose to this House. If it is good enough for us why is it not good enough for Canterbury people?I join in solidarity with my hard-working colleagues who are based in the Canterbury region: Dr Woods the Hon Ruth Dyson Poto Williams my own colleague Rino Tirikatene and of course Clayton Cosgrove. We are very clear in our caucus that when we discuss matters of importance to Canterbury these fine hard-working MPs will go down in history for standing up for the democratic rights of people from Canterbury. It is sad to say that the members on the other side will go down in history for removing that democratic right of the people of Canterbury to have their say and I think that is the travesty with this bill. It does not give the people of Canterbury a say. After listening to the contributors from that side of the House on why this is an important step I say it is not defensible.Canterbury as we all know has been around for a long long time and it has produced some very very amazing New Zealanders. I have got no qualms in saying that the leadership down there is more than capable of taking care of these issues and that is what goes to the heart of this bill. This bill aims to provide governance arrangements for the Canterbury Regional Council to operate during the 2016-19 local authority election period. It replaces the governance arrangements that have been in place since 2010 under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010. It is intended to provide for a majority of members of the council to be elected by the people of the Canterbury region and it is also to provide for some of the modified resource management processes that have operated under the Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010 to remain available to the council in order to further progress issues relating to the management of fresh water within the Canterbury region.This bill is about irrigation and this side of the House has called it for what it is. The bill is about water and its management in Canterbury. There are differing points of interest around managing Canterbury’s water. These include those within the urban community who have intense interest in the quality of their waterways for clean drinking water and recreation along with a strong sense of identity with Canterbury’s braided rivers. Councils all over the country manage to resolve issues around contested resources. It is not the case that this cannot be done in Canterbury. The region is not unique. In 2010 the new council set itself a target of ensuring that 80 percent of our rivers in the region were safe to swim in—80 percent. At that time 74 percent of rivers fell into this category and we have heard that as of today that number has declined to 67 percent.My closing statement is about what Labour will do when we are in Government. Labour will restore local democracy and the right of communities to have their say on decisions affecting them. We believe in participatory democracy on appropriate major and strategic decisions and we believe in appropriate consultation on detailed and technical issues. We recognise that a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate for local government organisations and we will restore local democracy to all communities. I stand in solidarity with my colleagues. We will be opposing this bill because it removes the rights of all Canterbury people to have their say in their democracy. Kia ora tātou.NUK KORAKO (National):Kia ora e Te Māngai o Te Whare huri noa i Te Whare e mihi atu ana ki a koutou katoa.[Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker and acknowledgments to you all in the House.]I first want to say what a sad day it is for Canterbury and Christchurch particularly when I hear the two representatives who are from Christchurch with their very very determined but unfortunate speeches against this bill. It is as I say a very very sad day because when we look at this legislation this actually is about the continued stability of the present Environment Canterbury governance in Canterbury but particularly in Christchurch.We have just heard a speech that was about democracy but when we look at this—back in 2010 Environment Canterbury had one of the worst track records in New Zealand. When we talk about democracy the majority of Canterbury mayors—there were 10 of them who actually went to Wellington and these mayors were democratically elected to ask for help. They asked that commissioners be put into Environment Canterbury. That is what happened. When we look at the issues there the first one was major issues with stakeholder relationships—stakeholder relationships with all of the councils in Canterbury and stakeholder relationships with mana whenua. That was a huge one.Then we heard from the New Zealand First member. In fact it took those members 15 years—that is how long it had been going on—to bring forward a strategy about fresh water. They call that an issue now. The situation here is the fact that since the commissioners were put in in 2010 even the staff at Environment Canterbury breathed a sigh of relief that they would have governance that was stable and that they would have governance that would get on with the job and would then be responsible for the confidence that we see in Cantabrians today. This bill makes perfect sense. This bill will give Cantabrians and particularly people from Christchurch the assurance that there is a continuation of stable governance within their regional council. This is particularly around fresh water and also about Regenerate Christchurch.I just want to finish with one thing that the New Zealand First member said. It was about the fact that we did not need a transitional governance structure but that is wrong because if we are going to continue to have confidence in Canterbury and then also in Christchurch particularly there has to be that transitional arrangement. The status quo at the moment is doing an excellent job so why just get rid of it and bring in other members? This transitional plan is an excellent balance with seven elected and six appointed. That balance will continue to be the really important part of the continuation of stability around fresh water in Canterbury and around the Christchurch regeneration. I totally recommend this bill and commend it to the House. Kia ora.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East): It is unfortunate that the previous speaker Nuk Korako has chosen to rewrite history in his speech. There is definitely no doubt that democracy has been diminished in Canterbury when after this period of time—6 years of commissioners—they have not achieved what they set out to achieve. After 6 years has water quality improved in the Canterbury region? It has been a big no—a big no. Not just a small no but a big no.The Government has asked us to trust it with our water quality in the Canterbury region when we know that right across the country it has failed repeatedly at restoring water quality to any condition of which we could be proud. And it is asking us again to trust it with another 3 years when 6 years of failure is its legacy to the people of Canterbury. Six years of failure and another 3 on top and what will happen after that point—what will happen after this 3 years? Will it then decide that it needs another 3 years to fiddle with Canterbury’s water quality? It is not good enough for the people of Canterbury to have this imposed upon them. We deserve to be able to elect the people whom we charge to have our best interests at heart and if they do not do a good job then like any other democratic process the people will speak and other people will come in to take that role from them.This process has been designed to force this bill through without appropriate scrutiny from the people of Canterbury or by the Local Government and Environment Committee. When you hold a process of consultation over the summer period when people are away from their home environment and on holiday and when you truncate the select committee process this does not speak to a process where you are wanting to completely and fully engage the community and fully consult with the community. That has been the problem all along from the very beginning when the commissioners were put in over the top of elected representatives. It has taken the voice of the people completely out of the process.I want to challenge what one of the previous speakers said—that the people of Canterbury want this—when overwhelmingly the submissions that were made to the select committee said the people of Canterbury want to return to a fully democratic process where they can elect the representatives for Environment Canterbury to do the things that they need them to do and not to have this. It is half-pie. Half-pie is half good and half good is not good enough. We want full pie—we want it to be completely good.Jan Logie: We deserve full pie.POTO WILLIAMS: We absolutely deserve it. Our community has been through enough and we have had Ministers with special powers—war-time powers—able to make decisions in our city for long enough. This is another example of this Government’s heavy-handedness in Canterbury. It is a cautionary tale. It is a cautionary tale because this could be any city council around the country. It could be coming to you there in Auckland; it could be coming to you here in Wellington. It could be coming to you soon. If the Government decides that a fully elected city council is not operating in the Government’s best interests well look out. It can put in some commissioners. It can take democracy away from the people and that is not good enough.We have opposed this bill vehemently. My colleagues have spoken very passionately about the aspects of this bill that we oppose. I just want to reiterate: it is about the loss of democracy and it is about the loss of the voice of people who for the last 5 years have been engaged in a process where they have not been completely consulted on the rebuild of their city or on which buildings can actually be demolished. They are not full participants in decisions around earthquake recovery and here yet again the power to control one of the most precious resources in our country is taken out of the hands of the people of Canterbury. The select committee process was truncated. The ability for people to actually be heard with submissions overwhelmingly in opposition to this bill—all of this has been ignored by this Government. I for one join my colleagues on this side of the House to vehemently oppose this bill.JOANNE HAYES (National): I stand as the last speaker on this side of the House to support the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill. I want to point out that word “Transitional”—transitional because that is what happens when you want to retain a stable governance process. It has always happened year after year—transitional ways of being able to keep the old heads in with the new heads. It is simple. It is very very simple. It is not about taking away the democracy of Cantabrians. It is about—Poto Williams: Give it back then. Let’s give it back.JOANNE HAYES: No it is not because I can say that the Cantabrians will get a chance to elect seven councillors to Environment Canterbury. They will get that opportunity. So that is not taking away the democracy of a region. Retaining six of the members appointed by the Government is about retaining that stability in there. It is what transitional arrangements are all about—it always has been. When I hear members say “Watch out because this could come to your area. The Government could step in and do the same thing to your area with your regional council.” that is a load of rubbish. This Government stepped in because it was asked to step in.This Government was asked to step in because the previous regional councillors were not doing their job. They were seen to be severely severely incapable of doing their job. That was actually spoken about here tonight—not by this side but by New Zealand First—by the member Mr O’Rourke. He actually said it. He said it was a good thing—it was the best thing to do—because they were not firing. They were not doing the job that they were supposed to do. If they had done the water development plan as they were tasked to do and done all the work that they were tasked to do and the management of Environment Canterbury as well then the Government would not have come in at the request of all of those mayors.It is shameful that the other side is ridiculing this process and maligning the chair of our select committee. I must say that he is one of the best select committee chairs in this House. I can tell you that right now. They are also maligning the commissioners who have done a good job. They took a broken regional council and they fixed it up—it is not an easy thing to just go in and fix it up—and started to move along the path that the previous regional councils were tasked to do that they did not do.So as I stand here today and I look across the House during the second reading I have no qualms in supporting the second reading of this bill to the House. I look forward to the third reading and it passing into legislation because the new council—when it comes into force with its six appointed members—will have 3 years in which to train up and to support the new councillors so that Cantabrians can then get back to electing their full Environment Canterbury constituency of councillors. Thank you.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the amendments recommended by the Local Government and Environment Committee by majority be agreed to.Ayes 62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; United Future 1.Question agreed to.A party vote was called for on the question That the Environment Canterbury (Transitional Governance Arrangements) Bill be now read a second time.Ayes 62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes 59New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12; United Future 1.Bill read a second time.Radio New Zealand Amendment BillThird ReadingHon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Broadcasting): I move That the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill be now read a third time. This is a bill that has been widely supported by this House through all its stages. This is testament not only to the quality of the bill but also to the status and reputation of Radio New Zealand as a cultural institution. This bill gives effect to the statutory review of Radio New Zealand’s charter which establishes its functions and guiding objectives. The review brings about a revision of the current charter. This will better equip Radio New Zealand to meet the challenges and opportunities of a multimedia era.With such transformative change taking place not only in New Zealand but on the global stage it is crucial to the health and longevity of organisations in broadcasting and communications to be adaptive. This bill reflects that. Central to this bill is Radio New Zealand’s commitment to continue in its role as a publicly owned broadcaster while encouraging a wider reach through the raft of new media channels available. Essentially the bill is catching up with and providing support to the work Radio New Zealand is already doing in ensuring New Zealanders have access to a range of new and archived content through podcasts streamings and other platforms.I want to quickly summarise the main aspects of the bill. Our changes are about adaptability flexibility and responsiveness to a new and rapidly changing media landscape. It largely proposes a more reader-friendly less cumbersome charter for Radio New Zealand to operate in. This framework ensures that Radio New Zealand is fit for purpose and the bill reflects its role as a responsive and adaptive public broadcaster operating in a multimedia landscape.The charter now sets out Radio New Zealand’s purpose: a forum for cultural expression and for news and information. Additionally it outlines how Radio New Zealand is to deliver its services through a diverse variety of content to a wide range of audiences. As I have said previously New Zealanders are not abandoning one platform for another. Rather they are using a variety of platforms to source more content overall. Radio New Zealand has recognised this changing media landscape and is leading the way on genuine media convergence. The broadcaster has made itself more accessible across a range of channels be it via smartphone app its website or through the Sky Digital network. The recent addition of John Campbell’s multimedia version of Checkpoint speaks to this transformative change.Radio New Zealand is working towards achieving its charter goal of providing quality and engaging journalism and current affairs to a wider range of New Zealanders across the country. Enhanced delivery platforms include streamed video podcasts and an extension to existing Freeview high-definition services. The revised charter supports Radio New Zealand’s multi-platform approach by saying that Radio New Zealand should take advantage of the most effective means of delivery for its content.The bill amends other provisions in the Radio New Zealand Act relating to the charter and to Radio New Zealand’s role. One of these is the principles of operation which ensure that Radio New Zealand is not influenced by the commercial interests of others. Another is the frequency of reviews carried out by this House. A review will begin only after the relevant select committee has completed its previous review and any changes have been agreed by the House.At Radio New Zealand’s request a Supplementary Order Paper was developed to more clearly define the bill’s provisions that Radio New Zealand remain commercial-free or in other words without advertising or sponsorship. It still allows Radio New Zealand to promote its own services but most important it means Radio New Zealand remains free to access so we will not see its content disappearing behind a paywall. However being commercial-free will not apply to Radio New Zealand in providing media services outside New Zealand other than the existing Pacific service of Radio New Zealand International.The Supplementary Order Paper recognised Radio New Zealand’s need to use new platforms to reach its audiences. It also gives the organisation some room to explore opportunities for strategic partnerships and audience-building through content without losing any integrity as a public service provider. It will provide the freedom for Radio New Zealand to take up commercial opportunities such as licensing its content for reuse by commercial providers or its current presence on iHeartRadio and MSN New Zealand. The Supplementary Order Paper also amended what I saw as an old-fashioned and overly prescriptive provision relating to Radio New Zealand’s surveying of audiences while clarifying that its research into the attitudes of non-listeners should be carried out at least annually.I am pleased that the Supplementary Order Paper was supported by all parties in the Committee of the whole House. The review and subsequent changes to the charter confirm the service range and breadth of content New Zealanders expect from their public radio. This Government is committed to lifting the performance of the public sector and to ensuring the best value for money for the New Zealand taxpayer. This bill speaks to that and will ensure the health and longevity of Radio New Zealand. It will have greater freedom to explore new media platforms and extend its reach in turn providing greater value for every dollar spent on Radio New Zealand content. The Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill including the amendments introduced by the Supplementary Order Paper goes a long way in bringing this entity up to date and in providing the tools that will ensure its resilience in a fast-changing landscape.Can I thank all of those who have contributed to the process including members of this House and members of the public who commented on the draft charter and of course the members of the Commerce Committee. For many decades Radio New Zealand has played a vital role in New Zealand’s broadcasting landscape. I am pleased that this amendment legislation will help position it to meet the needs of New Zealand people for many more years to come. I commend the bill to the House.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South): This is a historic day. It has been a historic day on a number of counts. We saw a bill pass through its third reading earlier today that abolishes zero-hour contracts which is a historic occurrence. With this bill the Radio New Zealand Amendment Bill we have the third reading finally of a bill that has been sitting on the Order Paper since 2009.It is a simple bill. It follows a statutory requirement to review the Radio New Zealand charter every 5 years. The review of the charter that we are talking about in this bill tonight began in 2005 so that is 10 years ago. The statutory requirement is to have that charter reviewed at 5-yearly intervals. So right now given that this legislation was introduced following a review that started in 2005 we should be on to not the next review but the one after that. We have actually skipped two reviews. I think that is a fairly extraordinary occurrence because ultimately not only has the Minister not seen through the fulfilment of a statutory duty but also we have got a review that has happened that is 10 years old. Yes there was a substantial amendment that the Minister put to the Committee of the whole House with no ability for there to be a select committee process and discussion around it. In fact tonight the Minister has made really the only comments on that substantial amendment that we have heard from the Government. Really it has been a bit of a shambles. It has been an extraordinary passage. It is probably since this Government has been in power one of the bills that has sat on the Order Paper for the longest before it has actually been through all of its readings in the House.Labour supports the bill because it is a review of the Radio New Zealand charter. It was a review as I said that began in 2005 under the previous Labour Government so of course we support it. What we do have concerns about is that what it really shows is a lack of commitment by this Government to public broadcasting and to the important processes that we need to keep putting in place. We needed to have done not only a review from 2005 but also two more reviews since then so that we can be reassured that what we are seeing in this bill is as up to date as possible. I think that the people listening at home tonight should be aware of that.The Minister has been full of praise for Radio New Zealand but what the Minister does not say is that Radio New Zealand is under more and more pressure to deliver quality content in a funding environment that is going backwards. It has recorded a deficit this year. It has been in a funding freeze since 2009 which ultimately represents a cut in its funding of around 25 percent. Radio New Zealand is doing its best and is doing very well under the circumstances at providing quality services in such an environment but people should be very aware that it is operating in a very difficult environment. It is making that transition towards becoming a multimedia broadcaster and operating on multimedia platforms and it has made that transition very well with the new Checkpoint programme largely because of the talent it has and the vision that its chief executive Paul Thompson has for the organisation. But it is doing that in a very difficult environment and one that this Government has no desire or intention to improve when it comes to New Zealand’s important and only public broadcasting platform which is doing its best to become a multimedia platform.This is why it is so curious that the board chair refused to go to the Government in this Budget round and ask for extra funding. It is curious and sad and members of the Commerce Committee were moved to ask whether Radio New Zealand has given up. I do not think Radio New Zealand has given up but I think it is operating in very very difficult circumstances. Everybody listening tonight should be aware of that and should be asking questions as to why that is so and what this Government is going to do about it.The bill before us tonightfollows as we know a review of the Radio New Zealand charter in 2005.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 6 p.m.