Volume 705 Week 15 - Wednesday 6 May 2015Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 705 Week 15 - Wednesday 6 May 2015[Sitting date: 06 May 2015. Volume:705;Page:3215. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Wednesday 6 May 2015Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.Points of OrderTabling of Documents—Description of DocumentsHon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Yesterday you set out a very clear set of requirements for tabling documents: the source the date and a brief description. Yesterday the Minister of Health tabled a document with the approval of this House that does not have the source identified and has a different date from that claimed by the Minister in the House. I am going to ask you to look at this because we want consistent application of your requirements for the tabling of documents. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will look at the matter.Questions to MinistersEconomy—Employment1.CHRIS BISHOP (National)to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the outlook for the New Zealand economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):More positive reports on the outlook for the New Zealand economy. Treasury released its Monthly Economic Indicators report for April. It says that economic growth looks set to continue over the first half of 2015 supported by business and consumer confidence and elevated levels of investment and hiring intentions despite recent easing of those measures. The cost of living has fallen in each of the last two quarters for the first time since 1999 and inflation expectations and the expectation of businesses to increase their prices remain subdued. With no sign of emerging inflation or interest rate pressure which might normally be expected when an economy is growing at 3 percent the economy is exhibiting capacity for further sustainable growth.Chris Bishop: What are some of the current challenges and opportunities for New Zealand businesses and households?Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the challenges is of course the reality of lower commodity prices. This includes the fall in dairy prices which has continued in April. Dairy prices are now back at levels last seen in December 2014. However it is worth putting this in an international context. Between mid-2011 and December 2014 New Zealand terms of trade have actually increased by 3 percent. In the same period the Australian terms of trade fell by 23 percent due to a large fall in the iron ore price. So although dairy prices are down overall our terms of trade are roughly flat and that compares favourably with Australia where the terms of trade have fallen by 23 percent.Grant Robertson: In light of those answers how does the Minister reconcile his trumpeted 3 percent growth figure with the fact that in Northland unemployment is 9.9 percent in Manawatū and Wanganui it is over 7 percent and in Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay it is over 7 percent and that wage rises over the last period have been the lowest that they have been in 2 years—where is the benefit in growth in the economy for working New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH: At any given time the growth rate is an average across the country. The member I presume is not suggesting that someone is making up the growth numbers. They come from Statistics New Zealand which has statutory independence. If the member wants to use anecdotes unemployment in the South Island is under 4 percent. I have to say coming from the South Island we would welcome people from Wanganui Gisborne and Auckland turning up to fill the empty jobs in the South Island. One of the surprising things about this cycle is how sticky unemployment appears to be in some areas where clearly there are not as many jobs as there are in the South Island.Chris Bishop: What reports has he received showing how growth in the economy is helping to deliver more jobs and higher wages for New Zealanders?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Labour market statistics released today show that 16000 more people were employed in the March quarter meaning that in the year to March 74000 jobs were added to the economy. Labour force participation is now at an all-time high of 69.6 percent and New Zealand has the fourth-highest employment rate in the OECD—that is the fourth-highest proportion of the working-age population actually in work. Average wages increased by 2 percent over the same period well ahead of inflation of 0.1 percent.Chris Bishop: What were the main drivers of employment growth over the last year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Employment growth has been reasonably broad-based. Construction added 23000 additional jobs. Retail accommodation and food services added 14000 jobs and we know that Labour’s “manufacturing crisis” continues because the manufacturing sector added 16000 jobs in the last year. Members in the House may recall that in 2011 the Budget forecast 170000 additional jobs by about now and the economy is over 20000 ahead of that forecast.Dr David Clark: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library dated yesterday or today which—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Dr David Clark: Yesterday I am pretty sure. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is making a point of order. I wish to hear it. So it is dated today we have established.Dr David Clark: Either yesterday or today. It came into my in-box overnight.Mr SPEAKER: All right. Just quickly describe the document and I will decide whether to put the leave.Dr David Clark: The document is clear that a third of the economic growth is attributable to the—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any more. The point of tabling that document is to make a political point. It is not to inform members.Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Is the member attempting to relitigate a decision I have just made? Because that will require the member to be leaving the Chamber immediately.Dr David Clark: It is a point of clarification.Mr SPEAKER: I am not interested in a point of clarification. If it is a fresh point of—[Interruption] Order! The level of complaints I had because of the noise coming from this sector yesterday means that I intend to do something about it. I have ruled that I am not interested in putting that piece of information to the House. It does not require a point of clarification. My mind is absolutely clear. If the member has a fresh point of order I will hear it but I am not going to have arguments continuing on that particular point of order. If the member wants to leave the Chamber he is certainly welcome to do so.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a point of order. It had better be a fresh point of order.Hon Annette King: Do you intend to rule on the length of answers we are getting from the Minister—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will also resume her seat. I will judge as I have said on many occasions the length of answers. But when there are constant interjections coming from my left-hand side to the Minister who is answering the question clearly that gives the opportunity for the Minister to then be responding to those interjections.Whānau Ora—Auditor-General’s Report2.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Ministers’ implementation of the Whānau Ora programme in light of the Auditor-General’s report finding $42 million of its $138 million budget in its first 4 years was spent on administration?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Andrew Little: After the $42 million spent on administration and the untold millions eaten up by service providers how much Whānau Ora money is actually reaching families in need?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have the exact number but I can quote the Auditor-General’s report where she talks about the success Whānau Ora has had for the many families that they spoke to.Andrew Little: Why when 2 years ago the Government announced Whānau Ora was being overhauled because it was wasteful and ineffective has nothing changed?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Quite to the contrary actually. I acknowledge that there were some early teething issues. When you try something new against a very complex and complicated environment and an environment that actually had not been delivering for those families I accept that there were some teething issues. But there are now joint agencies and what has happened is there are now three commissioning agencies. I think the new structure that is in place is seeing a greater provision of services for those families with those complex needs.Andrew Little: When did senior Ministers on the Crown-iwi Whānau Ora Partnership Group advise him that there were issues of wasteful spending in Whānau Ora?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I simply do not have those dates but I do know that over time there have been reviews. As I said the system was new and it was trying to tackle these needs for complex families. I think it is actually building into a programme that has been very successful for those families. In fact if you go and have a look at the Ministry of Health for example it has done a review of Whānau Ora general practices and compared them with mainstream general practices and it has gone on to say that Whānau Ora performs as well or better. This is a new way of doing things—putting families at the heart of solving those issues with a navigator with these commissioning agencies and I do think it is building into a programme that is delivering results.Andrew Little: Why has it taken the Auditor-General’s office and an expensive audit report by her to identify the wasteful spending and the $42 million spent on administration when he had Ministers such as Bill English and Steven Joyce sitting on the Crown-iwi Whānau Ora Partnership Group who were there to advise him on the progress of the implementation of Whānau Ora?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think the member accurately categorises things. What has happened is there were some one-off costs and there has been a new way of doing things. I think that came with those costs and with some early teething issues. But the changes that took place took place because of the review work done by a variety of Ministers including the work done by Te Puni Kōkiri and by Tariana Turia when she was in Parliament. It actually led to these commissioning agencies and I think they have done a much better job of tightening up the system and delivering the results we want.Andrew Little: Having spent $137 million of taxpayers’ money on Whānau Ora does he agree with the Auditor-General that “It was not easy to describe what it is or what it has achieved.”; if so what consequences will his Ministers face?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly as I said the Auditor-General’s report does not cover for the most part the phase where now you have got the commissioning agencies. So that is the first point I would make. Secondly what I would say is that this is an area where we have always spent a lot of money—successive Governments have and actually they have failed to deliver results. One of the reasons is that these families have very very complicated needs. So when you look at Whānau Ora which nowadays has commissioning agents within that it has the providers that go out there and it has navigators—the people who actually sit alongside the families and help them navigate a range of different agencies and support measures. Actually I think that is the right way of tackling a very complicated and difficult area.Andrew Little: Does he accept that had he bothered to get value for money out of Whānau Ora and other Government programmes he would now be in a position to keep his promise to post a surplus in the Budget?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No quite the opposite actually. This Government over the course of the last 6½ years has challenged the siloed approach that was in place under the previous Government. Actually what it has delivered are far better results. That is why the Government is actually quite happy to have Better Public Services targets why it actually measures those targets and why from everything from health to education to welfare we are delivering better results for New Zealanders. We are doing things a different way and frankly it is a more integrated and better way.State and Social Housing—Sale of Housing Stock3.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty)to the Minister for Social Housing: What recent announcements have been made about the next steps of the Government’s Social Housing Reform Programme?Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Housing):Bill English and I today announced that Tauranga and Invercargill have been selected as the first regions for the proposed transfer of Housing New Zealand houses into community ownership. This is another important step in creating a more effective and efficient social housing sector and is a fantastic opportunity for community housing providers in these areas to deliver housing services locally. No decisions have been made on the number of houses that will be transferred into community ownership.Todd Muller: Why have these areas been selected?Hon PAULA BENNETT: Tauranga and Invercargill have been chosen because they have active community housing providers as well as stable demand for social housing.Rt Hon Winston Peters: And docile MPs.Hon PAULA BENNETT: And I might add to that member that they have also got fantastic members of Parliament in both places who actually understand their communities and are able to do that. Actually what is really important is there are very good local people who understand local needs and are able to deliver services locally. We want to back that and that is part of this programme.Todd Muller: What does this announcement mean for tenants?Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it is really important that tenants understand that they will continue to be housed for the duration of their needs that their rent will not go up if houses are transferred and that their eligibility for income-related rent will not change unless their own circumstances do. These are tenants in these regions with long and medium-term needs which gives community providers the opportunity to integrate housing with other services that they might provide like mental health and disability support and alcohol and drug counselling. The whole Social Housing Reform Programme is about helping more low-income and vulnerable New Zealanders receive the support that they need.Budget 2015—Return to Surplus4.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements in relation to the Budget?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes in the context they were given. I particularly stand by my statement that Budget 2015 will be delivered in the context of a strong and growing economy and improving Government finances.Andrew Little: Having failed to keep his promise to get the books into surplus this year will he guarantee New Zealanders that he will not be breaking any other promises?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think New Zealanders are smart enough to work out that this is a Government that has picked up a hell of a mess from the previous Labour Government. It was a disaster that it inherited—a pile of unfunded programmes and frankly economic leadership that would be welcomed in Greece but actually is not welcomed in New Zealand—and it has tidied the shop up.Andrew Little: In light of his backdown on getting to surplus this year when will he be honest with New Zealanders and give a real date on when he will finally post a surplus?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is important to understand that the data that will be in the Budget like the data that is in the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update and all the others is put together by Treasury based on the best estimates it has. As I said to the House yesterday interestingly enough the revenue number for the Crown over the next 4 years is $15 billion lower than it would have been because of low inflation. It happens to be great for businesses and for consumers—Hon Member: Take some responsibility.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well actually I will take responsibility for the fact that the economy is growing we have got the fifth-highest employment rate in the OECD and New Zealanders are flocking back to New Zealand having left in droves under the previous Labour Government.Andrew Little: Can he confirm that he also has not kept his promise to lift exports from 30 percent of GDP to 40 percent—in fact exports have fallen back to just 29 percent of GDP?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am truly ambitious for New Zealand and for myself but I never realised that Andrew Little was so ambitious for me because that is our 2025 target. He is clearly expecting me to win quite a few elections between now and then.Andrew Little: In light of the consistent slide in prices in recent global dairy auctions when can New Zealanders expect him to finally keep his export promise?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I thought we traversed this in the House yesterday but the Government is not responsible for dairy prices. I know that the Opposition might want to blame us for them; it certainly did not want to give us any credit for them when they were going up but it does seem to want to criticise us when they are going down. But actually here is a pretty simple test. We want to grow our exports. Let us sign up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We are in. Are you in?Andrew Little: Having failed to keep his promises when will he stop making excuses front up and admit he has let New Zealanders down yet again?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: We are not making excuses; we are actually presenting the Government’s books. Actually if the member wants to look at any indicators from consumer confidence business confidence right indicators wrong indicators the election result the exchange rate movements—all of those things are indicators that it is not me who is telling New Zealanders that the country is going well; it is actually New Zealanders who are indicating to pollsters and others that the country is going well.Hon Member: Give them some credit.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes so give those New Zealanders credit; they know what they are talking about.Human Rights Saudi Arabia—Trade Agreements5.JAMES SHAW (Green)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in relation to trade with Saudi Arabia that an “… FTA gives us yet another reason for those relationships to grow and be closer together …”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):My statement actually referred to the potential free-trade agreement with the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf which covers six Gulf States. I stand by my statement: a free-trade agreement with that group gives another reason for relationships to grow and be closer together and more focused for our businesses.James Shaw: Why is he giving preferential treatment to a regime that has beheaded 72 people this year—three of whom were beheaded the day he flew out?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think you can say we are giving preferential treatment. What we are doing is trading with Saudi Arabia and with other countries that make up the Gulf cooperation council. That is not actually new. The member probably knows that our trade with the Gulf States is our fifth largest. In fact we sell more exports to the Gulf States than we do to the United Kingdom. Actually we have been doing trade for a long period of time. Eighteen senior business leaders came with me because they actually see this as a market of opportunity. In the last question I just had the Leader of the Opposition telling me he wanted us to do more in terms of exports. Well that is what we were doing last week: leading a trade delegation to grow our exports.James Shaw: Has he raised human rights with the Saudi regime and will he make any preferential trade agreement conditional on human rights being improved and beheadings being stopped?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the latter part of the question no; in terms of the former part of the question yes. In fact we had quite an extensive discussion with King Salman and we did raise human rights. And actually I might make the point that not only did we raise it and have a reasonably extensive discussion but we did more than President Obama did who did not actually raise human rights when he went to Saudi Arabia. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Supplementary question James Shaw—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I have called for order again to allow Mr Shaw to ask a supplementary question; the barrage continued. I will next be asking somebody to leave the Chamber to demonstrate that we have got to have a level of decorum while questions are being asked.James Shaw: Given that he has raised beheadings and human rights abuses with the Saudi regime what evidence does he have that the Saudi regime is improving its human rights and stopping beheadings as a result of our trade agreement with them?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have with me the details of their record in this area over time. But what I would say though is that there are two ways of approaching these things are there not? One is ultimately one of isolation and one is engagement. And if the member is suggesting that we should put Saudi Arabia into the camp of isolation then that is a legitimate argument you can make. But I would say that we also do not agree with the death penalty in countries like the United States and is he really arguing that because Texas executes people we should actually have an isolationist policy when it comes to the United States? My experience as Prime Minister is that when you have good trading relationships when you get to know people better you can have more fruitful discussions. And actually over time I think you genuinely see change. I am not saying Saudi Arabia has a record that we want in human rights but the evidence that people on the ground at least suggested to me is that over the last few decades it has improved a bit.James Shaw: So does he stand by his statement to this House “I will not … stand by … when people out there are being beheaded” or does that apply only to non-trading partners?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I absolutely stand by that statement. And there is a difference between a country that has its own constitution its own laws and decides to follow those laws and the actions of a terrorist group. I might not agree and I do not agree with the death penalty but as I said to the member it is not solely unique to Saudi Arabia. It is also true in the United States and other countries. It happens to be true as we know from last week in Indonesia. In the end actually there is quite a lot of difference between a country and a terrorist group like the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).James Shaw: Does he think it makes any difference to the people who are being beheaded whether they are being beheaded by the Saudi regime or by ISIL?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member is actually better than a sort of somewhat flippant question. When people die it is a terrible thing and I do not agree with beheadings. But I am just saying that people live in that country and those are the rules and laws of that country just like we have rules and laws over here that people might not agree with.James Shaw: How bad would human rights abuses have to be in another country for New Zealand not to give preferential trade treatment to that country?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think we are giving preferential treatment. What we are trying to do is negotiate a free-trade agreement which allows access on a more beneficial footing to both parties—and this happens to be the Gulf States Saudi being one of those six partners. If the member’s argument is that we should not actually negotiate free-trade agreements with countries that have human rights records that we do not agree with then you could apply that to quite a number of countries—and they are countries that the previous Government also signed free-trade agreements with.Whānau Ora—Auditor-General’s Report6.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in regards to Whānau Ora “They have to be ambitious themselves—it’s a higher trust model and it has the potential to deliver better results not only for families but also for taxpayers who are not currently getting the value for money they should be.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister):Yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does he agree with the Auditor-General in regard to Whānau Ora that using her words “It was not easy to describe what it is or what it has achieved.” or that “We could not get a consistent explanation of the aims of the initiatives in Whānau Ora” or that “the situation has been unclear and confusing”; and what if anything has he done about it?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the latter part of the question quite a bit actually. There has been a tightening up of the system with the commissioning agents and various other reviews that have taken place. In terms of the former part of the question as I say improvements have been made but it is a new way of doing things in a highly complex area. The member happens to be the MP for Northland. He probably knows that in Northland there are some very complicated cases with families that need help across a range of agencies. I am sure that when he is in his electorate office on Mondays Tuesdays Wednesdays Thursdays and Fridays when he is not in Parliament seeing those constituents he will have many of them coming to him talking about those complicated needs. I look forward to seeing those constituents seeing him—Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is too long.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Talking about Northland how come a third of all payments made to Whānau Ora provider collectives went to just two of Te Puni Kōkiri’s 10 regions and those two regions also happened by sheer coincidence to be where two former Māori Party Ministers come from; and what did he do as Prime Minister to stop this blatantly preferential treatment?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I reject the member’s proposition. Section 5 of the report has where all the money was spent and the different agencies that got them.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked him a very serious question and I am waiting for an answer. It is no use saying to me that section 5 has got where the money was spent.Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister rose to his feet and disputed the figures that the member had given in his question. That is an answer.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If he wants to dispute that fact which is easy to analyse—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just ask the question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am asking the question—all right?Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. Now he will stand and withdraw that remark immediately or leave the Chamber.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which remark Mr Speaker?Mr SPEAKER: Stand and withdraw without embellishment.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well I withdraw the remark if it was offending you but I had two remarks there.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Just withdraw the remark otherwise I will be—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I withdraw.Mr SPEAKER: Now the member when I ask him to take a supplementary question will stand and simply ask the supplementary question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware if he wants to put that graph of expenditure into contention that nearly a quarter of all individuals accessing Whānau Ora funding through the Whānau Integration Innovation and Engagement Fund between 2010—Hon Member: Is this English? Who wrote this?Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well I wrote it myself unlike that clown up there. I am able to do my own homework.Mr SPEAKER: Order! My patience will expire very quickly with this member. The question should be concise. I will allow the member to start the question again but would he refrain from commenting even if there is an interjection.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is he aware that nearly a quarter of all individuals accessing Whānau Ora funding through the Whānau Integration Innovation and Engagement Fund between 2010 and 2012 went to just one of Te Puni Kōkiri’s 10 regions and that that region was where the former Minister for Whanāu Ora came from; if so what if anything did he do about that bias?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have two points. As I said in my earlier answer the Office of the Auditor-General report breaks down on a year-by-year basis the costs in regions and the distribution of the money in Part 5 of the report. I go on to say that the report says that there is no suggestion of misspending or other unscrupulous activity. In relation to the second point the member made about the Whānau Integration Innovation and Engagement Fund that was established the point is that Whānau Ora was established in about 2010. It had to start in one place. It did not roll out everywhere because there just was not that capability all around the country from day one.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Which is a better use of Government resources: $20000 spent on special needs education to support children with dyslexia and other conditions; or the $20000 his Government spent through Whānau Ora on Dunedin gang members who then used the money to buy cannabis; or $80000 to Whānau Ora for the Palmerston North women’s refuge without one client with the rest going of course to the European women’s refuge; or $60000 for Ōtaki’s Rahui rugby club for a 1-day hooley?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have the details of every individual one of those but what I can say is this: if you go back and look at the history of New Zealand and the complications of these families and where that leads you can see that if we have somebody who goes to prison it costs $105000 a year to have that prisoner there. When we have children growing up in very dysfunctional families—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. I have been waiting and I am waiting for—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The member will resume his seat. The question asked which one was the better use of taxpayers’ money and then the member gave quite a number of examples. The Prime Minister is attempting to explain the use of taxpayers’ money if you would allow the Prime Minister to finish his answer.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My main point is really that these are families that have high needs. They have complicated needs and there are a lot of costs incurred by the Government and successive Governments as we try to support these families. Actually I think the way we have dealt with these issues in the past has not proven to be good value for money for taxpayers.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I set out one alternative and three options. When will I get my answer? I am not hearing it yet.Mr SPEAKER: The member if he had been listening has had his answer. The question has been addressed. If he wants to continue with a supplementary question I suggest he try.Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus7.GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central)to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his answers to Oral Question No. 12 yesterday?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance):Yes and I particularly stand by my statement where I said that I stand by my statements.Grant Robertson: Has he received forecasts from Treasury that show a deficit for the 2015-16 year?Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have indicated a number of times the forecasts in the Budget are likely to show compared with the half-yearly update a slightly increased deficit for 2014-15 and lower surpluses for 2015-16.Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table an Official Information Act document released by Treasury dated 7 November 2014 which forecasts a deficit for the 2015-16 year.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that particular Official Information Act document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that Treasury advised him that even if he made the cuts to the Budget forward-spending allowance that he did the surplus in 2015-16 would happen only if the fall in dairy prices significantly rebounded?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury may have given that advice at some stage; I do not recall it. What I can tell the member is that the Budget is a fairly dynamic process—that is it is an interaction of Government decision-making and new information—and he will just have to wait for the Budget later in May to see exactly where Treasury and the Government ended up.Grant Robertson: In light of that answer does the Minister recall paragraph (e) of the paper dated 7 November 2014 which says that a Budget surplus in 2015-16 could happen only assuming dairy prices rebound as currently forecast?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I do not recall that particular paragraph and in any case I would not say the advice is wrong; I would say it is partial. As we have discussed in the House before there are a lot of factors that lead to the operating balance of the Government—the whole sweep of $73 billion of expenditure and what is happening with that—and as we have discussed a lot over the last couple of weeks other factors that were not known in November such as the inflation rate being a lot lower than expected and the impact of that on the total size of the economy.Grant Robertson: Is he aware of the Goldman Sachs report from July last year that indicated that there was a 5-year global milk glut and that with the further fall in milk prices last night there is now a $7 billion hole in the New Zealand economy and did he take that into account when assessing whether a surplus was possible in 2015-16 even with a reduction in spending?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There have been any number of reports about where dairy prices might or might not go but I am a bit surprised at the Opposition attitude because those members are usually advocating that we have too much dairy and so presumably they are pleased when the prices are lower and the industry is not doing so well.Grant Robertson: Is it correct that not only has he failed to deliver his promised surplus for 7 years but he is actually on track to fail for an eighth year in 2015-16 unless there is a major rebound in global dairy prices which no one is predicting?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No but I can tell you that 8 years of political failure by the Labour Party must be a lot more painful.Broadband Ultra-fast and Rural—Progress8.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National)to the Minister for Communications: What progress can she report on the rollout of the Ultra-Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband Initiatives?Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for Communications):Today I have released the latest quarterly update on our ultra-fast broadband and Rural Broadband Initiative programmes showing that both continue to be ahead of schedule. With 46 percent of the build complete 618000 homes workplaces and schools are now able to connect—10 percent ahead of schedule. Eighty percent of the towers to be upgraded under the Rural Broadband Initiative programme are complete with an estimated 239000 rural households and businesses now able to connect. Uptake continues to be strong with 85000 end users connected to ultra-fast broadband giving us an overall uptake rate of 13.8 percent.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What reports has she seen on the response of global industry experts to the ultra-fast broadband programme?Hon AMY ADAMS: I have recently seen a report from international technology company Alcatel-Lucent which has evaluated the ultra-fast broadband and Rural Broadband Initiative programmes in light of its international experience. The Alcatel report is a glowing endorsement of the ultra-fast broadband and Rural Broadband Initiative programmes describing them as “uniquely well managed and cost effective”. It singles out the effective use of public and private partnerships to deliver the programmes a flexible regulatory framework and tender processes that create in its view “a pioneering project designed to position New Zealand at the forefront of global innovation and economic transformation” and I have to say I agree.Building and Construction Industry—High-alkali Cement9.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First)to the Minister for Building and Housing: Does he still accept assurances from officials that concrete used in New Zealand is fit for purpose?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Building and Housing):The member some months ago sought assurance on whether imported high-alkali cement was fit for purpose. The current issue is not about the standard of cement but concrete. One of Firth’s batching plants in Auckland had a malfunction due to a faulty load sensor resulting in the incorrect mix and about 1000 cubic metres of substandard concrete being supplied to 35 customers. The cement used was not high-alkali was not imported and was not at fault. The member seems confused about the difference between cement and concrete. The former is costing—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It will be apparent to you that this was a very simple question. How the member could be confused with anything else which is what he saying now is surely nothing to do with the question. I have asked him a simple question—is the concrete fit for purpose—and he is now attacking me for no good reason at all. I have not started on him yet.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not need any assistance. The issue of the question is has he accepted the assurances that everything is in order? If that could be addressed I would be happy.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Yes I will hear from the member.Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The question is in respect of “does he still accept assurances”. The assurances that I gave in the question in February as you will clearly see from Hansard was in respect of cement not concrete. I have given this member—Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member simply answer the question today—has he accepted the assurances? That is the question that is being asked. I will invite the Rt Hon Winston Peters to re-ask his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Thank you Mr Speaker. Does he still accept assurances from officials that concrete used in New Zealand is fit for purpose?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have not given the member any assurances in respect of concrete. I did give him assurances in respect of cement. It is a pity the member does not understand the difference. Perhaps I will take him to a building site.Rt Hon Winston Peters: You sound like a concrete block right now. Is he—Hon Maggie Barry: Says the member who’s named after one.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh lighten up honey. Is he aware that a batch of imported cement in 2014 exceeded the 0.6 percent alkali safety level; if so what did he do in response to this issue at the time?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I sought advice from my officials. The member has not produced a single qualified engineer who has concern about the high-alkali cement. The concern is that if the cement is used correctly—as per the New Zealand standard—and is mixed correctly it produces perfectly safe and credible concrete.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case if his officials were able to assure him that imported cement is meeting the standard and does not pose a safety risk to the public as he has stated again today why then have officials in his office on 22 July 2014 stated that they were in a state of panic on getting questions on this issue?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Last year I asked for advice from officials about the cement. They said that it complied with the standard. I made the point to ask whether there were any engineers—people who are actually qualified in this subject—who were concerned about it. The answer was there were not. My simple challenge to the member is if he has got a concern about high-alkali cement rather than talking to those parties who do not want to have imported cement competing with that in New Zealand give us an engineer’s report that has got concerns.Rt Hon Winston Peters: If it is good enough for Firth to do full plug inspections of its concrete to ascertain the quality of it why was he not prepared to do that on the buildings that allegations of faulty cement were made about rather than rely upon industry-conflicted assurances?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I relied on the advice of officials who I do not believe are conflicted. In respect of the difficulty that has occurred with Firth it is not an issue with the integrity of the cement. The issue is that a weighing device failed the correct mix did not occur and the concrete is not up to strength. That has been picked up in the testing and the responsibility rests with Firth to work that issue through with the 35 customers who were supplied with the understrength concrete. I stress that the cement that was used in the Firth issue is perfectly up to standard.Rt Hon Winston Peters: When will the Minister understand that this is not a question about Firth but about substandard concrete from imported cement that itself was substandard and why has he not conducted one test on any of the buildings in which it is alleged this concrete cement was used?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I repeat the simple challenge I gave the member at the time to table a single qualified engineer’s report of concern about the alkali cement and I am happy to then seek a review of that. Without that evidence the member is simply playing a game of competition within the industry.Health Services—Access10.Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour)to the Minister of Health: Are patients receiving through New Zealand’s health care system the health care recommended by their medical practitioner; if not why not?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Health):Yes they are and there have been remarkable improvements over the last 6 years. This is reflected in the extra 50000 first specialist assessments and 44000 elective surgeries that are now being delivered each year compared with 2008. Patients who are recommended for cancer treatment are also receiving that faster and without being flown to Australia as was the practice prior to 2008.Hon Annette King: If patients are receiving the care their medical practitioner recommends why did general practitioner Dr Tony Farrell from the Bay of Plenty come out publicly on Saturday and say: “people whose X-rays showed bone on bone and were in terrible pain were not being seen in a timely manner.”?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: General practitioners do not direct treatment; they seek a specialist opinion from a surgeon at the hospital. When they put that referral in there might be various reasons why there is not actually a specialist appointment or a surgery. The information might be incomplete there might be a need for further testing or it may actually be that that condition like bone on bone arthritis is better treated in the community. So the situation is exactly not what she represents it as.Hon Annette King: Has he replied to Mrs Logan who wrote to him on 17 April asking why her husband has had to live with an internal catheter for the past 7 months which has blocked nine times with severe effects on his health and daily life and still does not qualify for elective surgery?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Obviously I am not familiar with that individual case and as Annette King said when she was the Minister: “It’s better to help people than to use them.” But that notwithstanding if Mrs King would like to send me the details of the case I can look into it to see what the real truth of it is.Hon Annette King: What was his response to Mrs Leota who wrote to him the Prime Minister and her local member of Parliament 3 weeks ago highlighting the number of people in Invercargill living “with extenuating pain because they don’t have enough points to qualify for a hip operation” and asking for urgent action?Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: If the member just waits till 3.30 she might get a very nice surprise as to what is happening in the community for people with orthopaedic hip pain.Hon Annette King: What reply did he give to Grey Power Hastings which wrote to him and the local member of Parliament Craig Foss on 4 March telling him how concerned it was about the rejection letters older people in the Hawke’s Bay were receiving and asking for “more honesty and fewer weasel words. Why pretend you can offer a service that you can’t?”Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: In the Hawke’s Bay the percentage of first specialist appointments has increased by 41 percent over the last 6 years and there has been a major uplift in elective surgery as well. There have been an extra 1278 operations performed each year. So I am sure that if the former Minister goes and asks her close relative the chief operations officer of Hawke’s Bay District Health Board she will be able to hear the truth because I am sure this information is not being leaked by him—surely not.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am wondering whom I have to ask.Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is not a point of order. If the member wants to have a supplementary question use it.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member asks a question of me. What is my response to that? He said to go and ask the chief executive officer of Hawke’s Bay District Health Board.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No the COO.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member resume his seat.Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No question was asked; I made a statement.Mr SPEAKER: I too was unaware of any question asked either but if the member wants to ask a question she has got the perfect opportunity.Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I would like to make a point of order and ask whether the Speaker heard my question. I asked what was the Minister’s response to Grey Power—nothing to do with—Mr SPEAKER: Order! No the question in my opinion was addressed. I think that when you put down a primary question like that and then you list a whole lot of potential correspondence that has come out of the office of a Minister over the last 2 months it is not unrealistic that he cannot recall the content of the letter.National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Scholarships11.MELISSA LEE (National)to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing today to recognise the educational achievements of young New Zealanders?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):This morning I was honoured to join the Prime Minister and many MPs in acknowledging the top National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) scholars who came from schools all over New Zealand. Westlake Boys High School student Joshua Hansen was this year’s recipient of the Prime Minister’s Award for Academic Excellence. This scholarship is presented annually to the student who has shown the highest overall level of academic excellence. In addition 35 top subject awards were given as well as 10 premier awards to students who achieved scholarships in at least five subjects and from those at least three outstanding scholarships with one or more top 10 performances. To give the House an idea of how accomplished these young people are only around 3 percent of year 13 students studying each subject at NCEA level 3 are awarded a scholarship and less than 0.5 percent will achieve outstanding scholarships. The premier scholars are truly the best of New Zealand’s high academic achievers at secondary school level. Let us all celebrate.Melissa Lee: How are we achieving educational success for all young New Zealanders?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Across the country every day students are getting a better education. The 2014 provisional results show that 86.8 percent of students achieved a National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2 qualification. This means that in 2014 1600 more students achieved NCEA level 2 than in 2013. The 2014 data shows that more than—Carmel Sepuloni: What about UE? What about the reduction the 10 percent reduction of Pacific getting UE?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes of course the Opposition is not interested in success because it went out as a Government when Māori achievement was a shameful 44 percent. Under this Government in every year that achievement has gone up. And for Pasifika that party in Government was happy to settle at—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! [Interruption] Order! When I call the Minister to order she will resume her seat. There will be a general debate shortly.Trade in Services Agreement—Education Franchises12.CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green)to the Minister of Education: Has she been consulted on education being included in the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA); if so have any concerns been expressed that this agreement could lead to foreign corporations suing New Zealand in relation to education provision?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Otirā ki a koe e te mema. Yes I have been consulted as part of the Cabinet decision to enter into negotiations on the Trade in Services Agreement and to establish parameters for which officials should engage in that process. The approach we are taking to these negotiations is consistent with New Zealand’s existing international trade commitments on private education and reflects the priority we have always placed on advancing the export interests of New Zealand private education providers. In regard to the alleged dispute settlement provision referred to by the member I am advised that no such provisions are under discussion.Catherine Delahunty: Has she been advised that if education is included in the Trade in Services Agreement large foreign profit-making educational franchises could sue if New Zealand tried to stop them setting up schools here? Has she been specifically advised on that point?Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do not have primary responsibility for negotiating trade agreements. This particular agreement has been in negotiation for 2 years. There have been 11 rounds of negotiation. The 12th is due in July. But as to the specifics I have complete confidence in our Minister of Trade to seek any additional information should he require it. So no.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The questioner asked whether the Minister was specifically consulted. She answered every other question but that.Mr SPEAKER: No. Again if the member would just wait for the answer to be completed—her final word was no. The question has been addressed.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that is the case and she did get to it at the end my point is: why was she allowed to go so long without answering the question?Mr SPEAKER: Because I felt that the information she was giving was actually helpful to the House if members have a genuine interest in this matter.Catherine Delahunty: Can she rule out any large foreign education franchises demanding entry to New Zealand under the Trade in Services Agreement and running schools that do not follow our curriculum exclude kids on the basis of ability and charge huge fees?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Once again I do not have responsibility for this trade negotiation but what I can tell the member is that we provide for private education in this country and it makes up 3.7 percent of our schooling options. As to international students schools able to attract those students really value them. In terms of exporting our educational expertise to other countries we are able to do that because they value that expertise. So we will continue to seek those opportunities both here and abroad.Catherine Delahunty: Why is she and the National Government so intent on signing New Zealand up to trade agreements like the Trade in Services Agreement and the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement which will open future Governments wanting to protect the public interest to being sued?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Because unlike that member we understand that income allows us to purchase the things that we want whether they are called education roads or hospitals. All the things that that member and her party bang on about do not happen by magic; they happen by earning income.Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table the Trade in Services Agreement’s leaked annex of professional services—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing. Can the member start her point of order again.Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table the Trade in Services Agreement’s leaked annex of professional services document released today just this morning.Mr SPEAKER: The date of the document?Catherine Delahunty: It has been released today and the original date was September 2014.Mr SPEAKER: If it is being released today it is going to be available to all members. There is no point in my tabling it.Catherine Delahunty: I do not think it is available.Mr SPEAKER: Order!Questions to MembersNew Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—Submissions1.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South)to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: Further to her answer to Question to Members No. 1 yesterday how many people has she requested appear before the committee who submitted using the process she described as a form submission out of those who submitted using the process she described as a form submission in total?JACQUI DEAN (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee):None of them. The committee decided to treat 15970 very similar emailed submissions as form submissions. The committee also decided not to hear from those form submitters who wished to be heard.Hon Trevor Mallard: In making her decision whom to request to appear did she regard people who made individual unique submissions using links from their local RSA Facebook pages as a form submission?JACQUI DEAN: I did not make the decision about who was to appear. The committee decided not to hear from form submitters who wished to be heard.New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—Submissions2.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South)to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: Further to her answer to Question to Members No. 1 yesterday how many people has she requested appear before the committee who submitted using the process she described as a form submission and how many people who made such a request has she not requested appear?JACQUI DEAN (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee):None. Eight hundred and one people making form submissions requested to be heard. However it was a decision of the committee not to hear from form submitters.Hon Trevor Mallard: In making her decision not to invite the 774 people who asked to speak to their submissions did she take into account the reputational damage to this Parliament and the select committee process?JACQUI DEAN: I did not make the decision not to hear from form submitters. The committee decided not to hear from form submitters who wished to be heard.New Zealand Flag Referendums Bill—Submissions3.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South)to the Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee: Further to her answer to Question to Members No. 1 yesterday did she ascertain whether the individuals asking to appear were former services personnel by reading the submission before deciding whether or not to request their appearance?JACQUI DEAN (Chairperson of the Justice and Electoral Committee):No. The committee decided not to hear from form submitters. However the committee heard from several former service personnel last week and will hear from several more this week including a submission from the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association on behalf of several thousand concerned New Zealanders. The committee will also be hearing from that member on behalf of 30000 others on the same point as was made in the form submissions.Hon Trevor Mallard: In making her decision whether to invite over 700 submitters to give evidence did she take into consideration whether the select committee process should be seen as open and listening as opposed to arrogant and predetermined?JACQUI DEAN: It was not my decision whether or not to hear from form submitters. It was a decision of the committee not to hear oral evidence from those who submitted a form submission.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. The member has continually referred to a decision of the committee when in fact it was a majority—Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is just using a point of order to trifle with the House. [Interruption] Order! It was a decision of the committee and whether it was a majority decision or not is not a point of order. [Interruption] Order! That concludes questions for oral answer. [Interruption] Order! I have a very good mind to be asking that member to leave. I am on my feet and I am about to make an announcement. I do not expect an interchange which I do acknowledge was from both sides.Urgent DebatesWhānau Ora—Auditor-General’s ReportMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta seeking to debate under Standing Order 389 some issues with Whānau Ora revealed in the report by the Controller and Auditor-General Whānau Ora: The first four years. The release of the report is a particular case of recent occurrence. As it is an Auditor-General’s report there is no ministerial responsibility for the report though I do accept that it deals with matters involving ministerial responsibility.The House has in place a procedure to consider reports from Officers of Parliament. They stand referred to select committees for consideration and report. Any such select committee report is set down for consideration as a members’ order of the day. But this may take some time. Ultimately a debate on the committee’s report may provide an opportunity to consider the quality of the Government’s response. However serious issues have been raised.Although the release of an Auditor-General’s report will not always warrant an urgent debate on this occasion I consider the need to maintain public confidence in programmes such as Whānau Ora justifies the setting aside of the business of the House today. I call on the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato):I move That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. As you rightly note Mr Speaker this is a serious issue. When the Auditor-General sought to look at issues around how Whānau Ora had been funded and the implementation of the policy over the first 4 years there were a number of things that were raised that I think the House deserves a response on. I am very pleased that we are able to have this debate today.What is most concerning about the report is that the Auditor-General said of the appropriations made in the first 4 years that a significant amount went into administration—about $42 million—when it could have gone into front-line services. After all when this policy was promoted by the Māori Party as a part of the coalition agreement with the National Government Whānau Ora was a flagship policy. It was there to ensure that those most in need would have an opportunity to have a different approach in the way in which services would be delivered to them. We heard numerous debates in this House about a policy that would change the way in which Government departments responded to those in need. However the Auditor-General’s report shows that those other ministries involved in the implementation of Whānau Ora—the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development—actually took a piecemeal approach to the way in which they participated in Whānau Ora. In fact they did not change their funding strategies; they still funded individuals rather than what was intended in the policy which was a whānau-centred approach. The Auditor-General highlighted that.The other concern that we want to bring to the attention of the House is the role of Te Puni Kōkiri. What we have found are numerous transfers and underspends over the first 4 years of funding for Whānau Ora. Except in 2010 and 2011 there were underspends in each and every year. The Auditor-General then highlights that there were reasons for slow decision-making. Well one may only assume that Te Puni Kōkiri did not have its act together.People listening to this debate should not misunderstand the intent of our criticism in highlighting the issues in this report. We know that out there in the communities there are a number of Whānau Ora providers that are doing some very good things. We understand that they are making the best of what they have in the challenges of the current funding environment. But they too would say if you were visiting their organisations that actually the whole policy has lacked clarity in its implementation. If there is anything to highlight in the way in which the Auditor-General has gone about her task of investigating the effectiveness of Whānau Ora it would be just that. She makes the point that actually it is very unclear as to what the objectives are with Whānau Ora. Yet we see that around about $7.2 million has been put aside for research to be able to assess the effectiveness of the implementation of Whānau Ora plans. Well where is that research the collection of ethnicity data that demonstrates that this funding was to go to all whānau whoever they are? Te Puni Kōkiri may have collected the data. However it has not published it in a way that you can measure outcomes. The Auditor-General speaks to those types of issues. Also there is no demonstration of what the short-term gains have been in the first 4 years.The Whānau Ora provider collectives have had research conducted as well. We are informed in the report to expect that research some time soon. If you are going to continue into the second phase of the Whānau Ora initiative as promoted by the Māori Party which is actually about the role of the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies surely the research of the first 4 years would be useful in order to inform that process.In fact we had the Prime Minister himself get up in the House and respond to questions from the Labour leader about what was happening in this space. The Prime Minister himself pointed to these Whānau Ora commissioning agencies. We have three of them. We have Te Pou Matakana we have the Pasifika one and then we have Te Pūtahitanga o Te Waipounamu down in the South Island. What is of most interest—and I challenge other members in the House to stand up—is that there have been numerous instances of feedback to members on this side of the House that good Whānau Ora providers have not been contacted at all by these commissioning agencies—not at all. Yet $68 million - odd dollars has gone as an investment into some of these providers and they have not been contacted by the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies. They are unclear about what the future funding landscape looks like.This report highlights I think some of the real challenges of the effective implementation of Whānau Ora a policy that was conceived by the Māori Party and was part of a coalition deal but actually one that was not implemented very well. I am sure that the Minister in his good conscience would want to respond to the issues that have been raised in the report. Indeed our Māori Affairs Committee considers that we are the best place to ask questions of this particular report and also seek answers from the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies about the way in which they intend to roll out their implementation plans and funding strategies for the second phase of Whānau Ora.The learnings of this report show us that although innovation occurs in the service delivery area it is not consistent throughout the whole country. There is not a widespread buy-in from the other Government agencies that are key supports to the successful implementation of Whānau Ora.I want to highlight something from the report. The Auditor-General said that “Whānau Ora was not consistently described which makes it hard for us to describe it and hard for the agencies to link results to objectives. Some results have not been adequately reported on …” As a member of Parliament responsible for the oversight of good spending of taxpayers’ money that would concern anybody. It certainly concerns me and it certainly concerns the Labour Party.This policy as I say was the flagship policy of the Māori Party. Who would have thought that such a policy with such high esteem would have unfair objectives that could not be measured by those Government departments?Sue Moroney: That has to be the fault of the Government.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: I think that is the fault of the Government. That to me indicates that the Government took a hands-off approach to the implementation of Whānau Ora even though some of its Government Ministers were intimately involved with the implementation and an arm’s-length approach to ministerial oversight and good implementation. We should be concerned.We should also be cautioned by the recommendation of the Auditor-General that says that where innovation occurs let us not stop it. However let us have a robust debate about transparency and accountability for taxpayers’ dollars which should be spent in the area they were designed for. Quite simply there were a number of areas in which the funds set aside for Whānau Ora did not go to the people who needed them most. This is a kick in the guts to providers which are doing very good work out in the region. This is kick in the guts to those navigators who are in organisations working with a number of stakeholders at a community level trying to get the types of outcomes for whānau so that they are not going down the wrong path so that they are able to build resilience and do things: get employment get training lift the aspirations of their whānau. This is a kick in the guts for those providers which will fight tooth and nail for every cent that they get and continue to argue that working with Government agencies is so difficult when you have to jump through three hoops and give 50 reports while going through those three hoops.The integrated contract environment that the Auditor-General spoke of is a positive thing. However there still need to be improvements in that space if the Government is serious about the new approach that is indicated in Whānau Ora. I note Mr Speaker that you said that there is no ministerial oversight on this particular report. However as a policy that has potential—and if we are to take the inference from what the Auditor-General has indicated we should not throw the baby out with the bath water—the new contracting environment that would help facilitate whānau-centred outcomes will require integrated contracts and it will require innovation in this space and better coordination of the Government sector. If there is a true intent of the National Government to support any positive part of this particular initiative I hazard a guess that the emphasis should be in this space.But let us not get away from the fact Minister that there are questions that must be asked of your department. I think that a cynic might say that all along the grand design of the Whānau Ora initiative may well have been to get rid of Te Puni Kōkiri and just devolve funding straight to iwi. But I am not that cynical. I am sure that the Minister would want to maintain the judicious oversight of Te Puni Kōkiri and respond to some of the real challenges here. Why did it take so long for Te Puni Kōkiri to go through some of these arrangements these plans of Whānau Ora collectives and then devolve out the funding? Why did so many transfers happen over 4 years? Why did Te Puni Kōkiri not make it a priority to report on the data gathered to give people assurance that funding was going to where it needed to be? There was a high emphasis on vulnerable families in a mid-point change in this particular policy. Why did the Minister not ask questions?Why did the Minister not ask questions when there was continual underspending of funding? I think that is a serious question because the vulnerabilities over the last 6 years have only increased not decreased and here is a perfect pool of funding that could have supported many many whānau in need. Why did the Minister not have proper oversight in this area?It is really important to ensure that as conscientious members of this House we utilise the Auditor-General’s report as an opportunity to hold the Government to account to hold the Minister to account to hold his department to account in ways that ensure that policies are designed to help the most vulnerable and to change the processes to ensure that providers are supported and that we can get funds out there to support them.Hon Member: A third on admin.Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: You know that is right. It is absolutely unbelievable: one-third of the funding set aside for Whānau Ora is going on administration. There are unclear objectives which are unable to be measured and reported on; a landscape of providers out there who are unsure about what the future holds; and the setting up of whānau commissioning agencies where we are not entirely sure about what their future accountability structures look like or what the implementation plans for the next phase of Whānau Ora will look like. These are all serious questions that must be responded to.The Auditor-General I think has done whānau a very very great service because she has supported the need for a different approach to ensure that whānau who need good wraparound services have an environment where there is better collaboration so that they can change their lives. She has actually supported that. She has done us a great service. She has ensured that we as a Parliament hold the Government to account on the implementation of a policy.It is clear that the Minister’s department has been woeful in many areas and it is evident that in the second phase of funding—and here is one little question on the second phase of funding. Can we expect in Budget 2015 an increase in funding for Whānau Ora commissioning agencies to implement the second phase? And will the Minister respond to some of the issues identified in the report prior to transferring funding to the whānau commissioning agencies? These are valid questions all as a result of the Office of the Auditor-General’s report.I am pleased to be able to have an urgent debate to highlight these issues and assure those providers out there that Labour is on their side. We know that you are doing good work but we must make sure the Government is accountable for a policy that has actually fallen short of expectations. Thank you.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Whānau Ora):I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to check—the bell goes at 10 minutes?Mr SPEAKER: No you have got a 15-minute contribution. The bell will go when there are 5 minutes to go.Hon TE URUROA FLAVELL (Minister for Māori Development):Tēnā koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātau katoa i tēnei rā. Kia whai wāhi au ki te tuku i tētahi paku kōrero ki te kuia ki te pou o te kōhanga reo kua mate nei inā tata nei. Ko Henrietta tērā. Kai te tangihia e te motu nā runga i te āhuatanga o tana ngākaunui ki tēnei kaupapa o te Whānau Ora ka mutu ki ngā tamariki ki ngā mokopuna o roto i te kōhanga reo. E kui te pou o te kōhanga reo e moe e moe e moe! Ka hoki mai ki a tātau e hui nei i tēnei rā e te Whare Pāremata tēnā koutou tēnā koutou kia ora tātau katoa.[Thank you Mr Speaker. Acknowledgments to us all today. I have an opportunity to make a brief statement to the elder matriarch and pillar of the kōhanga reo movement who passed just moments ago. That was Henrietta. She is to be mourned by the nation because of her huge commitment to this policy of Whānau Ora and furthermore to the children and grandchildren within the kōhanga reo movement. To the matriarch and pillar of the movement rest sleep and slumber! I come back to us assembled here on this day to the House I acknowledge salute and greet you collectively; my appreciation to us all.]Firstly can I say that I appreciate the comments made by the Hon Nanaia Mahuta and indeed endorse the comments in respect of the opportunity that this debate has given for us to place some issues on the table and in fact on the record. It is my role I think to address a number of the concerns and I wish to do that. I want to do it in a very considered way to ensure that all the facts are on the table. I can say that this opportunity has arisen because of the Auditor-General’s report. I would say this: the Auditor-General’s report and indeed the Productivity Commission’s report told us that there is huge huge potential for Whānau Ora and that we should definitely not throw it out with the bathwater. I would also accept that there are some bits that we have to tidy up. We need to put it in the context that this kaupapa—this report—was over a 4-year period when in fact we have moved on. We have moved on to the second phase so I want to put it in that context.One of the questions that is always raised is: what is Whānau Ora? Well Whānau Ora is an approach to help families and whānau in need. Just like the people who are represented by the Rt Hon Winston Peters and by the Hon Hekia Parata it is looking after those people who are in need. It restores whānau as masters of their own destinies. Whānau Ora is not about the Government fixing whānau; it is about whānau looking after themselves. It is about whānau empowering themselves as a whole to identify what matters to them rather than focusing on the individuals in isolation.There is a statement that says it takes a pā to raise our children and I agree with that. This is what the basis of Whānau Ora is. Whānau Ora requires providers to work together in the interests of whānau and not just the individual which is a departure from strategies used by previous Governments over many years which have not solved the issues one iota. So the Government along with the Māori Party chose to be bold to be innovative and to come up with a new pathway that might address those issues.Why was Whānau Ora established? It was established because too many whanau and families have complex needs and the Government simply wanted to do something about it and to make a positive difference—as did we in the Māori Party the originators of this kaupapa. Actually I had better say that we are not the originators of this kaupapa; it is people like John Rangihau through the report called Puao-te-ata-tū who actually put this kaupapa on the table. I want to acknowledge those who are a part of that scheme. Whānau Ora means that providers work together with each other to respond to the whānau needs and use their service contracts to address those needs.What are the outcomes that Whānau Ora is designed to support? Well as the approach is led by whānau you would understand that outcomes are tailored for its members. No two families are the same and therefore from time to time the outcomes that are measured are clearly going to be different. Whānau Ora is designed to support whānau in need. Whānau Ora is intended to restore whānau as masters of their own destinies.Whānau Ora is about making people move towards a positive lifestyle—“whānau” meaning families; “ora” meaning well-being. Whānau should work towards a stronger economic base. So it is not just about the doom and gloom but it is actually about seeking horizons and looking at future prospects and the potential within whānau. This in turn leads to whānau being active participants in Aotearoa New Zealand. These outcomes were where the original task force report set the scene for how phases one and two of Whānau Ora would be rolled out.One criticism in the report was that people did not have a good understanding of Whānau Ora. Well Whānau Ora for the record was radical it was a new idea it was inventive and it showed that we wanted to look down a new pathway to look at the potential of families. Back in 1988 Puao-te-ata-tū challenged in fact our country to change our approach to supporting families in need instead of concentrating on the individuals. For decades Governments have counted outputs rather than outcomes and Whānau Ora is all about being brave enough to measure real change in people’s lives over a far longer period.Whānau Ora has been criticised for being confusing and riddled with inconsistencies. I think that has been overstated. For far too long we have focused as I say on the individual and what has gone wrong for them. I am unapologetic about the brave departure from the status quo. I believe in Whānau Ora I believe in the results and I believe in it because I have seen the results. I have spoken to people who have sat alongside navigators. In fact in only one week on the road I went out and had Whānau Ora families sit in front of me and all of those families with their children shed tears about the impact that not Whānau Ora per se but the individual providers—the navigators—had had in assisting their families. I am talking about mothers. I am talking about gang mothers who have changed their lives. I absolutely believe in this kaupapa. It is right for this country and it is right for our people.Who is Whānau Ora for? Well it is not for the down and out only. As I said it is for everyone. But I will be clear—it is by way of a Māori lens for dealing with these solutions. Does that mean it is hard for anybody else to see it? No it is not. Why? Because at this point in time the statistics I have say that about 35 percent of families receiving support from Whānau Ora are from ethnic groups other than Māori and Pasifika. That tells us it works. It can work for others but it is definitely through a different cultural lens which may be why the Auditor-General suspects that it was hard to understand. But I take the point. There is no use hiding from it; let us put it out there.How does it work? Well Whānau Ora is influenced by what families and whānau wish to do—not by somebody telling them but by what they want to do. It puts the mana and the power back in their hands. Sometimes a navigator helps the family to work it out and guides them as to what might assist them in getting and achieving their goals. When a whānau visits a social service the intent is that the provider worker or the navigator is able to link up the family with what is required and I have seen the benefits of that.The question was asked around what a whānau plan is. Well a whānau plan is the tool for whānau to say what matters to them. They choose it. A lot of whānau want the same things. Of course they do—better lives for children employment homeownership education health outcomes and skill development. Those are generic things that most families want. Some are fortunate to have them.Developing a whānau plan means that the whole family works together. We are not just talking about mum dad the eldest child or the four in the house; we are talking about whānau in the widest sense because whānau could be the rugby league club secretary it could be the parent teacher association it could be a teacher it could be the coach or it could be all of those. They decide and they define it.Developing a whānau plan means that everybody works together and that if you have to find work everybody pitches in. If you have to give up smoking everybody assists in that because if one person in the house is smoking it affects everybody. That is what it is all about. A plan usually involves a number of actions. Some actions do not require Government support and that is even better. It is far more fiscally neutral and delivers the results because the family have bought into it.What are the key elements of Whānau Ora? Well we have talked about navigators. Navigators in my humble opinion are the key to Whānau Ora. Why? Because they are from those communities they know those communities they know the people and they make the connections. I have seen it for myself. They are the ones who work at the coalface. They support the family to identify their needs and achieve their goals. They are often the link. They join up the family the whānau with the services. Or perhaps it is information that they might need—identifying early childhood education options for mum; that could be it. So they are an important ingredient in Whānau Ora.The other part is commissioning agencies and these are only a new beast that has come on the scene. I will not talk about them too much because they are not very relevant in terms of the report. Suffice to say that they are the second phase of the roll-out of Whānau Ora. “Beast” is not the best term for that particular element of Whānau Ora but I use it in the wider sense if you do not mind.Provider collectives—this is the great innovation about Whānau Ora. It actually brought people together to work for the purposes of the family. It is not just one in one box another over there and another over there. They actually joined hands in the best interests of the families. So Whānau Ora provider collectives are an important key of this kaupapa. They are accountable for the delivery of services for health education and the social sectors as well. Whānau Ora supported those collectives to come together and have a collective impact not solely focused on their own provider interests.Some have asked about the results of Whānau Ora. Well here it is. We do have the statistics that the Hon Nanaia Mahuta talked about—9408 whānau representing 49625 individuals received whānau-centred services. Of those 5499 whānau representing 23855 individuals worked with navigators. Provider collectives have orientated themselves towards whānau-centred perspectives to focus not just on the individual.So what has changed? I have told you that Whānau Ora has had a huge impact on a huge number of people throughout this country. We must allow it to roll into phase two.The other questions that were raised are around why it is that Te Puni Kōkiri will be leading Whānau Ora and there were I suppose criticisms made by some members about the involvement of Te Puni Kōkiri. Whānau Ora is based on kaupapa Māori with core elements applicable to whānau. That is why Whānau Ora is under the auspices of Te Puni Kōkiri.Were there delays in spending that meant funds originally set aside for whānau and providers did not reach them? Money did not pass hands unless contracts and expectations were in place. This is prudent management. The expression of interest process for provider collectives was significant with 300 wanting to be a part of Whānau Ora. That process and assessment took longer than anticipated. Yes there were transfers of resources between financial years. However I can say this: 99 percent of the funding intended for whānau and providers reached their hands. The criticism has been that it did not reach their hands. I am saying to you on the advice that I have that 99 percent of that money did reach the hands of those who needed it. The Government made decisions in July 2013 to move to phase two of Whānau Ora and all uncommitted funds were redirected to the Whānau Ora commissioning agencies—that is why.Another criticism was about why Te Puni Kōkiri spent nearly one-third of the funds on administration. I have said publicly in the media that Whānau Ora is a new kaupapa. It was starting up. There were a lot of costs associated with designing Whānau Ora and the parts of this approach. Going forward I expect to ensure that all the administration costs are in line with the task at hand. The Office of the Auditor-General counted in its account the design development implementation of phases one and two evaluation and action research and costs for governance groups and regional leadership groups. Te Puni Kōkiri’s specific administration costs equate to about 20 percent and it is my understanding that that is pretty reasonable under normal circumstances within Government departments.Will I be investigating the administration and management of Whānau Ora? The costs in the report referred to are for the last 4 years. They have been accounted for. Te Puni Kōkiri has received a clean audit report from Audit New Zealand. In each of the last 4 years or so it has received a clean report and all of the money has been accounted for. Going forward I have asked the chief executive to ensure her management decisions and the costs for Whānau Ora are prudent and not over the top.Whānau Ora has my absolute commitment. Why? Because I have seen the results. I know what it can do for families children mums dads uncles and those in need. There are so many people in our country who have that need and the State has failed to deliver that in the past. Whānau Ora was always going to be a new approach. It was innovative. It was always going to have some bumps along the way but there can be no doubting the evidence that I have had presented to me—and indeed that was presented to the Hon Tariana Turia—that Whānau Ora is right for this country. It does produce results. In fact many of the people who receive the benefits of Whānau Ora with some of its mistakes are the people whom many of the people in this House represent.In that regard I would hope that I am clear that this Government is committed to Whānau Ora as am I to ensure that the issues that have been raised will be dealt with in the best possible way. Whānau Ora kia kaha. And to all of the providers and workers in Whānau Ora I say job well done kia kaha.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):Whānau Ora is a new and innovative approach to working alongside whanau and it has enormous potential to be successful. But Whānau Ora is at great risk of death by a thousand cuts due to mishandling by the Minister for Whānau Ora and Te Puni Kōkiri and by a lack of commitment from Government agencies. That is what this Auditor-General’s report shows really clearly.I want to describe the report in a bit more detail than has been given so far because actually it is very balanced and I think the Auditor-General has done a great job. But she shows very clearly that between failing to address issues that have previously been raised around evaluation and reporting and failing to give clear indications of progress and success Te Puni Kōkiri and the Minister have failed. Alongside that a complete lack of investment or commitment from the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development now means that where there is potential for progress and change it is being hindered by progressive Government agencies.Pita Paraone: Patch protection.METIRIA TUREI: “Patch protection” my friend says. The report shows that there have been some really good outcomes but it also indicates where those outcomes are at great risk. I understand the Minister’s saying that he believes in this programme but with respect Minister it does not matter whether you believe in the programme. Your job is to instil confidence and certainty in the rest of the country that this new and innovative approach is working and is cost-effective. That is what will ensure that it is able to continue and build and do better. If you cannot instil that confidence and certainty the programme will eventually be cut. We can see that happening. We can see the progress of that. So right now is the time to be most concerned with doing the best work for the programme and making sure it has all the best aspects of evaluation monitoring and reporting. It is not a time for sitting back.We all know that Māori programmes just like Māori people have to do significantly better than others in order to avoid the extra scrutiny if you like that we all attract. We know that that happens. Māori programmes get additional scrutiny; so do Māori people. We have to do three times better to get anywhere. So one of the major problems that this report responds to is a failure to build resilience into the system from the start acknowledge that there is extra risk and therefore make sure the programme would be able to stand up to that risk.This is not the first report that has criticised Whānau Ora. There was in 2012 a serious report showing issues with the funding assessments. We were assured then that there would be new evaluation and monitoring put into Whānau Ora that would improve those systems but the Auditor-General’s report shows yet again that that has not been done and that is a failure of the ministry and Te Puni Kōkiri.But I will say that the report does talk about favourably about the programme. It is not just a criticism. The Auditor-General says: “I have no doubt that some commentators will make light of the successes described in this report and make much of the criticisms.”—and I think that has been true—“However an innovative idea should not be abandoned just because of implementation problems. I earnestly hope that those involved with the next phase of Whānau Ora are able to take my criticisms on board and learn from them.”She also went on to describe a couple of examples where Whānau Ora has worked effectively one of which was where a woman who had had mental health issues for 40 years had a Whānau Ora intervention. A person went to her home every week for more than a year to assist her to build up her capacity and resilience to operate well within the whānau. After a bit over a year her family were able to say: “Yes we trust you with our kids. We are able to engage with you as a person of our whānau and we can wrap around you with some sense of security and certainty.”I do not know of any other agency that can consistently provide weekly support to someone in this situation in their own home. She did not qualify necessarily for major mental involvement from the health agencies but Whānau Ora was there to give her and her whānau the support that they needed.The report also has an example—a very tragic one in my view—of a Whānau Ora navigator who was involved with a man who was an insulin-dependent diabetic. He suffered amputations and he needed more assistance. This navigator worked with this man’s children to get him prosthetic legs and other aids that he needed and that meant a huge amount of advocating writing letters working with the ministry and other agencies and getting funding for vehicle modifications and bathroom alterations. It meant helping him to resolve delays in getting his financial entitlements—he was not getting all that he was due—and it also meant that not only did he get some back-pay in terms of money he had not been paid but that he was in an improved financial situation. He was also connected to a rural nurse to help him manage his diabetes.This whānau needed someone to intervene on their behalf and advocate for them and this is what Whānau Ora did. This is what Whānau Ora does today with whānau. But alongside every story of success is the fact that every time there is a legitimate criticism of the funding the management and the evaluation the programme is at risk of being cut. So the Minister has to take these criticisms from the Auditor-General very seriously and make a very firm commitment to fixing this because otherwise it will be lost.The Auditor-General also made significant criticisms of other agencies—the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development. One criticism in particular is the fact that these ministries were not able to describe Whānau Ora how it works and what it does. Actually I think it is a failing on their part. It is not that difficult to understand actually and they have been working on this now for some years. The fact that people in the ministries could not describe it is their own failing in terms of not investing enough in understanding how the programme works.There was criticism of the agencies for their funding failures and the mismatch of services. The Auditor-General talks about the fact that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development engaged with Whānau Ora and Te Puni Kōkiri but had an individualised funding approach. There is a significant mismatch she says between the services that providers must deliver under their contracts with those ministries compared with Whānau Ora and Te Puni Kōkiri. She goes on to say that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development have done no work on changing the way they operate—and have no intention to—so that they are working with the Whānau Ora approach as opposed to working with an individualised approach.She describes in this report that providers are very concerned that they may have been doing this work with this woman with the mental health issues for 12 months under a Whānau Ora contract and that once that ends there is no funding to enable them to continue to support that whānau in the same way because the Ministry of Health does not have a contract approach that allows for a whānau approach to her needs. When the Ministry of Health funding and the Ministry of Social Development funding is for different purposes when they have different kinds of contracts and when they are not engaging with the new approach that is needed and changing their own systems so that they can help to manage the gaps that will always occur when you have one service or agency involved in the whānau and another coming in behind afterwards well of course there are going to be problems. Of course there are going to be failures. Those failures are not failures of the programme. They are not failures of the approach. They are not failures of Te Puni Kōkiri or the Minister. They are failures of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development and their leadership and their Ministers in that they have not been properly engaging with Whānau Ora and committing to the approach.So at the end of all that you end up with a man in similar position a man who has not yet engaged with Whānau Ora and a man who what—never gets his prosthetic legs a man who never gets the vehicle or the bathroom modifications? At the end of that is the woman with decades of mental health issues never to be trusted by her family to look after her grandchildren because she cannot get the intervention she needs to become safe? Those are the kinds of families in Aotearoa that we in this Chamber will allow to fall through the cracks because of the failure of the Government its agencies and this Parliament in general to commit to an approach that actually works for the people we are here to serve.This report is very serious and does need to be taken very seriously. It is a severe criticism I think of Whānau Ora Te Puni Kōkiri and the Minister but also other agencies involved and the Government’s lack of commitment to the concept of Whānau Ora. Thank you.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First):Whānau Ora was established from a report that did not contain one scrap of empirical fact or evidence. It was based solely on anecdotal evidence rumour and bias. The second thing is that there is nothing as antiseptic as the statement: “We told you so.” but New Zealand First did from the time we first saw that report. What this says when you look at the answers from the Government and in particular the Prime Minister today is just how smug and arrogant this Government has become. It is not prepared to even listen to something as authoritative as the first investigation of this operation for 4 years by the Auditor-General. This is what we find: spending on Whānau Ora is completely politically motivated. Four years after its inception the programme is still a byword for the squandering of public money.The sad thing is that there are some great Māori deliverers and providers out there that had their programmes taken off them and who were sidelined or had to come under the umbrella of Whānau Ora. What we have got to say today is that we have got no concern in respect of them—they are doing a fine job. But what we have got to ask today is who is culpable in this waste and why it is so damaging to the future of Māori and the taxpayer as well.At a time of fiscal restraint widespread cost-cutting and hardship for many families this so-called programme is deeply offensive to many Māori New Zealanders. It is offensive to the many Māori who are struggling to pay their bills find work and raise their children. It is offensive to all taxpayers who are seeing money that could be spent on worthwhile purposes being squandered to indulge the Māori Party and its cronies. It is offensive to the many families in New Zealand facing serious stress who could make good use of the extra financial support—$140 million is an incredible amount of money. Why it could for example easily fund people in this country with very rare diseases or syndromes many of whom are Māori over a period of probably 7 or 8 years.The latest report by the Auditor-General confirms that there is absolutely no evidence that good value for money has come out of the $140 million so far spent on Whānau Ora. To say that the objectives of Whānau Ora are vague amorphous woolly and unmeasurable is an understatement. If there are no clear goals aims and objectives any spending can be justified. In the history of public expenditure in New Zealand it will be hard to find any other programme that has so little in the way of justification or evidence to warrant its continued existence. I know of many brilliant Māori programmes around this country and they did not need some dreamtime esoteric view of how the world works from the Māori Party.With the greatest respect we have spent more time out there. We know what poverty smells tastes and feels like in places like Kawakawa and Kaikohe on the East Coast and none of this is designed to help them. What it is designed to help is the bureaucracy and I will prove how it does that. Whānau Ora could never withstand any real scrutiny. First investigation—down it goes. For that reason it has been allowed to obey the usual standards of open and accountable public administration. As we have repeatedly said Whānau Ora is a programme that has never made even the smallest gesture to good financial practice and accountability. It is an embarrassment to Māoridom. In fact Whānau Ora has always been nothing more than a grubby and cynical deal between National and the Māori Party.All the usual rules for scrutiny and oversight have been abandoned. Those people up there like Chris Bishop and others talk about accountability: “It’s a tight time. We haven’t got much in the way of public money to spend.” Consistencies accountabilities sunlight—when it came to this they turned a blind eye. New Zealanders are right to be outraged with this waste and squandering of public money. For example how many people who benefited from the $40 million in administration costs alone that went to Whānau Ora were allied with or supported the Māori Party? Even in the contracts awarded and the three commissions “appointed” to deliver this kaupapa how many people were allied to the Māori Party?Then the questions were asked today of the Prime Minister: “Prime Minister how come a third of all payments made to whānau and provider collectives went to just two of Te Puni Kōkiri’s 10 regions?”—and guess which two? The ones with Ministers from the Māori Party. I want to ask Marama Fox about how this works when for example the greatest population of Māori come from the far north that magnificent place deprived of sound economic and social management. How much money went to them? How come the two Māori Party Ministers got all the money in terms of percentages? Just two of the 10 got one-third of all payments. That Marama Fox is inexcusable. Next time you are in Kaitāia or Kaikohe or in the far north or in the other regions or in the deep south—down there at Ngāi Tahu—explain how this happens in 2015.Pita Paraone: What about her people on the East Coast?Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Oh what about her people on the East Coast.Pita Paraone: They missed out.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: They missed out completely. My colleague Pita Paraone who is very familiar with the East Coast of course knows how they feel down there. What are we hearing from the local member as to this improper expenditure? Not a mutter not a murmur not a syllable not a sound. How can you possibly face your people when you go back there where you are meant to be their loyal and faithful servant knowing that down here you have turned a blind eye?Here is the next one: a quarter of all individuals accessing Whānau Ora funding through the Whānau Integration Innovation and Engagement Fund in the 2010 2011 and 2012 years were in just one of Te Puni Kōkiri’s regions. It has got 10 regions and a quarter of the funding went to one region. Guess which one? Why the region of the former Minister for Whānau Ora herself. And what did the Prime Minister do? This arrogant and smug man said today that he did nothing—nothing.We in New Zealand First know the propriety that is required to be an accountable party. That is why we are the most frugal party in Parliament by miles. We know what it stands for to be accountable but what do we have here? How does for example the Prime Minister anybody in the National Government Marama Fox or for that matter the member for Whangarei possibly describe this to the Māori people up there—that $20000 went from Whānau Ora to the Mongrel Mob in Dunedin? Did it spend it on Māori causes and purposes? No. Did it spend it on sick Māori or Māori who needed education? No. It spent it on what? Cannabis. How do I know that? Because I raised the matter in Parliament and the Minister denied it and got caught out 3 days later. That is how I know that. One of the things we do in the New Zealand First Party is we do our homework—we do our homework. We are not fast on the lip and slow on the hip. No we do our homework. We raised that one then and that was what you might say was a dead one as well.Then we asked: “How come you gave $80000 to the Whānau Ora Palmerston North Māori Women’s Refuge where it has not got one client?”. No no the Māori women down there who wanted refuge went off to the European women’s refuge. How do you possibly justify that?Then of course there was the doozy of them all—to use the name of one of the guys on the backbench of the National Government—$60000 went to Ōtaki’s Rāhui Rugby and Sports Club for a 1-day hooley so that it could have whānau connectedness. Now I know that at Mōtatau and up there in Ōtīria and in fact all around the north and on the East Coast—Pita Paraone: And Whananaki.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: —and indeed in Whananaki I could gain some serious connectedness with $60000. And you know I have had the temerity of some of the commentariat who say to me: “But Mr Peters they did some good didn’t they?”. Well let me tell you this: with $140 million I could do some serious good—yes I could—but would it be fair? Would it go to all of Māoridom and at the end of the day would it have this one aspect which has always been the aspect of unique Māori service: personal sacrifice? That is something that is not big over there in the Māori Party is it? Or with the National Party—oh no it is all about egregious self-advancement.We in New Zealand First know that with all these programmes there has to be some sacrifice. There has to be some pain some commitment and some suffering. That is why we were proud to say from the word go that this programme should be stopped and the Auditor-General has now said that everything that New Zealand First has said was correct.Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister):Can I just start by acknowledging the considered speech by the front-bench Labour Party spokesman on Whānau Ora. It was a bit surprising. The Labour Party has been deeply confused by this policy. It cannot quite decide whether to be for it or against it. It cannot quite decide whether it is for it or against it but on the day it made the right decision which was to critically analyse the Auditor-General’s report support its conclusions and urge the Government to implement them and that is good.Surprisingly given the political advantage Mr Peters now has over the Labour Party he took the wrong tack. I mean to have the member for Northland say that he needs another $60000 and that that would fix things is frankly ridiculous. There is no shortage of Government money in Northland—no shortage of Government money in Northland. Now the member of course faces the challenge that as he moves on apparently from his career of “egregious self-advancement” of which he accuses everyone else he is now going to have to come to grips with the reality of the continued ineffectiveness of many traditional Government programmes in Northland—programmes and services that as often as not undermine what resilience the families in those lower-income communities in Northland actually have. They have resilience they have aspiration and too often the chaotic crisis-driven interventions of Government in the lives of those families make them worse not better—worse not better.The reason we are having this debate today is that the Māori Party rightly came to the view that something different needed to be done. Is there evidence of the need for something different to be done? Absolutely—absolutely. If you look at the data for communities around New Zealand there are three factors that combined predict pretty bad outcomes. They are a Child Youth and Family notification in respect of children in the household one parent who has had a custodial sentence—that is more common than people think; in Rotorua 10 percent of all children have a parent who has had some kind of corrections-related sentence—and the third factor is spending 75 percent of your life on a benefit. In Rotorua there are 470 of those families and I would defy any member of this House to dispute what the Auditor-General is saying which is that something different needs to happen because it is a deeply embedded pattern of persistent deprivation and social failure.I saw an example of this the other day in Palmerston North. I saw a video of the male from a household that had had in 12 months 161 calls to the police station—161 calls. We know that that is a sign not just of great expense for every one of those calls and the concern about the welfare of the parents and the children in that household. We know that it shows all sorts of other problems which are long running and intergenerational. It also denotes a pretty miserable household having an impact on the community that is very negative.The interventions that have gone with in that case the Whānau Ora provider mean that in the 6 or 8 months since they started there have been no phone calls to the police—none. That is a dramatic shift. I would not mind betting that if you went and looked at that family’s interaction with public services for the last 20 years it would be regular it would be crisis-driven it would be chaotic it would be very expensive. What we know is that a lot of it had not worked.That is why the Government has backed the approach embedded in Whānau Ora. The Auditor-General’s report draws attention to the nature of the spending. We could go into that in a bit of detail but one of the ironies here of course is that one reason there was significant administrative cost was to absolutely ensure that the money could be tracked so that it could be demonstrated that it was used carefully. For instance there was a requirement that a number of Whānau Ora providers did not like nor the families that if the Government gave money to a whānau it had to be to a legal entity. Yes it is a bureaucratic compliance requirement but I can guarantee that if that was not there New Zealand First would be ranting about that today. New Zealand First would be saying “Why do you just give money to some individual citizen out there? Aren’t all 4 million of them entitled to the same thing?”. Well that would have been a fair question.The other issue that has come up is around evaluation. It is interesting to hear New Zealand First taking the same argument as officials who do not want anything to change. That argument goes like this: how can you put that programme in place when it has not been evaluated? Well the answer is because it did not exist that is why. If we followed that argument we would just stick with the programmes that we know consistently fail—that we know consistently fail. Part of the money here has actually been to set up the evaluation to find out whether it has an impact—to find out whether it has an impact.In that respect can I say that Whānua Ora has been subject to more audits more examination more testing of outcomes more oversight than any other social programme. Among the Government’s spending these numbers over the years add up to $100 million. Over that period we have spent billions on programmes that have been unexamined. I would not say they have been unaudited—they have certainly been audited. They have been subject to high-level oversight and are not subject to anything like the expectation that they will have an impact as Whānau Ora is.The Auditor-General is criticising the outcomes framework. If we knocked on the head every Government programme that does not have an outcomes framework we would have been in surplus 5 years ago. Most Government spending has not had an outcomes framework and that is why we are changing it. A lot of it has no obvious intent to make an impact. It has got well-intentioned people it has got providers who can lobby and get the media and who do really care it is just that it does not make much difference.Whānau Ora is a programme—the only one I know of actually—that from its inception has been required to make a difference to the lives of people who desperately need that difference. In some cases it has. In some cases the value for money in year 1 of a programme and year 2 of something new with quite a different view cutting across the way that the Government is traditionally organised and quite a different aspect on our families and communities—in some cases that money may not have been applied in exactly the best way. We accept that. The Government accepts the recommendations of the Auditor-General. We made changes back in 2013 that deal actually with a number of the Auditor-General’s issues though not all of them and we will make sure that that contributes.I invite every member of Parliament to look at this and I welcome today the considered debate from most parties—except New Zealand First. There is one challenge for New Zealand First: show us what difference it is going to make in Northland and what is the magic new recipe? That is what we want to hear from New Zealand First. All we heard today was: “Don’t do this.” All we heard today was: “Don’t try to work with families to help them stand on their own two feet.” Somewhere there is some other magic recipe that is going to fix Northland. You know what? I wish New Zealand First knew—because it is a long hard road and a lot of solutions have been tried and failed—as much as it says it does. I just suspect that maybe it does not.ADRIAN RURAWHE (Labour—Te Tai Hauāuru):Ā tēnā koe e te Kaiw’akawā o te Whare nei otirā e te W’are tēnā tātou. Tēnā tātou i runga i tēnei kaupapa nunui kei waenganui i ā tātou iwi katoa puta noa i ngā moutere nei. Oti noa e tika ana ki a mi’i ki a rātou mā ki te kuia kāta’i anō ka mate. Nō reira e te whaea haere atu rā.[And so my thanks to you Mr Speaker of this House but at the same time salutations to us of the House acknowledgments to us in regard to this massive matter amongst all of our people throughout these islands. It is appropriate indeed that we acknowledge those who have passed away namely the elderly one who has just died. Therefore farewell to you the matriarch.]Last year during the election campaign whenever I spoke on w’ānau ora I always prefaced my comments by making certain that the people I was speaking to knew exactly which w’ānau ora I was talking about. I always talked about w’ānau ora the kaupapa—the concept the philosophical base that those of us who believe in this kaupapa operate within. I also spoke about w’ānau ora the model of practice. That is the way that providers provide their w’ānau-centred services to the families that they engage with. Then I talked about the Government programme the Government policy Whānau Ora and that is what I want to talk about now.Last year I actually got myself—I do not think I was in trouble but I managed to make some statements about the Government policy of Whānau Ora that attracted comment from the then Minister for Whānau Ora Tariana Turia who said that I was wrong. Today we have a report that actually says that I was right. I was right to comment on Whānau Ora the Government policy because the criticisms that we made last year have now been reported in the Auditor-General’s report.I think that every party in this House and the Government and the Minister in particular needs to take responsibility for the issues that have been raised—not to be talking in this House about the kaupapa or the model of practice but actually addressing the issue of the Government policy which is wrong. That is what the Government needs to be talking about. It is easy for us to be talking about what is wrong with our families and bring that to the House as if that is the issue; I can tell the House that that is not the issue. The issue is the way that the Government is implementing this policy of Whānau Ora.In a way it is a great sadness to me that the Government chose to use the name “Whānau Ora” for its policy and its programme. It should have left that as a kaupapa as a concept and left it as a model of practice for those providers that deliver the services to the people. They should own w’ānau ora not the Government. I do not need and my whānau and everyone’s families do not really need the Government to tell us what w’ānau ora is. What we need is what the Auditor-General has said in her report.Last year we in Labour campaigned on a policy of reviewing the Government’s policy of Whānau Ora and that is exactly what the Auditor-General has now told the whole world—that there needs to be a thorough investigation of this Government policy. That is one of the key points that I want to make to this House because actually what we have heard so far is a lot of justification.We have heard about everything that is wrong with our families and about how good the providers are doing and I agree with that. I agree that our providers out there are doing an excellent job of delivering services under a policy that is quite confused. I can say that because 4 years ago I was the chair of an iwi health provider in Whanganui that went through this process and I am not surprised at the level of administration and the cost of administration needed to implement this policy. The number of hoops that we had to go through hurdles we had to go over—change of venues change of game and change of the rules—while this policy started to be implemented meant that it could not possibly have been anything else but highly costly administratively.I do not completely blame Te Puni Kōkiri by itself. I think and I am speaking from my personal experience that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development were actually how would I put it—they were not willing participants in this process. I got the sense when we met with those ministries that Te Puni Kōkiri was having to push them forward to make sure that they participated and I have spoken to a number of people who have gone through the same experience. The cost of administration was necessary. I think that sometimes Te Puni Kōkiri can be overly risk-averse and that sometimes it puts too many processes in place. When maybe one process might be sufficient it will have two or three in place and this is what has happened with Whānau Ora the Government policy.The Auditor-General pointed out a number of issues. For example it has a lot of potential. I think that is one of the highlights of this report in a report that does not have very many highlights. I think that both the kaupapa—the model or practice—and indeed the Government policy have potential if they are done the right way. To me quite clearly this has not been done very well. The implementation of it has not been good.Last week I spoke in the annual review debate and I raised the issue of Māori housing where in June last year the then Minister announced that a Māori housing fund would go to Te Pou Matakana a grassroots organisation so that it could operate that funding for Māori housing. After the election in December last year that decision was overturned and now it is going back to Te Puni Kōkiri. I wonder whether it is time to readdress that particular issue in light of the criticisms in the Auditor-General’s report on Te Puni Kōkiri. Maybe that decision should be revisited and Te Pou Matakana should be given a shot at having that funding for Māori housing. While I am on it what progress has actually been made in those areas? We have heard nothing about those policy areas since they were announced.I think it is really important for members on our side of the House to highlight the fact that we did have a policy on w’ānau ora. Within the Auditor-General’s report it says that w’ānau ora actually started in 2002 with a w’ānau ora policy within the Ministry of Health but one of the key things that stood side by side with that policy was Labour’s funding for outcomes. This is now the basis for the integrated contracts that each and every one of the Whānau Ora providers has had to go through. This is a really important point for me to make because I think that that is one of the three cornerstones of the current Government’s Whānau Ora policy and that actually started with the Labour Government. We on this side of the House were talking about having integrated contracts with organisations that provided an integrated service. Thank you very much.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I call Marama Fox—5 minutes.MARAMA FOX (Co-Leader—Māori Party):Whānau Ora is an approach to help families and whānau in need. It is radical. I heard the Hon Annette King question what is so radical about it. I will tell you what is radical about it. What is radical about it is that in fact Mr Rurawhe was talking about Labour wanting to do something that would bring an integrated approach to supporting whānau but it did not actually do anything. So on one hand Labour wants to criticise Whānau Ora and on the other hand it wants to claim that it was its idea which I find quite remarkable.In fact this was not our idea. This has nothing to do with Tariana; she did not dream this up. In fact she says in her own words that Whānau Ora is from Māori. It is a Māori concept for Māori people by Māori—for Māori and ultimately for all of Aotearoa New Zealand. This is about value being added to this country based on a kaupapa Māori perspective. Should we claim it in the Government? Is it wrong to claim kaupapa Māori ideas? Why? Because they do not work? They do work and 45000 New Zealanders in this country have had the benefit of Whānau Ora—yes up and down the East Coast because yes there are Whānau Ora providers on the East Coast and yes in the far north.I was invited to the far north to launch a Whānau Ora initiative that saw Pasifika whānau and Māori whānau come together. Are we in the Māori Party dealing with Pasifika needs not just those of Māori? Yes we are. That is the Whānau Ora provision called The Fono and it has put Whānau Ora providers in the far north. Whānau Ora has benefited people and everybody has said that. On one hand they talk about how wonderful these navigators are who go out around the country and support whānau to transform their lives and to go from being dependent on Government services to being independent and realising their dreams and aspirations. Yes the catchcry for Whānau Ora is “Dream it plan it live it.” Nobody has criticised that because that cannot be criticised.Whānau Ora navigators are doing good work but what is the response from the Opposition when the approach gets criticised? It says “Oh let’s cut it. Let’s just cut it. Let’s throw those families back on to the heap and let’s not give them some provision.” When the services that are currently out there try to deliver services to whānau—Carmel Sepuloni: We didn’t say cut it; we said cut the spending but don’t cut the programme.MARAMA FOX: You know and I know Ms Sepuloni. You know—excuse me. Ms Sepuloni may know although she may be having trouble grasping this that when there is an issue Child Youth and Family rings Whānau Ora navigators. When there is an issue Ministry of Social Development staff ring Whānau Ora navigators. Why? Because they have success and this programme has success.In fact I sat in on a Whānau Ora hui with young men who otherwise would have been tossed on the heap young men who had been referred for support because they were being thrown out of school. They were sons of gang members and were getting into trouble. They were on the borderline of being thrown into jail. Instead what did they do? They went to Whānau Ora providers who turned their lives round. I watched as 17-year-old hardened young men softened their hearts enough to ring their fathers and organise father-son dates. That is what they called it—their words not my words. They spent time connecting with their whānau with their mothers turning their lives round. They went from having no hope to having a future where they could see themselves with bright and prosperous aspirational gains they never thought were available to them before.Yes we need to strengthen Whānau Ora. We could take the $300 million that other services get and put that in Whānau Ora and build the infrastructure but to say that the policy is flawed—the implementation may be flawed but these things are being worked on and that is what we have been doing from the moment we stepped into this building.Whānau Ora is the way of the future. People all over the world have been asking us to tell them how this works because before this time people only spoke about it. I sat in a meeting in about 2002 and listened to people talk about how we could come together as providers and support whānau. Well this is it and it is not about the individual; it is about whānau. Kia ora.CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour—Kelston):Marama Fox from the Māori Party said that when things go wrong when there are problems with something the Opposition’s first position is to say “Cut it.” At no point have we said “Cut it.” but what we are saying is that the responsible thing now is to explore the findings of the Auditor-General and to ask the question why. We support the concept of Whānau Ora. We support the idea of integrated services provision. We support the idea of addressing the needs of a whole family rather than just an individual but we have to ask questions following the release of this report.The biggest question we have to ask is around spending. One third of the money put towards Whānau Ora—$42.3 million—went towards administration of the programme. I want to say that I understand that when you start something new there are going to be additional administrative costs but one third of the funding going towards administration is something that needs to be explored.The thing is too that that $42.3 million—one third of the funding that went towards Whānau Ora which has been attributed to administration—is the administrative cost only at the Te Puni Kōkiri level and at the commissioning agency level. If you look at the providers who would then be commissioned by the commissioning agencies there are going to be further administrative costs there. I do not think that the administrative costs of those providers will reach one third of the funding that they get. But if they were to reach that level of funding you would be spending two thirds of the funding allocated towards Whānau Ora on administration at the Te Puni Kōkiri level and at the commissioning agency level and then at the provider level. Effectively out of $130 million you would be left with only about $40 million that would be going directly to whānau.That was never the intention of the programme from what we believe with regard to when the Māori Party first announced it. The idea was that more money would go directly towards helping whānau. If only $40 million one third of the funding is actually reaching whānau after you take the administration from Te Puni Kōkiri the commissioning agencies and then the providers well effectively this is how much money those individuals who were getting help were getting.We know there were 43000 because Te Ururoa Flavell said that about 43000 individuals were helped by Whānau Ora funding and about 9000 families. If you add that up and say that only $40 million made it to the actual ground then that would be less than $100 per person who benefited in some way from Whānau Ora. That would be only $444 per family who benefited from Whānau Ora.So you can see here that there are real problems with the way in which Whānau Ora is operating under the National Government and we need to investigate it further. It is not just us on this side of the House being cynical but actually it is the responsible thing to do and it is actually what the Auditor-General said needs to be done. It needs to be explored further. This is not us criticising just for the sake of criticising; this is us being the watchdog of Parliament holding the Government to account on its spending and saying actually that this is not responsible nor is it acceptable—$43 million on administration just at Te Puni Kōkiri and at the commissioning agency level.I ran an NGO for 3 years before coming here a Pacific NGO and I know how hard our NGO sector works. I know how hard they are working on the smell of an oily rag. I know that many of the providers out there have had no funding increases for the last 6 years under this National Government. I also know that it was not all smooth sailing when the Whānau Ora funding was rolled out. There were problems that occurred even within my own Pacific community—competition that came about that was not necessarily the healthiest. There were issues there with regard to the relationships and the collaboration that was happening or not happening in the sector so those things need to be investigated as well.I do want to also just touch on the fact that the Whānau Ora approach is about supporting whānau rather than just individuals. It is about looking at the whole whānau. It has been problematic and the report points that out because that culture or that kaupapa is not necessarily adopted by the two main ministries that are working alongside Whānau Ora—being the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development. There are inconsistencies there that also need to be addressed. It is our responsibility as a Parliament to explore this further.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The next call is a split call. The Hon Hekia Parata—5 minutes.Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education):Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. I am pleased to participate in this debate about Whānau Ora because there has been a lot of criticism thrown at this initiative this new approach because of a fundamental misunderstanding. This is a revolutionary old concept. Yes it is new to the Public Service and all of the challenges that are attendant upon that are outlined not only in the Auditor-General’s report but in the numerous reports that have been done since this programme first got underway. It is correct as the Deputy Prime Minister has already indicated that this programme has been under more scrutiny than almost any other programme from its get-go and it has had to develop a whole range of dimensions that we do not demand of any other programme. Whānau Ora as a concept is extremely well understood.David Shearer: Rubbish! Of course we demand it.Hon HEKIA PARATA: It is not rubbish. It is not rubbish and I would challenge that member to demonstrate to me—David Shearer: We demand that the aims and the objectives are clear.Hon HEKIA PARATA: Mehemea kei te mōhio katoa tērā mema ki tēnei kaupapa ka mōhio a ia. [If that member knows everything about this matter then he will understand.] So I will tell the House about the other programme that threatens the Opposition members who are happy to sit on their hands and the parlous situation we found when we came into Government in terms of Māori of Pasifika of families from poorer homes which that Government prior to us was happy to sit on.Here in this Government we have been prepared to take some risks. We have been prepared to work with our coalition partners. We have been prepared to acknowledge the success of very old and traditional concepts within the Māori cultural context. What is revolutionary about this is it proceeds from a paradigm where Māori are right where all their beliefs their value systems should be taken into account and imported into a social services provision where it focuses on the collective entity of the whānau as the previous speaker indicated. But the challenge of that is that Public Service departments have not been accustomed to dealing with those kinds of entities. That has been challenging and the Office of the Auditor-General has pointed out where some of those challenges have failed. But does that mean that you toss this out that you spend the whole time praying for failure and baying for calamity as the Opposition consistently does?As I said earlier in the House when we came into Government we found that that Opposition was happy to consign Māori and Pasifika students to failure. Well Whānau Ora is another—Carmel Sepuloni: How much of our university entrance numbers dropped under that Government?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes it was and the evidence is unimpeachable and it does not matter how loud the member shouts. The evidence is actually unequivocal: Māori had a 44 percent pass rate at National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2; Pasifika had 51 percent. Under this Government Māori had a 63 percent pass rate and Pasifika had 72 percent. Whānau Ora is another initiative that is directed at intractable problems that that Opposition when it was in Government was not prepared to tackle. It was happy to sing action songs and waiata but was that making a material difference to the whānau? Not at all.These navigators tackle some really difficult problems. I was in my colleague’s electorate last week and I visited Kaiti School. That school has had significant challenges around attendance transience and whānau who struggle with difficulties. They have had a Whānau Ora navigator in their school for the past 2 years. The difference it has made is absolutely measurable and palpable. All of the staff whom I met—the principal the teachers—the whānau who came and the aiga who came attested to the quality of difference that the whānau navigator has made to their school. These are people who are struggling practically with how to make a difference for their whānau.So yes there have been criticisms of Whānau Ora. It is still developing. I can say from some personal experience how hard it is to get a new and controversial yet risky and “can make a difference” policy off the ground. Partnership schools and kura hourua have attracted the same visceral attacks from the Opposition as again we seek to push out the boundaries. We take risks—yes we take risks. We are unapologetic about that. We have had some difficulties with one—with one—out of nine schools. These are with children who really do come from challenging circumstances. We cannot get them to attend mainstream schools. Those mainstream schools have said those are the failures. But here is the thing. We are getting raised achievement in all kinds of schools whether they are mainstream ones or partnership schools. Kura kaupapa Māori State-based State-integrated—we are getting—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Order! The member’s time has expired.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): The Hon Anne Tolley—5 minutes.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Social Development):I wish the Opposition speakers who have stood in this House today and have criticised and taken the opportunity to take pot-shots at Whānau Ora had taken the same opportunity to express their concerns about the low educational results for Māori and Pasifika the low participation in early childhood education by Māori and Pasifika the low life expectancy for Māori and Pasifika the high benefit dependency by Māori and Pasifika the high imprisonment rates for Māori and Pasifika the high rates of smoking amongst Māori and Pasifika the high rates of diabetes and heart disease amongst Māori and Pasifika and the high rates of children living in hardship amongst Māori and Pasifika.The reality is that we inherited a system that under the previous Labour Government continued to throw buckets of money at all of those issues without any idea of where that money was going and of what effect that money was having. In all of the questions that Opposition members have been asking today all that they have been interested in is how much money is being spent on this programme and how many people are attending those courses. That is not what changes people’s lives. In fairness I would have to say that over the years successive Governments both National and Labour have struggled with how they address the extremely difficult and complex issues that face too many of our Māori and Pasifika families.Over the years the statistics are very clear: we have changed nothing. I applaud the Māori Party which was bold enough to come along and say: “We propose a different way of addressing these issues.” It may not be perfect. I think the Auditor-General’s report is actually a really positive report because in it she acknowledges that this is a new and innovative way of addressing these complex issues. And yes there have been problems and she has—David Shearer: Read the first page.Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes I will read the first page. She says: “I have no doubt that some commentators will make light of the successes described in this report and make much of the criticisms.” Those three guys sitting there—middle-aged white Pākehā men who have been in this House for too long—have no idea of the courage it took the Māori Party to put up this programme and make it work. They have no idea. Phil Goff was part of two Governments that did nothing for Māori and that did nothing to advance the options and opportunities for those families. They sit there now and they carp but the Māori Party had the courage to say: “We can do this. We need your help. We need your advice. We need some funding in our communities and we can work to make a difference with our families.”The Auditor-General’s report makes it clear that those families can do it. With the right support we can make significant changes. We do need to take learnings from the Auditor-General’s report and we will do that. But we will not resile from trying different ways of reaching out and supporting those vulnerable children in particular and their families. I challenge Opposition members to look past their myopic middle-class attitudes and reach out to those families too. We could do with their support out and about in their electorates and those families could too.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.General DebateHon LOUISE UPSTON (Associate Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment):I move That the House take note of miscellaneous business. I am a proud New Zealander and I am proud to be part of a Government that is leading a courageous country and a growing economy. I am also incredibly proud to follow the speakers on this side of the House who are out there actually making a difference for hard-working New Zealanders in all sorts of circumstances from one end of the country to the other. We have a Prime Minister who is willing to be courageous and to lead programmes that might be different from the programmes we have seen from previous Governments—programmes that are not delivering for New Zealand. This side of the House is doing things that we believe in trusting Māori to look at solutions that work for them in their communities that they are leading.I want to turn my attention to across the Ditch. I want to talk as Associate Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment about my experience at one of our campaign-promised job fairs that was in Melbourne. The very intent of these job fairs is to attract our Kiwis home. There are 480000 of them living in Australia. It was quite amazing to be part of a conversation with a Māori woman who was in tears. She wants to come home. She can see the opportunities here in New Zealand which are so far greater than what is on offer in Australia. It was really quite moving to realise that we have Kiwis whom we are attracting home to New Zealand.To be fair we are also offering that opportunity to Aussies who want to become Kiwis. It is interesting that the net migration from Australia to the year February 2015 was 2400. That is the highest level ever since records began in 1978. I think that says pretty clearly how well Prime Minister John Key is leading this country and our economic recovery. Those are the sorts of things they look at. It was really interesting. It was about the day that the Kiwi dollar was hitting parity with the Australian dollar. It was amazing to get the sense from those Australians that we are no longer regarded as the poor cousin. We are up there right alongside them and actually we are overtaking them. If you look at our economic performance and if you look at our unemployment rate at 5.8 percent as compared with their 6.2 percent we are heading down and they are heading up. No longer is Australia the Lucky Country. We have a golden opportunity in terms of attracting Kiwis home.I guess one of the challenges when you have a growing economy an economy growing as strongly as it is is that there are a few growing pains. One of those is being able to fill jobs in industries that we clearly need. These job fairs were very directly focused on filling jobs in information and communications technology manufacturing health construction trades engineering and transport. There are 4500 job seekers directly looking at coming here. It was a fantastic opportunity.As the previous speaker Minister Parata said we are also training young New Zealanders Māori and Pasifika students female and male at a greater rate than the previous Government and probably those students from the past whom the Opposition in its days in Government left behind. We are actually turning round the results and the lives and the futures of those very New Zealanders. That is why I get reactions from tradies in my electorate like the one I spoke to yesterday who said “Can you give John a message for me? Tell him he’s doing a bloody good job and we want to keep him longer.” That is the mood that I get whether I am talking to groups in Dunedin or whether I am talking to groups in Northland. Hard-working middle New Zealand from one end of the country to the other knows that John Key our Prime Minister is delivering for them—delivering in the areas that count.I want to talk specifically about women’s participation in the workforce because this is one of my priorities: making sure that the skills and utilisation of women is fully realised. This is a Government that is backing New Zealand women to succeed. I am really pleased to say that the results that came out today in the household labour force survey show that there are 3000 fewer women unemployed in the March 2015 quarter. There are some very specific things that we are doing to engage more women in employment. Canterbury is a classic example: there is a shortage in the construction sector. The Ministry for Women has done a very practical collaborative job with the sector to get more women into jobs.ANDREW LITTLE (Leader of the Opposition):Well what we have now is the dying months of a shabby grubby National Government. Oh yes that last speech by Louise Upston was one of the biggest statements of conceit that we have had from a junior Minister in this Government for a long long time.Jami-Lee Ross: Says the guy who only gets 11 percent.ANDREW LITTLE: There are none so blind as those who will not see as Mr Jami-Lee Ross well knows. Ms Upston talked about the job fairs. Well I tell you what the job fairs were wonderful for the Melbourne business community especially the taxi drivers because they profited to the tune of nearly $1300 from one Minister alone ferrying himself around with the Melbourne taxis at the expense of the New Zealand taxpayer. That was his contribution to the job fair for New Zealand in Melbourne.What we are observing now—and we can smell it from here—is the rancid smell of the decay of this Government now starting to rise and now starting to bubble up. Let us just have a look at it. It is a Government overtaken by arrogance by contempt and now by conceit. Look at the issues: contempt for conflicts of interest in ministerial portfolios a failure of economic management of gross proportions—and I am going to come back to these in a minute—boondoggle and pork barrel in Northland and they cannot even get that right. They put it all up there and could not get themselves elected. There is out of control spending and abject denial of issues that are screaming out for attention—house prices in Auckland would be one of them. What we have now is no longer a Government; we have a dog and pony show. Oh yes you knew that was going to come up. We have got the show-pony leader who is now more “pony puller”—he is the ponytail puller from Parnell—and a Government that has lost its way and no longer knows what to do as if it ever did.Let us have a look at this. We expect from our Cabinet Ministers the highest standards of conduct. We do not expect Ministers to be flippant and cavalier about conflicts of interest. This Government never gets it right. It thinks “Our people are nice. They’re good people. How can they possibly do anything wrong?”. That is not the issue when it comes to conflicts of interest. The issue about conflicts of interest no matter who the Minister is—whether it is the Prime Minister or anybody else—is the integrity of that public office. The public is entitled to know that our Ministers—who occupy the highest and most senior offices in the land—conduct themselves with the utmost integrity and that when there is a risk or a potential or real conflict of interest they step aside. They should not have to be asked. They should not have to be browbeaten from office before this happens. I am confident that when the full facts of various situations concerning this Government over the last few months emerge the New Zealand public will be horrified. They will be shocked at the increasingly cavalier and contemptuous approach that this Government is taking to that important part of occupying public office.Let us have a look at economic management. This Government will go down in history as one of the most reckless that we have ever had. It has ridden the wave—the complacent wave of high commodity prices—and it has thought “Nothing to do here. This is all going swimmingly for us. We don’t have to worry about the future because we won’t be around long enough to have deal with it.” Well now it is catching up with the Government. Commodity prices have been falling for well over a year now and it knows that the tsunami is about to hit—or the lack of it actually—which is the $7 billion hole that will emerge in this economy later this year when the farmers cannot get the returns on their goods and on their work. It will be a $7 billion hole in our economy. Of course it will be bigger than that because there is a multiplier effect as that money fails to wash through the economy. Then there will be less work less income and less revenue for many more businesses and for many more working people. That is what is going to hit New Zealand in the latter part of this year and this Government could not care less. That is why the Government members are all looking down now because they do not really care about that stuff.Alastair Scott: 3.5 percent growth. 80000 new jobs. What else do you need to know?ANDREW LITTLE: They have ridden the wave of the benefits of it and they do not care about it. They bury their heads in the sand like the member opposite—bury their heads in the sand—because they just do not care. They sit by and say “This is the sign of success: a rapidly out of control Auckland housing market.” This is their sign of success. They do not care that innocent Aucklanders—young working families—are being shut out of the housing market. They never cared about that. They lost the basic New Zealand egalitarian ethos long ago—they never cared about it never will. This is a shabby grubby Government with no vision that is on its way out.Hon PAUL GOLDSMITH (Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs):Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Well we have had more shock horror overreach and outrage from Opposition members who are always jumping up and down and confecting outrage. That is why I believe that Mr Little is in danger of being overtaken by Len Brown to be the most successful Labour leader in Auckland at the moment. That is why that party is struggling to engage with New Zealanders and the concerns that New Zealanders have. That is why this Government is focused on New Zealand families and what New Zealanders are looking for in terms of jobs growth and access to good education and health care. They have seen that this Government has been very focused on their needs and their concerns. That is why we continue to have that high level of support. So if you think that having 74000 new jobs in this economy that we did not have this time last year is not important then I think you are out of touch with what Aucklanders and New Zealanders really want. That is why we are working hard to improve our public services in welfare health and education.I want to touch on a couple of the areas in my ministerial responsibility that relate to how we as a Government can help Kiwi families get ahead. There are a couple of areas. One is the cost of living. There are two ways that you can improve living standards in this country. One is economic growth which is what this Government has a fantastic track record in—3 percent this year. We are one of the leading growth countries and economies in the developed world and we have got projections for further growth over the next little while. The other way is to make each dollar go further. That is why a strong competitive domestic economy is so important. The competition laws which I have some responsibility for are fundamental to maintaining that disciplined and competitive domestic economy.We have got the cartels legislation which is halfway through the House and which we will be progressing very quickly. It is all about sending a clear message that we do not tolerate any of that behaviour. We have also got a review coming up of section 36 of the competition law which relates to the misuse of market power. We do not want to put any barriers in the way of new entrants coming into any industries in this country shaking things up and making it more competitive so that New Zealanders have more money in their pockets when they go out and buy their shorts their shoes and their food in every industry that they deal with. A strong competitive economy and industry in New Zealand is a fundamental and important thing.We keep on hearing about house prices. Well one of the reasons why New Zealanders have invested in residential housing for so long is that it is very hard for somebody to steal your house. The contrary idea over the last 30 or 40 years of putting your savings into financial markets has been a difficult one. So many New Zealanders have lost their savings over the years so the most important thing we can do in financial markets is build confidence in the system. That is why this Government put through a huge change in the Financial Markets Conduct Act last year. My focus very much as Minister of Commerce and Consumer Affairs is to make sure that we implement that well over the next couple of years. This is so that New Zealanders when they are looking at where they are going to put their money do not have residential real estate as just one option but are more likely to invest in financial markets and build on their KiwiSaver funds which have been so important in building an understanding of those financial markets.Also we are working on a review of the Financial Advisers Act which is about giving advice to Kiwis. On the whole our financial literacy could be improved. We have put in there a regime for financial advisers for the last 3 years and we want to make sure that we have got that right that any conflicts of interest are dealt with properly and that the costs and the regulatory burden of giving advice are not so high that fewer people get advice. We are focused on that as we are also focused on the broader idea of financial literacy.There is no more important thing you can do for New Zealand families than help them understand how money works how interest works and how to improve financial literacy within families in their homes in New Zealand. That is why this Government has more than trebled the amount of money that has been put into budgeting services through the Ministry of Social Development and I think that is a very important step. We have also been working hard on our consumer laws around the responsible lending code. Again we are trying to make sure that people who are offering or lending money ask basic questions about the ability of the person to pay back loans so that they fully understand the full extent of those loans.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green):Tomorrow Auckland Council will vote on the 3-year transport budget it will be adopting. Although the proposal involves a significant increase in funding in rail busways and public transport—all the stuff that Aucklanders have been asking for—unfortunately it has to be funded through rates rises because this National Government is failing Auckland and not putting the transport budget into the projects that Aucklanders really need and want.Last week my colleague Denise Roche our Auckland issues spokesperson asked the Minister of Transport Simon Bridges questions about transport funding and investment in Auckland. I have to set the record straight because surprisingly Minister Bridges got quite a few things wrong. Firstly he said that the National Government had spent $1.6 billion on rail in Auckland more than the Green Party had ever spent. I am not sure whether the Minister realises that the Green Party has not yet been part of a formal coalition in a Government and therefore although we could have perhaps dipped into our parliamentary office budgets to try to fund transport infrastructure in Auckland it would not have paid for much and it really is the responsibility of the parties in Government to spend the transport budget.That $1.6 billion he is referring to was not of course the initiative or the idea of this National Government. It is funding that was entirely committed under the previous Labour Government. In 2007 $1.1 billion was committed to Project DART and $500 million to the electrification of Auckland’s rail network largely thanks to the Green Party putting pressure on the Labour Government at the time. So despite not being in Government the Greens were instrumental in getting half a billion dollars of investment in Auckland rail. Of course once National came into power that $500 million turned into a loan so rather than actually paying for Auckland’s rail infrastructure it is forcing Auckland ratepayers to pay it back while it does pay for rail upgrades in Wellington. So this National Government has not committed a single dollar to my knowledge to new passenger rail infrastructure in Auckland since coming to power in 2008.This is despite phenomenal growth in the rail network. We saw patronage growth of 20 percent in the past year. We are now on track to hit the Government’s arbitrary target of 20 million rail passengers by 2017 which is 3 years earlier than the Prime Minister’s threshold for bringing funding for this City Rail Link forward and actually starting it on time. Of course that project needed to be started yesterday because it is going to have to be open by 2017 to meet the needs of Aucklanders. At the rate we are going now we will be lucky if it is open by 2021 or 2022 but that is only if National actually sees the light and commits some funding to this central project.Mr Bridges also claimed that 99 percent of people commute on the roads. I think he probably does know that it is closer to 80 percent who commute by car. Of course in central Auckland less than half of people commute by car. That is because they have options. When you provide high-quality affordable public transport options people use them. They would like to have more. This graph shows what Aucklanders want. It says right here that Aucklanders want much more spending on buses on cycling on public transport and on rail. Do you know how many more want more spending on State highways? It is very few because they know that when you make it easier for people to take public transport you free up the roads for those who need to use them.This diagram is the capital investment to set the record straight. We have had 8 years. We are finally seeing progress in Auckland rail thanks to the commitments made by the previous Labour Government thanks to the pressure by the Greens. But we are going to hit a wall because there has been no investment over the past 8 years. All of those projects are coming to completion and no new projects are yet in place because of the failure of this National Government to invest in Auckland. This diagram is the Government’s transport plan for the next 10 years. This is its new capital expenditure. This much is on State highways which carry a tiny proportion of traffic volumes and this much is on public transport infrastructure. Will that make it easier for Auckland families to get to work? No. The Government is spending a billion dollars to fast track the Pūhoi to Wellsford road which will be used by less than 1 percent of Auckland commuters.I ask the National Government to get some perspective get into the 21st century and start investing in the modes that are missing in Auckland that Aucklanders desperately want that will make it more affordable to get to work and to get to school and that will actually do more to reduce the pressure on the roads than anything it is planning to do. The Green Party would do that. We have a costed plan.MELISSA LEE (National):I recognise the member who just sat down Julie Anne Genter and actually would like to say to that member that most New Zealanders actually want a growing economy. It is not just about railways.It is a great pleasure to speak in the general debate and I am very proud to be standing here as part of the National-led Government led by our very able Prime Minister John Key. Recently about a month ago I was in Korea while the Prime Minister and the Minister of Trade were actually signing the free-trade agreement with Korea. A long and protracted debate went on and we finally signed the agreement and immediately in the first year we will actually benefit by $65 million because there is a high tariff in Korea.Our National-led Government has been active in improving the lives of New Zealanders. This is evidenced in our strong economy and our social progress. Our economy is strong and is rapidly growing compared with the rest of the world. There are now 74000 more people employed than a year ago wages are rising faster than inflation and we are constantly supporting the growth of new industries like information and communications technology and high-tech manufacturing. Today I had the opportunity to visit Callaghan Innovation with the Education and Science Committee and there I actually came across some new developments in photovoltaic research. To think that we can reduce the number of solar panels which are really really expensive using the colour technology that researchers are developing on our houses—I mean the future is really really innovative and I was very excited to actually see that kind of development.In terms of social progress New Zealand is ranked among the best in the world. New Zealand is a great place to raise our families. I myself as a mother of a teenage son can proudly say that. I am very lucky to be raising a child in New Zealand. Our children are highly educated and are given the opportunity to maximise their fullest potential. I am sure that Lydia Ko and Danny Lee’s parents actually agree that they have had the opportunity to give the best to their children because they lived in New Zealand.All parents actually want to do this for their children but sometimes there are issues and I want to talk just a little bit about domestic violence and family violence. About 1½ weeks ago I was very lucky to MC an event that was hosted by the Gandhi Nivas charitable trust in Auckland where it was raising money to house perpetrators of domestic violence. Often it is actually the victims who are uprooted from their home. It is the women and the children who are uprooted and they are actually taken away from their homes away from the things that they know. But the Gandhi Nivas charitable trust is actually looking at taking away the perpetrators so that the victims can remain at home in the comfort of their home. The trust is providing housing for the perpetrators it is providing counselling for the perpetrators and it is doing it in a very culturally sensitive and appropriate way. It is not just “Shock horror!” remove the family and split the family up. I commend the work of Gandhi Nivas. I know that Minister Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga was there and members of the Opposition were there as well. I saw—Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Mahesh Bindra.MELISSA LEE: —Mahesh Bindra from New Zealand First. I know that that member is very supportive of that trust as well so I thank the member for being there. We raised a lot of money and I am very proud that we have actually been able to do that.We are very focused as a Government and we are focused on our work around the main priorities. Our main priorities revolve around responsibly managing the Government finances so that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely on the services that New Zealanders actually need and require. It is not about frivolously spending on a particular liking of certain members of this Parliament; it is about responsibly managing the whole country. I think most New Zealanders see that this National-led Government has been able to do that.We are also building a more productive and competitive economy to support more jobs raise incomes and build opportunities for all New Zealand families not just people in Auckland or Dunedin—it is not just about one specific area; it is about all of New Zealand. I know that there has been focus on the growth of jobs in the rural sector as well and that is also evident in the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband. It is not just in Auckland that that is actually happening. It is happening right around the country.We are also delivering better public services so that our schools continue to better educate our students. Today we had the top scholars in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement visiting Parliament. I know that one of them the top female scholar is actually a Korean girl. Her name is Hanseul Nam. I met her uncle in Korea who was so very proud of her. I would like to congratulate all of those scholars.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):This is the first opportunity I have had to speak in a general debate since this Parliament has been in session this year and what a delight a privilege and a pleasure it is when the Government is in such good form and such good shape with such focus such energy and such direction. It is a real privilege to be serving in the John Key - led National Government which is making such progress on behalf of all New Zealanders.In the short time available this afternoon I would like to talk about two matters that I think are of crucial interest to members of the House and people listening around the country. The first one is the good work that is being done by the Government particularly in relation to the work on behalf of and in support of New Zealand families. This is a Government that cares about families. It understands that families are at the very core the foundation of our society and we want to make sure that they get the support care and nurturing that they need to ensure that young Kiwi kids get the best start that they can in their lives.Secondly if I get an opportunity I really want to have a commentary about the changed landscape on the Opposition benches that has occurred in recent times. We are 5 months into the year and the world really has changed in terms of the Opposition. Stability certainty and predictability are things that voters like. These are things that citizens like. These are things that society likes. John Key and the National-led Government are in fact providing these things to New Zealanders and New Zealanders understand that. New Zealand remains and always has been a very good place to raise a family a very good place to bring up children. It is not just us Kiwis who say that; it is acknowledged by others around the world.We have a Government that has purpose pace energy and a lot of new ideas going into this third term. I want to just touch on a couple of them because they relate primarily to the strong and growing economy that we are fortunate to have at the moment—due I have to say in very large part to the careful prudent wise and astute management of the country’s books by the Minister of Finance Bill English who will later this month deliver his seventh Budget. And so all those things are having a positive impact a real impact for New Zealand families and I see that in Coromandel my electorate. I see that for Coromandel families and for Coromandel children. I see the benefits that are real tangible and meaningful.Parental tax credits for instance for lower-income families have gone from $150 a week to $220 a week. What is more the entitlement to that support has been extended from 8 weeks to 10 weeks. Then of course paid parental leave which we have had so much talk about will be extended for a further 2 weeks to 18 weeks from April of next year. Another area that I see real positive gains in is the HomeStart programme which is helping young Kiwi families get into their first homes. The HomeStart programme will see over the next 5 years something like 90000 young Kiwis getting into their first homes. Those measures along with so many others are the absolute tangible evidence that this is a Government that cares about families has families at the heart of its policies and is on the side of young families.One of the things that has been most noticeable to me—and I suspect to most other New Zealanders—is that there has been a seismic shift in the Opposition in what has been going on over there on that side of the House. It is a shift that has occurred since Christmas-time and there have been a couple of things that have really demonstrated it. The most obvious one of course is that later today we will be hearing the maiden speech from Ria Bond the new New Zealand First MP from Invercargill. That is a side effect of the result of the Northland by-election. I am sure the good people of Northland will be keen to hear from the new Invercargill member when she gives her maiden address in a short period of time.I congratulate and welcome her to this place. But the good people of Northland will not be surprised I am sure to know that it is now Winston Peters who has effectively assumed the mantle of the Leader of the Opposition. It is Winston Peters and New Zealand First that have the energy and the passion of opposition. It is New Zealand First that seems to be leading the fight on the Opposition benches and it is New Zealand First that has in fact stolen the oxygen and lunch from Labour.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):It seems such a short time since you were in the chair last night and I was giving an oration on the New Zealand Business Number Bill and I am still curious as to whether Dr Woods has read Result 9 of the Better Public Services agenda—no? It is Result 9. You have really got to read it. It is going to be very good.Dr Megan Woods: You’re talking to me a lot.SIMON O’CONNOR: Encouraging—encouraging. There are a couple of things that I want to draw the House’s attention to. The first is actually one of the health announcements—if I am to put my chair of the Health Committee hat on. Today there was an excellent pre-Budget announcement by the Minister of Health noting that there will be 4000 more elective operations a year than ever before. This is on the back of a Government that has actually produced every year since it has been in Government at least 40000 to 44000 more elective surgeries. And with the extra funding announced today we are going to be moving towards 44000 48000 50000 extra elective surgeries a year. I think that is absolutely tremendous.I do though want to turn the primary focus of my speech to Tāmaki. But in beginning to do so I want to note what I think is some rather unfortunate if not almost shameful behaviour occurring in the Auckland Council as it looks towards rates increases of nearly 10 percent. I want to put my voice very firmly on the record and on behalf of the constituents of Tāmaki say that we are completely opposed to rates rises of that amount for spending priorities of a dubious nature. I want to make that voice very clear to the mayor and to the councillors who will be voting on that plan—that these rates rises are totally unacceptable and that the choices being made around the spending are also unacceptable. I want to make it very clear too that adding on further transport levies is again totally unacceptable.There is some great activity happening in Tāmaki. I am very pleased to be in an area where the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company is soon to set a development of over 2500 former Housing New Zealand Corporation homes. In recent days Ministers have announced that these homes in Glen Innes Panmure Point England—Hon Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: That’s right.SIMON O’CONNOR: —and I have got my fine colleague here Sam Lotu-Iiga. We share that area together between the seats of Tāmaki and Maungakiekie. We are going to see some real substantial changes in Tāmaki.The discussions in Tāmaki have been going on for a while. It is funny; the Opposition jokes about this. One of the really fundamental things if you truly understand your communities—and good electorate MPs will know this—is that you get into the community and you have conversations. I know that Sam as a local MP and myself as a local MP have been very engaged with the community—and yes through that we have also seen opportunities where the likes of the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company and others have been engaging with the community. They are making a real difference and I want to acknowledge the work that the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company is doing in bringing the community on board.We know that in recent weeks we have seen the opening of a new early childhood centre. We have seen the development in Tāmaki of what was an old scout hall that has been redeveloped as a community facility—those who are locals will know it well. A good number of us will be there on Saturday morning when the new music and arts centre in Glen Innes Te Oro opens. I am very much looking forward to that.Glen Innes is an incredibly strong and vibrant community. It is a very proud community. It is absolutely fantastic and they are calling out for these services these opportunities—including as the honourable Minister pointed out the Auckland-Manukau Eastern Transport Initiative project to the south of my electorate and to the north of the Hon Sam Lotu-Iiga’s electorate. This is a huge array of initiatives funded by the Government going on.Do you know what? I should note what is really making a difference because it was mentioned by one of my colleagues the other day that Glen Innes is this really red Labour seat. The irony is—and I was looking back over the figures—that actually National and the MP there as well almost won the booths of that seat in the last election. In fact in one of the booths in the very heart of Glen Innes the Labour candidate won the seat by only 11 votes.Hon Member: No!SIMON O’CONNOR: I know—shock horror. Eleven votes in the heart of what is supposedly a Labour part of my electorate. I mention that only because I believe actually that the hard-working MPs—dare I say it—and also the National policies are making a substantial difference and people are seeing that.There are 2500 homes that are going to be turned over to the Tāmaki Redevelopment Company and over the years they will be transformed into about 7500 new homes particularly in Glen Innes but also through to Panmure. It is a wonderful opportunity for the people of Tāmaki.DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert):What a past few weeks it has been. It has been scandals. It has been blunders. It has been failures. I want to agree with the speaker just before Simon O’Connor who was talking about a seismic shift because that is what is happening in this country as the people of New Zealand wake up and understand what this Government really is all about. It is a Government on its last legs. It is tired it lacks ideas it is complacent and it is becoming more and more arrogant. To see the lack of ideas you have only to look at the thinness of this Order Paper. More experienced MPs in this House have said to me that they cannot remember a time when there was so little Government business being put forward in this House. Even the select committees are knocking off early because there is nothing much to do. It is just not that busy and this Government is showing that it has not delivered.Today we have had the Auditor-General’s report on Whānau Ora come out. The Government has been supporting Whānau Ora and saying what a success it has been. Well let me read from the sixth paragraph in what the Auditor-General said. She said “We wanted to clarify for Parliament and the public what Whānau Ora is where the funding has gone and what Whānau Ora has achieved after four years. It was not easy to describe what it is or what it had achieved.” If you do not know what it is and people cannot describe it and they do not know what its aims and its policies are how can it possibly be successful—how can it possibly be successful? To look at that programme and say that this has been a success is absolutely not true. You have to be able to describe what it is you are trying to set out to do and this Government has not been able to do that. Instead we have had $42 million spent on bureaucracy and administration when it should have been going to the people who deserved it and needed it. It has not delivered on that.The Resource Management Act—what has happened to that? We do not know. It is certainly not on the Order Paper. Nick Smith has buried his head. He has not delivered on that and it is probably because he is looking a bit stressed—a bit stressed—at the moment because he has got to deal with the housing crisis in Auckland. Last week the average house price in Auckland hit $800000—$800000 is extraordinary. This Government is saying $550000 is an affordable house—an affordable house for $550000. Who can afford that? Certainly not young people in New Zealand. It has not delivered this Government. It certainly has not delivered and Nick Smith blames the council. He blames the council for cancelling special housing areas right at the end of the motorway. That man needs to get out of Nelson and get on the north-western motorway at 8 o’clock in the morning and see what it is like to drive from rural areas into the city. That would take him an hour and a half. That is why the council does not want to have any more of those special housing areas right out in the boondocks.The Government has not delivered on that. It did not deliver on Northland and I thank the member from the other side for bringing that up. Simon “10” Bridges did not deliver and National lost that seat because they could not deliver. The big kahuna that it cannot deliver on is the Budget surplus. Seven times in a row the Government has hit a deficit. And what does John Key say? “It is like landing on the head of a pin.”Hon David Parker: A 747.DAVID SHEARER: Landing a 747 on the head of a pin. What an extraordinary analogy! Well nine times out of nine Michael Cullen landed on the head of a pin. Seven times out of seven that man—the finance Minister—is not able to land on that pin. That makes me think that Michael Cullen is a very trusted pilot and Bill English—you would not let him out of the simulator.These are promises after promises and the Government is losing its way. It is a Government that is tired and lacking in energy. It is lacking commitment. It is arrogant. It is smug. It is hubristic. It is finished and all it is doing is seeing out its time until it stands aside and lets a real Government take control.Dr SHANE RETI (National—Whangarei):It is a pleasure to speak in the general debate today. It is a wonderful opportunity to follow the segue of my colleague and to lift our eyes to the horizon—lift the eyes of Northland and Whangarei to the horizon because we know the truth. We live there. We smell the air we breathe it and we know the truth. We are lifting our eyes to that horizon and that horizon is looking good. That horizon has had seven consecutive quarters of economic growth—seven consecutive quarters of economic growth—spread across a number of industries.I am going to tell you which industries they actually are but first of all up front I would like to acknowledge our international team—New Zealand’s international leadership on nuclear disarmament—because last week a member and I had the privilege of being in New York at the United Nations. Our team there is excellent. I would like to acknowledge them. I would like to acknowledge New Zealand’s strong voice and international leadership on nuclear disarmament but let us get back to Northland and Whangarei.I could talk about a whole list of initiatives but I am biased. I am biased because I am with a Government that has created those opportunities. So why do we not hear what other people say? Let us listen to what others say. Māori have a whakataukī and it says this: kāore te kūmara e kōrero mō tōna mana. The kūmara does not speak of its own sweetness. So let us let others talk about us. What are they saying?Let us go to the start of the year. The Northern Advocate on 10 January 2015—boom! It says “Our busiest summer in 5 years—Northland is riding a five-year summer holiday high with tills ringing at record levels campgrounds full …”. Later on 15 January it says that the building industry is booming: “Northland’s construction industry is booming with building consents reaching a seven-year high in New Zealand.”Let us go to a month ago. Tourism—and what was the key word? Boom. Tourism boom for Northland: “Northland’s hospitality sector is making hay big time this endless summer—so much so that a number of high-profile events in the coming weeks could force visitors to scramble for decent accommodation.”.Whangarei and Northland are lifting. We are seeing the benefits of stable government and thoughtful economic development and that thoughtful economic development continued on the weekend when the Prime Minister announced that a $3 million cycle track would be coming through the far north. And a few days before that Whangarei District Council announced another cycling initiative. It goes like this: “New cycle track will be bonus for safety” and I quote from the Northern Advocate on Saturday 1 May. A new multimillion-dollar cycle track next to railway lines will connect five Whangarei schools. What a great initiative.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! Excuse me—the echoing has gone on for long enough. I think we will get back to the member now. Thank you.Dr SHANE RETI: The Northern Advocate on 2 May says “The Kamo cycle route has been on the cards for a while … But with some promised funding and preliminary approval from KiwiRail to build the track plans for the Kamo route are now under way.” This will connect five high schools in Whangarei. What a great initiative that is combined with the $3 million for the cycle pathway through the far north. It keeps getting better. It is like an infomercial—wait there is more; wait there is more.Port Whangarei Ltd has recently undertaken an order to install a 100-tonne mobile boat hauler. That is going to bring marine repairs to Whangarei which will increase the labour force and will bring revenue into Whangarei. A year later they are going to pick up a 450-tonne mobile boat lift. That is going to catch a lot of the international luxury yachts and those yachts that are going elsewhere will come to Whangarei.If you go another five or 10 kilometres around the coast to Northport—the other deep port—it is also announcing good news. You see part of our economic growth issues have been around containerisation. We have not been able to fill containers in Northport. Here is what it announced 10 days ago: “Northport is to purchase a $5 million mobile crane for delivery by the end of the year giving it the ability for the first time to load dedicated container vessels.”What the company is predicting is that 40000 trucks that currently go past Northport will now be able to be loaded on to containers in Northport. When you imagine that every logging truck that goes past is equivalent to 5000 vehicle movements and when we look at safety on the road this is a good news story and it is clear evidence that Whangarei and Northland are doing well. Northland is lifting. Whangarei and Northland are great places to live and New Zealand is a great place to live. We are doing well and this is all due to our good and stable government. Thank you.CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South):Well what is the opposite of boom? It is bust—bust. I tell you what—the legacy of this Government will resonate for decades with its economic mismanagement of large Government projects and the secret deals it has done with large companies which have hurt New Zealand industries destroyed skilled jobs wasted taxpayers’ dollars and let down New Zealanders.It has botched up and it continues to botch up large Government projects. I am going to talk about a few IT projects across Government. There was the project to reform the Inland Revenue Department system—$1.5 billion. There was the Novopay botch-up and having to pay our teachers $45 million to fix that up. There was the merger of the Customs Service and the Ministry of Primary Industries systems; a blow-out of 25 percent—$25 million. There were the changes to the child support system which resulted in an $830 million blow-out. Well that does not sound like boom to me; it sounds more like bust. No wonder this Government cannot reach a surplus.The Government members pride themselves on being top-notch economic managers; in reality they are economic managers from hell. Whānau Ora is just the latest example. The Government cannot even get to a Budget surplus but it is good at papering over the cracks and it bullies people into keeping quiet. It threatens whistleblowers it breaks its promises it makes excuses it denies it looks the other way and when something goes wrong—well it is always somebody else’s fault. It is either the previous Government’s fault the officials’ fault the councils’ fault or some poor individual’s fault. There is always some poor individual whom it will point the finger at to take the rap.One of the biggest failures of them all continues to dog this Government. Colleagues here have talked about the big failure in this Budget but one of the big ongoing failures of this Government is its deeply flawed and economically wrong decision which was fully sanctioned by this Government for KiwiRail to purchase carriages and locomotives offshore killing local industry—killing a local industry—ripping the core manufacturing capacity from a city and forcing skilled workers to leave town or to leave the country or to settle for the dole or a job at Bunnings. For what—what was the value? What was the value for money here? It was 500 wagons 40 locomotives and hundreds of millions of dollars given in an overseas procurement decision to a Chinese Government - owned company that has turned out to be a complete failure.There are asbestos-ridden locomotives fault-ridden wagons and what do we have now? We have got a team of Chinese workers brought into New Zealand to continuously fix the faults that would not have occurred had the locomotives been built in New Zealand. The workers are not being paid a minimum wage. It is all highly secretive and the Minister responsible for not carrying out a proper inquiry into those Chinese workers being in New Zealand—the Minister responsible for letting them in in the first place—is the same MP from Dunedin who did not stick up for keeping Hillside alive.This is worse than false economy; it is economic mismanagement and it is destruction of a whole industry. It is wanton—wanton—destruction of meaningful jobs and value to the Dunedin economy and not just to the Dunedin economy but also to the wider region and to an industry that is adding value to the whole of New Zealand. Meanwhile this week in Victoria just across the Ditch the new Labor Government announced in its Budget a 10-year plan for 100 new metropolitan trains 100 new trams and significant expansion of the regional train fleet. It was a $2 billion commitment—well that is a vision. It will inject funding into local rail manufacturing and broaden skill sets. That is giving hope to a whole community.STUART SMITH (National—Kaikōura):It is great to have the opportunity to speak in the general debate this evening. There has been a lot of talk about economic performance and so on but look there are 80000 more people in work than there were a year ago. What does that mean on the ground? In Kaikōura just recently I was talking to some businesses that claim to have had their best year ever in business. Those businesses are doing well and they are actually employing lots of people. It is at that level that employment is growing in New Zealand rather than by keeping something like the Hillside workshops which are no longer relevant to New Zealand’s economy and business—Phil Twyford: No longer? It’s because you closed them down.STUART SMITH: Well if they were they would still be in business. We have an inflation rate of less than 1 percent and that is significantly lower. We are in a unique economic position where we have got economic growth but low inflation and that is quite unusual. We are actually adjusting our economy to it—it is fantastic.I want to talk a little bit about housing which has been discussed a lot lately. It seems to be a triumph of ideology over good sense where the debate is swinging on who owns the houses rather than on having a house for people to live in. If you do not have a house in the social housing areas you do not really care whom you rent from or whom you get it from—[Interruption] Not you Mr Assistant Speaker of course—the person concerned. I think the main point is that those people do have a place to live. That is why relooking at the whole system is a much better way of going about it and I am proud to be part of that.In relation to that I want to talk a little bit about Resource Management Act matters about how new houses are being built and about how new developments are getting on. Just recently we had the Rules Reduction Taskforce in my electorate. It went through and looked at the rules that impact those things and it was quite significant. We had an hour with the councillors and council staff who told us their views on the duplication of rules and on the rules that do not seem to make a lot sense. Then we had an hour with builders and an hour with the general public. We met with consultants who help with resource consents. We met with architects. And we met with engineers. It was amazing the stuff that came out of that and I am sure that we are going to get some really significant gains out of that.For example it is the little things which wind builders up—the test and tag rule where when you go and buy an extension cord or a power tool at the local hardware store you can take it home and use it but if you want to take it on to a building site it has got to be tested and tagged before you can use it. Then in 3 months’ time you have to do it again. There are no moving parts—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): That is the fifth warning the member has had.STUART SMITH: Is it? OK. When we get tests for our cars we get 3-year warrants for brand new cars. So to have an extension cord that has a life—as far as the test goes—of only 3 months does not seem to make any sense at all to me. It is time that those sorts of rules were dealt with—the sooner the better.One of the other things that came out of that is that there are 170 planning documents across the 78 councils in New Zealand but in Scotland which has 5.3 million people and is of a similar size to New Zealand they have only 37 planning documents. Clearly we have a much more complex local government environment in which to work and that is causing some issues. Certainly in the Marlborough Sounds where over 78 percent of New Zealand’s aquaculture is based the council is mooting in its long-term plan that all aquaculture farms go to being a discretionary activity. In the past they had not been under that regime and that will mean that their consents all run out in 2024. There is some doubt that the council will actually have the resources to deal with it and even if it does it is going to cost those marine farmers $20 million just to go through the process when 98 percent of those consents would more than likely just roll over anyway.Those are the sorts of things that we need to have a really hard look at to ensure that we are not just wasting ratepayers’ money and stopping businesses from developing. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker.FLETCHER TABUTEAU (NZ First):I am going to get straight into it. We all acknowledge in this House that trade is critical for New Zealand’s future—there are no two ways about it. The whole House has talked about critical industries existing primary industries and in the select committee that I have attended in the past week or so industry has talked about the need and the want to get into what we are seeing as the 40 percent of global trade that is represented by the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. We know that big business is looking out for the interests of big business but I ask this Government: who is looking out for small to medium sized New Zealand business and the New Zealand people because it is supposed to be the job of the representatives of this House is it not? In fact more specifically it is the job of those who would presume to call themselves the Government. We are coming ever closer to the outcome of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Our Government or more particularly a select few Government Ministers has been remarkably silent as the endgame gets into full swing in Washington. This Government seems to think that its trade negotiators are not up to the job—they cannot negotiate. It seems to think that as we negotiate our way into global markets the endgame is all in or not at all. We have to be all in or apparently we cannot be part of this global trade opportunity. We disagree.Around the world we have seen sovereign countries—developed advanced economies—looking to remove the Investor-State Dispute Settlement clause from their supposed and from their own free-trade agreements. It is without doubt and with absolute fact and certainty costing sovereign nations around the world millions and even billions of dollars as international corporates sue sovereign nations for the apparent inconvenience of having to be for example environmentally compliant or because they are being asked to pay the country’s minimum wage. Big business it would appear does not care about another country’s environment or the rights of workers if they compromise its projected profits. These international corporates are then suing and they are suing big time. I can and always will support a business’s right to recourse in law. If its contracts are broken or if for example the Government acts in an anti-competitive manner then even big business deserves the right to seek redress in law.But here is what I do not think my National colleagues understand about what this agreement is looking to introduce. These international corporates are suing outside our domestic law their domestic law and even agreed-to international law. Law as we know it does not even come into the equation. They are suing outside any legal framework that we would call common or decent. They are using what we would call dispute resolution tribunals. A UN senior official has just recently called for talks between the EU and the United States to be put on hold. He spoke of his concerns because of his analysis of other free-trade agreements around the world and what he has seen happening particularly around the Investor-State Dispute Settlement clauses where major corporates as I have said are suing sovereign nations in these secret tribunals. It has nothing to do with our legal system; nothing to do with say America’s legal system.The National caucus as well as the New Zealand public has been assured that there will be safeguards in New Zealand’s Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. But members of this House I assure you that the evidence shows us that all around the world lawsuits against sovereign nations have been growing in number and they have been growing in size and despite these apparent safeguards the lawsuits are succeeding and the safeguards seem to have no bearing on whatever it is that takes place in these tribunals. Now is the time for members of the National Party—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Hon Trevor Mallard): Order! The time for this debate has expired.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust BillIn CommitteeJAMI-LEE ROSS (Junior Whip—National):I seek leave for all parts of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill to be debated as one question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Leave is sought for the preamble Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 to be taken as one question. Is there any objection? There is no objection.Preamble Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2Hon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):It is with enormous pleasure that I rise to speak to the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill in its Committee stage. This bill is an important element in the protection and preservation of the Arts Centre of Christchurch for the future.If you have been listening to the speeches on this bill over the last few weeks you will realise how close to people’s hearts the Arts Centre is. It does not matter whether you come from Christchurch or Canterbury or even from the rest of New Zealand—probably you have spent some time at the Arts Centre. People have very important memories. Perhaps if you are a little bit older you will remember being a student at the university there. More likely you will remember enjoying the bars the restaurants or the cafes of the Arts Centre maybe going to the Court Theatre or listening to the music in the great hall or perhaps shopping in the markets or going to the Dux de Lux. It was a place of vibrancy. It was the heart of our city and something that everybody enjoyed.But although we might remember it for its good experiences it is a significant cluster of magnificent historic buildings—23 buildings beautiful stone neo-Gothic buildings that were built between about 1876 and 1923. But of course these magnificent stone buildings are particularly vulnerable to earthquakes so during the earthquakes of 2010 and 2011 22 out of the 23 buildings were significantly damaged. That has led to a huge restoration project—a project that could take up to 7 years and cost up to $300 million but also a project that will restore the Arts Centre to Christchurch. That also gives us an opportunity to think about a sustainable future for the Arts Centre. This is where this bill originated.The purpose of this bill is to modernise the governance structure and to set out the charitable objectives of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust in legislation. There has been a lot of work done around this bill. It started with a comprehensive review of the Arts Centre—its history its purpose and everything we knew and loved about it. That led on to a consultation—an extensive consultation—with stakeholders. Anybody who lives in Christchurch knows that everyone is a stakeholder when it comes to talking about the Arts Centre. The bill recognises the importance of effective governance and the need for a board to have the right skills firstly to complete the restoration and secondly to create a sustainable future for the Arts Centre.I do want to acknowledge the present board—in particular Jen Crawford the chair and the inexhaustible Hon Margaret Austin who has worked so hard to get this bill through Parliament. I also want to pay my respects to all members on that board. It is a particularly hard-working intelligent and skilled board. I think those members have done a great job to get to where we are now not only in terms of the restoration but also in terms of their vision and their planning for the future of the site. They want the Arts Centre to once again be the cultural and social heart of Christchurch and I think that is something every Christchurch person would endorse. I would also like to acknowledge the management team of the Arts Centre. That is led by André Lovatt. That team is the on-the-ground logistics working to do the repair and the restoration of the centre and it is making great progress. I hear that it is on time and on budget and that it may even be completed before the 7 years are up.But I come back to the bill. The Local Government and Environment Committee made some useful amendments to the bill. I want to thank the members of the committee for their work particularly the chair Scott Simpson. It was originally thought that the site should be vested in the Crown on a temporary basis if the trust was ever wound up but the committee decided that in line with similar trusts the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 would apply. The trust board supports this change. The committee also proposed that the trust might have a conservation plan for the Arts Centre available at annual meetings. Again the trust board is keen to do this because the last plan was from 1992. The new bill will enable the trust to work effectively now during the restoration period but also into the future. I believe that is what we need for this magnificent cluster of buildings. I think it is in good hands.I look forward to the gradual opening up of the Arts Centre. We have already had the Registry Building opened. That has now got tenants in it and it is working really well. The next thing that opened was the gymnasium. For those of you who had been in the Arts Centre pre-earthquake that was the Academy Cinema but before that it was the gymnasium of the University of Canterbury and before that it was the gymnasium of Christchurch Boys’ High School. It is now being leased by a performing arts company and is being used really well.So overall I think this bill is good for the Arts Centre and good for Christchurch. Thank you.Debate interrupted.House resumed.Maiden StatementsRIA BOND (NZ First):Kia ora Mr Speaker. Ko Mōtatau taku maunga ko Ramarama taku awa ko Ngātokimatawhaorua taku waka ko Manukōriki taku whare tupuna ko Hine Āmaru taku tupuna ko Ngāti Hine taku hapū ko Ngāpuhi taku iwi. Nō Te Hōterini ahau ko Ria Bond taku ingoa.[Thank you Mr Speaker. Mōtatau is my mountain Ramarama is my river Ngātokimatawhaorua is my canoe Manukōriki is my ancestral house Hine Āmaru is my ancestor Ngāti Hine is my subtribe and Ngāpuhi is my tribe. I am from Te Hōterini and my name is Ria Bond.]I am both honoured and humbled to finally stand in this House today to deliver my maiden speech. Firstly I wish to congratulate the New Zealand First Party and our leader the Rt Hon Winston Peters on his landslide victory and winning the Northland seat. The party ran a flawless campaign with a simple message: send them a message. I believe that message has been delivered. We now have 12 MPs in the House. I am proud to work with such a strong balanced team that has high energy levels experience and talent in each of our fields of previous employment backgrounds that we each bring forward.I wish to share with you my journey that I have travelled to be here. I was 3 years old when I was first removed from my family and put into a foster home. I think on count from memory I spent five times in my childhood life in a foster home. That experience for me as a child was traumatic. That experience for me as a child without it being explained what was happening by the social services was something that I wish no other child should ever have to go through. Although the world was shocked by the movie Once Were Warriors I was living it. From out of that rose strength and rose courage. It gave me character. At times it caused me tears. But I have to say that it also gave me stubbornness. You see from that I built a dream and that dream was to one day stand in this House as a member of Parliament and look at how we can protect the children of the future. That is something that is very dear to me having grown up in the life that I grew through.I love my parents. I understand and forgave them that they did not have the skills needed to be prepared as parents. Since they have had their mokopunas they have grown. I am very proud of the love that they share for us now.So the message that I want to share with other children is that if you have a dream then you go after that dream. You do not let anybody stand in your way. You grab it with both hands and you surround yourself with people who can help you to achieve your dream. They can be your teachers or your role models in the industries that you may wish to belong to in the future. So I am very proud that today that dream has come true for me.I truly recognise as I stand here in this House that those of us who move within it are not more important than the people we are here to represent—that is the people of Aotearoa. If I ever find that I abandon this belief then I will have the graciousness to leave.I am half Māori and half Scottish. I have grown up equally in both worlds. My father is Hoterene Ariki Hoterene son of one whom we used to call Grandad my grandmother being Matekino Hereora. In our family when you are born on the land you received the name “Hoterene”. If you are not then you receive the name “Shortland”.My grandparents were farmers. Our land Mataparua has been in our whānau for hundreds of years in the valley of Mōtatau. My uncles and aunties have all worked hard on the family farm as Grandad was a recruiter for the army and over the years my nana was often left at home to look after the farm. Over the years I am told my grandfather was a proud hard-working man who worked his children hard. I spent many holidays up on the farm. There was no electricity and no running water. You were taught to be self-sufficient. I am no stranger to hard work.Mōtatau was rather unique as over the years we have had eight whānau members stand as candidates and six have entered this House as members of Parliament. This in itself is truly unique. I am very fortunate to have had some whānau who were great leaders who inspired me throughout my life to make a difference. As I stand here today I am surrounded by my whānau: Pita Paraone and Peeni Henare. My hope is that our children will one day aspire to follow in our footsteps.My Scottish ancestors travelled over on the boat from Scotland to Southland in 1834. My mother Margaret Browne daughter to Leslie M’Creath and Iris M’Creath was a stay-at-home mother in my early years. My mother’s family were also hard workers and believed firmly in earning their wages by manual hard work. When I was younger I used to travel on the Southerner from Christchurch to Invercargill to visit my relations. That service is still missed by the Southland public today.I was born and bred in Palmerston North. I have four siblings. I am the youngest daughter. I attended Highbury Primary School. My teacher at the time Miss O’Connor recognised something in me back then and bet a year of her wages that one day I would be a lawyer or a politician. Well here I am. I hope you are still here Miss O’Connor to see that your prediction has come true.We moved to Christchurch to the suburb of Papanui. I attended Casebrook Intermediate School. It was at this age that I found myself getting into a little bit of trouble. I hung with the cool crowd was in a popular group and made some poor decisions. At the age of 14 we packed up and moved to Invercargill where my grandfather Leslie M’Creath a fourth-generation Southlander gloated that he was a great-grandson of Thomas Crapper who invented the flush toilet.I attended Southland Girls High School. Non scholae sed vitae discimus—not for school but for life we are learning. This motto is as relevant to me today as it was all those years ago. This school softened my hardened exterior ironed out the kinks gave me a fantastic education and taught me how to be a lady. I found role models within the school who helped me change my ways and outlook on life for the better.My father did not believe hairdressing to be a career option for me. Instead he had designs to put me in the navy as our whānau were from the forces. So for 3 years I hid the fact that I was studying hairdressing while at school at the Southern Institute of Technology. It was not until I was 20 years old and the cake at my engagement party had a pair of scissors on it that it dawned on Dad that I had not listened to him. Hairdressing has been my chosen profession. It has been the profession that has helped me grow. It has been the profession that has taught me many of life’s skills that money just cannot buy. I am really proud that I am a hairdresser and I am proud that other young hairdressers look up to me for inspiration so that if they have a dream they too know that they can be very successful in achieving it. I have some inspirational females in the hairdressing industry who helped me form my pathway on my journey to reaching here in the House.My interest in politics started at the age of 7. I used to sit on the floor of my family home listening to the radiogram to the booming voice of Sir Robert Muldoon with his infectious laugh and to most children a pretty scary-sounding voice but not to me. I never knew what the problems were at the age of 7; all I knew was that I liked his strength and his character from his voice and from watching him on the news. I wish to acknowledge my Invercargill electorate committee: Robyn Marilyn Lindsay Taylor Eleanor Lawrence Sharon Heads Shirley Stenton Stephen Luscombe Susan Liddy and New Zealand First Vice-President Marie Daldry—your absolute support and commitment to me over the last 5 years have gone beyond my expectations. I will never forget it.I am a single mother with two children Johnathan and Maddison. I work hard so my children can see that no matter how old you are in life if you set your mind to achieve a goal you can achieve it. I wish to thank my children’s father Daniel Bond for the support he has given me for 21 years. I will always remember you for that and I hope to continue to receive your support for the next 20 or so years. I am proud to be a New Zealand First list MP for Invercargill where I will be devoting myself to advancing the concerns of Southlanders from our elderly to our young helping to improve the lives of Southlanders and also ensuring that there are opportunities of employment growth in business and growth in resources. Opportunities for Southland will be looked at seriously by working closely in harmony with our council stakeholders and businesses so that Invercargill is not forgotten about here in Wellington.It is life lessons that I have learnt from the things that I have seen growing up that I wish no child would ever have to witness. For what did once shock the world in Once Were Warriors made me understand that from bad comes good. Family violence is not acceptable. It is not meant to become the norm in some families. It has been because of these lessons that I stand here today as a survivor of family violence and proud that I have reached my dream to become a member of Parliament for New Zealand First. Tēnā koutou tēnā koutou tēnā koutou katoa.WaiataSitting suspended from 5.59 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust BillIn CommitteeDebate resumed.Preamble Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 (continued)Hon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):I would just like to reiterate how important this bill is for the Arts Centre—it is important in terms of governance for the future of the Arts Centre—and how important the Arts Centre is to the people of Christchurch. So I support this bill completely.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):It is my pleasure to take a call on this bill the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill in the Committee stage and reiterate Labour’s support for this bill. As the Minister who is the sponsor of this bill and who is in the chair the Hon Nicky Wagner has said this is an important piece of legislation for Christchurch. I would like to acknowledge the work that that member has put into this bill. I would like to acknowledge the work of the Local Government and Environment Committee and the chair of the select committee Scott Simpson. I would also like to acknowledge André Lovatt and Jen Crawford who are in the gallery tonight. If I can break from procedure a little bit I acknowledge the huge amount of work that you both have done in getting the bill to this stage.I have spoken in previous readings about the significance this site has I think to all people in Christchurch and about the affinity that all Cantabrians feel with this site and how important to our recovery getting the rebuild of this site is. Central to getting the rebuild of this site and the repair of this site of course is having a governance structure that is fit for purpose. It is for this reason that Labour is supporting this bill. We want to see the Arts Centre trust in the strongest possible form going into the future.Our one reservation and I would like to re-enter it into the record is that we do hope that although we are honouring the words of the trust deed in terms of limiting this to the stone buildings this actually does extend across the site of the Arts Centre and does offer some protection to what is very fondly known to most Cantabrians as the former Dux de Lux buildings or the old student union a place that I am sure many Cantabrians feel a great deal of affinity for.It is my pleasure to be able to support this bill. I have talked previously about a predecessor of mine the Rt Hon Norman Kirk and the incredibly central role that he played in bringing this set of buildings to be protected in the way that we have it protected today. I think we all want to make sure that these buildings are protected for many more generations to come in our city and in our country. I am very happy to take this call.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):It is a pleasure and a delight as chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee to take a call in the Committee stage of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. Just before I start my speech I do want to thank members from across the Chamber for their contributions at the select committee and for the very thoughtful meaningful and collaborative way that we were able to negotiate our way through this piece of legislation. The select committee made a number of recommended changes to the bill as originally introduced and they I think have undoubtedly gone to make this a better bill with a better outcome not only for the Arts Centre buildings themselves but for the trust that is charged with governing the heritage and the ongoing protection of this remarkable set of buildings that is so important to the people of Canterbury and Christchurch.The select committee was privileged to actually go and visit the area known as the Arts Centre during the submission stages and I think that very much helped the members who are not Cantabrians to understand the full meaning and significance of that collection of buildings to the people of Canterbury. The Hon Nicky Wagner in her comments as sponsor of the bill made the point that this set of buildings actually goes quite a long way towards representing the tangible rebuild of Christchurch far beyond the precinct that is just the Arts Centre. In a way it is a sort of a beacon of hope and inspiration for the rest of the rebuild of Canterbury and Christchurch City. I think that this bill which will ultimately mean that the governance structure of the Arts Centre organisation is in good stead for the future will be very welcomed by the people of Canterbury.As we went through the bill one of issues that came up was the whole question of the stone buildings. I think that those of us who do not come from Canterbury who maybe have been visitors to the area before wanted to put into the legislation a reflection that the stone buildings were deeply significant and meaningful to the whole structure of this bill but notwithstanding that there were actually some buildings in the complex that are not stone and Megan Woods has mentioned repeatedly the Dux de Lux. I do not have any recollection of the Dux de Lux but there you go.Hon Amy Adams: If you had a good night you didn’t have any recollection of the Dux de Lux.SCOTT SIMPSON: Well many people the Hon Amy Adams is telling me do not have recollections of the Dux de Lux after a good night. But I am wondering whether the sponsoring member might take a further call later in this debate. I am keen to know a little bit more about that whole area of the stone versus the non-stone part of the building.One of the suggestions that the select committee made was that clause 6 of the bill be amended. In addition it recommended that a new clause—clause 12—be added to schedule 2. That new clause would enable the trust board to amend its constitution. I think that on balance that was something the select committee thought was sensible and practical and it probably made the legislation better for having been included. We recommended that in addition to the requirement for the board to register the trust’s constitution any subsequent amendments should be registered in accordance with the Charitable Trusts Act in the same way that the trust deeds are governed by that new piece of legislation. I think that too was a welcome and sensible addition to the original bill as it was introduced to the House.The amendment to clause 6 of the bill will remove the ability of the Governor-General to by Order in Council amend schedule 2 of the bill. On the surface members might be thinking: “Well why would you want to do that? Why would that be in any way advantageous?”. The simple matter is that this change will avoid the prospect of any subsequent secondary legislation amending the provisions of this bill. I think that again is an important piece of ring-fencing if you like just to ensure that the future governance of the Arts Centre trust is protected in a way that ensures that it goes on for a very long time in the future.There were a number of other changes that the select committee made and I would like to just draw the attention of the Committee to them. One was that we wanted to amend clause 5(c) of schedule 2 to require that the trust board make the conservation plan for the Arts Centre available at its annual general meetings. This was a matter that received significant interest and debate around the committee table and indeed there were a number of submitters who made the point that a heritage complex such as this needed to have a conservation plan that was available for public scrutiny public input and public consultationThey also said it needed to be a living plan. It should not be a plan that was presented just once and then not reviewed looked at or changed at any time in the future. It needed to be a document that would take into account all the best aspects of the complex working into the future. This change will enable the trust board to engage with its key stakeholders of whom there are many about the work that is currently being done on the complex and also about what the future shape and style and nature of the Arts Centre will be not just in the next couple of years but in the next 10 20 30 40 or however many years ahead. The whole intention of that change was to effectively futureproof the conservation aspect and management of the Arts Centre.I think from memory there were 23 buildings as part of the Arts Centre and all but one were significantly and severely damaged as a result of the earthquakes. In terms of the heritage rebuild we were told as a committee that the work that is being done now if not the largest heritage reconstruction going on anywhere in the world at the moment is certainly right up there. Something like $270 million is being spent on the rebuild and there are craftsmen and master stonemasons from all over the world who are taking part in this very important and historic rebuild of the Arts Centre.But the main purpose of this legislation is to provide heritage futureproofing for the Arts Centre which means so much to the people of Canterbury and Christchurch. I absolutely commend the local member Nicky Wagner for sponsoring this bill and bringing it to the House in the form of a local bill. It is exactly the appropriate format for it but I would like it if the member can at some stage address some questions or give us some more information about the nature of the stone buildings and why the aspect of stone is so important to the heritage of the Arts Centre in Christchurch and to the Canterbury people.I think that about sums up the contribution that I want to make. There were many good submissions received. It was an absolute pleasure to visit Christchurch and then to visit the Arts Centre as part of our work on the select committee. It was a pleasure also to see the dedicated nature of the craftsmen and of the board which is doing such good work and to see the work of the board’s chair Jen Crawford. She is leading a very good governance team. The chief executive officer André Lovatt is completely committed charged and passionate about the work that is being done.I am completely confident that this piece of legislation when it eventually passes through this House will secure the long-term heritage future of the Arts Centre in a way that could not have occurred without a relook at and a rehash of the governance structure of this very important body.I absolutely commend this bill to the Committee of the whole House and I am looking forward to the contribution that other members will no doubt want to make as we move this important and significant piece of Canterbury legislation through the Committee stage and onward through Parliament. Thank you.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):Like others I am very pleased to take a call on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill and I am pleased that it is progressing so quickly through the House. It was introduced in June last year. I also congratulate the local member the Hon Nicky Wagner on the work she has done on sponsoring the bill. It is always a pleasure to be involved in bills where there is agreement in the House where peace and harmony break out.The bill attracted four submissions. They were generally supportive and sought only small changes. I think that shows there was very good consultation on developing the bill. In previous speeches I have talked about the significance of the Arts Centre as a cultural centre and its iconic heritage buildings and I have talked about its importance to Christchurch. I will not repeat that. I have also acknowledged the work that the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board has done and particularly the contribution of Jen Crawford and the chief executive officer André Lovatt.I would also like to acknowledge tonight the Hon Margaret Austin because she represents the Christchurch Civic Trust on the Arts Centre board. She has played a significant role in the development of the bill. She certainly briefed me and I am sure other MPs on the bill’s purpose before it was introduced. That was very helpful in understanding the changes to the trust board’s governance which were needed to provide a solid base for the future and to enable the trust board to continue with as Scott Simpson mentioned the quite extensive earthquake restoration and renovations.I would just like to comment briefly that the civic trust did want an amendment to the bill on the way in which it dealt with the many different land titles particularly in the eastern part of the Arts Centre site where there are five separate titles. It was quite controversial when the University of Canterbury wanted to establish a national conservatorium for music on the Hereford Street car-park site. I think the civic trust was concerned that having these separate titles would mean that there was the potential—the door was left open—in the future for the trust to dispose of one of the titles to accommodate another controversial development. But I was reassured as a member of the select committee by the advice that the officials provided which was that if the trust board was to seek to dispose of part of the site then it would be acting contrary to the objects of the bill which of course are to promote conserve and maintain the heritage integrity of the land and buildings of the Arts Centre.Although we have the utmost respect for the civic trust and its advocacy work on protecting the heritage of Christchurch the select committee did not proceed with the change that the trust was seeking. But we did make a couple of changes that as Scott Simpson has suggested have also improved the bill enabling the trust board to amend its constitution through the normal processes in the Charitable Trusts Act 1957. This means that rather than the quite cumbersome process of going through an Order in Council and substituting the wind-up provisions in clause 8—this would have allowed the trust to transfer any debts to the Crown—it can instead refer to the wind-up provisions in the Charitable Trusts Act.Of course everybody hopes that those provisions will never be needed. The foresight of former members of the trust board present members and former chief executive officers has ensured that the trust had adequate insurance for the Arts Centre which has been so important in funding the restoration work. Given the flair the competence and the dedication with which the trust board is undertaking the very ambitious and inspiring $290 million restoration project I think we can say that the Arts Centre is in very good hands and that there is no foreseeable need for those wind-up provisions to be used.Also why I say that is that when you look at the Arts Centre website it states that this bill is about protecting heritage and improving governance arrangements but the trust board is also looking very much forward. It wants to “create a hub of creative entrepreneurs in the heart of Christchurch that is undeniably 21st Century:”. That is what the website says. In terms of the repair and restoration it is bringing in the very latest heating technology in terms of the heat exchange systems and is using water in the aquifers to be very energy efficient. It is looking at the use of the spaces that use good technology are creative and respect and honour the past but it is also looking to the future in terms of some of the new creative techniques in the digital sphere for example. It is marrying the past the present and the future. I pay great tribute to the trust board and the work that it is doing to restore and repair the buildings and create a wonderful Arts Centre and centre for Christchurch. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):I too rise to take a call on this particular bill. I want to acknowledge the work that the Hon Nicky Wagner has done to bring this bill to the House. Like the previous speaker I want to acknowledge the work that the Hon Margaret Austin has done and the advice she has given to many people about this piece of legislation. Can I also just acknowledge the members of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board who have been at most of the sittings of this piece of legislation such is their interest that we do this right. We are very grateful for the advice and support that they have provided during this process.I do not want to take too much of the time this evening but I do want to say that many of the intricacies of this piece of legislation have been well traversed over the previous readings. But there are a couple of things that I think are really important that I am particularly supportive of like the fact that this piece of legislation really goes some way to enshrining what the trust board wants to do not only in its responsibilities under its current mechanisms but also in terms of what the trust board may want to do in the future to ensure the viability of the Arts Centre right through to the next century.Some of that work is really around ensuring it is able to provide the right kinds of skills and expertise at the trust board level so it is provided the opportunity to ensure that the right skills base is able to be brought in at a pertinent time when it is needed. I think that is a very useful and forward-thinking mechanism for the trust board to use.This is a fairly compact bill. There are only two parts to it. Part 1 of course deals with some of the general aims sets up the legal framework for this piece of legislation and looks at the amended governance structure to attest to those particular objects that I talked about. It ensures that into the future the governance structure is appropriate for the future use and of course goes on to ensure that we are able to respond to and appropriately recover these buildings from the earthquake damage.Part 2 of course sets out much more the objects of the trust and in particular ensures that there is compliance with the Charitable Trusts Act within this and it does set out the powers of the trust board. The bill then concludes with the schedules and the descriptions of the constitution.I do not really need to say much more on this. I commend the Hon Nicky Wagner for bringing this bill to the House. The Arts Centre is a great piece of heritage it has had a long and varied history over its time and I look forward to enjoying the Arts Centre well into the future. Thank you.Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister of Justice):I did want to come down to the House and take a call on this bill as a member from Canterbury and a member who has had obviously an involvement right through the period of the earthquakes and the recovery. Can I just begin by acknowledging my colleague in the chair the Hon Nicky Wagner who has not only brought the bill as the local MP for Christchurch Central which she has successfully been for some years now but also in a happy coincidence in her capacity as the Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery.As I think every Canterbury member of this House will agree there are certain milestones in the recovery and certain parts of the recovery that we look to as being a real sense of: “Yes that’s another one under our belt that makes us feel like we really are making significant strides.” All of the progress steps are good but there have been certain points where you can just feel a collective sense of: “Yeah you know we’re getting there.” I can name a number of them and they will be different for every member. Certainly one of the earliest ones for me and it sounds a little bit sort of trite and frivolous was the first night sitting in the new temporary AMI Stadium watching the Crusaders horsemen gallop around the park the crowd going nuts and the red and black flags flying proudly. There was that sense of: “You know what we might be down but we’re still here.”The Arts Centre in a totally different way has the same sort of community cohesion and sense of being like a living member of our community because I do not think there is a Cantabrian who does not have fond and numerous memories of the Arts Centre in a number of ways. I obviously went to law school at the University of Canterbury and there is a real sense in Canterbury when you talk to the University of Canterbury graduates of “Were you in town or out at the new campus?” and that was a real dividing line in the history of the University of Canterbury. The law graduates from the good old days as they would have it back in the Arts Centre would talk lovingly about their lectures in the Arts Centre buildings and of going off to court and doing their articles during the day with local law firms.The Arts Centre has obviously progressed through a number of iterations. We are talking about more than a hundred years of history. Over its life it has had quite a number of iterations through to a market and sort of an arts precinct with local food cinemas craftsmen and obviously the famous Dux de Lux.There are a couple of things that I think are worth commenting on. Firstly this Committee—and a number of speakers have done it before me—has been absolutely right to pay tribute to the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board. They have paid tribute to both the trust board that is there now—Jen Crawford and her team of trustees—and the trustees who have been there right the way through this incredibly difficult period and actually those who even earlier did have the foresight to think about preserving protecting and strengthening the centre and also taking out significant insurance which has been obviously in hindsight an absolute blessing.Not only that but I have been as a local member hugely encouraged and impressed by the unwavering commitment the trust board has to taking the time it takes to put the Arts Centre back in a way that is as true to its original design as possible. That is not a small undertaking. As a member of a trust board you have obviously fiduciary responsibilities and yet it has understood the importance of doing this right. I do think it needs to be acknowledged for that work. It is a shame that we cannot see the same sort of collaborative consensus and community-wide support for some of the other restoration decisions in the city because equally important buildings unfortunately have been caught up in much more contentious processes.Interestingly enough—and it may sound a little like a tangent—one of the things I cannot help reflecting on as the Minister of Justice is the impact we see through this legislation of trust boards not remaining fit for purpose and trust deeds that are written with the best will in the world very quickly becoming rigid and unhelpful documents in the face of adapting to the modern world. Really this is what we have in this legislation. It is a piece of legislation to give a proper legal foundation for the trust board and the operations it needs going forward and I am delighted that this House is able to set aside the time to do that. It may not reach the significant impact of some of the other decisions that we debate but it is critical to this organisation which is doing a good job and to see this House come together recognise that and make the time to do it is critical. But there is a salutary lesson for people setting up trusts and charitable trusts and vesting property in such trusts all over the country: they are not without complications and are not easy to amend when you do need to amend them. I think that there is a critical lesson in that.Finally I read through the report back from the Local Government and Environment Committee. As a member of this House who does not sit on that committee I want to thank and acknowledge the work of that committee. It has clearly been a process of quite some detail and I commend it for that.RON MARK (NZ First):I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to take a very brief call in support of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I want to start actually by paying tribute to the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. I have got to say that when I first came back into Parliament and witnessed the swallowing up of all the chairman’s roles and deputy chairman’s roles of all the select committees it sort of made my heart sink a little bit. I thought well here we have a Government that has decided that it is going to control everything in Parliament and it is not going to share any responsibilities with other parties at the select committee level and I found that quite disappointing.I went into the select committee with a bit of a heavy heart. I have got to say that Scott Simpson and the other Government members of the Local Government and Environment Committee are proving to be very collegial and very easy and good to work with. I really want to take my hat off to Scott Simpson and say that in the next reshuffle mate I hope you actually land one of those portfolios in Cabinet or even outside of it. You are doing a good job. I know full well that this is going to be used later on; I am just saying that I am appreciative of that.I particularly say that because as a mayor I came to this House when the local government amendment legislation was going through and I unfortunately had to sit as a witness to those submissions put forward by other people who are interested in the Local Government Act. I was thoroughly disappointed with the way that that committee attacked members of Local Government New Zealand and other submitters who dared to criticise the legislation that went through. I am sorry Nicky but the behaviour of that committee and the reports that continue to be discussed around Local Government New Zealand speak very ill of that committee in the way it behaved. This Local Government and Environment Committee is nothing like that. It is a very good committee to work in and the work coming out of there reflects that.It is interesting also to look at the names of the people who have been involved in the Christchurch Arts Centre over the years. As someone who lived on and off in Canterbury for 30 years I see those people’s names here in the legislation going back in time to 1978—Albert Brownlie Malcolm Douglass Peter Dunbar Richard Harrington Graham Miller Noel Searell and Thomas Taylor. Those people have done sterling work in Canterbury for the Arts Centre over the years and that work is carried on very ably by Margaret Austin a person I have great affection for. She is one of those people who talked me into standing for Parliament right at the outset and supported me in my campaign against Ruth “mother of all Budgets” Richardson—a scalp we very very nearly got and we did get indirectly when she got fired by Jim Bolger as a result of that election.This bill is an easy one to support. It is eminently sensible. The purpose and objectives of the bill are clearly to set up a better governance structure that makes it possible for what is going to be a $290 million project involving 23 category I heritage buildings to be completed on time and with fiscal prudence and to ensure that the Arts Centre is managed sustainably going into the future. We can only support that.I am one of those people who spent a few nights in the Dux de Lux having a quiet ale here and there. No doubt if I had known him then I would have probably had a beer with Matt Doocey as well as we discussed the ills and the woes of the world amongst many students from Canterbury who likewise imbibed a few in those surroundings. The opportunity to take my children—and now my grandchildren—into the Arts Centre to enjoy the entertainment to enjoy the arts the culture the vibrancy and the atmosphere was something we enjoyed as a young family and I am very confident this legislation will make it possible for that to continue for generations to come.There were some issues around—and I am just looking back through my notes here—the powers of the trust board and the appointments the mechanism by which people are appointed. Eminently sensible decisions were taken there. Removing the Minister from any perceived control over who gets appointed I think was a very sensible move and New Zealand First supports that. Having said that I know from personal experience there have been some very sensible decisions made by some of this Government’s Ministers in the past people they have appointed to places and I thank them very much for those appointments in the past. I just want to close by saying that it is a good bill good work. Thank you very much. It was a pleasure working with the team on that. New Zealand First will be supporting the bill.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty):I rise to say just a few words in support of the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. May I begin first by acknowledging the very warm comments from Mr Mark on the other side of the Chamber. Thank you very much. Part of the collegiality of the Local Government and Environment Committee is of course due to your ongoing and constructive contribution to the debate that we have around the table.We are here tonight to talk about the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. As we know it is being set up essentially to establish the legal foundations for the trust—effectively to enable it to respond to the challenges and the tragedy of the Christchurch earthquake. We have heard already—far more eloquently than I could ever put into words—about the challenge that the Canterbury community has had to confront about the very special place that the Arts Centre has for the people of Canterbury and about how important it is for them that the improvements continue apace and that there is an enduring legal framework that ensures that what they want from those buildings will deliver for them and their grandchildren into the future.During the select committee process we had a great visit down there and I acknowledge here the work of the chair Jen Crawford and the chief executive officer André Lovatt—in particular André who helped facilitate that particular tour. We donned our hard hats and walked around most of the 23 category I heritage buildings and we were given a sense of what they were what they became through the earthquake and more critically what the vision is for them as they are rebuilt. And I think to see first hand the purpose of this bill expressed not so much in bricks and mortar but in stone and the fantastic application of skill puts this particular bill in context. It certainly did for me. As somebody who is a bit of a historian I actually found it really enjoyable. Unfortunately we could not get into all of the buildings obviously—either because of their state of disrepair or because of where they were in terms of the repair process—but we did walk past the student union building and we got a sense of why it is still important and needs to be and has been captured in this particular bill.The Dux de Lux has already been mentioned tonight. I went there once as a student. Had I known that I would end up here I would have paid more attention to the names that were scrawled on the wall. I probably would have seen halfway up “Megan was here” and possibly just a little bit lower “and so was Ron”.Hon Members: Ha ha!TODD MULLER: Sorry Mr Chair. Anyway as I said it was good to see firsthand.Moving back to the specific clauses obviously there are a number here that we want to reflect on. I think it is right that we have removed clause 8 from the bill. It is absolutely appropriate that debts accrued by the trust board are adopted by the Crown should it ever be wound up. It is a sensible commercial amendment. We talked about it at the time and I think we have got a sensible outcome there. In terms of the objects again adding new clause 5(2) which requires that all income benefits or advantages received by or accruing to the trust board be used to advance the charitable purpose of the trust is a belt and braces approach. You could argue that perhaps it was not needed but the committee decided that we should put it in for the avoidance of doubt to make it absolutely clear about what should happen should that ever occur.We recommend of course amending clause 6. Again I think that makes a lot of sense. It is a sensible amendment to be considered. When we talked about trust vacancies there was throughout the submission process obviously some debate in respect of what happens when there is a vacancy on this new board and in respect of what the proper role for the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage should be. There was some debate and certainly some thought put forward by some of the submitters that we should be careful around the involvement—[Bell rung]The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call Todd Muller.TODD MULLER: There was some debate—[Interruption] I am sorry do I need to repeat it? Sorry. There is a particular issue here that I would like to hear about from the Minister in the chair should she take a call later on. This was an area that we reflected on: the potential perception of a Minister being involved in influencing any appointments to the trust board. We made some changes to enable that by deleting clause 1(d)(iii) of schedule 2 and ultimately I think we have landed in the right place.Now that we are talking about governance I do want to acknowledge the various stakeholders who have expressed their support for the intent of this bill—in particular the University of Canterbury Christchurch City Council Heritage New Zealand Christchurch Civic Trust and Papatipu Rūnanga amongst others. I do acknowledge their contribution historically and their support for this move from a representative governance board to a skills-based governance board. But my view is that the task is only half done because it is now incumbent I think on the community to ensure that the right mix of skills is appointed to govern this trust board into the future.If I have a challenge for the community it is I guess that it should be global in its search. Too often in this country we are very very keen in this context to showcase our culture and our heritage to the world and we are often very proud of how others see our culture and we are very global in terms of the portrayal of that. But sometimes we are quite reticent in terms of taking up the opportunities of those who have a global perspective and are involved in governing our heritage. So I put a challenge out there: let us look beyond just Canterbury for the skill sets to be able to govern and support this trust board into the future now that it has moved and will move to a skills-based board as opposed to the representative-based board that is there at the moment.We had quite a conversation about land. Some of the issues that we discussed in respect of the titles have already been raised and why historically there has been such a high number of them. There was of course the reference to stone buildings. The chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee Scott Simpson has already put that question to the Minister and I think that her perspective will be worth hearing as well. But certainly the recommendation was pretty clear. There is a tweak in the wording of clause 4 to clarify that definition. Personally I think the word “including” as I read it provides the appropriate comfort for those who think that the focus is simply on the stone buildings and that that somehow means that the student union building would not be included in terms of the long-term development of that site. Certainly when you go around that site and listen to the people working on it and to the favour in which the community holds that student union building I am pretty sure that that is going to be part of any ongoing development plan.Also having at the annual meeting the requirement to put that conservation plan on the table and to have it in front of the community and those who are interested in essentially the strategy of conservation and what that will look like over time I think is a good amendment. It ensures that the community of Canterbury stays plugged into the vision of this new trust board and ensures that ultimately those buildings and that incredible cultural asset continue to head in the direction that the community seeks.Finally can I acknowledge the Minister for her work. It must be incredibly satisfying to be part of a process that sees an asset in her community being protected and enhanced—as this bill will do. Again I acknowledge the chairman and those with whom I have worked on the select committee. I echo Ron Mark in that it was for the most part very collegial. Thank you and I commend this bill to the House.CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour):I move That the question be now put.JOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National):I move  That we stay in Committee. We have other speakers coming up.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri):I am standing to take this call on the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. It is great to be from Christchurch; great to be from Canterbury. As a young fellow born in the old Calvary Hospital it strikes me with some irony that I spent many years as a student investing in the longevity of the Arts Centre via the Dux de Lux and now I get to invest in the longevity of the Arts Centre through this bill. I managed to wear my new blue suit today but like my parliamentary colleague Megan Woods I very much wanted to wear my red and black suit—but I am red and black on the inside.The Arts Centre is as Christchurch as sitting on the embankment at Lancaster Park watching the Christchurch and Canterbury teams through the 1980s Shield challenge era. The Arts Centre is as Christchurch as sitting in the square watching the Birdman and watching the Wizard at lunchtime. The Arts Centre is as Christchurch as going up to Mount Hutt and skiing during the morning and heading down to Sumner and swimming in the afternoon.Could I acknowledge the Hon Nicky Wagner for bringing this local bill to the Committee. You could not find a harder-working Minister and MP than the Hon Nicky Wagner and I suppose for a Canterbury MP myself she is such a role model with her work ethic. I also acknowledge Scott Simpson who is the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee—a select committee that holds a huge workload—for his effortless approach in dispensing the work at hand.The Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill reflects the local national and international heritage significance of the Arts Centre. Growing up in Christchurch I very much know that Christchurch is deemed the most English city outside England. The Arts Centre is the heart of that along with the Hagley Park our beautiful botanic gardens the Avon River which weaves its way through the city with the willow trees and of course the great Christchurch Cathedral. But most of all I suppose it is our archaic one-way system through the city and the great English street names like Hereford Street Manchester Street and Lichfield Street. The bill is a key part of protecting and preserving the Arts Centre of Christchurch for the future. As many will know Christchurch experienced severe earthquakes and the Arts Centre was impacted on by the first earthquake in September 2010 and subsequently in February 2011.Since we are in Committee I would just like to take some time and talk to the clauses. Clause 8 was removed—this one would have transferred trust property to the Crown on an interim basis in the event that the trust was to be wound up. Omitting this clause avoids debts accrued by the trust board being adopted by the Crown. Also new clause 5(2) was added requiring that all income benefits or advantages received or accrued to the trust be used to advance the charitable purposes of the trust. We do know that this Arts Centre has considerable potential for income and revenue streams. Before the earthquakes and the subsequent closure of the Arts Centre there were up to 1.5 million tourists turning up at the Arts Centre every year. They went along to see the Court Theatre. They went along to see the many markets as well as the art studios. I myself can remember going along to the range of cuisine and food carts there as well and of course to the Dux de Lux which we have heard a lot about tonight. There is also the amending of clause 9 to state that the Charitable Trusts Act 1957 applies to the trust and the trust board.I think we need to remind ourselves here of the scale and the size of this work. Currently this restoration project is the largest in the world at a scale of around $280 million to $300 million.Todd Muller: How much?MATT DOOCEY: It is $280 million to $300 million. This is currently the world’s largest restoration project and we do know that the Christchurch Arts Centre is also the largest cluster of heritage buildings in New Zealand. What we need to do is think about this gem within the story of the earthquake recovery. There are a lot of views put forward but if we do not take stock of the good stories of the Christchurch recovery we are going to miss these great stories.The Local Government and Environment Committee did go down and convene the committee in Christchurch where we heard the very succinct and eloquent submissions of the chief executive officer André Lovatt and the trust chair as well. It was great to get a tour of the Christchurch Arts Centre from them. My colleague Todd Muller has talked about it tonight. Their energy and enthusiasm and their passion are what is driving this forward as well as the support of Christchurch Canterbury New Zealand and also the rest of the world. What I mean by that is that they took us into the stonemason room and around that room they have flags from all around the world. Each flag represents a different type of nationality of stonemason. Many of these people have contacted the Arts Centre off their own bat because they want to be part of this restoration project. It is currently the largest project of its kind in the world. It is great to see this workforce coming from around the whole world to instil this specialist skill of stonemasonry. Christchurch’s Art Centre will be rebuilt. We are very much looking forward to that gem of the Christchurch recovery.We also amended clause 6 and in schedule 2 added a new clause 12 to enable the trust board to amend its constitution. I would ask the Minister whether we could maybe hear a bit more about what Jen Crawford the trust chair and André Lovatt the chief executive officer spoke about. It is a shift from representation to a skills-based governance model. They explained that what they would be doing is moving to a skills-based governance model where individuals will be appointed by an appointments committee so that the trust board has a strong set of skills to address the issues that will come up through this restoration project but it will also ensure that this board will have the right skills and experience to take the Arts Centre forward over the next 10 20 30 and 40 years. So I would hope that the Minister will be able to respond to that—to ensure that the implementation of this new governance system will achieve the outcome that they hope for. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):I move That the question be now put.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I call Simon O’Connor.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki):I would be biased if I said that was the right call. I am very pleased to stand and take a call on this the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill. I am very conscious—and I probably must apologise to Minister Wagner and others—that I am an Aucklander. I do apologise but I actually think that the arts is something that moves well beyond just Canterbury and Christchurch. It is something for the whole country.I want to acknowledge the work that is already being done and add to some of the questions that my colleagues have been putting to the Minister tonight. I want to signal to the Hon Nicky Wagner that there are a few thoughts I want to raise. As an initial context I remember the Arts Centre well from trips down to Christchurch in the past. I remember it for two reasons: not only for the art and for the drawing together of people and the expression they bring but also for the architecture. When I returned after the Canterbury earthquakes that was something I felt quite profoundly and quite sadly. But really what it comes back to is the people. I think inherently what is happening here is drawing the people back together. That is not only in the bill but in the governance structures and so forth. If I was to push that a little bit further in some ways picking up on what the Greens spoke about earlier—I think it was the member Eugenie Sage—actually this has been quite a collegial discussion and environment in which to progress things forward.The arts are important. Anyone who knows me knows I am a great supporter of the arts—everything from the Royal New Zealand Ballet to the opera to the Auckland Philharmonia Orchestra and the like and also the other forms of the arts and expression that we have—Hon Christopher Finlayson: The NZSO?SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh sorry I have been remiss. I have shown my Auckland bias. I have been instantly reminded by the Hon Christopher Finlayson of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra of course. I say that as context because of course what the Arts Centre does is touch on a whole different range.Some people might be questioning as we look at this bill tonight in the Committee of the whole House why we are bothering with something such as the arts. I cannot help but be drawn to what Churchill once said—granted in the context of the war and the devastation there. He was asked by someone: “Why are we actually putting all this money into the arts? Why are we putting it into the arts when there are much more important things?”—in this case the war. Churchill said: “Well what are we fighting for?”.I think that is a really important context when we come to Canterbury and to this particular area. What we are after is a really important expression. If I may share one quick expression. When I lived in Fiji for 2 years around a vocational—Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am just seeking your advice. I know that we decided to take this bill as one part but now we are about to hear about his Fiji trip. He has talked about the Auckland orchestra in the context of Christchurch. I just think it is going a little bit broad at the moment and I would like you to—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I take the member’s point and I ask the member who has the floor currently to come back to the matter in question.SIMON O’CONNOR: If I may actually—the context the element of Fiji despite the member’s objection is destruction. I do not intend to push this too far but it is the—Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. You have made a considered ruling that Fiji is not part of Christchurch. Indeed arguably it is not even part of the South Island. The member opposite has flouted your ruling—The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): I do not need any further help in respect of this matter. Please take your seat. I do not need any assistance from the member on this point of order. The member who has the floor was drawing it into context and I am sure—I am absolutely convinced—that his next contribution will be totally salient.SIMON O’CONNOR: Vanaka vaka levu au kila—anyway we will leave it there. Let us not continue or we might get into trouble.The key part about the Arts Centre here is that it is a new opportunity to take what has been an existing trust and to build on the strength of it but to bring about new opportunities. We have heard from many members about the great work that Jen Crawford as the chair has been doing as well as André Lovatt as the chief executive officer. What we are seeing in this bill is an attempt to change the structure to move it towards something that is more skills-based. We have heard that from other members. I think that in a time of crisis if you will it is really important often to move from the representative which respects the sort of normality of the situation to bring it back into the context of crisis. This means you need skilled people from the community to help drive this forward. We have heard it from the Local Government and Environment Committee and when you read through the report you can see that a lot of consideration has been given to this: how do we do it better?For those of us who have worked in community groups on community boards with sports groups and otherwise we always know that there is an ebb and flow. We are not expecting the crises of Christchurch but there are ebbs and flows when there are times where you move from normality into the need for skills-based leadership. It is really good to see that in place here. I think though I would appreciate some of the insights from the Minister on why she sees this to be comprehensively skills based and why there is no need or not a specific need for some representation or maybe the two will blend in there. The other is and it is one of the first things that was drawn to my attention around clause 8. The select committee was very clear on the need for the Crown to be removed in terms of transferring the trust property to the Crown. I think this is quite a fundamental question. The Crown is trying to step back. I think there is a paradox in that.Hon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):I just want to reflect on some questions that have come up during the debate. First of all I want to reflect on Scott Simpson’s question. Scott Simpson was concerned about the reference to the stone buildings of the Arts Centre. As we have heard significantly tonight the stone buildings are a cluster of 23 magnificent stone buildings. They are all neo-Gothic buildings just like the provincial chambers just like the Christchurch Cathedral just like the Canterbury Museum just like some of the buildings in Christ’s College. They are wonderfully detailed they are very special and they were built over a period of about 50 years from about the late 1880s forward. It is particularly important that the stone buildings are emphasised in this bill. It reflects the wording of the original trust deed and represents the importance of these stone buildings to those people who set up the trust. It also of course represents the heritage significance. The Local Government and Environment Committee supported the view of the trust board on this point but it did propose an amendment. It was an amendment to the definition of “The Arts Centre” so that it did include other buildings on that site. I think that is the right thing to do.In reference to Todd Muller’s request in terms of the removal of the Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage—I think that was a wise thing to do. It did remove any possible idea—any misperception—that the Minister wanted to influence the board and showed that the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Board would be truly independent.In relation to Matt Doocey’s comments on the English names of Christchurch streets they are indeed reflecting the English provinces and we do have the Arts Centre on Worcester Street. He may be interested to know that the way the names were picked is that they were names of dioceses of the Church of England and that is how we get Madras Barbados and Montreal Streets—so not just English streets.Finally to Simon O’Connor—in terms of the purpose of the bill of course it is to provide quality governance for the future. I think the present trust board was well aware of the need for a comprehensive skills-based board and I think that will futureproof the board going forward.All in all I thank the Committee members for their comments and debate tonight. This is a good bill and I support it.Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn):I move That the question be now put.Motion agreed to.Preamble Parts 1 and 2 schedules 1 and 2 and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) BillIn CommitteeJOANNE HAYES (Third Whip—National):I seek leave to have all parts of the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill to be treated as one debate.The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? The matter will be one debate.Preamble Parts 1 and 2 schedule and clauses 1 and 2POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):I rise to take a short call on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I recall when we were discussing this bill a week or two ago in its second reading that there was some concern expressed by the members of the Local Government and Environment Committee. The only submitter who presented of course was the Christchurch City Council and there was some concern that the officials were not perhaps paying due deference to the issues that actually brought this bill before Parliament. The issues are really that there had been some errors in previous rating decisions and deliberations by the Christchurch City Council which meant that ratepayers could in fact charge the city council on the technicalities because the council had not put the appropriate motions at the time that the rates were being set. This happened over a period of a few years—I think from memory in excess of 10 years—and what this piece of legislation seeks to do is validate those rates retrospectively. I know that we are not comfortable about retrospective legislation but in this case this legislation provides the opportunity for the Christchurch City Council to I guess ensure that in future ratepayers will not take any action against it.It is not an insignificant piece of legislation because there are various parts of the rating mechanism that need to be addressed and several years that need to be covered as well. So it does look at various aspects of rating and it does also look at various areas within the Christchurch City Council realm such as Governors Bay and Church Bay. It looks at various mechanisms such as ensuring that the water loan rates on those two bays for example are taken care of.I am comfortable that this piece of legislation will in fact provide the opportunity for the Christchurch City Council to ensure that its processes are now complete and now compliant and I am sure that the Christchurch City Council has taken due note of the fact that it got itself into a bit of a difficult situation by not providing the right mechanisms at the time that the rates bills were to be delivered. On that note there is really not much more to say on the matter so I thank you for the opportunity Mr Chair and I commend the bill to the Committee.Hon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):I too rise to speak on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill at the Committee of the whole House stage. If anyone has been following this debate over the last few weeks they will understand that nobody likes to talk about retrospective or validation legislation. There have been a few bills in this Parliament over the last couple of years that have fallen into these categories and Parliament has struggled. We prefer things to be correct; we do not like to have to go back and clean them up afterwards. However it is acknowledged in this case that a validation bill is the most practical the most cost-effective and the best way to address these historic rating irregularities of the Christchurch City Council.The bill seeks to validate rates irregularities going back to 2003-04 right through to 2012-13. It all began after the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 was passed. The council deliberately sought to simplify its resolution for setting rates and paying penalties for unpaid rates. I think that was a positive desire. I think we are all aware of the need for plain language in local government legislation. These new simplified resolutions were used successfully until the rules were found in 2012 to be technically inadequate. Now the council at that time was able to correct the 2013-14 rates demands but at that stage the rating resolutions had been out of order for 10 years.When the error in the rates setting was discovered by the Department of Internal Affairs in 2013 the council treated it really seriously. It was shocked that defective resolutions had been accepted by the department for 10 years without any concerns and that the council’s auditors had never commented on them. So the council commissioned a legal review councillors were briefed and as soon as possible the information was collected and analysed. It held the council meetings open to the public and the minutes were available so it was a very open process. As I have already said at that stage the council was able to correct its 2013-14 rates resolution and it has now changed the process so that every year compliance is verified by legal and audit requirements. The council is apologetic. It takes full responsibility for the errors prior to 2013. Its desire to further this bill demonstrates the seriousness of the situation. There is a major legal risk for the council if the errors are not validated.The council has always been very open with the public about the errors and open about the steps that it has taken to rectify them and actually the public have been largely accepting of the situation. No approaches were made to the council during the notification period of the bill and no submissions were made by the public to the select committee. But let me make it clear that in terms of the irregularities of the rates resolutions all the required rating information—the rating years the dates for the rates instalments the penalties the calculations the dates for the payments—was available to the public. It just was not stated in the rates resolutions. Let me also make it clear that no ratepayers have been disadvantaged by this resolution. In fact nobody noticed the error for over a decade.So it was an error yes and of course we need our local councils to be accurate with information and to write resolutions correctly but it was a victimless crime. I note that once notified the council took immediate action to rectify the situation but I also note that over the decade in question the personnel in the council had mostly changed so the new council staff have had to take on the responsibility of fixing the past resolutions and of preparing this bill. I thank them for that. I particularly thank—Carmel Sepuloni: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Seeking your advice again it has just been pointed out to us that the Minister during this Committee stage is giving her first reading speech word for word. Is that appropriate?The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Chester Borrows): No that is not a point of order.Hon NICKY WAGNER: May I just complete my discourse. I would like to thank the council staff—the staff who have been new to the council in the last 10 years—particularly Jane Parfitt who was the acting chief executive officer at the time. It is not nice to have to take responsibility for other people’s errors and clean up after them especially on top of all the other work that the Christchurch City Council is doing in terms of rebuilding our city.So I support this bill. It is the easiest the most cost efficient and the practical way to correct past irregularities and to ensure that the Christchurch City Council’s resolutions now comply. Thank you.EUGENIE SAGE (Green):The Green Party is supporting the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I do not think it is a victimless crime though in terms of what the city council has done. It means that we are here having to deal with rectifying its errors. My call will be a brief one but it is just that it is interesting that the Minister Nicky Wagner in terms of sponsoring the bill as the local member talked about the council being very open about the errors that it had made and very open about the way in which it was going to rectify those errors. That contrasts markedly with the lack of transparency of the Government and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in terms of the spending of hundreds of millions of dollars on the anchor projects where there is very little information that is provided despite large amounts of public money being used and where Official Information Act requests are delayed and are heavily redacted when they are finally answered.Part of the thing that this bill will do is actually enable the city council to recover outstanding rates and penalties. They amount to about $684000 which is a significant amount given the city council’s budget shortfall. That shortfall of course is in part due to the anchor projects being foisted upon the council by the Government. We support this bill. The member in the chair has very ably gone through the reasons for it and the way in which the council has tackled those errors but one of the things that I have been puzzled by is that in a mere 3½ years in this House I have spoken on three rates validations bills. The former Minister of Local Government the Hon Dr Nick Smith did a lot of tub-thumping criticising local government when at the time he really should have been ensuring that there were much better guides being produced by the Department of Internal Affairs to assist councils in how they pass their rates resolutions to avoid getting into the situation that the Christchurch City Council has. I am pleased the department is now somewhat belatedly working with Local Government New Zealand and the Society of Local Government Managers to improve council practice in setting these rates resolutions and ensuring that the resolutions are clear and actually follow the provisions of the Local Government (Rating) Act.This is an uncontroversial bill we will be supporting it and I think that we have canvassed all the reasons for that in earlier speeches. Thank you.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram):I will not trouble the House for too long with this call. It is a very short bill; I think it warrants a very short speech. I would like to echo the words of the previous speaker Eugenie Sage and say that the Labour Party is supporting this bill but we do share the concerns that far too often we are in this House doing validation bills. We acknowledge that the work has been done by the present council to rectify the problems that have been found in terms of a resolution around levying of the rates. It is not something that we want to do. We urge this House this Parliament to do far more in terms of ensuring that we do not get into this situation again. It is my pleasure for Labour to support this bill.SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel):It is a pleasure as chairman of the Local Government and Environment Committee to take a call on this bill as it progresses through the House through its Committee stage. I want to acknowledge the local member the Hon Nicky Wagner who has ably supported and sponsored this bill under difficult circumstances in a way. I do not think that any local member takes any pleasure at all in bringing to the House a piece of validating legislation. In the second reading we heard from a number of people myself included who were I think unhappy about the prospect of us having to consider it. This is quite a succinct short and pithy bill that actually fixes irregularities that relate to payment dates for rates and the authority to impose penalties on unpaid rates that occurred through a mistake albeit an honest mistake made by the Christchurch City Council.This is a local bill. The irregularities as the sponsoring member indicated actually were victimless in terms of nobody having suffered financial loss or cost. But the council has really just dodged a bullet because if in fact any ratepayer had decided to bring legal action against the council during any one of those 10 years before the error was discovered there would have been significant potential for financial loss not only to the council but to the wider ratepaying group. The Christchurch City Council failed to state in its rates resolution that the rates were payable by instalments and not only that but what the payment dates for those instalments might be and what penalties if there were to be any might or might not be added. So it failed to state some very basic things. I hasten to add that these errors occurred some 10 years or more ago—several chief executive officers ago—and the opportunity I guess to seek retribution from the people who were responsible for ensuring that the errors did not occur has long since passed.However notwithstanding that it is my view that the council should perhaps have been a little more contrite in terms of its submission to the select committee. We went and heard the submission. There was only one submission; this was it. It was just a mere two pages from the council. It was the only submission that was received. I have to say on behalf of the committee that we were singularly underwhelmed by the presentation received from the council staff and councillor who presented to the select committee in Christchurch on the day that we had the hearing.Sections in the bill are actually quite short. Clause 5 validates the payment dates for the rates in a way that did not occur during the rates motion. Clause 6 validates any penalties that may have been added to those rates through the error and omission that took place some 10 years ago. Clause 7 declares that all money received by the council in payment of the rates and any penalties paid in respect of those rates during the period in which the error was unidentified will in fact be validated and that there will be no potential for recovery from ratepayers who may have felt that those rates had been—as they were—collected constitutionally in terms of legality illegally by the Christchurch City Council.Clause 9 goes on to validate the specified rates. These comprise the council’s uniform annual general charge and seven targeted rates where irregularities have been identified in terms of section 23 of the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. These resolutions were made so that the purpose of this bill is to validate those resolutions so that the status would be that the previous resolutions would then be validated from 2004-05 through to the financial year 2012-13.So I think that it is fair to say that in terms of the impact of this error that occurred in Christchurch City the council is very lucky to have got away as lightly as it did. This was during a period of time when the chief executive officers were being paid most generously by the ratepayers. They were negligent in their role in ensuring that the correct motions were passed that the correct financial motions were made available to the elected councillors. I for one felt very unhappy that the council actually showed no contrition at all for that. I acknowledge that the current councillors and current council staff were not personally responsible but not withstanding that there were very significant errors. If the errors had occurred in other jurisdictions where members of the public and ratepayers had been perhaps testing of this situation then there would have been very significant financial cost to the council and ratepayers. The legal cost alone would have been enormous.This piece of legislation affirms that all money received by the council in payment of the rates and any penalties paid in respect of those rates to be and to always have been lawfully paid and received by the council. So what that means is that there will no longer be an opportunity for any disgruntled or offended ratepayer to bring a retrospective piece of litigation against the council in a way that may have allowed the council to become further financially compromised if such a piece of litigation had taken place.Although the funding impact statement for each year of the errors included all the information that was required—so on the actual rates bill the correct information was there—notwithstanding that the formal proper motions had not been passed by the elected councillors the people who are elected by the good citizens of Christchurch to ensure that local government legislation is enacted and passed according to law. That did not occur and those people were potentially very vulnerable. So this piece of validating legislation ensures that the errors and omissions made by staff and councillors long gone are in fact put right.As other speakers have said this House does not like to consider these sorts of validating pieces of legislation. Regrettably we are all too often put in a position where errors of this sort at a local government level do occur and it is up to a local member who has no real opportunity to put right the error to come to the House seek the time of the House seek the goodwill of a select committee and then put it to the House—where time and effort is occupied at not inconsiderable cost to the taxpayer—to ensure that things are put right on behalf of the innocent ratepayers of Christchurch.I hasten to add that this is not a small territorial authority. Christchurch City Council represents one of the largest council operations in the country. The level of expectation that rests upon it is surely at the high end of the spectrum in terms of compliance in terms of fulfilling its role as local body legislator and in terms of protecting the rights and interests of the ratepayers. So I am not in any way going to discount the roles and obligations of smaller jurisdictions of smaller councils but I think that sometimes they may not have the same access to legal counsel and the same access to professional advice and information that the very large councils do.Christchurch City Council is a very significant enterprise. It is an enterprise that is of large size and volume and that pays its senior staff extraordinarily well in order to get things right. On this occasion over a period of not 1 year not 2 years not 3 years not 4 years but in fact a whole decade these errors were not spotted. These errors were not spotted by the highly paid professional staff of the council and then the councillors were not made aware of it. Perhaps worse to add insult to injury nor was the error spotted by the auditors who were also charged with ensuring that these kinds of errors do not slip through the cracks.This is an unfortunate piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that I would prefer as chair of the select committee we did not have to bring to the House.RON MARK (NZ First):I am very conscious of the fact that we do need to progress quickly so we can get another bill drawn out of the ballot so I will not take up too much of your time up here like some people appear to be trying to do. I do apologise before I start now that I may well be repeating some of the things that other good speakers—Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman: Get on with it Ron.RON MARK: Jonathan Jonathan—have a holiday mate. It is coming soon; do not worry. Anyway so this is what I mean—the collegial atmosphere was in existence and then someone arrives in the Chamber. But never mind; we will move through.I do apologise if I am actually going to repeat some of the things that have been said but I do have to get them on the record for New Zealand First so bear with me please. I have got to applaud Scott Simpson again. That speech hit the nail right on the head. I unfortunately was not able to be at the Local Government and Environment Committee hearings in Christchurch that day but the one comment that came back consistently—and the member Scott Simpson has put it on the table here today—was about the attitude and the behaviour of the Christchurch City Council officials. There are some good members on that committee from the Government side. They have all expressed their dismay and their concern at the behaviour. I would like someone on the Christchurch City Council to read the Hansard to replay these speeches from this evening and to take a message because this message comes from the whole of the select committee.Dr Megan Woods: No it doesn’t.RON MARK: Well that message about the behaviour of Christchurch City Council—well OK Labour is distancing itself from that; New Zealand First is not. New Zealand First is not. New Zealand First does not like passing retrospective legislation to tidy up muck-ups mess-ups stuff-ups from people who get highly paid—well paid—to not make such mistakes. We do not actually like having to support this piece of legislation but we will because it is the quickest cleanest and most sensible way of tidying up an inexcusable situation that has arisen and been allowed to occur over 10 years.I am going to take the opportunity to mention some of the things that I raised during the select committee hearing. I have heard a lot of rhetoric from certain people promoting super-cities and telling me such things as that they bring a greater capacity to employ people with high skill sets that small councils cannot. Let us be clear about this. Carterton District Council is the third-smallest council in New Zealand. It has never made a stuff-up like this. It cannot afford to pay people the exorbitant rates that that former chief executive officer of Christchurch City Council who became infamous all over New Zealand got. In fact I think he got fired or dumped from Hamilton went down to Christchurch inflicted his misery down there and got paid an absolute fortune for doing so and yet oversaw this debacle as one of a couple of chief executive officers who oversaw it.The process and the procedures that most competent well-run councils have is that they have a run sheet sitting there to guide the mayor and to guide the council through the motions that have to be put and the run sheet is accurate. The run sheet is not inaccurate and does not lead the councillors or the mayors into such a debacle. The person who at the end of the day is ultimately responsible for making sure that that run sheet is accurate and that those resolutions that are moved are legally binding and accurate and in compliance with the law is the chief executive officer. End of story.It is absolutely appalling that we end up dealing with an issue where the uniform annual general charges were not correctly passed and seven targeted rates were inappropriately described in resolution and that we ended up here. For the council to then turn up at the select committee and behave in such a way that was less than contrite I find absolutely astonishing. And that comes from me someone who lived in Christchurch for 30-odd years and spent a hell of a lot of time working with people like Vicki Buck Garry Moore and a whole bunch of Labour councillors whom I got to know very very well through my time being a Labour Party member down there.So this annoys us in New Zealand First. It annoys us that we are wasting the time of the House and the time of the select committee and the taxpayers’ dollars tidying up a mess that should never have occurred and it annoys us that the council should have been less than contrite and in fact came across as somewhat flippant and arrogant about the whole thing. It annoys me as a former mayor of a small rural council that I continually hear about how wonderful super-cities are. Let us be clear: Christchurch City Council is a super-city. It is the first super-city. I actually also find it quite ironic that the Minister who is having to bring this legislation to the House as a member and actually advance it through was also herself a member of Environment Canterbury as well.CARMEL SEPULONI (Junior Whip—Labour):I move That the question be now put.JOANNE HAYES (National):I am pleased to rise and take a call on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill sponsored by the Hon Nicky Wagner MP for Christchurch Central. The Local Government (Rating) Act provides an avenue for councils to amend incorrectly set rates. In the case of Christchurch it was to correct irregularities that occurred in the resolutions setting the Christchurch City Council’s rates for the financial years 2003-04 to 2012-13. In particular as we have already heard from my speech on the previous reading Christchurch City Council had been in breach of the Local Government (Rating) Act for some 10 years—some 10 years. It seemed that the council may have felt that its oversight of resolutions required would eventually right itself but it did not. Perhaps with the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes the resolutions error was the furthest thing from its immediate attention. But the problem as suggested just moved over for the urgency of the earthquakes. Were the council bureaucrats aware pre-earthquake of the rates resolution issue? Did they know that if left the Government may intervene? And did the councillors know about the situation? Or was this a genuine oversight? Was it arrogance? What was it? We in this House will never really know. For all our posturing and finger pointing here today we must conclude that we will never know what happened there even including those auditors. And who kept an eye on those auditors? We will not know.What we do know though is that we are here today. This National-led Government is righting the wrongs of the past. We are doing that. Some of this stuff happened back in the time of the previous Government. It was unaware of it. The window for the time of the Christchurch City Council rates resolution has passed. We need to move on. We have been here before though have we not? The Government has passed retrospective legislation pertaining to rates validation. Let us look at the first time we passed retrospective legislation on rates validation. The member Damien O’Connor sponsored the Tasman District Council (Validation and Recovery of Certain Rates) Bill during the period 2003—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! We are on this bill.JOANNE HAYES: OK. Righty-o. What I was trying to do was explain that this is not the first time. We have done this two other times—the Tasman District Council and the Kaipara District Council—twice for rates validation.Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I would just like your assistance on this. Clearly you have already asked the speaker once to get back to the relevance. The Tasman District Council is not under question.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): I am the judge of that.JOANNE HAYES: These are examples of where respective councils have not adhered to the law. In the case of Christchurch city when the rates resolution was simplified the council failed to specify the rates payment dates the penalties charged how penalties were calculated and the dates by which the penalties would apply. When this was brought to the council’s attention by the Department of Internal Affairs the council acted quickly. For me this is the third time the Government has had to pass legislation validating rates and it has to stop because the cost of doing so through the House is very expensive as we heard from the Minister.Sue Moroney: So sit down. You’re just costing money.JOANNE HAYES: Just listen because you might learn something. I want to add—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order!JOANNE HAYES: To the member sorry—to the member.The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! Do not bring me into the debate and stick to the subject in hand.JOANNE HAYES: OK. For me this is the third time the Government has had to pass legislation validating rates and it has to stop because the cost of doing so as mentioned by the Minister previously through the House has been so expensive. I want to add into my speech today about the changes that have occurred in Christchurch post-earthquake. It is the work that the council continued to do to support the—The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch): Order! That is not part—[Interruption] This is a very succinct debate and the content of it does not go beyond what is in the bill. I ask the member to come back to it.JOANNE HAYES: Thank you. This is a short yet focused bill that is remedying the wrongs. Clause 5 validates—SUE MORONEY (Labour):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.PAUL FOSTER-BELL (National):I take great pleasure in rising to make a brief contribution in the Committee stage of the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I have a couple of comments to make but I do actually have a question for the Minister in the chair Nicky Wagner which I hope at some point she may be able to address. My specific point that I want to make actually references comments that have been made in this debate already by the honourable member Major Ron Mark from the New Zealand First Party. In response to some of the things Ron Mark said I have to say that I share his view that the Local Government and Environment Committee works together very well and in a collegial way under the able and eminent chairmanship of the honourable member Scott Simpson the member for Coromandel.Although none of us want to have to deal with such an issue this has been a bill that we have worked our way through in a calm considered and consistent manner listening to the views of the only submitter on this bill which was the Christchurch City Council. We have come up with a pragmatic solution to the issues that were faced due to the incorrect charging of rates over a period of years. I would like to refer to the preamble to the bill recitals (2)(a) through to (2)(i)(ii) which refer specifically to the period over which rates were incorrectly charged.This is an issue that has come up before in the course of discussion around this bill but one of the key elements that distinguishes this bill from many of the others we see is that it contains a large degree of retrospectivity—that is it has a retroactive effect. We have previously discussed the pros and cons of such a state of affairs. In fact I believe that last time I referred to the great British legal theoretician A V Dicey who was an Oxford Vinerian Professor of English Law and debated the different benefits and consequences of having retrospective clauses in legislation. This however I think would fit Dicey’s definition of a curative provision in this bill because it sets right a wrong. It is not entirely a victimless crime which I think is a term used by the Green Party member Eugenie Sage. In fact the Minister herself might have used that term. It is not entirely victimless as there are some affected parties but it certainly is not by righting this technical failure made by council staff and advisers and councils themselves in the resolutions they passed over a very long period of time—in righting this wrong—it is restoring the state of affairs that should have existed had everything been properly done. There are no real victims to this change that is being proposed in this piece of legislation.I want to single out in particular the sponsoring member as it is a local bill a bill local to Christchurch but also it is a bill brought forward by the local member the Hon Nicky Wagner. I think she is an excellent very hard-working very assiduous member who has brought us a simple clear and concise but very well-formed piece of legislation which does exactly what needs to be done.The question I suppose I have for the sponsoring member in the chair goes to the specific detail around what we are actually retrospectively validating. The question that I have is about the uniform annual general charge—if the member has any information on this—that is being retrospectively validated. What kind of proportion is that amount compared with the seven other targeted rates that are being retrospectively validated? It is certainly something we went through in the select committee but I am still not entirely clear about the scale of retrospective validation of the uniform annual general charge as compared and contrasted with the seven other targeted rates which I think encompass issues such as water and drainage board rates. If there was an opportunity to hear from the sponsoring member on that I would certainly welcome that.The other question that we had in the select committee that we asked the council—which was the only submitter on this bill—when we were going through line by line and analysing each clause of this bill. It did not exactly have the tone I think of response in my perception that the honourable Ron Mark detected in that I did not quite see arrogance but I certainly saw a slight dismissiveness in the reaction in terms of taking accountability and responsibility for these mistakes that were made in the past as referenced in the preamble to this piece of legislation. The question I have is around whether this can happen again and whether the validating legislation was absolutely necessary given the council has corrected this in its own internal processes to make sure that in its own case anyway in its locality we are not going to see such an issue arise again in the future.What we heard from the council did contain elements of dismissiveness and elements of perhaps pushing the blame on to staff who were no longer in their offices within the city council today. I acknowledge that this has been an ongoing problem for many many years in fact going back to 2003 throughout the periods of tenure of two different Governments of the Realm of New Zealand and certainly different councillors and council officials have cycled through that organisation over that time period. I was somewhat taken aback that there was not an entire degree of acceptance that the fault was with the council for not having followed what are clear provisions in the basic legislation that councils are required to enforce and to carry out under section 119 of the Local Government (Rating) Act.Although it is pleasing to see that this is being remedied I think there were a number of members on the committee—including clearly Mr Mark from his comments but I think others particularly on this side of the House—who were not entirely pleased to see a council not taking full responsibility for its past conduct.Although it is absolutely imperative that we do pass this legislation to correct the situation that exists and to make sure that those $600000 or so worth of retrospectively unpaid rates that currently cannot be legally collected because they were not correctly levied in the first place—to make sure that those $600000 worth can be collected—I would be very interested to hear from the Minister in the chair the sponsoring member of this bill whether there was any information that she might be able to provide the Committee around the breakdown of the annual uniform general charge versus the seven other targeted rates just so we can get an idea of their relative scale.Other than that small question I think this is an excellent well-drafted piece of legislation. Although it is retrospective it does not have any of the monstrous effects of retrospective legislation such as the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act 1794 which I think is held up by many as the gravest example of an evil piece of retrospective legislation. For that reason I take enormous pleasure in commending the bill to the Committee and hope to hear contributions from others on the other side of the Chamber who so seldom allow a bandwagon to pass them without jumping on board. Rather than having a curtailed debate rather than having democracy crushed in this Chamber by an Opposition who wants to silence debate on an issue that I think we all agree on let us hear a meaningful useful and decent contribution from Opposition members. Mr Mark did a very good job and I just wish the Labour members could do the same.Hon NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central):I would just like to respond to the questions in terms of the uniform annual general charge. It was correctly stated that there were seven ratings that were irregularly passed—this is on top of the general rating irregularity. Two of them were concerned with the Church Bay sewer loan rate and the Church Bay water loan rate and it was in terms of the fact that they were a fixed amount per rating unit.The same thing was also to do with the Governors Bay sewer loan rate and the Governors Bay water loan rate. On top of that they failed to state that there was liability for a restricted water targeted rate and that that was calculated on the level of service through the restricted water supply system. On top of that there were two rates to do with waste minimisation and the fact that they are fixed amounts per rating unit. I think that is probably the key issue here.Finally there was a water fire service connection rate. Again that was calculated on a number of connections as provided for by the city council’s rating impact statements. Getting to the uniform annual general charge the key issue here was that they failed to say that it was calculated on the number of separately used or inhabited parts of the rating unit. That was the key issue. These ones here were not the amounts of the rates; it was the fact of how they were to be charged. Thank you.POTO WILLIAMS (Labour—Christchurch East):I move That the question be now put.A party votewas called for on the questionThat the question be now put.Ayes 58New Zealand Labour 32; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 12.Noes 63New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Motion not agreed to.TODD MULLER (National—Bay of Plenty):I rise just to spend a few moments actually talking on the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill. I find what we have watched as we have gone through this debate absolutely extraordinary. We have had a conversation earlier where everyone contributed to the debate and now we are on to something that is actually perhaps just a little bit more uncomfortable for the members of the Opposition particularly those from Canterbury. They do not want to participate in the debate. They walk out. They say that they do not like local bills. Well local bills deserve the respect of actually being debated. When councils have delivered us something that we have to do retrospectively it deserves our attention. It deserves us identifying areas that need to be improved so we do not do this again. The flippant disregard from half of that lot over there who have disappeared saying that they do not want to continue the debate is I think a disgrace.Specifically I would like to talk about some of the components and particularly the clauses in this short and focused but important bill. In particular I would like to talk about the changes that are included around naming the due dates and the penalties validating the annual general charge and particularly the seven other targeted rates—the Church Bay sewer loan rate the Church Bay water loan rate the Governors Bay sewer loan rate the Governors Bay water loan rate the restricted water targeted rate the waste minimisation rate the water fire service connection rate and the uniform annual general charge which were included specifically in clause 4 of the bill. It was raised as a particular question earlier.We have had quite a lot of debate today particularly around the process. We heard the Minister answer one question in particular in her immediate comments when introducing tonight’s conversation around how the process has improved particularly with the Christchurch City Council in terms of how it manages its processes internally to ensure that it is at best practice in respect of notifying and setting rates and the process around that.I just want to echo the importance of this bill sending a message not only to Christchurch but also to other councils around the country around the Government’s expectation that best practice is followed at all times. We heard from the member Mr Mark in a very considered and impassioned contribution earlier to this debate around the provision of run sheets and the importance specifically of councils following those. His experience was that this is relatively easy to do and he was surprised that in this case this city council missed that. Yes of course there is Audit New Zealand which can provide a double-check in terms of further confidence. But quite frankly this should be picked up in an internal process check that the chief executive officer should oversee and there should be their own internal controls to make sure that this does not happen.We should not be put in the position quite frankly of having to do this revalidation bill. The council should have had the internal controls in there from day one particularly when you reflect that this was a changing approach. This was a council that was trying to simplify a process. When you try to simplify a process you change from the status quo. You would assume therefore that there was some focus put on the fact that the council was changing what it had done compared with what it used to do and would say: “Let us ensure that we have got our ducks lined up and we are doing this correctly in terms of the due process expected of us.” It did not happen it should happen and our expectation is that we would not have to be put into this position again.I do acknowledge the speed with which the Christchurch City Council reacted when this was brought to its attention in the last couple of years. But as has been raised tonight I was left wanting in respect of the attitude at the submission process by the Christchurch City Council. Maybe I am being a bit harsh but process improvement can take an organisation only so far. Attitude and culture are important too. I think that in the context of this bill and particularly for the Christchurch City Council this is a point just to reflect on. Yes you can turn up to a submission process and talk relatively obliquely to the process changes that you have brought in to ensure that it will not happen again. The Christchurch City Council officers can talk to a process improvement but it is very important that those same officers reflect on the importance of culture in their organisation to be able to ensure that they do not allow this sort of thing to happen again. We never got the sense of that. We never got the sense that actually the Christchurch City Council saw this as an appalling indictment on its own collective approach to managing issues like this. It was seen as: “Well you know sometimes these things happen and sometimes the Government or Parliament needs to fix them up for us.” It has been raised earlier and I just want to reinforce that it is something that we were not impressed with.In closing I want to acknowledge the Minister in the chair the Hon Nicky Wagner. She has brought forward two really important local bills and has managed them through with élan and compassion and focus for her community. Of course I will echo the support that our chairman Mr Scott Simpson has received. He is a great chair and it is a pleasure to be part of a normally collegial Local Government and Environment Committee although perhaps there have been cracks tonight. I look forward to seeing this bill pass. Thank you.Preamble Parts 1 and 2 schedule and clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.Bill to be reported without amendment presently.House resumed.The Chairperson reported the Arts Centre of Christchurch Trust Bill without amendment and the Christchurch City Council (Rates Validation) Bill without amendment.Report adopted.Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment BillThird ReadingTRACEY MARTIN (Deputy Leader—NZ First):I move That the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill be now read a third time. Many of us in this House think that we are very important. Many of us in this House particularly on a day such as this talk about our members’ bills about getting “my” bill through and about having the House’s support for “my” bill. This bill certainly carries my name but this is not my bill.I want to go through some dates that are very important because they have led to this place and this time and to a night where once again these children got caught by politics. Once again these children got caught in the game that some people play inside this House with legislation. We go back originally to 1999 and to a woman by the name of Di Vivian who a year before had become a grandparent raising grandchildren and realised how little there was by way of support for kin caring—how children uplifted in exactly the same circumstances and placed with strangers were given support by the State by their country by their Government by their society but when placed with those who had a blood relationship to them they received none. It is Di Vivian whose name should be on the top of this bill. It is Di Vivian who should be standing here and being acknowledged when finally this bill goes through this House.Di Vivian started in 1999 and in May 2001 the Evening Post reported: “Grandparents are ready to march through the streets if the Government continues to ignore their concerns says the national co-ordinator of Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Diane Vivian.” That was back in 2001. In September 2005 Helen Clark promised that the approximately 700 grandparents and carers who received superannuation would get the same payments as any foster parent. In December of that year the then social development Minister David Benson-Pope made a public statement that the longstanding anomaly between relatives and non-kin foster parents would be addressed in the 2006 Budget. That Budget came and it went and this promise was not delivered. In June 2008 the then social development Minister Ruth Dyson announced a decision to give $24.6 million over 4 years to the more than 7500 caregivers including many grandparents who were at that time parenting more than 10300 children who could not be looked after by their parents. However it was not quite what it was made to look like in that press release. Because although certainly there was some equality being promised firstly it was delayed until an implementation date of 1 April 2009 and secondly it did not include the add-on payments such as the clothing allowance—hence this bill.But we go on. So in 2009 it was placed inside the Budget for 1 April 2009 and it was to be delivered on. We all know however that an election happened in 2008 and so there came a change of Government. The big fear at that time for the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust and kin carers was: “We’re going to get caught again.” They were caught inside a political environment not of their making. These are merely children who need clothes.But now I want to actually acknowledge the previous Minister for Social Development Paula Bennett because Paula Bennett and the National Government delivered on that Budget promise in 2009. They promised parity with non-caregivers around the unsupported child’s benefit and they delivered it. It was also that Minister and a National Government who provided 500 respite care places a year for grandchildren and a week-long holiday health camp programme. That was incredibly well received by the grandparents and the communities that actually look after these children many of whom have physical emotional and intellectual disabilities. The respite that that provided was greatly welcomed. In June 2012 this Minister Paula Bennett also announced a tailored version of a Toolbox parenting group that was to be provided free for grandparents raising grandchildren.I am sure that there are people out there if they have managed to stay up this late and sit through the last lots of debate while waiting for this bill who will be wondering why I am actually paying this sort of respect to the Hon Paula Bennett because I sit on this side of the House. I am doing so because it is not my bill. I am doing so because she deserves it. She took the promises made by a previous Government and she made sure they were implemented. She went further—Jacinda Ardern: In 2018.TRACEY MARTIN: No give it a minute give it a minute; we will get to that. But let us be clear about who delivered what and let us be honest and let us give credit where credit is due. This should not be about politics; this should be about the children. I take on board that comments should not come from either side to be frank. This is not about politics; this about these children.There was a ministerial task force in late 2013 and I know that the Hon Paula Bennett put her neck out inside her Cabinet and inside her caucus when she announced $10 million every year for 4 years to deliver around the school and year start-up payment the establishment grant for when children first come into the home and also for the Extraordinary Care Fund. So I acknowledge her and I do so with no problem whatsoever because the facts are the facts and they should be known.This started with Di Vivian. Without her we would not be here but it was Ministers who took it up. I wanted to acknowledge and I did acknowledge that Ruth Dyson put it in the Budget and at that time it did not cover the clothing allowance—neither did what was delivered by the Hon Paula Bennett. It is not a criticism of either party; it is the fact of the reality of history.What we have now is the recognition that I need to apologise to the caregivers and the kin carers now because although I believe that there has been a will on the part of the Hon Paula Bennett and I believe there is obviously a will inside this House to deliver for these children I have had to put in a delayed implementation date. There are many reasons for that and all of them are political. All of them are political all of them are financial and none of them have anything to do with those children.So I apologise and I apologise with a but. I hate doing that but I apologise because I felt that it was more important to get this equity etched into legislation so that it cannot be removed. It is much harder to remove equity out of legislation than it is to put it in. So although I apologise that the implementation date is not where you want it to be because I could not advocate well enough to get it there I acknowledge the history of where we have come to at this point. I acknowledge the need. I acknowledge it and I commit right now that whether I am in this House or out of this House I will watch the 2018 Budget and I will do whatever I can do wherever I am—and you ask anybody who is on a select committee with me how I can advocate—to make sure that every party that said that it supported this bill maintains this promise whoever is writing that Budget in 2018. Kia ora.ALFRED NGARO (National):It is a privilege and an honour to take a call on this third reading of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. I just want to acknowledge Tracey Martin who is the sponsor of the bill a member’s bill. The words that she has shared with passion and with desire and with commitment are reflective of Mrs Martin and her desire to see that this bill is championed not only in the select committee but also through legislation so that it does achieve the intended result which is to have clothing parity.If we were to simplify the bill—and it is not a large bill but it is a bill that makes amendments that are actually very important—the amendments are not large; they are small but they are effective. I suppose it is reflective of the children Mrs Martin is talking about. There are often children who are unseen and unheard and they are vulnerable and yet although they are small they are actually very important. So I think—and we acknowledge—that the bill is important.Although Mrs Martin talked about politics politics is also about leadership and I think that is what is important here. It is the leadership that is shown to be able to take up that response. At the same time too it is the sort of leadership that politics has and I want to state this on the record for those who are listening out there because it actually reflects on both sides of the House. Whoever is governing at that point in time is weighing up a number of different options. So you have got kin carers you have got unsupported children and orphans—vulnerable children—and on the other hand you have got education and you have got health. There are lots of demands where you have to balance the aspect of where you put your resources to best reflect the needs in regard to where they are at.So I want to take up the points that Mrs Martin has put around that. Actually the Hon Paula Bennett did take up the concern and champion the cause to ensure that $10 million was set aside to ensure that the kin carers and also grandparents raising grandchildren were actually represented. One of the things that both Mrs Martin and I did work on and she made it very clear was the ministerial reference group. That was chaired by Katherine Rich and also Diane Vivian was there who was a bundle of energy and joy. But at the same time too she was constantly advocating and I think if there is one person I know who is such a strong advocate it is Diane Vivian. And I too want to acknowledge Diane Vivian for her role in the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust. She actually conducted a survey and in regard to the results of that survey she wanted to say that her points were evidence-based. I think that was really important because that was also what she put on the table as well.I want to acknowledge Linda Surtees from Fostering Kids who again was also a very strong advocate and when we were talking about clothing parity for foster carers and kin carers she too understood the importance of ensuring that was there as well. Also the famous Katie Murray from all the way up in the far north who reminded us very clearly that there are a number of Māori children who were actually in this situation and who were vulnerable. In fact they made up the largest proportion of children who are in care. Of the 12000 who are in care at least a third if not more of those children were Māori and were actually part of Māori whānau and family as well. I think that her advocacy along with the others was absolutely important to this.Along with the reference group though—I want to make mention of this—Mrs Martin made it really clear that all of the things that we were doing the Extraordinary Care Fund and so forth were not around the clothing parity. She made sure that the bill would find a passage so that it actually had a way of addressing those areas of concern as well.I too want to commend Mrs Martin and I want to talk just briefly about some of the points that we have been sharing here. One of the ones is around kin carers. We know that there are 12000 children who are in care. I think the thing is that the issues that have been the cause of that also need to be of concern. These are vulnerable children whether it be because of the death of parents either both or one or whether it be through the breakdown in the family. It could also be through abuse and neglect. Often we heard the stories of when there was a knock on the door and there were these children who were bundled up and taken over to the care of grandparents who often then had to readjust their own lives to be able to accommodate the care of these children. We believed that it was really important that we needed to address this as well. So in acknowledging kin carers and this bill has brought them to the forefront we can now acknowledge that not only are there foster carers but there are kin carers and we acknowledge the role that they play.I also want to talk about the Toolbox parenting groups that Mrs Martin has been talking about because I think that is quite critical. So along with the Grandparents Raising Children Trust and Parenting Place one of the things that Diane Vivian talked about was the fact that often carers are in their twilight years. Here are grandparents heading towards retirement and all of a sudden they are faced with having to raise children again. So they then have to readjust their lives so the work that has been done through the Government and through the Ministry of Social Development is to be able to partner with The Parenting Place to set up Toolbox parenting groups that allow them to have what they call a refresher course really. I know that a number of grandparents have appreciated that as well.The other area that I think has been important which is relating to the bill and is in support of the bill is in regard to the Extraordinary Care Fund. I do remember that in one of our reference group meetings it was actually Katie Murray who brought up this point. She said that when we have these children in our care there comes a time when you want to lift them out of the challenges that they face. They are often emotionally physically and psychologically traumatised. So how do you then find a pathway for them to be able to reach their full potential? That is what she talked about. She then said: “What if there was an opportunity to have a fund that allowed them to do extra things that would support the development of these children’s potential?”. That is actually what has happened out of that. One of the recommendations was the Extraordinary Care Fund.I am happy to report to the House that 300 children and young people have benefited from this. In fact the fund now gives grants of up to $2000 per child and in this round of funding we have distributed 360000 of those. The areas that the fund goes towards are extra tutoring for kids who are struggling in school for instance or orthodontic work not funded by the Ministry of Health. It covers costs to attend national and regional sports tournaments. In fact Katie talked about that and that for the children she was caring for and other carers whom she knew of there was a chance that they could actually then maybe represent a regional sports team. This was a great chance to be able to give them confidence. It was an opportunity to be able to build on their potential and then hopefully out of their confidence and their potential it would bring them out of the trauma that they were currently facing and experiencing and actually give them a sense of hope to be able to develop their full potential as well and we think that is important.One of the things the fund has also gone towards is music lessons where the child can progress ahead of their peers as well. Only 36 of those applicants were unsuccessful in the inaugural funding round and so we think that has provided extra support to these children. Again the key areas that have come out of the words of the grandparents raising grandchildren and the kin carers is this: they want their children to thrive they want them to achieve and they want them to belong and that is really important as well.One of the other areas of support that goes with this bill is around the dedicated person at Work and Income. This actually is important because although we have got the bill that is in place one of the complexities and challenges that have come out of the ministerial reference group’s conversations was often them going to explain their situation to Work and Income. Grandparents were unsure because it was often their own children obviously and how would they explain some of the challenges that they faced—that there was a breakdown in the family or abuse and neglect? So what has actually happened is that the Government has ensured that Work and Income has assigned a manager at the national office to work with the grandparents raising grandchildren and field officers to ensure that there is sensitivity and understanding but also that the pathway to receiving the support is one that is a lot more seamless and that the grandparents will receive the support that they need as well.I just conclude my remarks—and I do take on board what Mrs Martin has said which is that there is a commitment that has to be made—a promise has been indicated in this bill. Yes we know that the start date for this bill has been delayed to 2018. I think that is a good omen obviously for the 2017 election for the National Government which will continue to keep its promises—not only to Mrs Martin because as she said this bill is not about her; actually this is about the children it is about the grandchildren and it is about the kin carers.So I conclude my remarks by acknowledging you Tracey Martin for your advocacy and your championing and also acknowledging Diane Vivian a champion for grandparents raising grandchildren; Linda Surtees for Fostering Kids; Katie Murray up in the far north; and also all of the other grandparents raising grandchildren and kin carers who are out there. We desire and hope that all the support that has been given even through this bill will be of much support. Finally as I said these children will not only reach their full potential but they will thrive they will achieve and they will belong. I commend this bill to the House.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour):I am going to be very brief because on this side of the House we are still optimistic that if the Government does indeed support this bill it will see it passed tonight.I want to restrict my comments to really only three things. First my thanks to Tracey Martin because even though as she has so humbly and eloquently put it she does not consider this bill to be hers every bill needs a champion and she has been an excellent champion. So I thank her for her work. We have got to acknowledge people like Di Vivian and the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust for their work and their advocacy. Yes this has had a long history—no one is denying that—but we owe it to them to move swiftly on something as important as this. Finally I acknowledge the small lost opportunities that we have had. We have not quite achieved parity with this bill. If we were achieving parity we would extend to those who are receiving the unsupported child’s benefit all of the special allowances that a foster carer receives. There are more allowances than just a clothing allowance. We will continue to campaign for all of those additional benefits to be received until absolute parity is reached.Finally it is not Tracey Martin’s fault that this is not coming in until 2018. She absolutely did her best. There have been many reasons given on that side of the House as to why it has been delayed; I do not think any of them stack up. In 2018 that Government might not even be in office. So at least we can give this guarantee: it is our intention that we will be in office and we absolutely guarantee this bill will be implemented as soon as we reach office. That is the guarantee that we give. The reason why I am still so disappointed that we are waiting that long is because all of us received these letters and these images from children asking for us to put this through immediately. I will leave my final words to the note I received that said: “I am nearly 5 years old. Please do not make me wait till 2018 for the clothing allowance. Grandma and grandad are on a pension.” I do not even think they should have to wait longer than tonight.MATT DOOCEY (National—Waimakariri):It gives me a great honour to rise and speak to this third reading of the Social Security (Clothing Allowances for Orphans and Unsupported Children) Amendment Bill. To start with a quote from Victor Hugo “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” I think the time for Tracey Martin’s idea has come. I think it is time for her bill to be passed into legislation. I acknowledge Tracey Martin. I am yet to have a member’s bill pulled out of the ballot myself so I congratulate her on following this bill right through the legislative process.I also want to take some time to acknowledge Tracey Martin for sharing some of her personal stories with us at previous readings to give this bill a context and a background. It is very much something to remind ourselves that in a country like New Zealand it is our personal stories and our experiences that bind us together and move this proud nation forward.While we are talking about the care of children I just want to acknowledge that yesterday was the International Day of the Midwife. New Zealand has a world-leading midwifery system and I think we need to take time to acknowledge yesterday’s International Day of the Midwife. I know that from personal experience. Obviously I did not use the service for myself but my wife did last year. It is a fantastic service especially for new parents who obviously do not have an instruction book and are learning as they go. To engage with your midwife at the start of the pregnancy and to have her support the whole way through from birth to aftercare is an amazing support. I worked for a number of years for the British National Health Service and I know for a fact that it does not have the level of care in midwifery and the same system of the continuity of care of one midwife through. So I just acknowledge midwives in New Zealand.This bill is about supporting children’s development. We know that children’s development is important. If a child does not develop rightly or correctly or go through the right transition of developmental stages this can cause problems and poor outcomes during their teenage years and later on in their lives. We know that for children especially from the ages of 0 to 3 years their brains are being hard-wired at this stage and there is a great amount of neurological development. In fact I went to a breakfast in the Grand Hall here a few weeks ago hosted by the Brainwave Trust which promotes understanding research and evidence around neurological development with young people. It is a very important stage of their lives and it is an amazing commitment that kin carers make to step in and support young children at this stage to ensure that they get the best start in life and to ensure that they reach their full potential.Of course not all kin carers will be supporting young children. Some will be stepping in at the age of a young adult. We know from our own experiences—I am sure that everyone in this House will know—that it is an important developmental stage being a young adult and moving into adulthood and there are a lot of issues going on around the time of pubescence to do with identity and making that transition towards supporting yourself. We do know that young people need good role models and they need good support systems round them. That is why this bill is right about supporting kin carers who step in to keep young people on the right track to making them productive citizens in New Zealand.I used to work in the Tavistock Clinic in London. It is where the attachment theory was developed by Bowlby. We know that young people who have a strong attachment to people in their lives whether it be their biological parents or kin carers will go on to lead very productive lives. So it is about supporting this. It actually reminds me very much of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. We know that young people have physiological needs around food water shelter and air and you can describe clothing as a physiological need for a young person. We know that young people need safety from violence and abuse. But it is also about love and belonging. I think that this is what this bill represents about supporting carers who take the decision to step in and provide love and belonging to young people who are not biologically their children.I think it is right that the Government takes steps to support these carers in any way it can. I do not think it is right that foster carers currently get this allowance but unsupported carers do not. It is great that this bill will give them parity. We know with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs that those young people who progress up that triangle go on to have self-esteem confidence and to make the right decisions in life. Of course the top is around the self-actualising of reaching their full potential. We know that we hope and aim for every young person in this country to go on and reach their full potential to be productive and to drive New Zealand forward.This member’s bill will give orphans and unsupported children a clothing allowance parity with foster children. Currently orphans and unsupported children including some who are looked after by their grandparents miss out on a clothing allowance that is available to foster children. The bill seeks more parity between the financial entitlements for orphans and unsupported children and the financial entitlements for foster carers.The purpose of this bill is to increase financial support for kin carers who are looking after children such as grandparents raising grandchildren. The Social Services Committee has suggested inserting a new section into the Social Security Act 1964 to add a clothing allowance for caregivers who receive an orphans benefit. This addition will ensure children are treated equally regardless of their circumstances and who their caregiver is.We know that there are up to 12000 New Zealand children being cared for by wider family members. That is 12000—that is a considerable group of young people in New Zealand. This might be because of the death of a parent or a breakdown in a family arrangement. I know for myself dealing with constituents in my area that I am supporting examples of this relationship. One couple who were actually friends of the biological parents decided to step in and look after two young kids. There was another example where grandparents decided to step in and look after a very young child.I know from my own experience—I am learning very quickly as a new parent—the commitment the patience and the resources that you need to be an effective parent. I can only imagine what it is like to step in to this arrangement with kin carers and to continue to provide those things. I think that needs to be applauded and that it is right that we are ensuring parity for the clothing allowance between foster carers and carers of orphans and unsupported children.This is part of a bigger picture—the White Paper for Vulnerable Children—committing an extra $10 million to provide further support for kin carers. The $10 million which is a capped fund has the agreement of the Minister for Social Development that they will work with Tracey Martin to look at providing further financial assistance to kin carers in a better more targeted way. There is a ministerial reference group that has been formed which includes representatives from the Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Trust which is currently working through options on how this extra funding will be applied. This member’s bill will give orphans and unsupported children clothing allowance parity and I commend it to the House. Thank you.JAN LOGIE (Green):It is with a slight sense of frustration that I am going to get only a minute to speak on this bill and that it is not going to pass tonight because we have had very long rambling speeches from Government members on bills that have unanimous support in this House. So often those speeches were not on topic and that has resulted in us being unable to pass this bill which is fundamentally about supporting orphans and unsupported children in this country. That to me is a pretty embarrassing reality for this House. Even though again—another embarrassing reality—that support would not kick in until 2018 because again of the miserliness and penny-pinching of this Government which is prepared to spend several million dollars on a flag referendum that nobody wants. It is spending more money on that than it would have cost to give equality to these children with a clothing allowance which was initially intended by the member.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.