Volume 688 Week 37 - Wednesday 20 March 2013 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 688 Week 37 - Wednesday 20 March 2013 
[Sitting date: 20 March 2013. Volume:688;Page:8687. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 20 March 2013 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Before we come to questions I would like to ask you to not now but with due consideration rule on a question of order in relation to the transfer of question No. 1 today. I think as you are aware this was originally lodged to the Prime Minister. It was slightly differently drafted and it asked the Prime Minister’s opinion on the Prime Minister’s criteria. As you are aware the question has been transferred. The Prime Minister has chosen not to answer the Leader of the Opposition’s question. I have been able to go back only to 2002 because that is as far back as the electronic records do show and there is no example in the period 2002 to 2013 where the Prime Minister has been shown in the House to be unwilling to answer a question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —well no this is a factual matter—unwilling to answer a question from the Leader of the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Has the member finished his point of order? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The last point that I would want to make is that the Prime Minister always holds information that is not available to other Ministers: the briefings from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the private briefings that he gets from business people in Auckland and in other places. When people want to question him on whether a particular criterion has been met it is his mind and the briefings that he has had that are important not those that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises has had. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: As I understand the point of order that has been raised by the member he is asking me not to disrupt the proceedings of the House today but to have a more significant look at it. I am only too happy to do that but I do refer to Speakers’ rulings which certainly give the Government the ability and the right to transfer questions as it sees fit. So we will proceed today—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! And I am happy to meet the member after question time to further discuss that matter. 
State-owned Assets Sales—Criteria 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Has the Government met the five criteria the Prime Minister laid out for proceeding with asset sales? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Yes. In particular one criterion was that New Zealand investors would be at the front of the queue and that we would need to be confident of widespread and substantial New Zealand share ownership. At 10 o’clock this morning the number of New Zealanders who had pre-registered their interest in Mighty River Power went over 400000. 
David Shearer 
: When the Prime Minister said that the third criterion would be that companies would need to present good investment opportunities for investors with which international investors had the Prime Minister had discussions that have yet to be made public? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: In respect of that answer of course I am not able to tell them exactly to whom the Prime Minister has spoken nor am I able to comment on the nature of the investment at this time. 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This just illustrates the inability of the Government to be able to answer a question from the Opposition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister addressed the question. He said he was unable to relate a conversation—[ 
Interruption 
] Does the member have further supplementary questions? 
David Shearer 
: When the Prime Minister said that the second criterion would be that New Zealand investors would need to be at the front of the queue for shareholding from which of his former colleagues from financial markets had he received briefings on this issue? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Look I do not think the Prime Minister needs any briefings from people on putting New Zealanders at the front of the queue because that is what this Government has done—400000 people have pre-registered. They know that by pre-registering they are entitled to more shares than those New Zealanders who do not pre-register and they know that there will be— 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a really straight question and this is not in any way close to an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And it was adequately addressed. The difficulty I think that the member has is the barrage of interjection coming from immediately behind him. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Does the member have a further supplementary question? 
David Shearer 
: Yes I do. What warning did the Minister of Finance give to the Prime Minister about issues arising from the Contact Energy float? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I know that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have had a large number of discussions over the Government’s mixed-ownership model programme. I am sure that the most recent discussion they will have had is about the 400000 New Zealanders who have expressed an interest by pre-registering for shares in Mighty River Power. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to rule on whether that question was addressed: what warnings did the Minister of Finance give in relation to Contact Energy? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member the Leader of the Opposition to re-ask that question. 
David Shearer 
: What warning did the Minister of Finance give to the Prime Minister about issues arising from the Contact Energy float? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have not been in any conversations where the Minister of Finance has given any warnings to the Prime Minister. What I do know is that the Minister of Finance will have told the Prime Minister that there were many New Zealanders who have expressed an interest in owning shares in Contact Energy and it still has one of the biggest share registries of New Zealanders of any company on the stock exchange. 
David Shearer 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The answer was not anywhere near the question. It illustrates the fact that if the question is going to be transferred to a lower Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
David Shearer 
: —they will not be able to know what is happening in the mind of the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Here is the real problem—that the Opposition have not accepted that the question lodged in the first place was inadequate to stand for the Prime Minister but most appropriately answered by the Minister for State Owned Enterprises—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is a point of order and it should be heard in silence. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: So showing his inability to shift the script the member needs to recognise that if he keeps asking his pre-prepared questions to the wrong Minister he will not get anywhere near the answers he wants. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Opposition does have a right to question the Prime Minister and the Speakers’ rulings particularly the rulings of the previous Speaker were quite clear that the more specific the question the more specific was the answer we could expect. It is very difficult to ask the Prime Minister a specific question if the minute we put something specific in it he uses that excuse to duck from it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have heard sufficient. At this stage I have said to the Hon Trevor Mallard with regard to the point he raised that I will have a look at that matter. It was accepted at the start that this question was put to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises. That is where the supplementary questions are going and in my mind that question was answered quite adequately on the basis of the question that was asked by the Leader of the Opposition. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I just ask then that in considering your ruling you do look at the video and tell us what the warnings were that Bill English gave to John Key. That was not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister when he answered said that he was unaware of any warnings. It could not have been clearer than that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: And— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We are now— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —getting to the point where we are relitigating a ruling that I have made. If it is a fresh point of order I will hear it. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was standing to agree with you. It was impossible for the Minister for State Owned Enterprises to know what was in those briefings. That was the point that I made at the beginning when I questioned the transfer. He could not answer for what was in the Prime Minister’s mind. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is always very comforting when the Hon Trevor Mallard rises to agree with me. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Will the Minister make it part of his key criteria moving forward to ensure that the prospectus for the asset sales will “clearly and prominently explain that the Crown’s decision regarding its 51 percent shareholding must be ‘consistent with the principles of the Treaty’ ” and how will this advice be enacted? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government has made it clear what its obligations are in respect of both the law and the views of the Supreme Court. 
Hon John Banks 
: Could the—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the question. 
Hon John Banks 
: Could the Minister for State Owned Enterprises tell me whether funds could be used from a secret bank account in New York to purchase shares in this initial public offering? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A legitimate question. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is a very good question because if a New Zealander was one of the pre-registered 400000 and they were able to get the benefits of that pre-registration in terms of their shares they would have to pay for them. We would be unclear of whether the bank account was secret or not but we would presume people would actually know they had a bank account. 
Bank Failure Management—Open Bank Resolution Scheme and Bank Deposits 
2. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Will New Zealanders have money taken from their bank accounts to fund a bank bailout under his proposed Open Bank Resolution scheme? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Hon Steven Joyce my office has been advised that this answer may be somewhat longer than normal because it contains quite some detail for the member. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I do not agree with the way the member has characterised the open bank resolution scheme. In the highly unlikely event that a New Zealand bank failed and went into statutory management the open bank resolution scheme would actually help depositors. The bank would reopen the next day and customers would have full or partial access to their funds which would then be Government guaranteed. That situation should be compared with two alternatives that would be on offer. One is that the bank would go into liquidation and customers may not have access to any of their funds for a long period. The other would be that the Government bail out a bank with taxpayers’ money and that comes with potentially enormous fiscal costs as we have seen with some countries in Europe. But again could I stress that this is a very unlikely situation. Our major banks are amongst the most highly rated in the world. They are well capitalised and have come through the global financial crisis in very good shape and since then regulatory changes have strengthened New Zealand banks even further. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific—will money be taken out of their bank accounts to fund a bank bailout? I am still no wiser as a result of the Minister’s answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The answer was very fulsome. Does the member have further supplementary questions? You can delve into it with your supplementary questions. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: What amount is likely to be taken out of mum and dad savers’ accounts under his open bank resolution scheme: will it be 10 percent of their savings 20 percent of their savings or whatever it takes? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have got to say that I am actually quite horrified at the member’s scaremongering at this point. It is a highly unlikely situation that the member suggests. The open bank resolution scheme is designed to protect the interests of depositors in the very unlikely situation that a New Zealand bank fails. I think scaremongering mum and dad investors about the sorts of percentages they might lose à la what has happened in Cyprus which is an entirely different situation is actually pretty irresponsible. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Having guaranteed the big end of town with the covered bonds legislation currently moving through the House will he commit to implementing Labour’s proposal to protect the deposits of ordinary New Zealanders which would ensure that the first $30000 of all bank deposits is guaranteed; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I actually struggle with the member’s question because I am pretty sure sitting in this House over the last 3 years or 4 years that the member and his colleagues have been massively critical of the outcome of the Government’s bank deposit scheme in terms of its protection of finance companies’ depositors. Now suddenly he is of a view that somehow the Government should step in again and protect depositors— 
Dr David Clark 
: Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars wasted. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No it was not wasted—it was not wasted at all. It was actually protecting the interests through the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme of New Zealand depositors. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect that did not even get anywhere near the question. I simply asked whether having guaranteed the big end of town through the covered bonds legislation he would commit to implementing the proposal we have put forward. He talked about the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme and responded to an interjection but he never answered or even addressed that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister said he did not accept the proposition that was put by the member. If the member wishes to ask further supplementaries he has the ability to do so. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member questioning my ruling? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Then it is a fresh point of order? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: It is Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And it is not to do with the question that has just been answered? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The Minister said he was struggling Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is now relitigating the decision I have just made. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister saying that it is not part of the open bank resolution scheme to access depositors’ accounts in order to fund a bank’s bailout? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think possibly it might be helpful for the House given that the member has raised the issue to take it through what actually does occur with open bank resolution which addresses the member’s question. Open bank resolution is one option for responding if a bank failure occurs. It actually helps depositors because it allows for a bank to reopen the next day hence the name “open bank resolution”. It means that customers would be able to get full or partial access to their accounts and other banking services while an appropriate long-term solution to the failure of a bank is identified. Some of their deposits could be frozen in the short term but the remainder would be available on the next business day and would actually be Government guaranteed. If you look at the alternative—if a bank went into liquidation—that process would be complex and time-consuming during which time customers would not have any access to their funds. In any event the first losses will be borne by the bank’s shareholders. The open bank resolution follows the usual order of credit preference as much as possible. It is also not intended to be the only option in the event that a bank got into difficulty. I would also point out to the member that this has been in the public domain since 2011 and has been raised and addressed by the Reserve Bank a number of times since then. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Question time does not make sense if it is not also answer time. It was a very direct question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! That was a very genuine attempt by the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet and if members want to stay to see the whole of question time they will be silent while I am on my feet. The Minister made a genuine attempt to explain open bank resolution. The answer may not be to the satisfaction of the member. The member has at this stage further supplementary questions if he wants to use them. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Could I ask the Minister why he would prefer an open bank resolution scheme which in part or wholly in extreme circumstances could see the depositor having all their money stopped from their use rather than a very sound scheme announced by me in October 2008—[ 
Interruption 
] Well we were there before you even did the ballot OK? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In 2008. It would have this effect: it would have the effect of a Government guarantee for the first $100000 of a deposit in a New Zealand - owned bank. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I could think of a number of issues with the member’s proposal immediately because what he would be proposing to do would be to guarantee a certain number of deposits in a New Zealand - owned bank which would mean that suddenly all the money would move particularly in a difficult situation like we have with the global financial crisis from other banks that were not necessarily New Zealand owned and that would collapse the other banks which I do not think would be in the interests of the financial stability of the New Zealand economy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: They’re all foreign owned. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Right so we should actually—here is what Mr Peters is suggesting in a xenophobic way. It is that we should collapse all the foreign-owned banks into the New Zealand—thank goodness he was not in Cabinet during the global financial crisis. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Will he guarantee that mums and dads will have at least $1000 left in their accounts after an open bank resolution of a failing bank? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member is deliberately scaremongering yet again about the New Zealand economy. What I can say to the member is this— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is a relatively easy question to answer. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: It is a straight question. He started abusing me—for what? He should just answer the question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Would the Minister please answer the question. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well the member raises a hypothetical that is just impossible to answer because he suggests that everybody should get $1000 out whether or not they have got it in there. The point is this: in the very unlikely event that a bank falls over there are three options. One is that people lose their shirts. The other option is that the taxpayer pays. The third option is the open bank resolution scheme which ensures an orderly process that actually has the best chance of protecting a depositor’s deposits. Those are actually the options on the table. The member has criticised the idea of taxpayers bailing out depositors. He is presumably not in favour of depositors losing their shirts so can I suggest to him that he look closely and positively at the open bank resolution scheme. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: So can the Minister please explain to me whether his answer to my last question—will he guarantee that mums and dads will have at least $1000 left in their accounts after open bank resolution—was no? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The point is that it is hypothetical and it actually does not take into account anybody’s situation. Look I appreciate that the member would just print some money and give it back to the depositors but actually—and here is a guy who claims to be concerned about people’s deposits— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a straightforward question the Minister had answered it—time to wrap it up. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It was a very political question and it got a very political answer back again. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does he not draw a strong line in the sand and protect mum and dad deposits as they do in Australia and the United States using deposit insurance and pick a minimum that would be protected such as $250000 as is the case in Australia and the United States? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: This is a member who is arguing against taxpayers stumping up for deposits one minute— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Would the member please repeat his question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: OK. Why does he not draw a line in the sand and protect mum and dad deposits to a certain minimum level such as $250000 like they do in Australia and the United States? It is a simple question. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I was pointing out to the member that what he is proposing is that effectively taxpayers stand behind those depositors which is what happens as I understand it in these offshore arrangements. He is also proposing— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: No. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well even if it is not the taxpayers then all he is going to do is make the depositors pay insurance every year for ever against the unlikely event of this actually occurring. Actually the far bigger issue the depositors would have with the value of the deposits would be if the Government got out the printing presses and printed money and inflated away the value of the deposits. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does he propose stealing savers’ money while they sleep when a fairer alternative would be to have the banks pay to insure themselves against failure like they do in nearly every other OECD country? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am sorry that is a preposterous political statement suggesting you would steal money from people’s accounts. The member is outrageously scaremongering once again in his own political interests. He has an appalling take on the New Zealand economy. How he thinks that what he is proposing now fits with his idea to print money and inflate away the value of people’s deposits is actually completely beyond me. It is totally inconsistent. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a letter from January this year seeking information under the Official Information Act from Treasury about open bank resolution alternatives that it has explored—a letter that has not been met yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A letter from the member himself? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: It is from my researcher to Treasury. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that letter. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Reserve Bank back to us saying that it would not be meeting our request within the time frame because it does not have the information yet. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a letter from the Reserve Bank back to the Green Party. Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There is. It will not be tabled. 
Government Financial Position—December 2012 Balance of Payments 
3. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s balance of payments? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Acting Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Statistics New Zealand this morning released the balance of payments for the December 2012 quarter. This showed a current account deficit for the year ended December 2012 of 5 percent of GDP up from 4.7 percent for the year ended September 2012. There was a decline in exports worth $1.3 billion for the year ended December 2012. It is pleasing to see New Zealand investors in foreign assets earning record high investment income and foreign investors in New Zealand reinvesting over 60 percent of their earnings over the last year. 
Todd McClay 
: What was driving the change in export earnings? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The value of dairy exports fell due mainly to falls in dairy prices compared with a year earlier although I would note that total dairy export volumes remain near record levels and prices are expected to be higher in the next quarter. Crude oil exports were lower and earnings from tourists declined due to lower spending although the number of tourists visiting New Zealand is up. Overall the significant growth that we have seen in the export sector in the previous 2 years has come off a bit in the last year but overall exports are up 15 percent in the 3 years to January. 
Todd McClay 
: What was the contribution of oil exports to the balance of payments and what is the Government’s approach to increasing oil exports? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Statistics New Zealand reported a 26.6 percent fall in oil exports in the year to December 2012 compared with the same period a year earlier. That shows the importance of growing exploration and responsible development of our oil resources. There is encouraging progress in this sector. The Government has awarded 10 exploration wells on a committed work programme totalling $82 million; Methanex has announced that new gas supply contracts will allow it to commence methanol production at its third train at Waitara; expansion of the Marsden Point oil refinery by 20 percent is under way; and the new Crown minerals bill to be passed by May of this year will streamline and simplify permitting processes. 
Todd McClay 
: How is the Government contributing to reducing the current account deficit? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: This is a very important point. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh really? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It would be helpful for you Mr Cosgrove. The current account deficit is funded by an investment inflow to New Zealand from foreigners which totalled $3.9 billion in the December 2012 quarter and $3.1 billion of this is the purchase of Government debt by foreign investors. That is why it is very important for the Government to remain focused on returning to surplus so it actually lowers its pressure to borrow on international markets and we are on track to achieve this. 
Orthopaedic Services—West Coast 
4. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his statements regarding “Better Sooner More Convenient” health care; if not why not? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes within context. I also stand by my statement that 30000 people were culled off elective surgery waiting lists and that real access to elective surgery was cut for New Zealanders over the 9 long years of the failed Labour— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Annette King 
: It had very little to do with the question but however— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well it was answered. 
Hon Annette King 
: When was he first informed that the orthopaedic clinics had been stopped at Buller Hospital 6 months ago and were unlikely to be reinstated for at least another 6 months according to the district health board? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would have to check my diary to advise the member of that. I am aware that those clinics have been suspended. They were not particularly regular before then but it is expected that those clinics will resume as what has happened in Buller is that rather than have those clinics provided by very expensive locums who have been flown down from Auckland the orthopaedic service in the West Coast area is now being provided by Christchurch orthopaedic surgeons—a part of that closer transalpine relationship. 
Hon Annette King 
: Well in light of that answer if his stated aim is to have “Better sooner more convenient care” in health services provided close to people’s homes why are Buller patients now waiting twice as long for their first specialist appointment as they were before his “better sooner” orthopaedic transalpine service was introduced last year? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What I can tell you is that the access of West Coast people to orthopaedic services is far better than that of most other populations of that type around the country. Look the district health board advises me— 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. He might like to answer the question I asked. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the member might like to give him an opportunity to answer the question. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! We are getting a perpetual barrage now from this side of the House when Ministers are attempting to answer the question. Before the Minister has a chance to sit down it has been raised as a point of order by the member that the Minister is not answering the question. You have got to give the Minister an opportunity to answer the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you are getting a barrage and it is unfortunate because it is often when you are ruling but I think the problem is that Ministers traditionally have given a flick at the end of their answers. They have started off straight and this Minister seems unable to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is certainly difficult when a Minister gives a flick at the end of the answer for me as Speaker to do much about it. The Minister was answering the question. I invite him to continue his answer. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The people of the West Coast do have very good access to orthopaedic services. I am advised that services to Buller—actually at the Buller Health centre—are expected to resume once the new service has bedded in at the West Coast hospital. We have put in an extra $12 million into the West Coast District Health Board. We are providing more operations and I can tell those people from Buller that unlike under the previous Government they will not be culled from the waiting lists. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of that answer has he been told there are ongoing teething problems with the new orthopaedic service in Greymouth relating to a shortage of orthopaedic surgeons and the reluctance of Canterbury orthopaedic surgeons to work on the West Coast leading to a 5-year-old girl having to be flown to Christchurch on the Solid Energy rescue helicopter for treatment for a broken arm? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would have to check the details of that claim from the member because my experience from last week is that it cannot be relied upon. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. His comments were to denigrate me rather than answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was certainly a charged political question. The answer was a charged political answer. Again we have got the—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! Again we have got the situation where the Minister is halfway through his answer and the member is raising a point of order about the quality of the answer. It has got to cease. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Can I ask you later to look at the answers from the Minister because you are allowing unnecessary political swipes when there have been straight questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I assure the member that I always take the opportunity of looking back at the transcripts. Would the Minister like to complete his answer? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes. I have been assured by the chief executive of the West Coast District Health Board that the board expects to provide a very similar if not slightly greater amount of orthopaedic services on the West Coast and you would expect that because we have put $12 million extra into the West Coast District Health Board over the last 4 years. 
Hon Annette King 
: If there are 800 more doctors working in district health boards since National became the Government—a claim that has been contradicted by his own officials—why has the West Coast not received its share of this huge increase in doctors so that its surgery can be provided closer to home with “faster treatment and a better chance for a healthier life.” all promised by him at the last election? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Because the latest information I have is that on the West Coast we have 12 extra doctors and 29 extra nurses over the last 4 years. Because we have put quite a lot of extra money into the West Coast District Health Board it is able to provide more services. We have got more specialist appointments and we have got more operations. We are working to make sure that we get best value for people. That is why it is making some changes in the way it delivers services—working closer with Christchurch—and that is pretty good for the people of the West Coast. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table a cutting from the front page of the  
Westport News 
 not a very widely read paper— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No it is available to members. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! It is available to members if they so want to get it. 
Grant Robertson 
: No not in Kaitaia. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it is you can go and get it off the net. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table for the Minister’s benefit photographic evidence of the Solid Energy rescue helicopter— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If you really think that is going to inform the House better I’ll put leave. Leave is sought by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to table such a photograph. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will note when you go back and look at the tape of today that this Minister doubted my word over a question last week and I want to table evidence out of the Greymouth newspaper that a child was flown to Christchurch with a broken arm. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The paper is available to members if they want it. We are moving— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I deliberately waited until the question had finished. I think my point of order was alluded to by the Hon Annette King. It is not open to members to question other members’ words in the House. When a member makes a statement in the House if it is not true and it is that sort of statement you may not effectively call them a liar as Tony Ryall did today— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. Order! I have heard quite sufficient. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I think that is an interesting point because in fact in a question there should not be a statement according to the Standing Orders. So if we get right down to the tight requirements of the Standing Orders in an answer then we should apply them in a question as well. So the statements that Mr Ryall refers to should never have been made in a question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the more important thing is that for any member to suggest that someone has been lying would be very serious. That is not what I took from the Hon Tony Ryall’s answer. What he was saying is that he would want the ability to go back and check the facts for himself. That is perfectly in order. There are many times that the word of one member is something that is questioned by another. This is a debating chamber. 
Crime Prevention—Pre-charge Warnings 
5. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: What reports has she received from Police on the success of pre-charge warnings? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Pre-charge warnings were introduced nationwide in September 2010 as an alternative resolution to low-level offending such as breaching a liquor ban or disorderly behaviour. In the 2011-12 financial year police issued just under 22000 pre-charge warnings which freed up around 37000 police hours. This is the equivalent of 21 additional front-line officers out in the community. The warnings also reduced the number of minor offences passing through the District Courts by 12 percent freeing up the court system. 
Mark Mitchell 
: What are the benefits of pre-charge warnings? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Pre-charge warnings are a common-sense and practical approach to policing. An offender is arrested and taken to the station removing them off the street and away from a volatile situation. They avoid a conviction for stupid behaviour that would probably have led to diversion but the warning goes on the offender’s record and is included in police crime statistics. An analysis of pre-charge warnings in 2011-12 found that nearly 80 percent of offenders were not arrested for a subsequent offence within 6 months of the receipt of a warning showing that police are using their discretion wisely and appropriately and that offenders are taking them seriously. 
Housing Affordable—Auckland Plan and Metropolitan Urban Limit 
6. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: Why did he tell the House that even if the Auckland plan took effect in September new subdivisions would not be available until 2016-17 when the advice he tabled from Roger Blakely of Auckland Council shows that if the unitary plan takes effect in September new land would be available two years earlier? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Let me quote my exact words as recorded in  
Hansard  
last Tuesday: “Even if the Auckland plan … took effect in September it would not mean that new residential subdivisions would be dealt with on a … non-publicly notified basis.”—i.e. subdivisions would have to be notified. I did not say that they would not be available. 
Phil Twyford 
: So who is right: the Minister who says that the Auckland plan will not deliver greenfield land until 2017 or Roger Blakeley of Auckland Council who says that the council will have sections on the market by 2015? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member seems to be missing the point in the difference between when sections and residential subdivisions are notified or not notified. If the plan takes effect in September as the Auckland Council suggests it would enable some new subdivisions to come on stream but they would need to be notified. That means a process of taking submissions and that means potential appeals to the Environment Court and that can take as long as 2 years. The point I was making—and I will make it to the member again—is that we need to get a point in Auckland where new land is available on a non-notified basis because I think as we all realise that is what is required to free up land supply and deal with the sorts of issues that have been the focus of the latest report from the IMF. 
Phil Twyford 
: If he does not want the metropolitan urban limit and he does not want the new Auckland Unitary Plan’s rural-urban boundary precisely where is the boundary he is proposing? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I had made plain that the metropolitan urban limit that currently exists within the Auckland Unitary Plan is a major barrier to housing affordability. That point has been made by the IMF along with concern about interest rates going up for ordinary New Zealand families and businesses. I noted earlier questions from members of the Opposition who are concerned about the balance of payments. Well why do they not support this Government in its attempts to free up land rather than defending a metropolitan urban limit that has failed in Auckland? 
Phil Twyford 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked where the member’s proposed boundary is for Auckland. He has not answered the question and he has been talking for quite a long time. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to have a look at the transcript at the end of the day and see that the Minister made a very genuine attempt to address the question. 
Phil Twyford 
: He did not address the question of where his boundary is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: He did address the question. The member has further supplementary questions if he wants to use them. 
Phil Twyford 
: What is he saying: that he wants no rural-urban boundary which will mean uncontrolled sprawl from Pukekohe to Warkworth; and why will he not come clean with Aucklanders and put up or shut up? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government’s position is very clear. We see the answer to Auckland’s housing challenges as a mix of both greenfield developments and brownfield developments. I am going to be meeting next Monday with the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of Auckland as this Government constructively works to deal with the housing affordability challenges in Auckland because we like members opposite are concerned about housing being more affordable for New Zealand families. 
Phil Twyford 
: How can he ask the Auckland Council to meet the Government’s demands when those demands are completely undefined and he has steadfastly refused to tell the people of Auckland where he wants the rural-urban boundary to be? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government has made plain that we see having only 2000 sections currently available in Auckland as not enough. This Government has made plain that in Auckland’s own plans about the number of—[ 
Interruption 
] I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The member asks a question. He immediately sits down and carries on with a barrage when I am sensibly trying to answer the very question the member raises. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is entitled to finish his answer and there will be silence from this side of the House while that happens. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government’s position is this: 2000 current sections are not nearly enough. The Auckland Unitary Plan sets down that the point of both subdivisions being ready and future land to be zoned is less than half what Auckland’s own council’s targets say it should be. So in terms of what the Government is wanting the Government is wanting the Auckland Council to free up sufficient land to take the pressure off the housing market and to make housing affordable for Aucklanders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not take this point of order because I was scared of being thrown out but I invite you to reconsider the ruling that you just made—that is that the Government can interject but the Opposition cannot. That is exactly what you said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not my ruling at all. After yesterday in the House there were calls to my office complaining about the level of noise. There have been interjections particularly from the back of the House there throughout the Hon Dr Nick Smith’s attempt to answer that question. The level of noise makes it very difficult for me to hear both the questions on many occasions and certainly the answers. I am asking all members to respect this House so that we can have an intelligent question time where we can listen to the questions and the answers. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that is what you meant then that could have been what you should have said. You said members on the left— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member is now relitigating my answer. The noise at that stage was coming from this side of the House. I meant what I said. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I agree with you that it has become very noisy. I would argue the key problem is that the decision or the ruling of Speaker Smith that a straight question gets a straight answer is no longer being upheld under your new Speakership. That is creating disorder. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is now questioning the competence and the bias of the Speaker. That is very serious. I am attempting to elicit sensible answers for members but on many occasions members are wanting the answer designed to their satisfaction. That is not what question time is. The question must be addressed but it will not necessarily mean that the question at all times will be answered to the satisfaction of the member asking the questions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to agree with what Dr Norman said but to make it clear that no one—and I do not think Dr Norman did—attributed bias to you. What he indicated what was that there is a different set of rulings and they are quite different. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept there are certainly different styles. From the moment you have a different Speaker you will have a different style. 
Welfare Reforms—Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill 
7. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: How will the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill back people off welfare and into work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Our reforms fundamentally change the way welfare is delivered in New Zealand. We are modernising the welfare system making it an active rather than a passive system through the investment approach. This legislation simplifies the welfare system places a greater focus on work and ensures that expectations and obligations are balanced with incentives and support. 
Alfred Ngaro 
: Why are these changes to New Zealand’s welfare system needed? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Firstly because people who need support deserve better than what the current system gives them. It writes many off to intergenerational welfare dependence. The lifetime cost of New Zealand’s current beneficiary population is $78 billion. This Government spends more than $7 billion on benefits a year. That is more than $20 million each day. But we say we are going to spend more on support more on the wraparounds that are needed for these people and more focus on helping them get ready for work. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What will the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill do specifically for the young university graduate who is on the unemployment benefit despite having applied for 70 jobs since last year other than change the name of the benefit she receives? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: What would happen with that university graduate is that they would go through quite a different system when they go into Work and Income. Work and Income would look at their strengths and their weaknesses and what they need in assistance to get jobs. More might be spent on actually getting them into the right training organisation so that they can get work-ready. It could look like a very different system for that university graduate. I could give you a hundred examples right now of people who have found work in the last week showing that the system has worked very well for them instead of the one little example that that member seems to like to come up with. 
Alfred Ngaro 
: How do these changes ensure a fairer welfare system balancing obligations and incentives? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We are requiring job seekers to be drug-free ready and work available we are stopping benefits for those on the run from the police who have an outstanding warrant for arrest and we have introduced new social obligations to ensure that the health and education needs of children of beneficiaries are met so that they get the best possible start in life. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Should a sole parent be able to study to become a nurse or a social worker while on the DPB or in her new categories of sole parent support or job seeker; if not why not? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It will depend on how that fits with their work-test obligations so that will depend on the age of the youngest child. If they are aged under 5 years old there will be absolutely no trouble in the parent studying full time. If they are aged 5 or over there may be some part-time work obligations alongside of them and the parent can still study if they are doing those. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: No they can’t. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes they can. They can perfectly well study and work 15 hours a week. In fact most of us did over this side. I know that the member would not be able to associate with that but that is actually true. Parents can study part-time or full-time and also meet their part-time work-test obligations which I think are entirely fair. 
Dotcom Case—Role of Government Agencies in Operation Debut and Briefings 
8. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements on the actions and involvement of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Government Communications and Security Bureau in Operation Debut? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does he stand by his statement that he was not briefed by the Government Communications Security Bureau about its role in Operation Debut either in his meeting on 22 December 2011 or in any subsequent meetings before September 2012? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes with the exception of the day that I went over on the 27th when the pin-size piece of iconic thing was put up on the thing but I was not told at that time. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can he confirm that Roy Ferguson from his own Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet was present at the debriefing on Operation Debut that was held on 16 February 2012? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot absolutely confirm that. It is most probably correct. I can confirm that the advice I have had from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet is that it neither advised nor discussed with me the Government Communications Security Bureau’s involvement in the Kim Dotcom case prior to 17 September 2012. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How does the Prime Minister expect anybody to believe that the subject of Dotcom was not raised referred to or covered with him as Prime Minister and Minister responsible for the GCSB at a meeting he had with the Government Communications Security Bureau on 24 February a meeting that took place 48 hours after the agency realised its mistake? Why would we believe that now? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because it happens to be true and to quote the member “I deal in the facts and only the facts.” 
Grant Robertson 
: Can he confirm that Ian Fletcher the director of the Government Communications Security Bureau was present at the debriefing on Operation Debut that was held on 16 February 2012? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have advice on that matter. It may or may not be correct. You could put that down to his office and they will tell you. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table an email from the Government Communications Security Bureau to the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand dated 15 February 2012 which lists the attendees from the bureau at the debrief beginning with the director Ian Fletcher. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that email. Is there—[ 
Interruption 
] Members are asking the source of that email. 
Grant Robertson 
: It is a court document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is before the court. I think that is very dangerous to table it. 
Hon Member 
: No it has been released. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It has been released? Then I will put the leave. It is for the House to determine. There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Any member has the right to object. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I want to clarify that the document I was trying to table was released to me by the court last week so it is not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that was understood when I put leave and on that basis it was still denied by members. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is a little unreasonable to leave the House or those who are watching the House under the impression that this document just had leave for its release declined on any old basis. The reality is it is a court document and it is not appropriate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Any member has a right—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I do not need assistance on this. Leave was put by me. Any member has a right to object. They do not have to give a reason. Objection was taken; it will not be tabled. [ 
Interruption 
] That sort of remark is not helpful to the order of the House. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! 
Grant Robertson 
: Is he aware of this slide from the PowerPoint presentation given at the debriefing on 16 February 2012 which shows that the issue of the residency status of Mr Dotcom was discussed at that meeting? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I have not seen that particular document but it is really important to understand that there is nothing new in what is going through here. There is absolutely nothing new here. When this matter was discussed last year I made it quite clear that there was a meeting that was held in the middle part of February where the issue of residency status for Kim Dotcom was discussed. It went off to the legal adviser at the Government Communications Security Bureau who confirmed things were right. In fact as I have publicly said the advice from the legal team at the bureau was wrong. That is all in the public domain and has been now for well over 6 months. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table this slide freely released to me by the court from a PowerPoint presentation given at the debrief on Operation Debut which indicates that the residency issue for Mr Dotcom was discussed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I put that does anybody want further information? Leave is sought for that. That is an objection. It will not be tabled. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In seeking leave to table documents members have been asked to explain the source of the documents—in other words who generated the document the date of the document and a brief description of the document. Members have never been asked in the House before to identify how they came to get the document which is what the new precedent that seems to be happening— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I sought whether any further information was required. It was clearly going to be denied—it was denied. That is the privilege of any member of the House. 
Grant Robertson 
: Is he aware of the affidavit of Detective Inspector Grant Wormald that he spoke immediately after the 16 February meeting to a Government Communications Security Bureau staff member who raised the issue that the interception of Kim Dotcom “may not have been lawful because of their residency status.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and it is the same answer as the answer that I gave to the question before this which was that on that date there was a discussion about the residency status of Kim Dotcom. What happened was that the Government Communications Security Bureau went off to its senior legal adviser Hugh Wolfensohn and asked for advice about whether the operation was legal. The advice that was given—the best of the legal advice presented by Hugh Wolfensohn—was that it was legal. That was the position that everyone believed to be the case until early September 2012. As we now know the bureau and Mr Wolfensohn were wrong. 
Grant Robertson 
: In light of that answer how does the Prime Minister explain the affidavit that was put to the court on 17 September 2012 that indicates that the Government Communications Security Bureau was aware on 22 February that the surveillance was unlawful? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: An affidavit is what somebody believes. I am not sure which particular affidavit the member is talking about but— 
Grant Robertson 
: If you let me table it. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well they are court documents and this is a matter before the courts but I go back to the same point. No one at any time in the last 6 months to the best of my knowledge has argued that point—that in the middle of February there was a discussion between I think the Organised and Financial Crime Agency of New Zealand and the Government Communications Security Bureau about the legality of the work that was undertaken by the bureau. It went—well the member shakes his head but it is a statement of fact—it went off to the legal adviser at the bureau who provided advice to it that it was legal. It later on proved to be wrong. That is what we have been saying now for 6 months—the Government Communications Security Bureau got it wrong. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table an affidavit from a Government Communications Security Bureau staff member given on 17 September 2012 that indicates that this person learnt on 22 February that Mr Dotcom and his family were persons holding residence-class visas and that this meant— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that affidavit. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does he explain that he was not briefed about the role of the Government Communications Security Bureau in the Dotcom raids when the director of the bureau two deputy directors an assistant director a unit manager from the bureau a member of his own department and senior members of the police were all present at a discussion about the fact that the surveillance of Mr Dotcom may well have been unlawful? How come he was not briefed? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Quite simply. I am not advised on any of the operational matters that the Government Communications Security Bureau is undertaking. In fact that is not the standard practice and it was never the standard practice for the previous Prime Minister either. If the member—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If the member wanted to make the case that I was going to be briefed as the Minister—which is actually the Minister responsible for the direction and the priorities of the agencies—that I was actually being briefed on every operation that was being undertaken then the member is wanting New Zealanders to believe that I direct those operations in the same way that they would want the Minister of Police to believe that they were directing those operations. By the way as all the facts will show in the history of time there is absolutely nothing different in my approach to the same approach that was taken by Helen Clark. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why should New Zealanders not believe that this was in fact a cover-up when the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau two deputy directors an assistant director a unit manager from the bureau and someone from his own department did not report to him that there was unlawful surveillance that had taken place which they knew on 22 February? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well one good starting point would be the Inspector-General who actually— 
Grant Robertson 
: He became involved in September. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well but he reviewed the file and came back and said: “This is how the error was undertaken.” I mean the member can spin it any way he likes but the reality of the situation is that a raid was undertaken the Government Communications Security Bureau was involved it believed it to be legally correct later on it was questioned whether it was it went— 
Grant Robertson 
: They never even checked the residency status. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well the point there is that the bureau ultimately went and checked with its legal adviser in February. The legal adviser went back and said— 
Grant Robertson 
: After it was over—great! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well look the member can go on and on and on because he does not want to hear the facts. But if you want to hear the facts we will run through it. It undertook a raid. Basically it questioned whether it was right. It went and got legal advice. Its legal advice said: “You are totally entitled to do what you are doing.” and it was wrong. 
Flu Vaccine—Free Access 
9. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What is the Government doing to extend access to free flu vaccines? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the Minister of Health: Around 400 New Zealanders die directly or indirectly each year from influenza. Last year the disease put more than 1000 people in hospital and nearly 50000 people visited their general practitioner with influenza-like illnesses. The Government is announcing today that children under 5 who have been hospitalised for respiratory illness or who have a history of significant respiratory illness will be able to receive a funded influenza vaccination this year following a recent Pharmac decision. That means that from 1 April the parents of these children will have the option of vaccinating their under-fives who have conditions like asthma which previously did not meet the funding criteria. That will better protect them from influenza. 
Scott Simpson 
: What result would the Government like to see from the influenza vaccination campaign this year? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: Last year around 23 percent of New Zealanders—that was around half a million—had a flu vaccination. The goal this year is to vaccinate more than double that number—1.2 million people. The flu vaccination is available free to those who have the greatest risk of serious influenza complications including New Zealanders over the age of 65 pregnant women and people with ongoing health conditions such as asthma or heart conditions. It is available from all general practitioner clinics. 
Welfare Reforms—Sanctions and Impact on Children 
10. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Does she have an obligation as Social Development Minister to ensure all policy she is responsible for will be good for children and their families? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Of course. That is why we have already introduced a number of policies that are in the interests of children and of course we have a number coming up. Our welfare reforms are ensuring they are in early childhood education are visiting their general practitioner and being Well Child / Tamariki Ora checked. There is also the Children’s Action Plan which is tackling the root issues of abuse and neglect and is getting in before they have to go under Child Youth and Family. We are also changing how we contract with NGOs to give those services on the ground bigger flexibility about how they work with us. Those are just a few of what I could mention. 
Metiria Turei 
: Why did the Minister then ignore the strong and persistent warnings from the Ministry of Health that her welfare reform sanctions for Well Child / Tamariki Ora checks would cause “substantial negative impacts on families and to vulnerable children including risks of increased maltreatment and neglect.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It would be fair to say that there is a range of advice that has come on as to whether or not sanctions within the benefit system are actually what is best for children. Certainly what I have seen is that sanctions actually work and the advice I have got says exactly that. I could take you to the  
New Zealand Herald  
editorial of 13 September 2012 which I think wraps it up quite well. It said: “It would make the child suffer for the parent’s failing—but then the child is probably suffering anyway. A benefit cut would be preceded by three reminders to comply. Defiance to that degree would signal something seriously amiss.” 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a response to an Official Information Act request that I have made from a Ministry of Health brief comment seeking changes to the regulatory impact statement for the welfare reforms dated 25 July 2012 indicating substantial negative impacts on families from the sanctions and concerns about— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. It can be tabled. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: Did the health Minister Tony Ryall ask her to find less damaging alternatives to the financial sanctions regime for Well Child / Tamariki Ora checks after he was urged to intervene by his Ministry of Health officials who warned: “We anticipate that the sanctions would have a negative impact on the health of sanctioned beneficiaries and their families. We also expect that those sanctioned will be more likely to defer health care and present at emergency departments.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Well it is the member’s own emphasis to say “less damaging”. We on this side obviously think it is incredibly damaging not to have your child enrolled for Well Child / Tamariki Ora checks with a GP and with a primary health organisation. It is actually incredibly damaging not to have them immunised and attending health care and being looked after when they actually need it. We see that as actually being worse for the child than what we are doing in saying please put your child first and get these things done. 
Metiria Turei 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked whether the health Minister made a request to her based on information he had received from his own officials. She did not address that question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to put that question again but that was a very long question which was part of the problem. If you make the question more concise it is easier for me to ensure you get the question addressed. 
Metiria Turei 
: Did the health Minister Tony Ryall ask her to find less damaging alternatives to the financial sanctions regime for Well Child / Tamariki Ora checks after he was urged to intervene by his own Ministry of Health officials? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: A range of Ministers including the Minister of Health— 
Hon Annette King 
: She asked about Tony Ryall. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: —have been actually active in developing this policy around sanctions and did bring to our attention other officials and their opinions. However it is the belief of this side of the House that these reforms actually put the interests of children first. Actually it is best for them if they have Well Child / Tamariki Ora checks if they are actually enrolled with a GP or a primary health organisation and if they are getting access to the kind of health care that they deserve. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: For the benefit of the Hon Annette King I invite her to have a look at the transcript. The Minister said a number of Ministers including Mr Ryall spoke to her so the question was addressed. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a document a response to an Official Information Act request dated 25 May 2012 from the Ministry of Health which is a report to the Hon Tony Ryall seeking that he ask the welfare reform Ministers to further investigate alternatives to the significant financial sanctions for non-compliance— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. It may be tabled. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Metiria Turei 
: How can the Minister stand here with a straight face and tell the House that these reforms will be better for children when the advice from the Ministry of Health says that there is no strong evidence that health-related social obligations are needed expresses concern that there are risks to the Well Child / Tamariki Ora checks if the checks are seen as a punishment or a sanction and says that the best way to reach the families not receiving Well Child / Tamariki Ora checks is by improving delivery not imposing financial sanctions which will lead to further harm to the child? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Hon Paula Bennett—any part of that question the Minister wishes to answer. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think that it is fair and reasonable to expect that these children are being put first. What we have done is that people are given at least three chances to comply. To be sanctioned by 50 percent—and the maximum they can be sanctioned is by only 50 percent—they then have to have not complied three times. They then get ample opportunities to actually then comply and get that benefit put straight back on. Actually to date for those who have had a work-test sanction on clients with children there have been only 35 who have had a sanction longer than 8 weeks. One has to ask themselves after all the contact that Work and Income have with them why they have not re-complied within that 8 week period. I think that is entirely reasonable. 
Drought Conditions—Government Response 
11. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for Primary Industries 
: What announcement has he made on the drought in New Zealand? 
Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister for Primary Industries) 
: 
 Last Friday I announced that a state of drought has been officially declared throughout the entire North Island. This announcement means that extra funding will be available to rural support trusts that work closely with farmers providing support and guidance. Of course rural assistance payments are also available from Work and Income in cases of extreme hardship and the Inland Revenue Department can provide flexibility in the timing of tax repayments. I acknowledge that this has been a particularly tough time for farmers and would like to assure them that this Government backs them. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: What has the recent rain meant for drought areas? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The rain over the last few days has been a very welcome relief. It has psychologically lifted spirits. It has also meant that some green grass shoots have reappeared. Although we have received substantial rain here in Wellington it is not widespread as many people think. I am continuing to closely monitor right across New Zealand. 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: What initiatives is the Government undertaking to reduce the impact of droughts in the future? 
Hon NATHAN GUY 
: The last few months have shown that action is needed to take account of managing our water in a more productive manner. New Zealand does not have a water-supply problem. We have a water-storage problem. That is why the Government is investing up to $400 million on irrigation projects. We will establish a Crown company to oversee Crown investments in these schemes. I encourage all political parties to support this important infrastructure investment. It is good for productivity and good for the economy. 
Canterbury Recovery—Investigation of Fraud Allegations 
12. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Have allegations of fraud and corruption involving Canterbury earthquake recovery and rebuild contracts been raised with him as Minister; if so what specific steps has he taken to address them? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 Yes there have been allegations sent to my office and these have been directed to relevant agencies for investigation. Research shows that there are considerable risks of fraud and corruption in post-disaster recovery and this is why the interagency fraud group which includes the police and the Serious Fraud Office has been proactively monitoring the rebuild. This is in addition to processes put in place by the Earthquake Commission and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority to investigate allegations. The Office of the Auditor-General is also closely monitoring the major expenditure in Canterbury. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How long did it take the Minister to find out that work had been scoped and invoiced for but not done? I will give you four examples. Ten piles were to be done. One pile was done and the others were not—nine were not—but they were all invoiced for. A removed disposed re-gibbed ceiling was not done but was invoiced for which is common at the moment. Work to remove dispose of and replace lining paper and paint was not done but was invoiced for. Scaffolding was claimed to be used but was never ever on the property when the repair was done. How long did it take him to find out that this was going on and what is the level of the fraud? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The project management office which I assume was involved with the jobs that the Minister has spoken of— 
Hon Judith Collins 
: The member. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —the member has spoken of sorry—has been aware right from the outset that there was potential for bad behaviour and has therefore investigated these sorts of allegations. If the member wants to give me the details of those allegations I am very happy to see them prosecuted further. Although the member can sit there and say that I am the Minister there have actually been nearly 35000 of these jobs completed. I am sorry but I do not have the details of every one of them. If he has got information that someone is ripping off the taxpayer put it on the table so we can sort it. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the total cost of fraud and corruption detected in the Canterbury earthquake recovery and rebuild estimated to be between $130 million and $240 million and given countless warnings that this would happen why did he allow it to happen? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not know where that figure came from. We do not want any fraud. That is why we have a proactive group of interagency authorities making sure that we do not get this sort of thing happening and why if anybody is caught fraudulently invoicing the Earthquake Commission or the Fletcher EQR office they will get dealt to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: If Fletcher Construction was overall project manager for most of the 33398 houses that have been completed to date and if it has charged for the scope of works for each house and invoiced that work then what is the level of Fletcher’s involvement in this corruption and fraud? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This has got all the hallmarks of— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. When the majority of contracts are scoped and an invoice is signed off by Fletcher’s I am asking him what its level of involvement is. He started to say that it had got all the hallmarks of something. I want to know what the answer is. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the important point is that he had just started. If the member would allow the Minister to answer the question please. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member is putting his question on the basis that he has information that frankly I do not have. So if he would like to give it to me we will take it apart. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This Minister has had over 3 hours to get the answer ready. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Would the member raise his point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I am getting to the point of order but I am trying to justify why the point of order is a reasonable one— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just get to the point of order. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —that you should seriously consider. He is the Minister. He has had 3 hours to get this ready. He has got a whole lot of staff— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: My point of order is that it ill behoves you to allow him to ask me for the evidence when he is paid to do that and he has got hundreds of public servants to do that as well. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The question says: “Have allegations of fraud and corruption involving Canterbury earthquake recovery and rebuild contracts been raised with him as Minister; if so what specific steps has he taken to address them?”. I am happy to table the answer—if he would not understand it if I read it—but I said yes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister gets up reads out the primary question which was not the question he was asked to address and which I have raised my point of order on and you find that acceptable. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is enough time wasted on this. The member asked the question. The Minister addressed the supplementary question satisfactorily. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is it a fresh point of order? 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is a fresh point of order. Are you saying that the Minister’s answer to my question was the same question I put in the primary question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I am not. I am saying that the Minister adequately addressed the supplementary question. 
General Debate 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. Paula Bennett will put children at risk of worsening illness—as she leaves the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It is not appropriate to refer to any member leaving the House. Would those who are choosing to the leave the House please do so quietly as the member has every right to have her contribution heard. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Paula Bennett will put children at risk of worsening illness inadequate health care and even maltreatment as she and her Government continue to pass the welfare reforms and they do not care. How do they know about these risks? Because the Ministry of Health told them over and over and over again. The ministry provided briefings on changes to the text advice to the Minister and pleas to the Minister that these reforms—the Well Child compulsion the severe financial sanctions—would cause beneficiaries and their children harm. 
I want to go through some of that advice so that people out there can understand just how seriously the Ministry of Health took these welfare reforms in its concern for child health. In May 2012: “The Ministry of Health expects that income sanctions will have a negative impact on the health of sanctioned beneficiaries and their families. We predict that these people will defer health care. We predict that these people will increasingly present at emergency departments rather than primary care.” It said that “The cost to the health system will increase accordingly.” Again in May in tracked changes to a Ministry of Social Development Cabinet paper it said: “There are risks to the Well Child programme if the checks are seen as a punishment or a sanction. One of the valuable traits of Well Child has been that it is non-threatening and has a high degree of public and family acceptability.” Further emails have passed between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Social Development over this. Over and over the ministry tells the Minister of Health and the Ministry of Social Development that the sanctions will harm families. It even had to ask the Ministry of Social Development to rewrite parts of its report. The Ministry of Health says: “Please replace the phrase ‘MOH notes’ with the phrase ‘The Ministry of Health has a strong preference that engagement on the Well Child programme does not become mandatory.’ ” 
The ministry officials appealed to the Minister of Health Tony Ryall asking him to please put this information to the welfare reform Minister. They said: “The ministry is concerned about such heavy financial sanctions being applied. We anticipate these sanctions would have a negative impact on the health of sanctioned beneficiaries and their families. We expect that those sanctioned will be more likely to defer health care and present at emergency departments. We can do better to reach families not receiving Well Child checks by improving programme delivery.” It is over and over. 
Just as one example of the Draconian intention by the Ministry of Social Development in July the Ministry of Health asked the Ministry of Social Development to do this: “Please remove the word ‘surveillance’. The Well Child programme is not designed or intended as a mechanism for surveillance of beneficiary families or indeed any families. It is a health promotion child development programme that works on the basis of partnership and engagement between the practitioner and the parent and the child. Don’t use it to investigate families.” Despite the false claims by Paula Bennett that this compulsion is necessary for poorer families the ministry says that there is no strong evidence that health-related social obligations are needed. Then after months of persistent health advocacy for children the Ministry of Health asked that the regulatory impact statement attached to the bill note some key warnings: that the Well Child programme itself could be threatened if it becomes mandatory that sanctioned parents can face significant barriers to compliance and finally that there will be some substantial negative impacts on families who ultimately face financial sanctions not least because it is noted in the regulatory impact statement that child maltreatment and neglect is particularly sensitive to parental income where lack of resources limits their ability to meet children’s basic needs. Over and over and over the Ministry of Health told the Minister of Health the Minister for Social Development and the Ministry of Social Development that these financial sanctions for the Well Child checks the welfare reforms would cause children harm. It has solutions to increase the number of children who are registered with the Well Child system. It has ways of delivering a decent and better programme to those families. Paula Bennett knows that children will be harmed by her welfare reforms and she will do it anyway. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 Hands up all the members of this House who have realised in the last 48 hours that they are in possession of a foreign bank account with $100000 in it—in fact they had forgotten about it and they have just suddenly remembered they had it stashed away. David Shearer is the only member of the House who could put his hand up. The offence here is not that he has a foreign bank account and not that he has $100000 or more in that bank account but that he flagrantly disregarded the Standing Orders of this House and disrespected this House for 4 years by not declaring it on his pecuniary interest register. The question has to be why because the “forgot” answer does not wash. It is astonishing that the leader of a political party that pillories people for their wealth and pillories people for their memory lapses is able to say he just forgot at the same time that he is telling John Banks he should exit Parliament for receiving a $500 gift basket. That is typical of the double standard that we have come to know from the Labour Party and that is now sanctioned it would seem by the leader himself. 
What would you be more likely to do: remember that you had $100000 in a foreign bank account or remember a small picture on the corner of a laptop screen at the start of a briefing? Because what David Shearer has said is that the Prime Minister should have—in fact he called him a liar when he said he could not remember that small picture. Well what we are seeing here today and have seen over the last couple of days actually is the extreme deception of David Shearer in not declaring that particular asset. Although his party members over there might like to sit there shaking their heads sort of smiling I do not think they have understood how offensive it will be to New Zealanders that someone is trying to hide a foreign asset. That is completely wrong and somewhat inexplicable. 
So as I said earlier it does not matter that he has a foreign bank account. It does not matter that he has a large sum of money in it. But it does matter that he forgot about it. It does matter that he decided year after year after year not to tell the Parliament that he had it. For someone to take the wrong turn on the motorway once is forgetful; to do it four times is plain stupid. That is the class that Mr Shearer has now put himself into. It is interesting though that he has this I guess you would say habit of being forgetful. He forgot who the painter was on the roof who had a benefit who he said should have been off the roof and doing something else. He forgot about that. He forgot about the video that he told everyone existed but did not exist. So this forgetfulness has been a sort of hallmark of him but I do not think it is a forgivable thing. 
It is also interesting to note that when Mr Shearer who sets such high standards received the Auditor-General’s report on the—what is it called here— 
Inquiry into 
decision by Hon Shane Jones to grant citizenship to Mr Yang Liu 
 he actually by the time he got to the end of it decided there was nothing in here to worry about and that he would go out to the public and say that it all showed nothing. I think he forgot the most important part of that report right at the start where the Auditor-General says that they were not able to investigate any of the accusations or allegations made against Mr Liu and therefore they were not able to investigate all of those suggestions that there was something untoward in the way in which this particular case was dealt with and that they could not look into why it was that just 4 hours after receiving an Official Information Act request Mr Jones had the officials in his office the information on the table and the information in the hands of Mr Liu the following day. A short time after that Mr Jones made a decision that despite the advice from his officials he was going to grant the citizenship and then a day later Mr Liu is dragged into Parliament— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member’s time has expired. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 There are two words for the member who has just resumed his seat or it may actually be one word: Tranz Rail—Tranz Rail shares. If that member Gerry Brownlee wants to get up and talk about forgetfulness about overseas transactions—this side of the House knows very well the record of his leader on that. The record of his leader on brain fades when it comes to issues like Kim Dotcom—when he was briefed what he knew—exceeds anyone else in this House for forgetfulness. I am going to miss Mr Brownlee from our Friday evening chats which he has pulled out of because apparently I was all over him and he could not get a word in edgeways. Well sorry about that Gerry—bad luck! We will see you back any time you like on the radio on Friday. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. No one is going to call me a coward for getting away from Grant Robertson being all over me. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a point of order. That is a debatable matter. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: In your dreams Gerry! In your dreams! 
New Zealanders rightly expect a standard of transparency accountability and fairness from their Government. They think that when somebody gets into Government they will take seriously their responsibilities as a Minister. What we have seen in the debacle over the Government Communications Security Bureau’s involvement in Operation Debut the Kim Dotcom case is a complete lack of oversight from the Minister responsible for the GCSB John Key. 
We are asked to believe that an operation that has been described by the police as an unprecedented role for the bureau was not even reported to the Prime Minister. That is what we are being asked to believe. We are being asked to believe that when spying went on at the behest of the FBI the Prime Minister did not know. We are being asked to believe that our spy agencies having worked out on 22 February that they were spying unlawfully did not tell their Minister the Minister in charge. That is what we are being asked to believe. 
But the bottom line is that whichever way we look at it at best John Key’s oversight of this agency has been loose and lax and at worst he is part of a cover-up because what we see in the papers that have been released by the court is a pattern of behaviour that sought to minimise the actions that were being undertaken. There is not much that is more serious in our country than the power to spy on people. That is why the Government Communications Security Bureau Act says that New Zealanders and New Zealand residents in particular are not allowed to be spied upon. 
The Government Communications Security Bureau went into this surveillance operation without even sorting out the residency status of the person who was under surveillance. That is incredibly sloppy. It is not the kind of thing that New Zealanders would expect. Twice during the process—once in mid-December 2011 and once in early January 2012 when the surveillance was still under way—the police became aware that Mr Dotcom was a resident and therefore should not have been under surveillance. That is bad enough but then on 16 February a meeting was held where Ian Fletcher the director of the bureau somebody who reports directly to the Prime Minister was present at a briefing where Kim Dotcom’s residency status was discussed and immediately after which it was realised that the spying had been unlawful. That is Mr Key’s chief spy was there in the room a person whom Mr Key may well know very well in other ways as well and he did not report this to Mr Key. That is what we are asked to believe. If it is true it is a kind of oversight that New Zealanders would be ashamed of. We expect our Prime Minister to actually act on behalf of New Zealanders and play the role that he is meant to play in overseeing the spy agency. He has shown no signs of taking responsibility for his actions. 
This is a Government that is more interested in deals with its mates than it is in governing in the interests of New Zealanders. It is a Government that is so mired in scandals and so focused on its own mates and lining their pockets that it has lost its focus on what it is meant to be doing which is helping make New Zealanders’ lives better. Well I can be absolutely clear with you today that help is on its way. The Labour Party sees this Government in decline and in 2014 New Zealanders will get the Government they deserve—a Government for the people of New Zealand not the mates of the National Party. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 If that was not so sad it would be funny. I mean that really was an appalling attempt to pull out the old leaf of the Labour Party playbook which is that when you are in desperate trouble when your leader is in a bit of a difficulty then you reheat an old allegation from months ago drag it out and pretend it is new stuff—new stuff from Mr Robertson but only because his leader is in trouble of his own. That is the reality of it because the Labour Party has got a problem. It is a shrill out-of-touch Opposition party and it has decided that what it needed after getting a trouncing in the 2011 election was a fresh public face to speed it back into office in 2014. It wanted a short cut. It did not want to change any of its policies. In fact it did not want to change any of its long-standing members. What it wanted was a short cut back to the Treasury benches so Labour members cast around the caucus. They found a guy. He could not actually string several words together but they found him and they said: “He can be the modern face of the party. Send him out there.” They got him to talk about the fact that he was not a politician that he was an anti-politician and that he would not play gotcha politics and would actually just talk about what New Zealanders wanted. And it did not work. He did not say anything. He did not do anything. He was a rabbit that they could not get to run. 
So very quickly the old Labour Party reasserted itself and started getting him to say some things that were palpably going to be contradicted and this one is the one that has caught him this week. On Thursday 26 July last year he said in regards to John Banks that because he had forgotten something: “On the basis of his memory lapse alone John Banks is not fit to serve as a Minister.” That is the standard that this Mr Shearer set. Then of course we have the issue of the last few days when quite palpably he cannot meet that standard himself because he has had to go out there and correct his pecuniary register. There is no problem with that. Members do make mistakes with their pecuniary register and they have to go and fix it but this member has made the mistake 4 years in a row. For 4 years in a row he has not actually got around to doing it and weirdly he was able to tell the Inland Revenue Department he had this offshore bank account for each of those 4 years as he filed his tax return. So he did not remember it for his pecuniary register but he remembered it for the Inland Revenue Department. And that I am sorry is very hard to believe. 
But OK maybe he is the sort of person who has a lazy $50k lying around somewhere—maybe he is—but if that is the case then why will he not tell us the amount that is in the account? That would actually help us understand whether he was just forgetful. Maybe it is OK to forget $50k but is it OK to forget let us say over $100k as he sort of admitted last night on Radio Live? Or is it maybe $200k or $300k? He is saying it is between him and his family. What he is saying is that it is embarrassing and he does not want to talk about it any more. So his problem is he is hoist by his own petard. Nobody is saying it is the world’s worst thing except he was the guy who turned round last year and said of John Banks that on a memory lapse alone he should not be in Parliament. He also said by the way that John Key was in trouble because he had a brain fade. Well this is the biggest brain fade I have seen in 4 years in this Parliament because it is not once; it is twice it is three times it is four times. 
But that is not so bad because the other attempt of the Leader of the Opposition has been to play gotcha politics on Office of the Auditor-General reports and has that not ended badly—has that not ended badly? He has been spending his time harrumphing away about the convention centre report and going on about how it is terrible. Then weirdly—not the same issues—another report came out that sort of suggests that actually there was a “hear no evil see no evil speak no evil” former associate immigration Minister who did not ask why it was that he disagreed with officials who did not want to know and who did not ask the questions. He was sent in to do one citizenship application which weirdly was for a donor of the Labour Party. Then that person miraculously got his citizenship and the next day was presented with a citizenship ceremony at Parliament. And somehow that is OK—that is just fine—whereas compared with the convention centre that is a million miles off being fine. That is absolute rubbish and it is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member’s time has expired. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 The Government has made the Christchurch rebuild a top priority. It is putting great weight on the rebuild to drive the economy. Indeed it has little else as an economic strategy to reinvigorate the economy. The fact is that if the rebuild falters New Zealand falters. We must get the rebuild right or the cost to the nation will be enormous. So it is time for some scrutiny of the Government’s approach to the rebuild. 
After 2 years of policy stagnation inaction on insurance issues grossly unfair decisions on red zone property owners lack of progress on road repairs poor progress on home repairs and rebuilds unaddressed health issues arising from silt pools under homes in many parts of the city—and other health issues—the sheer number of complaints about the performance of the Earthquake Commission and the similar number of complaints about Fletcher’s performance including allegations of fraud and corruption over the monitoring of home repair contracts the only fair assessment of the Government’s performance is that it has failed in its duties and has failed to provide the leadership needed. Some serious wrongs are being committed too. They say that power corrupts and there is a real sense of hubris attaching to the Minister responsible for the Christchurch rebuild. Minister Brownlee is behaving increasingly like a Soviet-style commissar whose word is above the law. His arbitrary edicts are punishing the innocent. 
Holders of vacant sections in the red zone have been robbed—robbed of 50 percent of their land value and robbed of the compensation any other Kiwi would get if the Government effectively took their land. The Government can no longer sustain some of its shoddy policy-making over red zoned land. The use of outdated inaccurate 2007 rating values was bad enough but the treatment of owners of vacant sections is utterly unconscionable. In New Zealand it has long been accepted that if the Government compulsorily takes land then it pays the fair market price for that land. That means the pre-earthquake pre - red zone value for that land. Most Kiwis accept that it is a matter of simple fairness that the Government would not take advantage of a disaster situation to acquire land at less than its fair value. 
Here is part of an email I received only today from a distressed owner of a red zone vacant section who is distraught about the coming 31 March deadline: “With the red zone section owners’ deadline of March 31 fast approaching and both Brownlee and Sutton refusing to justify what is happening but saying ‘Take 50 percent or we can force acquisition at a lower price.’ we are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I understand there is some sort of parliamentary finance committee looking into the situation and its submissions close April 15. But we have to accept the offer by March 31. This is just one example of the ridiculous situations we have had to deal with. Two years of stress waiting for any decision is equally ridiculous. I understand you are busy but this insane situation is reaching a climax and the 100 families facing financial ruin—bankruptcy in some cases—are desperate for help before March 31.” That says it all really. 
The other big area of Government failure is of course insurance. It is high time for the Government to sort out the insurance debacle. A great volume of contested insurance claims continue to fester causing untold grief and anguish to totally innocent parties. Blameless people are facing the guile the manipulation and the artifice of well-practised insurance companies. Why is the Government not proactively supporting people who have paid their insurance bills in good faith for most of their lives? Why has no support system been put in place by the Government to help insurance-stressed people? Many cannot afford to buy advice. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am just searching through Standing Orders and I ask for your assistance. I believe that where a member is impugned in a speech there is an immediate right of reply provided for in Standing Orders. I believe that that most outrageous speech from the previous speaker Denis O’Rourke did make such unparliamentary references and I would like to have that right of reply. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can the member point me in the right direction for the Standing Order please. The general debate is a debate at the end of the day. I did not think the comments were that offensive to the member. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes but you can’t stand up and just tell abject lies and misrepresentations like that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The opportunity for the member to— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I know it’s his method. It’s what he does all the time. There’s no question about that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a point of order. If the member took offence he should have raised it at the time. 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The general debate has traditionally been a very robust debate. In fact Gerry Brownlee himself made a very robust contribution in which he made a number of allegations about other members that they also may well have found to be very offensive. 
David Shearer 
: I know. 
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: The member in front of me is actually the person whom I was referring to. So if Gerry Brownlee wants to have one set of rules for himself and one set of rules for everybody else perhaps he is actually illustrating the point that Mr O’Rourke was making. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Mr Speaker point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No I do not need any further assistance at all. 
Denis O’Rourke 
: I’d like to debate the point of order that’s been raised. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I do not need any further assistance whatsoever. This is a general debate. It is a robust debate it occurs every Wednesday and it is a good opportunity for politicians to have a strong debate. I take that to be a very strong debate. I think the member who raised the point of order the Hon Gerry Brownlee is probably referring to Standing Order 355 which is around the impugning of a member during oral question time. This is a debate. There are other calls for the National Party. If the member was really offended he had the opportunity to make that comment at the time but did not do so. We are moving on with the next call. 
GARETH HUGHES (Musterer—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just to assist I think you might also refer to Standing Order 107 which gives the member the right to reply if a member is misrepresented misquoted or misunderstood. But I think also that Mr Brownlee is out of order to apply— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I do appreciate that contribution but we have moved on. I have made a ruling. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police) 
: 
 It is no secret in this House that I am very fond of Dr Seuss. I have to say that the debacle around David Shearer led me back to good old Dr Seuss and I just want to start with a quick quote from  
Oh the Places You’ll Go!. 
 It says: “You’ll get mixed up … as you already know. You’ll get mixed up with many strange birds as you go. So be sure when you step. Step with care and great tact and remember that Life’s a Great Balancing Act … never forget to be dexterous and deft. And never mix up your right foot with your left.” 
If we are talking right feet and left feet you could not ask for anything better than David Shearer’s left and right suggestions. On the one hand he is saying: “I think the fact that Banks forgot $50000 is laughable. He should stand down.” and on the left of this picture with his left foot in his mouth again he is saying: “I honestly forgot the spare $50000 in my US bank account.” The story that we are asked to believe and that New Zealanders are asked to believe is that David Shearer fills in a tax return every year and declares this US bank account. Every year he fills that out. We have to take his word for it that he does actually put it in. But when he comes to filling in Parliament’s declaration of pecuniary interests—for listeners that is just a list of the interests the assets the debts and the gifts that you have received as a member of Parliament—he forgets to put in his US bank account with I do not know $50k $100k $200k or however much is in it. 
I am a reasonable person and I want to believe that David Shearer is honest and that it was a genuine mistake but he did not do it just one time. He did not do it just twice. He did not do it just three times. He did it four times—four times. He filled in his tax return and he filled in his pecuniary interests and it was not there. Hallelujah! So now you have to say that there are huge double standards displayed here and that is no surprise because Labour members are at it all the time. We have come to expect that from them. But I have to say that even the most generous person could not possibly think that you could make that genuine mistake four times—4 years. 
I went and looked up David Shearer’s CV. It says lots of nice things about him and I have always thought he was a nice man. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: He’s a nice guy. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: A nice man—yes a really nice man. What a shame he is the leader of the Labour Party but you know. He says in it: “My belief in social justice naturally led me to the Labour Party.” He says lots of other things. He has got experience in running large-scale relief operations. He has got considerable managerial and financial skills. He has got all of those skills and that is all very nice. He remembered to fill in his tax returns he remembered to put into his pecuniary interests his Westpac account but he forgot a stash in New York of $100k. 
Hon John Banks 
: A secret stash. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: We think it is $100k—a secret stash. He forgot to put that in. 
He espouses social justice. He berates John Key—one of the most successful businessmen in New Zealand who has become Prime Minister—for being rich and successful but he forgets that he has got a secret bank account in the US— 
Grant Robertson 
: No secret. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: —with more than $50k. Well it was secret for 4 years because nobody else knew about it. Shearer refuses to believe that another parliamentarian could forget $50k—he refuses. Hold that picture up: “I think the fact that Mr Banks forgot $50000 is laughable. He should stand down.” So he is not prepared to accept that a parliamentary colleague could forget $50000 but he forgets maybe $100000 or $500000. Who knows how much it is? He will not tell us. It could be an enormous amount. He demanded John Banks’ resignation. In fact he demanded that the Prime Minister dismiss him because he could not remember $50000. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 We all know that a general debate is an opportunity for both sides of the House to talk about the important issues of the day. We just had 5 minutes—5 minutes—of Anne Tolley attacking the Labour leader around a bank account that was used for his pay while he was working with refugee children for the United Nations. All I have to say is that in a general debate when there are issues of the magnitude that we are seeing currently if that is what that Government is obsessed with then we are all in trouble. It is typical of that Government which is so focused on its own cronyism and so focused on being hands-off and ignoring that there are any problems out there in New Zealand that it would focus in that way on that particular issue. 
On this side of the House we are much more interested in asking questions around what is happening out there for everyday New Zealanders who are struggling to get by who are struggling with the costs of living. I know that members on that side of the House get the same question that we get asked as politicians. We all get asked constantly: “Why are you in politics?”. I would ask the Government that same question: why are you in politics? As a Government what are you here to achieve? I would welcome any member—any member—from that side of the House answering that because the evidence gives cause for concern. 
With unemployment at 6.9 percent 175000 Kiwis looking for work and 85000 young people not in employment education or training clearly this Government is not here for job seekers. Clearly it is not here for those who are currently trying to better themselves and their families by finding work. We are now more unequal than we have ever been as a country. On this side of the House we are concerned about that. We are not here to sit idly by while the gap between rich and poor grows and we all suffer the consequences of that. Well meanwhile the Government again throws its hands in the air and says that it does not really matter. That Government is not here for everyday families and particularly vulnerable children who are in the homes of those who are suffering under the inability to find work get ahead or even work a job with a minimum wage and who cannot survive. That Government is not here for those families. Today we are about to again debate the welfare reforms. As much as the Minister for Social Development with all of her rhetoric and political spin tries to claim that she is here for the vulnerable in society I am yet to hear her give me one example of how her welfare reforms improve the lot of anyone—anyone—on social security because frankly they do not. 
So why is that Government here? Well again I do not need to ask the rhetorical question when I have got the evidence. It is here to sell assets. And to whom? Apparently to mum and dad investors. Well if you mean mum and dad investors in Australia—some of whom might actually be New Zealanders given that we have got 50000 of them fleeing the country every year—if that is whom the Government is trying to sell assets to then perhaps it might be here for Australian mum and dad investors. Perhaps the Government is here to do a deal on pokies with Skycity because we have heard endless discussion not the least by the Auditor-General about what a dodgy deal the Government handled with regard to the New Zealand International Convention Centre. Perhaps it is here to spend more on consultants because anyone who is involved in financial reviews right now knows the huge amount of money that is being spent by our public sector on consultants. The Government is determined to pretend that it is cutting back on the civil service whilst throwing money at consultants at the same time. Just today we heard that the Families Commission spent over $400000 on one individual for not much more than 12 months. That is the amount we tend to spend on the White Ribbon campaign on anti-violence and that was spent on one contractor at the Families Commission. 
What happens when we do have a situation where things are going badly and some Government intervention would not go astray? Solid Energy might be an example. We see the Government throw its hands in the air and equally deny that it had anything to do with it in the first place which we know from Official Information Act request details that we have got is not actually the case. I ask again why it is here and whom it is here for because if we look at all the need in New Zealand—if we look at all the families who need its help the job seekers who need its help the young people who are seeking a better future—it is certainly not here for them. New Zealand should be asking that National Government whom it is here for. 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 By the look on David Cunliffe’s face it was him who found the lost cash. It was him who found the lost cash. David Cunliffe is so happy he has found—is it $50000 or $100000? He looks so happy he has found the lost cash. I want to ask my National Party colleagues a simple question. How much money does a Labour Party leader need in a bank account before the Labour Party leader knows he has money in a bank account? 
Scott Simpson 
: $1 million. 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: One million dollars? Fifty thousand dollars? Five hundred thousand dollars? I want to ask the Labour Party heavyweight-lightweight the deputy leader of the Labour Party this question: where did this money come from? Where did Mr Shearer’s money come from that was in the secret bank account in New York? Where did Mr Shearer get this money from in the first place? [ 
Interruption 
] 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! Can I just say to members that chaos may be fruitful in furthering some forms of management but it will not be parent to good order in this House. What I want is good order. 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: I want to ask the deputy leader of the Labour Party this question: is he absolutely convinced that this cash in this secret bank account was absolutely legitimate? Was this cash in this secret bank account absolutely legitimate? Was this cash in this secret bank account money earned? What was the origin of this secret cash in this secret bank account? Otherwise why would you not tell the parliamentary register that you had a secret bank account? Why would you tell the Inland Revenue Department—and by the way I do not take it on face value that Mr Shearer has told the Inland Revenue Department; Mr Shearer says he has told the Inland Revenue Department—but not tell Parliament? Mr Shearer has told the Inland Revenue Department he had $100000 $500000 $1 million or whatever it is in his secret bank account but at the same time he did not tell Parliament’s register that he had $500000 $1 million or whatever in a secret bank account. So I want to know that from Mr Shearer. 
He demands accountability. He said last year that any member with a memory lapse was not worthy of public office—any member with a memory lapse was not worthy of holding public office—and the rooster is still in the job today. David Cunliffe is upset although he looks like he has found the cash because he knows there is more knife-sharpening here today in the Labour caucus than there is at The Mad Butcher. 
For 4 years David Shearer remembered to tell the Inland Revenue Department that he had a secret bank account in New York. And what about his ability on finances? He tells the register he has got a home in Mount Albert with a mortgage on it. He will be paying 5.75 percent interest. He has got a secret bank account in New York getting 1.5 percent interest and he does not pay off his mortgage in Mount Albert. And he wants to look after the mortgages of this country. That is the financial reasoning behind that member. 
I have got a question today. I want to ask Mr Shearer the leader of the Labour Party a simple question. Come to this Parliament and produce evidence in this Parliament of where he received that money that is in the secret bank account that he has been hiding in New York for 5 years. Where did he get the money from? Produce evidence that it has been legitimately earned by him and placed in a secret bank account. Why else would he hide the money? Tell me. Give me one reason why else the leader of the Labour Party would hide $50000 $100000 $500000 $1 million—we do not know—in a secret bank account in New York if he was not hiding something. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Because he forgot. 
Hon JOHN BANKS 
: Oh because he forgot. But he did not forget to tell the Inland Revenue Department that he had a secret bank account in New York; he forgot to tell the parliamentary register. This is what he said. Listen to this carefully—[ 
Interruption 
] Listen to what he said. Listen to what he said. [ 
Interruption 
] Listen to what he said. He said that any member who has a memory lapse is not worthy of holding public office and the rooster is still in charge of the Labour Party chickens today. I mean that is—[ 
Bell rung 
] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the police report into the investigation into John Banks’ donation which shows that he broke the law. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I sat 5 metres from the honourable Minister and I could not hear a word he said in the last 2 minutes of that speech. I did not want to interrupt him and I do not want to interrupt Clare Curran but you did give a warning to members opposite that the noise was obviously excessive and they continued with that noise level. Some members in here do want to listen to the speeches and I ask the members opposite to just lower the tone of their voices. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. It was a rather robust debate and I thought the member handled it quite well.  
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 I would just like to point out to the hysterical member across the House who spoke before me John Banks that David Shearer earned that money himself that he did not get handed it in a brown paper bag and that he volunteered the information of his own volition. He did not get “found out” and he did not break the law unlike that member. 
There is another debacle on this Government’s doorstep—another debacle of its own making. This was the one that was going to be the step change in our economy: Steven Joyce and John Key’s ill-thought-out ultra-fast broadband scheme and Chorus’ inability to deliver it. It is developing into a giant stuff-up. It is a huge political risk to this Government and it knows it. It is a classic case of overpromising and under-delivering. It is think big without the think; it is mismanagement and shonky deals. You take $1.5 billion of taxpayers’ money you give most of it to a private company Chorus that has a majority of foreign shareholders and you promise that you will have most of New Zealand signed up to your whiz-bang ultra-fast broadband scheme within 10 years. Then you get to year 5—year 5—and so far just 3806 households have signed up. That is 0.28 percent. The Government is going to have to work hard to get them all signed up because so far it has laid fibre to only just past 8 percent of households and it is worried. Fibre has been laid to quite a few schools but are they using it? No. And why are they not using it? Well they tell me it is because there is nothing to use it for and they will have to pay the increased data costs out of their already stretched operations budgets—budgets stretched by sorting out Novopay a debacle of the highest order also being faced by this Government. That is another giant stuff-up. So its very fast broadband scheme is very slow to take off. That is one big problem for it. 
The other very big problem is that this Government wants to interfere in the price that we pay for our existing broadband—interfere in a way that borders on corruption and at the very least is contempt. The Commerce Commission thinks the price that we pay on the existing copper network should drop. It said so just before Christmas. It came out with a decision because that is its job. But the Prime Minister did not like its decision. The Government threatened to change the law. Why? Because Chorus complained to the Government. Why? Because if the price of your monthly broadband and phone on the copper network is lower than the prices on the Government’s new fibre network then people will not sign up to it. They will not sign up to the new broadband scheme. It is the Prime Minister’s own fault. It is the Government’s fault. It negotiated the contract. It wrote the very law 2 years ago so the Government is threatening to change its own law that it passed 2 years ago to manipulate things. And who is going to win? Well it will not be the consumer. It will be Chorus a private company and its overseas shareholders. 
Ross Patterson the former Telecommunications Commissioner for the Commerce Commission described it as “unprecedented”. These people hardly ever speak out in public but he did. He said the Government had crossed the line of political interference. Sound familiar? Think Skycity deals. Think $43 million loans to MediaWorks. Think the change of law to suit Warner Bros in making  
The Hobbit 
. Think the conflicted role of Stephen McElrea the Prime Minister’s own electorate chairman who is on the board of New Zealand on Air. And think the Prime Minister’s knowledge of and involvement in the illegal surveillance of Kim Dotcom by the Government Communications Security Bureau and the FBI. An unfolding story—an unfolding story. This Government will do what it likes. It will abuse the law it will abuse the contract processes and if it does not like the law it will either ignore it or change it and then it will pretend it cannot remember or that it does not really matter. 
And there is more. Chorus is now telling us that it is going to cost at least another $300 million more than its contract to lay fibre. It has got its hand out and who is going to end up paying for it? It will be the good old taxpayer will it not because John Key and Steven Joyce are looking after their mates and they have stuffed up. They have stuffed up big time possibly even bigger than Novopay and who is going to bear the cost? It will be the consumer. But it will not work because changing the terms of Chorus’ contract to prop up its flawed scheme will be crossing too many lines— 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Good memory and judgment judgment and good memory are vital ingredients of any leader. We have heard this afternoon how David Shearer lacks any memory and certainly exhibits poor judgment along with a curious phenomenon known as bruxism. Let me explain. Let me explain. Not wishing to be personal only objective I have often watched David Shearer there after being trounced by the Prime Minister in question time slump back into his seat and begin a round rotation of his jaw. This is known in the trade as bruxism or involuntary habitual grinding of the teeth often connected with nightmares. I have observed this over the last few years and can conclude only that he has something serious to gnash his teeth about and I suggest that Parliament and the gallery watch very closely in the months ahead. 
But there is more. What has he done about his condition? This leads me to focus on that very thing of judgment when appointing his front bench. Firstly from the youth section of the Labour Party comes that effervescent sparkling ever shroud-waving veteran the Hon Annette King. She was the woman—[ 
Interruption 
] Oh there she is! She was the woman who in 9 years doubled the health budget from $6 billion to $12 billion without any increase in output. She was the woman who in 1998 called Bill English a criminal for having a few thousand people on the waiting list and only 2 years later was busily culling 30000 people from the waiting list with a benign smile on her face—a benign matriarchal smile. So David Shearer certainly did not choose her for mismanagement of the health system nor did he choose her for her sparkling youth. He chose her to tend to his jaws and soothe his nightmares. What extraordinary judgment! 
But then there is the other remarkable choice in the Labour front bench. Refreshed by his “walloping” as he put it chastened and contrite from his big smack in the chops comes the ever-affable Shane Jones. Here we have the apparition of instant redemption from exile galloping down from the backbenches into the front imbued with energy. But whoops this is another memory lapse of David Shearer. Is that not the same Shane Jones who on the  
Make the Politician Work 
 programme turned up late staggered on to the Onehunga wharf and then promptly fell asleep as the boat wended its way out beyond the Manukau Heads and into the fishing grounds? Then when they came wanting him to work they could not find him. Finally—finally—the crew was led by sonorous snoring to his bed where his hands were firmly gripped to his bunk and it took the captain to turn on the fire alarm to wake him up. It took the captain to turn on the fire alarm to wake him up and this was all recorded on TV. 
In fact the only possible reason David Shearer brought Shane Jones on to the front bench was that he needed someone to act as a decoy; someone who was so enervated he could fall asleep on cue and on camera and make the leader look imbued with energy even if this was energy devoid of both judgment and of memory. I understand that Mr Jones has vowed if he is ever given the chance that he will take a new approach to granting citizenship to Chinese millionaires wanted for embezzlement. He has persuaded the Labour Party campaign team that embezzlement is just another form of entrepreneurship—embezzlement is just another form of entrepreneurship. That will fit in very well with his shadow portfolio of regional economic development. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Being lectured to by that member Paul Hutchison is like being savaged by a poodle. Here is what the public knows about: Skycity Warner Bros MediaWorks Banksie and Dotcom the Government Communications Security Bureau and the FBI Solid Energy ultra-fast broadband car-park taxes and iPad taxes. What a nightmare. What a nightmare. And what does it add up to? Hands-on? No way. It is the worst economic record in 51 years—51 years. There is 6.9 percent unemployment 270000 New Zealanders out of jobs and the biggest international debt in the Western World—worse than Greece. And we had the singular pleasure of being lectured to on financial probity and truth-telling by John Banks. That is like being lectured to on social graces by Jack the Ripper as my colleague Mr Hipkins has said. Who broke the law Mr Banks? Who forgot about the helicopter ride and the reported free iPad? What about the birthday party for Kim Dotcom that John Banks attended? What about the money in the brown paper bag? Let us talk about that Mr Banks if you can be bothered coming back to face the music. 
Credit where credit is due. Let us be fair. I want to give some credit today to the National Party backbench. Look at them. It is tough work. They are the “back-down benchers”. They have had to back down twice this week already to cover for the back-down Minister of Revenue “Peter Dunne-like-a-Dinner”. Two strikes and he is nearly out; one more and he is “Done Dunne”. On the car-park tax the back-down was inevitable because the tax made no financial sense. It cost $2 in compliance costs for every $1 worth of revenue it collected. How did that one get across the Cabinet table? That is what the “back-down benchers” want to know. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They were hands-off. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: They were hands-off. They had no hands on the wheel on that one. It was a red tape nightmare. 
What about the iPad tax? The Government did not even cost that one. Or the cellphone tax where it would have to account to the Inland Revenue Department for all its phone calls? These are 1980s ideas being foisted on a 21st century generation. What are the mums and dads who are ferrying their kids around while answering emails from the office going to say to the “back-down benchers”? Thank God they say that John Key killed it. Well he damned near killed his own Minister of Revenue because he announced that the taxes were dead as he walked into the House yesterday. But he had not told the Minister so he blindsided Peter Dunne right before question time. The “back-down benchers” have got their eyes on that National - United Future coalition agreement. It is supposed to have things like confidentiality and collective responsibility in it. But there was Mr Dunne defending the car-park tax in the  
New Zealand Herald  
while the Prime Minister was on the radio at the same time rubbishing his own Minister’s policy. 
I would not want to be a United Future member because I am a proud member of the New Zealand Labour Party—a party that stands for step change not small change. It is the party that is going to bring New Zealand a modern tax system with a capital gains tax and research and development tax incentives. It is going to close some major avoidance loopholes and it is going to get the country moving. We are going to be a hands-on Government. We are going to stand for step change not small change and those “back-down benchers” are going to enjoy their comfy cosy little seats for about another 18 months before they are off to the wilds of Opposition. They see the glimmer of ministerial office fading away—fading away from the “back-down benchers”. Look at them. There are the Ministers off in their LTDs and there are the “back-down benchers” eating gruel on the back rows over there having to be beaten to a pulp by the Labour Party yet again while the public counts the score. And what the public knows is that it is like a rotting carcass on the body politic. 
This Government is on its way out. When we do the rounds of corporate New Zealand we are getting the same message all the time which is: “It’s time we got to know you guys because we know that you are going to be the Government in 18 months’ time.” This Government is at best a two-term Government—if it lasts that long—and New Zealanders know that it is going to be a Labour-led Government that takes New Zealand into the future. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 What an interesting afternoon and what an interesting position in this debate to follow the Hon David Cunliffe—the only man who is happy and smiling as a result of the revelation of the secret bank account of his leader. The only man in the Labour caucus to gain from this is indeed the Hon David Cunliffe and he was in sparkling form this afternoon—sparkling form—renewed reinvigorated and re-energised at the prospect of a further leadership bid. Like the Labor Party in Australia Labour here is looking around for a new leader and it may well find one. It has got a candidate there waiting in the wings ready to go. David Cunliffe is smiling from ear to ear looking like the Cheshire cat that he is so famously attributed to be. There he is today enjoying it in every possible way. 
He I am sure does not have a failed memory or the same kind of memory fade that his leader has. Day after day hour after hour week after week last year we heard from members on that side pillorying the member for Epsom the Hon John Banks for what was ironically exactly the same kind of memory fault that their leader now so deliciously finds himself impaled upon. So I was interested to hear the Hon John Banks speak in this debate today and take what was clearly great delight from the situation that has been revealed this week. 
It has been a long hot summer in Coromandel. Our farmers on the Hauraki Plains and around the Coromandel have had a very very tough summer. Some tell me that it is the worst drought since the summer of 1946-47. In fact I was speaking to a couple of my senior retired farmers on the plains only last weekend and they told me that without doubt this is the worst drought since 1946-47. They pointed out to me that that was a very tough time—just after the war no Government support every man and every family for themselves and the plains were still being drained and broken in. I just cannot really think how difficult that must have been for the farmers of that generation at that time. 
Times have changed since the summer of 1946-47. This John Key - led Government is one that cares about and understands how important our rural sector our farming community is and how important it is to the backbone of our economy. We know that it will come through this that the rain will come—it is predicted in the next week or two—and that the conditions will return to favourable conditions before very long. We know that the Government support is there through the rural support trust and rural assistance payments from Work and Income if necessary. We are a Government that understands and supports. 
But every cloud has a silver lining. Every cloud has a silver lining and though it has been a hard summer for our farmers our tourist operators such as our Hauraki Rail Trail cycleway operators tell us that the tourists have been coming to Coromandel in droves. They have been enjoying the summer. The biggest problem that we have had on the Hauraki Rail Trail this summer has been its almost full capacity. Indeed the Mayor of the Hauraki District Council tells me that so successful has the Hauraki Rail Trail been this summer—it was originally predicted to have in year 5 some 45000 people riding it—that in January of this year over 12000 people cycled it in just 1 month. So now the Hauraki District Council on the back of that kind of success is going to have to provide extra infrastructure in the form of parking and facilities for the numbers of people who want to ride the cycleway. What a wonderful problem that is to have. We hear reports of cafe owners and restaurateurs who are finding it difficult to cope with the demand that is coming from the cycleway. 
Coromandel has been receiving great economic benefit in recent times with two big announcements in just the last week or two. Fonterra is spending $100 million at Waitoa on a new milk-processing facility—50 jobs and untold extra contractors working there—and Summerset in Katikati is spending another $100 million on a new retirement village. It has been a long time since anyone has spent $100 million in Katikati and the folk of Katikati welcome it as do I as the local member. 
These are good times for this National Government and these are good times for the people of Coromandel. They have enjoyed and are basking in a continued long hot summer. Notwithstanding the issues and challenges that our hard-working farmers and their families have they will come through it and we will continue to prosper and work hard through this enjoyable summer. It has been a great summer for National. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I move  
That the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill be now read a second time 
. This Government is progressing the most comprehensive package of welfare reforms that this country has ever seen. The reforms have been designed to be carefully staged over 2 years and this bill represents the latest suite of changes to improve the benefit system for all New Zealanders. 
It has been some time since this bill was before the House so I will run briefly through the changes this bill introduces. Seven benefit types will be consolidated into three: jobseeker support sole parent support and the supported living payment. This is key to simplifying and modernising the system. We are introducing social obligations to ensure that children in benefit-dependent homes get quality early childhood education are enrolled with a doctor and get their Well Child checks and that school-aged children are in school. 
We are introducing a requirement for job seekers to be drug-free and available for work. Forty percent of jobs advertised with Work and Income require a drug test. It is simply unacceptable that because of recreational drug use many are unable to work and take up available job opportunities. We will stop the benefit after 10 days if someone has already had an outstanding arrest warrant for 28 days that they have not cleared. 
These changes are fair and reasonable. We campaigned on all of these policies at the last election and overwhelmingly New Zealanders support these reforms. We are introducing the investment approach to the benefit system which will focus support on those most at risk of long-term welfare dependence. This underpins welfare reform and the new modernised benefits system. It is part of the National-led Government’s approach to welfare reform which will better support people into work. 
The old system had a very narrow focus of support for the unemployment benefit which as we know from the first actuarial valuation of benefits is very short-sighted. Those on the unemployment benefit are least likely to stay on long term yet it is that group we invest the most money in through employment support. Greater support needs to be tailored to individuals who need it most and these reforms will do that. 
A number of changes have been made to the bill through the select committee process. These include allowing for additional parent-led options for early childhood education like the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters. The changes have also widened the scope for approved home-based early childhood education through Te Aho o Te Kura Pounamu. For those who prefer their preschoolers to remain at home they can enrol with this home-based early childhood education. I support these changes and thank the chair and the Social Services Committee for their input. There are a number of other technical changes but I will let the select committee chair and others go through those in more detail if they so wish. 
We have heard a lot of rhetoric from the Opposition about welfare but quite frankly I have seen no plan. If hand-wringing and sympathy were the answer to welfare dependence Labour would have solved that problem many years ago but it did not. Even at the height of the economic cycle Labour did not reduce dependency. Today it is no closer to a solution just an offer of tea and sympathy for those on benefits whom it clearly sees as victims. This Government does not see people on welfare as victims but as individuals who with the right support can in most cases have a better life in work and off welfare. 
For those who simply cannot work due to severe illness or disability we will continue to support them with dignity. Changing the name of the benefit is a small but significant gesture to them because many found the term “invalid” to be quite frankly offensive. From July they will no longer be on an invalids benefit; they will receive the supported living payment. 
Throughout the recent recession we have heard the Opposition’s hollow call for more jobs. We would all like more available jobs and if simply calling for jobs actually created employment it would be easy—perhaps someone should tell Europe. This Government listens to and supports employers to keep people in work and take more staff on. We have done this through a suite of work subsidies which has made a real difference. We have also cut red tape introduced the 90-day law and improved productivity and competitiveness through the Government’s Business Growth Agenda. As you know the House is currently debating the starting-out wage which employers welcome because it will help them to take on more young people. 
For every tragic story that the media rolls out where the Opposition stands by wringing its hands I can give you a positive story of success because even through the worst of the recession we have seen real successes. In 2012 we had 81000 people go off welfare and into work and that is worth celebrating. Work and Income is getting around 1000 new vacancies a week from employers. These are jobs in agriculture forestry fishing and construction in large part as well as others in manufacturing administration and so on. Work and Income is matching people with these jobs every day and is seeing successes every day. 
I will continue to sing the successes of every New Zealander who finds a job keeps a job and kicks welfare for touch and do you know why? Because quite frankly we on this side of the House back people. I do so because I have never forgotten where I have come from. I have never forgotten how tough it was being a young single mum on welfare with the Labour Party telling me that that was all I was worth. I have never forgotten how tough it was going for those job interviews when I felt I lacked the experience the knowledge the skills and the confidence. But most of all I have never forgotten how it felt when an employer said yes and gave me an opportunity. It was the best feeling in the world. It was both terrifying and thrilling and it gave real hope. The first job was not the best job—not by a long shot—and they did not all last for long but each job gave me experience and skills and built my confidence as I learnt to stand on my own two feet and took responsibility for my own daughter. 
It was National quite frankly—it was National not Labour—that spoke to me as a young Maori sole mum with an ambitious message that said: “You don’t have to be a victim. You can be a success.” That is what I want for others—the feeling of being self-reliant in work and of saying to Work and Income: “Thanks but I don’t need a benefit any more.” I know it is a big ask. I know that it is not easy but with the right support and the right policies in place I also know that we can do it. I want New Zealanders on a benefit to know that they have a Minister and they have a Government that are backing them to look beyond a lifetime on welfare. We will support encourage push and incentivise and yes we will sing the successes of those who can and do find work and of the businesses—[ 
Bell rung 
]—that make those opportunities available. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Not yet—not yet sweetie. The public see where the differences lie between an Opposition encouraging victims and a Government backing ambition. 
I have heard the criticism that the number of people on benefits went up under my watch and yes it did when the recession hit. People needed help and this Government provided it to them. I sometimes these days find it ironic that I am the one defending people’s right to welfare if they need it and Ms Ardern is advocating kicking them off and saying that there are too many on it. I read the minority report on this bill from that member’s party and quite frankly it was not worth the time it took to read it. It was so full of inaccuracies. I want it on record in  
Hansard 
 that the Labour Party minority report is actually factually incorrect and misleading. 
The public have already seen the steady decrease in benefit numbers since the peak of the recession. The numbers of people on the unemployment benefit the DPB and the invalids benefit all fell during 2012. In the past 2 years the number of young people on welfare fell from 21576 to 15858. 
The changes in this bill are essential if we want to refocus the welfare system so that it helps New Zealanders reach their potential and reduces the amount of people locked into welfare dependency. This Government undertook to deliver that system—a modern system—and this bill is a significant step towards that outcome. I commend this bill to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Before I call the next member I just want to caution the House that all members in the House are honourable and that is it. We refer to each other as “honourable” despite what we may think otherwise. We call the member what we ourselves would want them and us all to become. So I caution the House. We see the world as we are not as it is. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 We have just heard from that Minister that apparently she will never forget the place from which she started before becoming a member of Parliament and indeed the Minister for Social Development. I have never felt compelled to reflect on the Minister’s personal experience. I have personally never thought it was necessarily appropriate to do so. But the Minister herself has brought it into the context of the welfare reforms so I feel compelled now to respond to that challenge. 
That Minister claims that she never forgot what it felt like to be on the domestic purposes benefit and the lack of confidence that she felt during that time. She probably also never forgot what it felt like to have the support of the training incentive allowance to help her study to become a social worker—assistance that she has since severely reduced the ability of other people in the same position to access. She probably never forgot what it felt like to be able to study and better herself whilst being a mum on the domestic purposes benefit—something that is an opportunity that is now removed for many domestic purposes benefit recipients because they will be transferred to a job-seeker benefit and will not be allowed to study. If that Minister truly never forgot what it was like to be on the DPB then clearly she has forgotten the emotions she has just expressed now because those are the emotions I get every single day in the letters I receive as spokesperson on social development for Labour. If that Minister wants to pretend that somehow through these welfare reforms she is improving the situation for those people I would like her to explain how that is because all she has done as far as I can see is remove the very ladder that she walked up herself. 
That Minister also raised benefit figures. She has tried to claim that somehow on this side of the House we have denied that people should get access to welfare when they need it most. That is entirely inaccurate. You will never hear a member of the Labour Party ever claim anything other than that the social security system is there for those who need it most—for those who need it most—and that in their times of need that is what it is there for. We will defend it because we built it. But I cannot sit back and allow a Minister to claim that her welfare reforms have been successful because of all the people who have come off. That is a complete contradiction because since 2008 the numbers in all of the major categories have gone up. So it is a contradiction for that Minister to claim success based on numbers. If the Minister is going to stand up and tell this House that 5000 people have come off a sickness benefit I will point out that during that time 7000 people went on. Sure absolutely if they need to access it they should. But it is absolutely disingenuous for that Minister to try to bandy around numbers as though her reforms have changed the world when in actual fact for the people who are experiencing it on the front line they have done no such thing. 
In fact if you ask those who are on Government support right now what kind of impression they have been left with from these reforms—well why not look at what the public probably think about when they hear the welfare reforms? Let us track back through the announcements and the way they were trickled out—probably providing a bit of context about what was happening at the time. Nick Smith resigned over the ACC debacle and within 6 days we had the first welfare reforms announced. The John Banks - Kim Dotcom scandal broke.  
Campbell Live 
 started directly implicating the Prime Minister and within a week there was the contraception announcement. It was part of a package but it was all dribbled out. The contraception announcement was dropped— 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As much as I am reluctant to interrupt my colleague across the aisle this is the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. It has got nothing to do with Kim Dotcom and a whole range of other things that we discussed during the general debate. I ask the member just to bring it back to the bill. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: As I was saying the first tranche of welfare reforms was released at that time and there was the contraception element. People might remember that. We were going to give access to long-term contraceptives to beneficiaries which I understand fewer than 40 people have taken up. We then in June had the resignations in ACC and the continuing Bronwyn Pullar scandal and in that same period Bill English then raised drug testing. Drug testing was raised again on 21 July and again for a third time it was announced on 28 August—all at points of convenience for the Government. Drug testing remains one of the most well-known aspects of this form of welfare reforms the “investment approach” that the Minister talks about. And then we come to the police report that came out on John Banks which again was released within a 24-hour window of the social obligations coming out. The next day the cost of welfare generally the actuarial valuation was then announced. I think you get my point. 
Forgive me if I am cynical about this Government’s approach to social security because it seems that any time anything goes badly for it a welfare reform is handily plucked out from a bill and dropped early before the media. If you ask the general public what they know of the welfare reforms what will they tell you? Will they tell you about this investment approach that the Minister speaks of? Will they talk about an active social security system? No they will be able to tell you about drug testing and when a warrant of arrest is out being able to cut a benefit. They will probably tell you about social obligations—cutting benefits for all those beneficiaries who are not doing right by their children. This is apparently the dignified system that the Minister spoke so fondly of that was not going to treat people like they were victims or like they were doing something wrong. Yet every element of this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill speaks to the idea that people who are on benefits are either criminals drug takers or abusing their children in some form. That is the message that these welfare reforms send. 
What would an investment approach then look like—this mythical thing that the Minister keeps speaking of? Well you would imagine there might be something in the bill that would at least talk about the lack of jobs out there at the moment or maybe even address the high cost of childcare which we know is a barrier to work for those sole parents. Does the bill do anything on that? No. Does the bill do anything about those who are trying to get into work but do not have the right skills training or education? No. In fact this bill puts in a barrier if you are in a job-seeker category which will now take in all those on a sickness benefit and all those on sole parent support who have a child over a certain age by saying: “Sit on this benefit looking for a job. But don’t you think about trying to train because you must be ready and waiting for a ghost job.” That is what this says. 
I have had letters from people who have said: “I wanted to better myself with a course that would mean I would be off the benefit in the longer term and I was told by Work and Income that no I had to sit and wait in case they called me with part-time work.”—part-time precarious work. The woman who raised that with me who wanted to become trained as a nurse was then told the next day she was not able to because they had a part-time cleaning job for her. She would have to stay on the benefit but she would have a part-time cleaning job. Is that the investment approach? Is that the active dignified system that this Minister speaks so fondly of? In fact this bill does the exact opposite to what that Minister has claimed. 
There are 399000 people on social security currently. They broadly fall into two categories. The first is those who are working actively to try to find employment. That is the vast majority of people on social security right now. The example I used today of the graduate who has applied for 70 jobs is a real example and yet this bill does absolutely nothing for her. The second category of people is those who may for reasons of health or disability in some form require the support of our social security system for a longer period of their lives. This bill does nothing to change the reality for those two groups of people but it does a lot to further the political gains of that National Government which has purposely highlighted particular elements of this bill that appeal to the ugly side of New Zealand. It is the side that says that somehow we should have downward envy to those who are for a period in their lives using a form of social support when it is all of our intentions in this House that people have a better life outside of that system and in employment. 
This bill is a major lost opportunity but worse than that—worse than that—it vilifies people who are trying to do the right thing and get into employment and that Minister has absolutely forgotten what that feels like. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
Malo le soifua. It is a pleasure to take a call—as I said earlier during the point of order—on the second reading of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. As chairman of the Social Services Committee I just want to thank and acknowledge again the role that our Minister Paula Bennett has played in this bill and in the area of welfare because these reforms are necessary yet reasonable under the circumstances. I want to thank her for the leadership that she has shown in this welfare area. These reforms will have a lasting impact on this country because it is about investment in people it is about investment in services and it is about backing people to go out and find work where they are able to. 
I also want to thank the Government officials the clerks and the parliamentary counsel for assisting our committee to bring this bill back to the House with its report and commentary. We received and considered 683 submissions from interested groups and individuals on this bill. We heard 83 submissions from 35 organisations and 48 individuals at hearings both here in Wellington and in Auckland. I want to thank my fellow committee members including Miss Ardern despite her misguided approach to these reforms for the constructive way that we approached these deliberations and also the submitters for the time and the effort that they put into both the written and oral submissions to the select committee. 
Following on from the successful Future Focus reforms which the Minister has alluded to and the first welfare reform bill last year which all members of this House will be aware of this is the second part of a comprehensive package of welfare reform. The investment approach is about shifting the focus of the benefit system towards better use of resources. What it does is it puts money up front into services like parenting services and like budgeting services to reduce the overall cost to not only those people affected but also our economy and the Government. It will require a different approach to working with beneficiaries based on their individual circumstances which the Minister referred to. It is supported by the best available evidence. 
 The Government spends $21 billion on social development. It is the largest Government portfolio and it accounts for one-third of all Government expenditure across the country so we need to gear these support services towards the 21st century and actually achieve results for taxpayers which again the Minister referred to in her speech. This bill includes simplified benefit categories a greater work focus new expectations for partners of beneficiaries and work preparation activities. It will also require job seekers to be drug-free allow benefits to be stopped if there are outstanding arrest warrants and include social obligations to ensure that children access the appropriate education and health services. 
The main policy issues of significance raised by submitters were in relation to social obligations the medical assessments of disabled and mentally impaired people and sanctions as well as procurement but I will touch on only two of those. The most contentious issue was the obligation to have preschool children enrolled in and attending early childhood education centres. Arguments were made around the appropriateness of this to all children and some interesting and compelling evidence was produced to argue this. Parental choice was referred to and that this bill would restrict it. So in response to these concerns the select committee worked hard to amend the bill to allow approved programmes to be included in the social obligations with decisions on criteria to be set through ministerial direction. In doing so we have listened to the submissions of organisations that pointed to the positive and significant contribution of home-based programmes for preschoolers. 
The select committee also clarified the policy intent that the 15-hour target for early childhood education attendance is somewhat aspirational and that flexibility would be preserved through regulations. The issue of home-schooling was also prevalent in the submissions and in particular in the forceful submission of the Home Education Foundation. The select committee amended the bill to clarify that home-schooling meets school attendance requirements at the age of 5 if the parent meets other criteria for work obligations. This recognises that obviously school attendance is not legally required until the age of 6. 
One of the other issues that the select committee grappled with was around the drug testing of beneficiaries. This bill does not authorise drug testing but it focuses on whether a failed drug-test or a refusal to undertake a drug test is acting as a barrier or otherwise to suitable employment. In terms of sanctions the Ministry of Social Development will act under lawful drug-test results only in respect of the job being sought. Under sanctions generally the bill really gives beneficiaries maximum time to re-comply at the three stages of asking and there is a maximum of only a 50 percent financial sanction as a last resort. 
I want to finally mention the issue of advice from the Regulations Review Committee that subsequent changes to the primary legislation should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny which most members agreed with. So in response to its concerns we amended the bill so that the annual benefit expiry and reapplication processes apply to all beneficiaries with some exemptions and these will be done through regulations. 
In summary then we believe that being in paid work is the best thing for people on welfare. It is plain and it is simple: if you can work you should work and you should be looking for work. This bill introduces the requirement for beneficiaries to be interviewed for and accept any offer of suitable employment. This bill introduces social obligations as we have stated and it really looks at those families with dependent children of which there are 220000 across this country. This bill as I said in opening will go a long way to making sure that these kids have the best start to life. It will have some of the most lasting positive impacts on families over time and that is why I support this bill. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 Labour strongly opposes this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Introducing reforms like these at a time of such high unemployment without tackling the well-established barriers that it is widely agreed keep people out of jobs such as the high cost of childcare and inadequate training and education opportunities means this bill will surely fail. Further we believe that the whole idea underlying this bill is wrong and unfair. It starts from the assumption that those people who temporarily seek the support of the State are bludgers are shirkers and do not want to work. That is the underlying idea behind this bill. 
Last night we debated the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill and frankly I felt sick being in this Chamber debating that bill because of what it said about this Government and what this Government thinks of its fellow New Zealanders. Its idea of helping young people get into the job market is to cut their wages and frankly I think that is a disgrace and this bill is no better. 
It is really interesting. This bill is based on the assumption embedded deep in the reptilian brain of the National Party that anyone needing assistance from the State is a shirker—a shirker and a bludger. The members on that side of the House should reflect on the history of our country and what their party and its forebears did in the 1930s sending people off to work camps and in the 1990s Ruth Richardson’s “mother of all Budgets”. It is exactly the same punitive fear of the poor and demonising of people who are out of work and it is exactly the same ethos and idea that underlies this bill. 
We know that under the fifth Labour Government when jobs were plentiful people took them. I remind the members on that side of the House that year after year—in fact for almost 9 years—this country enjoyed the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD. Year after year after year. 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: How was invalids? How was sickness? 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Do you remember that Minister? Do you remember that we had the lowest unemployment in the OECD? And you know what? When there were jobs people wanted to work. They took those jobs. People took those jobs when they were there but now mysteriously because there is a National Government suddenly all of these New Zealanders are lazy. They are bludgers. Young people who have barely left school who cannot get into the job market apparently are wasters and are bludgers. Middle-aged men and women who have had half a lifetime of work in the workforce who were laid off for no reason through no fault of their own apparently are bludgers and are lazy. People who are battling with mental illness and with disabilities under this National Government apparently need a good kick in the arse because they do not want to work. Let us give them a bit of stick and let us give them the bash—that is what this bill does. The members on that side of the House do not want to hear it. They do not want to hear it. Nikki Kaye does not want to go back to the people of Grey Lynn and explain to them why she is voting for a bill that demonises the unemployed and actually makes life more difficult for people who temporarily need the assistance of the State because they are out of work. That is a sad indictment of what this National Party thinks of its fellow New Zealanders. 
Instead of seeing the problem as a lack of jobs instead of seeing the challenge to come up with an active employment policy and instead of rethinking this Government’s economic policy in light of its signal failure to manage the economy in a way that generates new jobs what does it do? Ms Bennett frames the problem as one of welfare dependency. So the problem is not that there are not enough jobs. The problem is not poor economic management that has given this country one of the highest youth unemployment rates in the world. No the problem is welfare dependency. Ms Bennett the Minister is the former beneficiary solo mother who as one of the first things she did once she got into power as the welfare Minister cut back the training incentive allowance so people in the same life circumstances would not be able to benefit from the same support that she received from the State. She frames the problem as welfare dependency and her role as the Minister for Social Development is to rescue people from welfare dependency not to go to Cabinet and argue for a jobs policy but to rescue people from welfare dependency by putting in place a regime of punitive sanctions. I just think the National Party members should be ashamed of themselves coming to the House with a bill like this and voting for it. 
I want to touch on a few key parts of the bill that we have concerns with and on the basis of our opposition to this bill. We believe that the introduction of social obligations on parents who are welfare beneficiaries is both wrong and unfair and an overwhelming number of the submitters who came to the Social Services Committee submitted along those lines. We support the principle that all children should take part in early childhood education but we do not believe that it is fair or reasonable for that aim to be backed up by a sanction that would cut a parent’s benefit in half. What will that do for the well-being of children in some of the poorest families in this country? Decreasing the income into a child’s home in that way will ultimately do severe damage to the child. 
We remain disappointed that the Government has put in place an obligation on parents to put their kids into early childhood education without addressing the obvious holes in the provision of early childhood education. The Child Poverty Action Group came along to the select committee and told the committee provided the data that shows a large gap between the number of children in low-income areas in particular and the provision of early childhood education. But that is a mere detail to this Minister and to these National members. They do not care about the reality. They do not care about the facts. They are simply obsessed with a punitive approach that demonises people who need the support of the State. 
Secondly I turn to work obligations and the whole issue of assessment. We object to the assumption as I have said that underlies all of these provisions that people who are on welfare do not wish to work. We heard compelling evidence from people in the disability sector who said that many sickness beneficiaries and invalids beneficiaries are desperate to work but there are so many barriers in the way that make it difficult for them. Nothing in this bill will make it easier for people who battle a disability to get into the workforce. 
We remain concerned that the Minister has signalled a UK-style medical assessment regime for people who are on a sickness benefit or an invalids benefit. That is extremely concerning. That medical assessment model in the UK has been a disaster. In spite of repeated requests at the select committee to put more detail on that proposal the Government has failed to be transparent on that issue. 
We have seen a huge increase in the use of sanctions under this Government in the social development area. There is no assessment in place there is no evidence that the increase in sanctions has had any kind of success and we should see an assessment regime that actually looks to measure the harm or benefit that families have received as a result of the sanctions regime. 
In terms of drug testing Labour agrees of course that there is a problem with drugs in the workplace and that needs to be tackled with practical issues. But the Government has turned a deaf ear to the evidence the very persuasive evidence that was brought to the select committee by the Drug Foundation which said that a simple testing regime with sanctions is inadequate and actually could do more harm than good to our drug treatment system. The foundation argued that categorising all drug users as dependent when they may not be and placing them into treatment programmes will put pressure on an already under-resourced service. Labour does not support this bill. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand on behalf of the Green Party and particularly on behalf of Jan Logie who is the Green MP who has seen this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill through the Social Services Committee and heard the submissions on the select committee. Jan is not able to be here but she has prepared a speech for me to deliver today. 
In this speech she describes her real sadness and disappointment about this bill being returned to the House. She describes how hard it is in New Zealand at the moment to talk about the needs of people receiving income support and their families. It seems as if just the word “beneficiary” has become synonymous with a drain on society with vitriolic attacks on families and beneficiaries. These are people who are injured and unable to get accident compensation; people with cancer; people with physical mental or neurological impairment which sadly most workplaces do not accommodate; people who are sick; sole parents leaving violent relationships; sole parents caring for children with disabilities; sole parents through no choice of their own; people caring for parents who may be dying; and of course people who lost their jobs when factories and public services shut down or moved out of our smaller cities and towns. 
These are people who because benefit levels are so low are surviving on incomes that mean many of them need to choose between adequate heating in winter and food have to save in order to go to the doctor ask for more money to replace their children’s shoes when they get holes in them cannot afford to take their children to the movies or for whom paying the school donation means sacrificing school trips for their children. 
All these examples these stories that she heard at the select committee simply deepen her concern and distress that this bill will continue those attacks on people suffering from financial vulnerability. But it infuriates me. I am infuriated because this Minister and the heartless Government of which she is a part know that children will suffer as a result of this bill. They know that fewer children will access health care. They know that fewer children will get medicine. They know that more children will present at emergency departments when their chronic bronchitis or their asthma or their rheumatic fever gets so bad it puts their lives at risk. This Minister knows that she puts the health of children at risk if this Government passes these reforms and they still do not care. 
What is an example? I have described a few today. The Ministry of Health says that making Well Child checks compulsory under the threat of losing the benefit will put children at risk of worsening health and more presentations at the emergency department. The Ministry of Health said to the Ministry of Social Development that “There are risks to the Well Child programme if the checks are seen as a punishment or a sanction. One of the valuable traits of Well Child”—they say—“has been that it is non-threatening and has a high degree of public and family acceptability.” The risks to the Well Child programme are very real because the intention of Paula Bennett is to misuse this programme as a punishment. 
As an example of what the intention is how Draconian the intention from the Ministry of Social Development was in July 2012 the Ministry of Health asked the Ministry of Social Development to amend the wording of a paper that was going to Cabinet. The Ministry of Health said this: “Please remove the word ‘surveillance’. The Well Child programme is not designed or intended as a mechanism for surveillance of beneficiary families or indeed any families. It is a health promotion child development programme that works from a basis of partnership and engagement between the practitioner and the parent and child.” 
This shows what the intention of Paula Bennett was then and is still now. Paula Bennett intends to use the Well Child programme to investigate families simply because those families have to rely on a benefit to pay their rent and put food on the table. It is a deliberate attack on poorer families the families who are desperate for work whom this Minister ignores. Ultimately the problem is that this Minister does not start from the position of looking at what is best for the child. If she did she would have listened to the Ministry of Health advice that said: “Don’t make Well Child checks compulsory. Don’t impose financial sanctions on beneficiaries.” If she did she would not make early childhood education compulsory for beneficiary families either because while increasing access to good quality early childhood education is a good idea the sector itself has told this Government that the best way to achieve that is to provide early childhood education where it is needed first. This Government has gone about the whole process in completely the wrong way. 
 The fact is that not all parents want their 3-year-olds to spend 15 hours—that is nearly 3 school days—at the local early childhood education centre at the creche at the local kindy or even as is now revealed with the lady down the road who might be employed as a home carer looking after kids of her own. Let us just think about what this means. I would have been forced when I was a sole parent on the benefit to send my child off to another home into the home care of another woman down the road because there was no other early childhood education centre that I could choose or that was appropriate who has even more children to take care of including her own. Yet I would not be allowed under this regime to prioritise the care of my child in the best interests of my child. That is what this Government is removing from parents—ordinary New Zealand parents—the right to decide themselves what is in the best interests of their child and to make decisions about the best interests of their child. 
This Government removes that right from parents just because they are poorer and just because they do not have a job and therefore have to rely on a benefit to pay the rent and put food on the table. It is saying to these beneficiaries: “You are not trusted and if you don’t do what the Government says the Government will hold to ransom what you value the most in this world. The Government will cut off the support that you need to feed and raise your child if you don’t do what the Government says.”—just because you are poor. 
It is clear that the current situation and the hopelessness and the hardship that people are experiencing are unacceptable. So the question for the House becomes what we can do to make it better because it is clear that the Government’s approach is a deficit approach and it seems to start from the belief that no one wants to work—we have heard some of this before—and people will do everything they can to avoid work. 
Nicky Wagner 
: From Labour. 
METIRIA TUREI 
: Well this is National’s position. It believes that no one wants to work. National believes that people will do anything they can to avoid work unless they are placed under so many obligations that it makes it impossible for them to make any decisions about their own lives or National will force people into such a position of low self-esteem that they are not able to take the opportunities that might be offered around them. This is a time of such high unemployment that the Minister for Social Development is compelled to send out a press release about the creation of 16 census jobs. This is the employment environment we are in—16 census jobs and the Minister for Social Development is crowing about how great that is and in the meantime punishing parents who want to take care of their kids and do what is in the best interests of their children. 
Well the submitters did have solutions. This Government has none but the submitters certainly did. They talked about job creation the definition of “employment” and “suitable employment” the minimum wage exemption additional funding and resources to support disabled people into work and the availability of services and supports for people with disabilities. Submitters talked about a universal basic income the rates of benefit payments such that people can survive with some decency income adequacy and extending Working for Families so that we eliminate the abuse that beneficiary families suffer as a result of the Working for Families rules. They offered solutions around the abatement rates and discretion to disregard income for the purposes of calculating income so that beneficiary families could save so that there could be some more flexibility for beneficiary families in the system but all of these options were ruled out of scope by the Social Services Committee. That just highlights the opportunities that have been missed in this wave of punitive reforms. Opportunities to improve access to remove barriers and to eliminate poverty have all been sacrificed for the sake of increased work-testing increased assessment social obligations drug testing and sanctions that will ultimately cause families and especially their children harm. 
This bill is a terrible failure for families in the most need. It is blind to the real work people are engaging in and wilfully ignores the structural barriers to employment. Thank you. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to rise to speak on the second reading of the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Before I make my contribution I would like to respond to a couple of points that other speakers have made. I guess to start with Ms Turei talked about how infuriated she was and how she felt that this Government was actually heartless. I would like to respond by saying that I am infuriated by her comments because it is incredible how Opposition members make out that this Government and this National Party do not care about beneficiaries. That is absolutely not true. 
We believe that most people do not want to be on the benefit but have to be on it in certain circumstances when they fall on difficult times. Whether it is a marriage breakup or they get ill there are many circumstances where people have to rely on State help. As Jacinda Ardern mentioned earlier Labour was in fact the architect of social welfare. Well let me say that we support that—people who are in difficult circumstances being on benefits. But let me quote from the  
Dominion Post 
 last year which said: “Those pioneers of the welfare state would never have envisaged the benefit system New Zealand has today. They would have been appalled by the thought of thousands of perfectly healthy adults spending more than a decade on the dole and thousands more 16 and 17-year-olds being paid to sit around and do nothing.” Welfare dependency is what we are trying to prevent. Mr Phil Twyford sort of said: “The whole idea behind this bill is wrong.” What is wrong with backing people? What is wrong with telling people that they are better than being dependent on welfare? 
This bill forms part of a package of reforms being introduced over 2 years that will basically shift the focus of the benefit system towards encouraging and supporting beneficiaries to move into paid work. National actually campaigned on reforming welfare by taking an investment approach that will make sure we have an enduring welfare system that supports Kiwis who fall on difficult times. That is what welfare was designed to do—to help people when they are caught in a jam. It is not about a lifestyle choice and we never said that people who are on welfare are choosing to go on welfare as a lifestyle. There are some who do but not all and the majority do not. 
Having said that the Government’s reforms have at the core a belief that most people can and do want to work and that most people do not choose to be on a benefit as a lifestyle choice. But this Government spends $8 billion a year on welfare and that is for 330000 working-age people. That is about 12 to 13 percent of the working-age population who receive the benefit and there are 220000 children who live in benefit-dependent homes. Evidence shows that children are better off when parents are working not when parents are on welfare. 
I would like to thank the Minister for Social Development who has put in a lot of work. I see her passion when she talks about welfare reform. This is the biggest amount of work that any Government has done and no matter what Opposition members say—and they can criticise the Minister and this Government all they want—let me say this. Under the 9 years that Labour was in Government what did Labour—the architect of social services the architect of State help—do for the people who are on welfare? It did nothing. This is a great bill. I commend it. 
Le’aufa’amulia ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR (NZ First) 
: 
 We should measure welfare’s success by how many people leave welfare because they have secured employment not by how many are added because they see it as an easy way of living. Success in welfare is also dependent on paid employment or jobs being created for beneficiaries to undertake. More important these outcomes must be achieved without dictating to the good citizens of New Zealand how they should raise their children or that all childcare centres are better than good dedicated parents who passionately believe in quality home education that they themselves are more than capable of providing. 
 As a member of the Social Services Committee I know that Paula Bennett’s second phase of welfare reform seeks to alter categorical distinctions in the current benefit system and attach employment availability expectations upon those who receive a benefit. Currently we have seven categories that all beneficiaries fall under. The proposed changes reduce these categories to just three: one jobseeker support; two sole parent support; and three supported living payment. The three new categories are designed to reinforce the work focus slogan that is attached to these welfare changes which will ultimately affect any future eligibility criteria because there are strings attached to these three newly proposed categories. Guess what? It is work work and work. 
The Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill is designed to reinforce its primary focus of supporting beneficiaries to move into paid employment by introducing a suite of detailed rules for the new benefits that work collectively to create a much more active benefit system that encourages independence. New Zealand First supports this intention but New Zealand First challenges the Minister for Social Development and this Government to say how they can ensure that it is done fairly and properly. 
The new changes will not only seek to establish a work focus initiative within the benefit system but also include recipients who are either sick or disabled. There are absolutely no exemptions. But if the beneficiary is found to be unable to gain paid employment then they are afforded a delay in the work focus initiative. In addition payments will be temporarily stopped for beneficiaries who have arrest warrants that have been unresolved after 28 days of the incident. 
Furthermore beneficiaries are also expected to undergo drug tests in order to meet the requirements to partake in training programmes. New Zealand First supports this too. Anyone in this category should see this as a tool to help him or her to be detoxed from drugs or to kick the habit. After all at the end of his or her life they will never regret not having passed one more test not winning one more verdict or not closing one more deal. Drug testing is mandatory and failure to comply with the rules attracts penalties regarding benefit payments even though not all beneficiaries will be drug tested. As if there were no societal double standard about how beneficiaries are perceived this will create further inequality within our welfare system where some beneficiaries are targeted and others are not. This will become problematic in the future and foster greater disharmony for New Zealanders whether they receive a benefit or not. 
This may prove to be counterproductive if we examine the underlying intentions of the bill which aims to improve social and economic outcomes for all beneficiaries. It also intends to incorporate measures that protect the interests of children by encouraging parents to gain paid work and also increase their participation in programmes such as Well Child and early childhood education. Compulsory? I am sorry but that is not a good approach. 
New Zealand First supports the overall goal of the bill in assisting welfare-dependent individuals to gain paid employment. However we have reservations regarding job availability and the Government dictating how parents ought to raise their children. Our reservations are centred on practicality and how these changes will be administered. It has been established that the bill will adopt an active work-based approach but how will the Government roll out new welfare reforms that are attached to expectations of being available to work in regard to people who are on the invalids benefit or domestic purposes benefit for the care for the sick? 
The measures are drastic and forceful for New Zealanders who already have no choice and must do what they can with the variety of situations they must deal with on a day-to-day basis. Most beneficiaries already feel socially excluded. The proposed changes in this bill will further exacerbate inequality and expose beneficiaries to further scrutiny from the public and amongst themselves. 
With regard to drug testing of job seekers how is the Minister going to incorporate supportive measures to ensure that treatment is available? More important how will the Government determine who ought to be drug tested and who should not? That would require categorising beneficiaries with assumptions that they are all most likely taking drugs. It is highly counterproductive to be on drugs in the first place but how will job seekers be afforded a platform to attain paid employment when the Government is doing very little to assist them? We need to emphasise the importance of obtaining employment to those who pass the work test and receive offers of paid employment. We also need to emphasise our commitment to ensuring that beneficiaries stay off drugs by investing in initiatives that will help achieve this. Children will be better protected and have better chances in life if the Government is willing to invest more into helping beneficiaries who are on drugs to get off and stay off them. The way I see it is this: we are not simply investing in helping people to get off drugs; we are helping to secure a brighter future for the children who are affected and to improve their chances in life. Is that not worth fighting for? 
Mike Sabin 
: Yes. 
Le’aufa’amulia 
 ASENATI LOLE-TAYLOR 
: I am glad that you agree. Evidently the new approach is focused on getting beneficiaries off welfare and into paid employment but how many jobs is the Government going to create in order to accommodate requirements surrounding sole parents—for example that they work part-time when their youngest child is of school age and then full-time when their youngest child is 14 years? In what capacity will Work and Income assist in training and upskilling beneficiaries for “desirable” jobs? And how many resources are we going to roll out to complement these changes? 
One of the most crucial and problematic issues with the bill concerns the State trying to dictate to parents how they ought to parent. We never know the love of a parent till we become parents ourselves. This bill in theory means the State is forcing parents to put their children through early childhood education by the age of 3. This will not only impose rules on parents that will conflict with their freedom of choice but also separate parents from their children. I have gone through the submissions and an overwhelming majority of parents want to decide for themselves how they raise their children and when the appropriate time would be for them to be enrolled in early childhood education. This is a domain where the State needs to tread with caution because the backlash will only worsen the situation and the intentions of this bill. 
New Zealand First is committed to ensuring that people move from dependence on the State to a state of independence. We also believe that it is important for people to obtain and retain a sense of worth and self-esteem by making a contribution to their society. Can the Minister honestly say that she would be happy to clean toilets on the minimum wage with five children to feed because Work and Income is forcing her to accept paid employment? Can she honestly say that she would gain a sense of worth and self-esteem from being threatened with payment reduction or cancellation of benefit payments even though she would be contributing to society by cleaning up their waste? This will not only encourage people— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member but her time has expired. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill in its second reading. I do not want to be negative in my approach; in fact I want to be quite positive. So I will not be talking about Labour doing nothing to stop fraud abuse in the welfare system allowing it to go largely unchecked or fudging the welfare fraud data to hide the problem of welfare abuse. It even shifted beneficiaries between different types of benefit rather than stopping that and supporting them into work. Labour let the number of sickness beneficiaries increase from 33000 in 1999 to 46000 in June 2008 and the number on the invalids benefit increase from 53000 to 85000. I will not talk about those things because they are negative statistics. They are the results of a previous Government which said with all its intent that it was wanting to benefit the people of our communities. 
Instead I am going to talk about the purpose. We are investing in what people can do not in what they cannot do. This bill introduces new benefit categories. It ensures a work-focused system. It introduces new social obligations and provides benefit payments to be stopped for those who are running from the police. We are fixing the system and investing in people’s potential. The reforms we are making still hold on to the original intent of the purpose and principles and my colleague Melissa Lee spoke about the editorial in the  
Dominion Post. 
 It talked about the critics of this bill who either have been misled and are not reading the details or are misleading with untruths about the intent. 
The intent of these amendments is still true supposedly to the architects of the Social Security Act itself. If you read section 1A of the Social Security Act 1964 here is what the purpose says: “The purpose of this Act is to enable the provision of financial and other support as appropriate to help people to support themselves … to help people to find or retain paid employment;”. In the “Principles” of that Act: “Every person exercising or performing a function duty or power under this Act must have regard to the following general principles: (a) work in paid employment offers the best opportunity for people to achieve social and economic well-being:”. This is the intent of the amendments and the changes that we are making. 
I just want to address a couple of issues before I finish. There has been a lot of scaremongering about the sanctions that we are introducing. I wonder how many members on the other side—when was the last time they were actually in a Work and Income office? I visited the Mangere Work and Income office. I spoke with some of the staff there. I asked questions about this. We are not about just protecting policy for policy’s sake or for legislation and its changes; instead we want to know whether this is making a difference.  
I want to ask this question to the members over there on the other side. What happens in a Work and Income office when the bell is rung? What does that mean? I will tell you what that means. It means when the bell is rung that someone has been able to secure full-time employment. That is right. So the bell is ringing—[ 
Interruption 
] The bell is ringing Mr O’Connor. Why? Because a father who had been unemployed and on a benefit for 10 years finally found an opportunity for work and employment. The bell was rung. Why? [ 
Interruption 
] That is right Mr Prasad. Because a mother who had been on a domestic purposes benefit for 15 years found full-time employment. The bell was rung. Why? Because people found opportunity. The sanctions that people talk about are not the hardships that are being realised in the offices of Work and Income in the places of hardship that have been talked about. Instead people are realising that here are opportunities. Regarding work-test obligations there was a mother who said for the first time she was asked what it would look like if she could work. She said that she was afraid. The office staff took her through a process where not only did she gain confidence but the bell was rung for her. So what this bill is doing is ringing the bell for opportunity so that the very people we are talking about—those who are vulnerable—will realise their potential. Why? Because we are investing in what they can do not in what they cannot do. I support this bill. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 The bell should have rung for that member Alfred Ngaro a lot sooner but I notice the bell did not even have to ring for that member. That member did not get a job. The bell did not ring for that member. I want to say to that member that when Labour was in Government there was no need to ring a bell. People had jobs. There was full employment—the lowest unemployment in the world. Melissa Lee who does not know the record of Labour’s 9 years in Government asked what Labour did. I say to Melissa Lee that people were in work. They were working. There was no need for the bell. That is some kind of Pavlovian experiment—some kind of Pavlovian reinforcement—that that member believes in. He should be ashamed of himself. I would not want to put people through having to listen to bells so that they can be in jobs. What do you think this is? A psychology laboratory? This is real people we are talking about. I hope they do not ring bells in the way that that member describes. The unemployed have become some kind of a joke—some kind of a tool. So when they get a job you ring a bell. Oh come on! Give us a break—give us a break. 
This Government has an awful record in any of the social areas—any of them. It has been in Government for almost 5 years and what has improved? Has housing improved? Has education improved? Has health improved? Has abuse prevention improved? Are children better off? No they are not. So the record of that member’s Government is awful and people out there are suffering. Of course they blame all of this on—what? Oh that is right there was that global economic crisis—the global economic crisis. Well much of the difficulty has been made by that member’s own Government and by the Minister for Social Development who presides over this. 
The National Party has always had difficulty—always had difficulties—supporting beneficiaries and this bill represents another example of how National members malign beneficiaries in order to reduce support for them. That is its track record that is its modus operandi and it is happening again. National would have destroyed the welfare State. It has tried but the people in this country are smarter. By golly National tries every day! That is all it does—it tries to destroy it. It is getting clever in how it is doing that but it is still trying to destroy it. 
You see New Zealanders are fair-minded people I say to those members sitting at the back there. They are fair-minded people who are happy for people to contribute to the nation’s development when they are in work and in every other way and for them to receive support when they need it. This Government is trying to do away with that social contract. But that is the nature of New Zealand society and New Zealanders have understood that since 1935. Some of those members who have not been around very long do not actually appreciate that but many others do. Most of us embrace it and are proud of the caring society that we have created that we understand and that we have developed. 
That is not to say that cheats should not be brought to justice. Nobody on this side actually supports cheats. This is another cornerstone belief of the New Zealander: do not game the system. But by golly I know that that side there does not stand up to the rich who game the system; it is just the poor. But anyway that is another story for another debate. 
The National Government and its previous manifestations have demonstrated their contempt for welfare beneficiaries and have always tried to put them down. 
Melissa Lee 
: Oh rubbish! 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I will take the member through it. They have painted the beneficiaries as cheats as criminals as fraudsters. Remember the motorway that that member was against because the criminals from the south would come to the west? Remember that Melissa Lee? That member was maligning this group when she was campaigning for Mt Albert. So do not come here and cry false tears. That member was doing it and that member’s Government does it all the time. You see the prejudice it creates. Then it creates this notion of dependency. It has been created. Anybody on a benefit for over a year is now a dependant. Dependence is bad. It is pejorative and we must do something about that. 
Then it does this intellectually dishonest thing. This Minister has done this absolutely intellectually dishonest thing which is to ask what the cost of welfare is. It is taking a leaf out of Nick Smith’s awful awful approach to ACC. At $67 billion it is absolutely alarmist—absolutely alarmist. Nobody has to pay for all the welfare costs and lifetime costs of any beneficiary up front any more than ACC but no that is how those members do it. Then they say “We are going to fix it with this investment approach.” but members on that side fool nobody. The mechanisms that that member’s Government has used over the years are legendary. 
Do you remember what Ruth Richardson did? She actually cut benefits. She took $1 billion at a very early period from the poor and many of those poor people in our suburbs have suffered until today. That generation probably never recovered. They produce adolescents who are unprepared for the modern world and their children probably still suffer. That is National’s record. 
Do you remember what Jenny Shipley did? She tried the Code of Social and Family Responsibility. That was just another code of social responsibility. New Zealanders rejected it. The Government put it in every house in New Zealand and it was rejected in its entirety. 
Todd McClay 
: Yeah that’s actually a better speech—have another. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: Nobody—nobody was fooled by that. I say to that member there the member for Rotorua Mr Todd McClay that nobody was fooled. But that member has not been around long enough to appreciate that. When it came to tax cuts what did the Government do? It gave the poor a miserable few dollars. The member took for himself over $100 a week but the poor did not. So here where was the fairness in that? 
In the last Parliament and in this one this Minister has embarked on a mission to punish the poor and those on limited incomes through a series of so-called welfare reforms. And those members who came recently to Parliament are really just the cheering mob. They are just the cheerleaders here. That is what they are. I noticed how they were pleading to the Minister a little while ago. She tried to sell the current policies as emerging from real concerns. She told her own story and opened up the door for us to talk about that experience. But that fools nobody. The Minister cannot tell that story about herself and then demonstrate how she takes it away from others. That is exactly what has been done. 
They reflect endlessly on the importance of evidence and so do the select committees—the importance of evidence-based policy and practice. Where is the evidence for this policy? Where is it? It does not exist. The English have tried it. What is the English experience? I ask of the members there what did the English tell us in the select committee? That suicide rates are up and people are miserable so there is no evidence about this in the UK experience. I say to the members to go and read the research evidence and they will find out. I want to say to this Minister that the deficit model will never achieve the goals of what her own party campaigned on—a brighter future. This is the deficit model. These are people on the line and then you come up with Draconian policies and you try to sell them as something the country needs. There is no fairness in that. There are no ethics in that. There is no evidence that that will actually work. 
If the provisions of this bill are such a great idea then why is it that the overwhelming majority of submitters were against it? Why? Are they all wrong? They are all wrong? No no—nothing from my colleagues on that particular point. It was painful in the select committee to see those members on the select committee actually defend these provisions. It was sad because all they could say was that they were trying to be fair. Here were people pouring their hearts out to the select committee about the impact of these provisions on them. 
Members on that side talk about choice. What choice? They love talking about choice but they do not give parents themselves the choice about how they are going to bring up their children. Why? Only because they happen to be on a benefit for a period. That is the only reason. Well the Minister had a choice. The Minister had a choice to have a child to go to university—I know I was there—to have all of those benefits but they are not there now. Why? What changed? What changed between that Minister’s background as a student and as a sole parent and the sole parents of today? What changed? I will tell you what changed. She joined the National Party and she became a member of Parliament. She got seduced by the ideology of that particular party. The submitters saw through this. One submitter said the provisions in this bill were another form of abuse—another form of abuse. 
Todd McClay 
: Apologise like you did to the Families Commission. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: I will not apologise to that member or to those people who support him because there is nothing to apologise for. That is what they said that this was another form of abuse. The Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind—hardly a radical organisation—said that it believed that this focus on work would make life more difficult for the blind. The disabled sector said the same thing. 
Finally the one thing we did not get in the select committee was what the assessment method is going to be. They could not present it to us. We did not see how these people are going to be assessed by outside contractors. It is another arm of the ideology of that Government—privatise it and it will be good. It will not be. This is a terrible bill and we will fight this— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Sorry to interrupt the honourable member. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 Well that was a hail of words from Rajen Prasad that did not seem to make much sense to many people in the House— 
Le’aufa’amulia 
 Asenati Lole-Taylor 
: Don’t sound like a saint now. Not every saint’s got a past. 
MIKE SABIN 
: —not that we had much more sense from that member either I have to say. Choice and rights—choice and rights—are two words we heard a lot from that side of the House but not much about the responsibility that should accompany them. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Oh! 
MIKE SABIN 
: Well that is what life is about. It is about rights and responsibilities. It is about getting that balance right. Arguably over the 9 years of that member’s Government that balance was right out of whack. We saw those numbers go through the roof. We saw people migrate off the unemployment benefit on to the sickness benefit and invalids benefit. I do not see the member talking too much about that. Perhaps it is about keeping them beholden because when they are beholden they are more inclined to vote for that particular party to get it back in Government. I do not know. A cynic might say that. A cynic might say that; I do not know. The member Jacinda Ardern made a comment about ghost chips— 
Darien Fenton 
: Ghost jobs. 
MIKE SABIN 
: —or rather ghost jobs. That is right. Well I can tell you I am one person who is internalising a very complicated situation in my head. All we hear from that side of the House—and I can summarise the Labour Party approach by saying this—is those members saying that there are no jobs out there and yet they vote against every single effort of this National-led Government to grow the economy. There are no jobs but they do not want to support economic policies that will help grow the economy. It is a tough time with the global financial crisis and the Canterbury earthquakes. They will have convenient memory lapses when it suits them and they will pull that one out of the back pocket when it does. 
They also say that there are too many people on welfare and yet they will vote against every measure that this Government is putting in place to support people into work. They say that people want work but they vote against every initiative that is about getting them into it. Do not let me hear from that side of the House that what they were doing was getting it all right because it was not. This Government has been brave enough to make the sorts of changes that make sure that people are work-ready that make sure that people have the appropriate childcare so that young mothers can get out into work. We are making sure that we support the most vulnerable young people who are on a collision course to an adult benefit and ensuring that they have got the wraparound support the knowledge and the mentoring that they require to get them into work. We will hear again that there are ghost jobs that there are no jobs. Well I say to you that there are plenty of jobs. Listen to what the IMF has to say about the economic policies of this Government getting us back on track to an economy that ultimately creates the jobs that people need. 
The Labour Party approach—and I would have to throw its friends in the watermelon patch into the mix—is very much about its own ambition to be in Government in my view. It wants the economy to fail and it is quite happy to see those numbers go up because then it can say: “Oh no vote for us because we’ve got all the answers.” Well actually the New Zealand public have woken up to that and they wholeheartedly embrace the changes that this Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill involves. 
I just want to touch very briefly if I can on one aspect of the social obligations that I think will make a lot of difference and that is the drug-testing provision. There are a number of people in New Zealand on welfare who have problems with drugs. Drug use should not be a barrier to work. I say if it is good enough for those out there working in the New Zealand workforce to be drug-free it is good enough for those who are on welfare supported by the State to also meet that obligation to be drug-free. 
Let us not forget in this equation the value of work. There is value in work and no matter what that work is I say that people are better off being in that work than being reliant on the State. There is no dignity in that. This bill is about providing all the mechanisms they need to be in work. I commend it to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand the next call is a split call. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I am happy to take a short call as I am no longer on the Social Services Committee. When the Government began beating the drums for its welfare reform legislation Radio Samoa in Auckland picked up the issue and started discussing this on its talkback shows. The Samoan community like all the Pacific communities are people who are proud about their family and have a strong work ethic. Thousands of callers a week called in and hammered consistently following the views by the Government the need for greater personal responsibility. There was a unanimous voice from callers on that programme that any Samoan on the benefit ought to get off the benefit immediately. There was a strong sense almost of shame: if any of our people were on the benefit that was wrong and they needed to get off it. That was how it was based on what I would say are dog whistle politics used as part of this welfare reform. So instead of supporting those in need we turned on those in need and started attacking them. I suspect that that was the same throughout New Zealand. 
As the dutiful MP for Mangere I felt it was my duty to talk to the community through the radio waves and through community meetings about what this was all about. I reminded the community that this Government has now experienced the worst economic record in 51 years. It has the highest unemployment rate in 13 years—6.9 percent as of the end of last year or 175000 people. The Pacific and Maori unemployment numbers are now at double digits after being under a Labour Government at a single digit. This Government despite its many promises has failed to rebalance our economy and now we have a current account deficit that has risen to 5 percent of GDP our exports fell last year to $1.3 billion and our international liabilities have worsened now at $150 billion and 72 percent of GDP. 
I think that when you explain the thrust of what this Government is doing people gradually begin to understand. You see they were suckered in when the mantra that this Government used in introducing its welfare reform was that it would have an unrelenting focus on work—an unrelenting focus on work. Despite the smarty one-liners and short-term headlines we know and the community out in New Zealand knows that this Government has no long-term solution to fix New Zealand’s economic woes. It continues to mismanage New Zealand’s economy with these short-term short-sighted gimmicks. Time and time again in the first reading leading up to this second reading Government members said this Social Services (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill was about their unrelenting focus on work yet nothing in this bill addresses the three main barriers to work. How many jobs does this bill create? None I say. What support is given to parents for childcare costs? None I say. What training support is given to match those without skills to jobs that require high-level skills? None I say. 
We heard from the submitters that this bill was more about an unrelenting focus on attacking children attacking motherhood and attacking single women who are mothers. One of the submitters who stands out in my mind is Charlotte Murray a single mother with two children. She said her main job is raising her 2-year-old and 5-year-old children. She said forcing her into work is not good for her children. Forcing a mother into work when a child reaches 3 years 5 years or 6 years will cause stress and will harm her children. And the Office of the Children’s Commissioner backs that up. In its submission it said that where sanctions are imposed on beneficiaries with children who suffers? It is the children. So we should not be believing the Government’s one-liners that this is an unrelenting focus on work. This is an unrelenting attack on children and motherhood. The Salvation Army’s state of the nation report of earlier this year  
She’ll be Right 
 reaffirms that under this Government child poverty has worsened. 
MOJO MATHERS (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party opposes this bill the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. We believe that it is fundamentally flawed in its approach. Imposing sanctions for failing to comply with what the bill terms “social obligations” means that parents and caregivers will be coerced into adopting specific parenting practices even when it is not in their child’s best interests. A parent may have a child who for whatever reason is simply not ready to attend early childhood education for 15 hours a week. It may be that their child has a disability. It may be that their child has poor health or they cannot find a centre that will meet the social and cultural needs of their child. 
We also believe that it is both unethical and counter-productive to enforce these social obligations by cutting the benefit by up to 50 percent. We fully agree with the advice from the Ministry of Health that imposing financial sanctions will cause children harm and that there are more effective and more constructive approaches to enable better uptake of primary health care. The other huge area of concern we have with this bill is how it will impact on disabled people and those with chronic illnesses and mental illnesses. The reality is that in New Zealand there are many people with disabilities who want to work and who have tried for years and years to get suitable employment and constantly get knocked back because of systematic failures because of negative attitudes around disability and because of assumptions about what disabled people can or cannot do. 
Take Jack for example. Jack is profoundly deaf. He is unskilled but fit and capable. He has applied for many jobs over many years and he has been constantly told: “We cannot take you on for health and safety reasons.” This is the stark reality of trying to find a job in New Zealand for many deaf and disabled people. After more than 20 years on a benefit Jack was so desperate and so frustrated that he sat down in the middle of the floor of a Work and Income office crossed his arms and announced: “I want to work. I want a job. I am not leaving until you find me a job.” The staff flapped their hands and ran around in a fluster but then they actually found him a job in the catering industry and 2 years later Jack has that job and is proud of it. But he should not have had to take such drastic steps to get Work and Income to do something constructive about it. 
There are many people like Jack who want to work but are being constantly knocked back. Placing yet more obligations on people like Jack to look for work and be work-ready is cruel and ignores the reality of the barriers to employment that disabled people face no matter how hard they try or how work-ready they are. Thank you. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Although I am no longer a member of the Social Services Committee I was for 4 years and until quite recently a member as a result of which I had the opportunity late last year and early this year to work with my colleagues on this bill the Social Services (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. I want to correct Dr Prasad. It is fundamentally dishonest to suggest that all submitters were against the bill. They were not. But more important I want to remind him that this was a major campaign issue in the 2011 general election. We campaigned hard on it and I am absolutely confident that this bill enjoys very strong public support from throughout the country because there is a very strong desire to see everybody who can be supported into work get that support. The unrelenting focus of the bill as Mr Sio has just reminded us is on achieving exactly that end. 
The other thing I want to say to Asenati Lole-Taylor is just that I believe that all honest work is inherently valuable and although some is work that a lot of us would shy away from and that some of us are fortunate enough not to have to do I have nothing but respect for those who are working on some of those humble and at times very very unpleasant jobs. I am sure that every member of this House would want to support those people and not in any way undermine their efforts. 
I believe that this is a bill that was already very good. The select committee has worked incredibly hard and has made it even better. It is in the national interest and I have great pleasure in supporting it at its second reading. 
The question was put that the amendments recommended by the Social Services Committee by majority be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the question be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Question agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill be now read a second time. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 60 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Maori Party 3; Mana 1; Independent: Horan. 
Bill read a second time. 
Marine Legislation Bill 
Second Reading 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
on behalf of the Minister of Transport: I move  
That the Marine Legislation Bill be now read a second time 
. I would like to thank the chair and members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for their work and unanimous support of the bill. I would also like to thank everyone who has taken time to make a submission to the committee. 
This is an omnibus bill that amends the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 in order to promote maritime safety and to protect the marine environment. Amendments to the Maritime Transport Act will provide for local regulation of maritime activities by regional councils enable the implementation of four international maritime conventions and make other miscellaneous changes to improve the clarity effectiveness and enforceability of provisions in the Act. The bill also amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act to include new provisions in relation to some discharges and the dumping of waste and other matter from ships and to ensure that New Zealand continues to act consistently with its international obligations. 
With regard to local regulation of maritime activity this bill replaces and updates measures currently contained in the Local Government Act 1974. The bill enables regional councils to continue to regulate maritime safety and maritime-related activities in their regions and provides for a stronger regime for the management of port harbour and navigation safety. The bill establishes clear duties and powers in respect of port operations to support and complement the New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code 2004. 
The majority of submissions from local authorities supported the current division of central and local government maritime safety responsibilities and sought to clarify that the bill would not expand local responsibilities. The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee recommended amendments that clarify that the bill will not create new responsibilities for regional councils but will instead outline the functions that a regional council can undertake when appropriate. 
The committee has also recommended amendments to give regional councils greater flexibility in procedure for setting fees and charges related to the maritime functions. This change will allow councils to use the procedures in the Local Government Act 2002 rather than continuing an existing requirement that fees for these functions be set only by by-laws. 
The bill also enables New Zealand to bring four international maritime conventions into full force: the protocol of 1996 to amend the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976 the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil 1973 and the Manila amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978. 
The grounding of the  
Rena 
 on Astrolabe Reef in October 2011 and the subsequent 350-tonne oil spill highlighted the need to update New Zealand’s liability limit for maritime claims under international conventions. This bill will more than double the current liability limit for shipowners. It also provides a mechanism for giving effect to future increases to the limit. This will allow for a rapid implementation of a further 51 percent increase in liability limits which is set to become available in 2015 for countries that are party to the conventions. 
The Manila amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 include a blood-alcohol limit for certain on-duty merchant seafarers. The bill gives effect to this measure which will help to ensure that masters officers and other seafarers are fit and able to perform their safety security and environmental duties. Further miscellaneous amendments to the Maritime Transport Act included in this bill will improve enforcement modernise penalty levels and clarify the application of the Act. 
The bill also amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act to transfer the regulation of dumping waste and discharging harmful substances in the exclusive economic zone and continental shelf from offshore installations and mineral mining facilities on board ships from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority. The transfer of certain discharge and dumping regulatory functions will ensure that applications for marine dumping and discharges are considered in their entirety by the Environmental Protection Authority thereby eliminating process duplication and providing certainty that the comprehensive environmental assessment requirements will be met. 
The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee recommended changes to clarify and improve the bill in the following ways. The definitions of “mining activity” and “mining discharge” have been widened to ensure that the prospecting stage of mineral mining projects is captured and to ensure that hydraulic fracturing or fracking is subject to the legislation. A new section has been added to better clarify the interaction and relation between the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and the Maritime Transport Act in terms of the regulation and the discharge of harmful substances. This will more accurately reflect the jurisdiction New Zealand has over the continental shelf beyond the exclusive economic zone. The bill now allows for information sharing between the Environmental Protection Authority and Maritime New Zealand. This will ensure a clear interaction between the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and the Maritime Transport Act and provide certainty that environmental effects are properly managed. Finally the bill now provides clear transitional arrangements for the applications and consents of existing discharge management plans and dumping permits. 
To sum up the proposed changes will promote the effective management of the marine environment by enhancing existing measures in the Maritime Transport Act. In closing I would like to once again thank the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members for the work on this bill. This bill will provide an updated and improved framework for maritime safety and marine environmental protection. I commend this bill to the House. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I rise to speak in support of the Marine Legislation Bill which is a largely technical omnibus bill that is probably worthy of the level of passion we saw from the Minister of Justice in her contribution. It was a very accurate representation of the legislation and of the select committee process. It was perhaps not an entirely accurate representation of some of the issues behind the bill of course and I will get to those later on in my contribution. I would like to thank the officials for their diligent work in assisting the select committee in what was a very technical piece of legislation that required a lot of technical advice and I would also like to thank my new colleagues—[ 
Interruption 
] No I was not there but I am still going to thank them; that is the kind of guy I am. I did make some brief visits to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and now I have the pleasure of being a permanent member of that committee so I would like to thank my new colleagues on that committee for the good work that they put into this piece of legislation as well. 
This Marine Legislation Bill is an omnibus bill of two parts. Part 1 seeks to amend the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and Part 2 seeks to amend the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 which of course was passed through this Parliament merely weeks before this piece of legislation was introduced to make amendments to that piece of legislation. I do not know whether that is a reflection of the shambolic approach that this Government takes to making laws—that merely weeks later it needed to fix up something that it had only just passed—but them’s the facts and we worked hard to try to tidy up some of the Government’s shoddy work. This bill amends the Maritime Transport Act “to provide for local regulation of maritime safety and maritime-related activities by regional councils; to regulate alcohol consumption by seafarers; to implement four international maritime conventions; to create offences and prescribe penalties for the improper operation of ships; and to make other miscellaneous changes.” It amends the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act “to make new provisions in relation to discharges and dumping and to ensure that New Zealand continues to act consistently with two international conventions to which it is party;”. 
The bill implements a number of conventions. The Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims is currently only partially applied in New Zealand meaning maritime liability is half what it could be for loss of life injury property damage or other damage or loss. This bill enacts the convention fully and gives it the full force of law. The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 is fully implemented in this bill as well. It sets up a separate liability regime for fuel oil pollution meaning claims would not be limited by the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The International Convention Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties 1969 has a protocol that includes substances beyond those that New Zealand law currently applies to so the bill extends coverage to the substances in the protocol. 
The bill also introduces a 0.05 grams per 100 millilitres of blood-alcohol limit on all seafarers and this is perhaps one of the more curious aspects of this piece of legislation. Although the Government has accepted an international convention that states 0.05 is an appropriate and acceptable alcohol limit for seafarers the Government has continued to abjectly refuse the concept that that is an appropriate limit for car drivers. It seems odd that when only 80 vessels will be affected by this change and it is estimated that there are just 10 incidents a year that will be affected by this new regulation the Government is so quick to move on this change to blood-alcohol limits when it is not prepared to act on the 34 percent of fatal car accidents that have been linked to alcohol. It is utterly inconsistent from this Government to acknowledge that 0.05 is an appropriate blood-alcohol limit for operating a vessel and yet it refuses to act on something that has got the potential to save far more lives and do far more good than simply implementing this for seafarers alone. But that is not the most curious aspect of this legislation. 
The most curious part is that it took so long for the Government to actually implement the conventions that this legislation allows us to sign up to. In particular the one that most New Zealanders will be mindful of is the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage or the bunker convention as it is more common known. There was a discussion document all the way back in 2007. Regional councils received a discussion document from the then Labour Government about implementing that convention. But after this Government came into power everything went silent. In the briefing to the incoming Minister in 2008 there was a recommendation that he implement and sign up to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage and to a number of changes to the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. Legislation was prepared and ready to go by 2009 but that bill sat on the Minister’s desk. In fact it was lucky if it was sitting on the Minister’s desk—it disappeared to some distant filing cabinet never to be thought of again. So while Steven Joyce was planning his uneconomic unaffordable roads of national significance a little bill waited. While Steven Joyce was running focus groups and running scared from doing the right thing by lowering the legal blood-alcohol level for drivers a little bill waited. [ 
Interruption 
] They have woken up. And while Steven Joyce was busy fixing up the mistakes of his colleagues in this shambles of a Government a little bill waited and hoped that one day somebody somewhere in the Government would actually pay attention to it and introduce it to the House. 
Well that day finally came. The day when somebody in the Government actually thought: “Gosh! We really ought to progress this Marine Legislation Bill.” That day came on Wednesday 5 October 2011 to be precise at around about 2.20 a.m. That is when the  
Rena 
 ran aground on the Astrolabe Reef. The ship was carrying 1368 containers eight of which contained hazardous materials as well as 1700 tonnes of heavy fuel and 200 tonnes of marine diesel oil. All of a sudden the Marine Legislation Bill became very important. But it was all too late. How late? About $50 million late. We needed this bill passed before the  
Rena 
 ran aground not afterwards. If National had managed to carry out that simple task the New Zealand taxpayer would not have been left in the position of having to fork out the lion’s share of $50 million to pay for the clean-up of the  
Rena 
 grounding. 
When the New Zealand Shipping Federation came to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it approached the bill thus. The federation expressed its concern regarding the haste with which the bill was being progressed. It understood the reason which was that the Government was attempting to quickly close the door after the horse had bolted but it said: “This merely serves to compound our frustration as it demonstrates that the maritime sector is regarded as a low-priority sector within official circles.” 
The haste with which the bill is being progressed as far as the New Zealand Shipping Federation was concerned was quite understandable because there was in fact a time limit which was 1 January 2013. In order to meet our convention requirements regarding alcohol limits we were supposed to have had this legislation passed by 1 January 2013. I do not know whether it is a continuation of the shambles of this Government or whether it is the walking shambles that is David Bennett but somehow or another the Government has failed again to meet its international obligations by failing to get this legislation passed in time. Mercifully I do not think we will suffer any penalty as a result. But this bill is a good bill. It is a technical bill but one that is very important for protecting our coastline and our environment. It is just a pity the Government could not get off its chuff and do this sooner. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 This Marine Legislation Bill is a good bill which all parties in this House apart from probably the Green Party are going to support. It was very disappointing to see that last speaker Iain Lees-Galloway trying to politicise it. I know he is a new member to this House and has little experience but he needs to actually understand how you work together with other parties. I must admit that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I hear he’s on the committee. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: He is not on the committee. He is a recent member on the committee. He got promoted to the committee from something or other that I think was meeting at 8 o’clock in the morning; now he is headed to a full meeting. He is learning but it is very disappointing to hear that member say those things. 
I want to just make one point before I go on to a few points about the bill and that is that the Labour Government did not put that convention through. The Labour Government at that time was so busy trying to sort out the shambles around election laws and trying to save its butt around illegalities in the electoral system that it had promoted that it did not put this bill up. It is rich for the Labour Party to come into this House now and say that the National Government should have done it. The Labour Government had it on its books and did not do it and the reason it did not do it is that it was trying to buy votes in an election as it always does and it did not work. So those members should not come into this House and now blame the National Government for this. The Labour Party is the party at fault. It was the one that was in Government and should have done it at that time. It did not and it is a bit rich for that member to come in here—I know he is a new member but it is a bit rich for him to come in and say those things at this time. 
This is good legislation. This is legislation that even the Green Party and the National Party worked together on. We worked together and got a solution around fracking and things like that and it would be good to see the Green Party actually support this legislation today. But I am sure it will find some minute detail that makes no difference and that will be its reason to not support the legislation and that will be very disappointing. 
But there are some big parts to this bill. There is another part that the last speaker mentioned and that is the alcohol requirement. OK it is at a lower level than the driving requirement but it is for only 80 vessels as that member identified. The vast bulk of vessels or seafarers you could say are not covered. This covers only commercial seafarers in that sense. It relates to international seafarers’ boats that have international crews coming in and out on a commercial basis so it is consistent with that. That member was making reference to things that are not the case. It is not an approach that is different from what we do in the sense of our roading network because— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: You’ve got one for the roads and one for the sea. What’s the difference? 
DAVID BENNETT 
: It is because a lot of people on the sea do not actually have any limit because there is a zero limit for all other sea captains unless you are in a commercial enterprise. 
 The other thing I wanted to go through was the role of regional councils—I think this is a very important part of this Marine Legislation Bill—having the ability to set some of these rules around harbour masters and the rules and regulations around their maritime activities in certain areas. It is a good example of how Government can work with local bodies. There were some submissions from different regional councils that felt that we should do it in different ways and I know the Deputy Speaker represents an area that has strong views as well. In the end this is a good balance where we are showing that central government and local government are working together. So I think that is another good part of the bill. 
Effectively this bill does change two major pieces of legislation and it does it in a way that shows members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee have worked hard to try to accommodate the interests of all parties and reflect the advice we received from officials. I look forward to this bill passing through the House. We look forward to the Labour Party actually supporting this bill not only in vote but in spirit in the way that the select committee worked and that would be good to see. It would be good to see this bill pass through the House unanimously. Thank you. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I take great pleasure in rising to speak on the Marine Legislation Bill. Talk about having something handed to you on a platter. All of the work had been done for this bill by the previous Labour Government. It had taken a number of years to get to the point where this legislation was written and ready to go. By the end of 2008 of course we had an election. There it sat on the new Minister’s desk. Here was something that could have been implemented immediately but no National reverted to type and said that this was an idea from the Labour Party therefore it was not going to give it any credence whatsoever. It took a shipwreck it took a disaster for somebody to go back and say: “Gosh Minister of Transport. Ooh! Were you meant to do something about this? What’s this about a convention? Was the Minister meant to do something about this? What’s our responsibility here?”. Even then having all of the work done—everything prepared legislation ready to go everything handed to the Minister on a platter—he still did not act for another 4 years. Even then it is late. It should have been in by 1 January this year. Even then the Minister could not get it right. 
So for David Bennett to whinge and moan about us and my colleague Iain Lees-Galloway before me and saying that it is a bit rich of the Labour Party to get up and complain I am sorry but there needs to be some responsibility sheeted home for why this was not managed earlier. The Government has had 4 years and it has not been able to implement something that was all done and dusted and ready to go. We will continue to make that point. 
We are supporting the bill. We wish it had been given the chance by this Government to pass before the  
Rena 
 disaster but the other thing that is of concern—well let us just say we welcome it coming anyway. Fortunately if there are not going to be international penalties for us in getting it in late then that is well and good but it is no thanks to the assiduousness of the Minister. Due to the Government’s failure to ratify the international conventions when the  
Rena  
crashed of course we know that it was liable to pay only $11.3 million of the clean-up costs for the Crown which ended up being over $50 million. Although the Government was able to negotiate that up to about halfway it would not have been necessary for the Government to go through those negotiations had it subscribed to these international conventions in the first place. 
I suppose there is one other thing that I want to reflect on just briefly. One of the parts of this bill sets a blood-alcohol limit of 0.05 grams for people in charge of ships and for people sailing ships but the Government cannot bring itself to do that for people driving lethal weapons on our roads. I do not understand the difference. I do not understand why there should be one standard for maritime safety and quite another for road safety. More New Zealanders are going to be travelling on our roads than are ever going to be travelling on vessels covered by this legislation. I would ask one of the Ministers in the House—well the Minister in the House the Minister of Justice—to consider that again. Do not be afraid to revisit legislation on alcohol limits because I do not think the Minister got it right last time. 
Do not be afraid to revisit things because it is perfectly clear that Amy Adams has had to revisit a few things in the course of developing this legislation and contributing to it. In fact there are 37 pages of amendments to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act that have been introduced in this legislation even though National passed that bill only about a month ago. From one shambles to another—although at the same time I do say to Minister Collins that should she choose to revisit blood-alcohol levels I am sure there would be a number of people around this country who would be prepared to welcome that. 
Amy Adams has brought forward 37 pages of amendments to a bill that she clearly did not get right a month ago. The primary aim of the amendments which I do support—and this is where I am particularly interested—is to move the powers from Maritime New Zealand to the new Environmental Protection Authority. The Environmental Protection Authority is a regulatory body whose responsibility it will be under these amendments to monitor and regulate around waste dumping. The amendments go on to implement the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships as modified by the protocol of 1978 and to implement the 1996 protocol to the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter. 
The quality of our oceans is something that should be of concern to all of us. The original exclusive economic zone legislation was weak. It was inadequate and 37 pages of amendments go some way to providing the Environmental Protection Authority with its regulatory oversight the strength to monitor to comment on and to regulate around waste dumping in our oceans. When people get out to sea and they do not think anybody can see them they think it is fine to release waste into the vast oceans and it will just wash away. But anybody who has travelled around the Pacific can tell you it does not wash away it washes up—it washes up. 
These amendments raise the question of why the Minister for the Environment had to dump the substantive changes to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill in Supplementary Order Paper 100 on Parliament after the Local Government and Environment Committee consideration rather than including them in the bill so they could be consulted on and people could submit on them. It would also go some way perhaps to explaining why that exclusive economic zone legislation was rushed back from the select committee as the Marine Legislation Bill had to be passed this year. Given that it contained these amendments it could not be put into Parliament before the exclusive economic zone legislation was passed. With that confusing set of consequences and time lines it is clear that Ministers around this area whether they be of transport or for the environment are clearly not across the detail of the job and not across the urgency of this job. Having been critical of the Ministers in this regard I still support the legislation. We wish it had happened years ago. 
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 It is my privilege to speak to the second reading of the Marine Legislation Bill. I take this call and I acknowledge that I am speaking on behalf of my colleague Gareth Hughes who has been the Green MP who has been ushering this bill through its first reading and the select committee process. He will no doubt have a lot more to say on this bill as it reaches the next phase the Committee of the whole House and the subsequent third reading. 
The Greens will be supporting this bill. Just to recap this is an omnibus bill that primarily amends two Acts: the Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012—the EEZ Act; the one that was referred to previously as having 37 amendments to it. It is an omnibus bill that will also enable New Zealand to accede to three international maritime conventions the amendments implement changes to another international maritime convention to which New Zealand is a party and it makes changes relating to the making of maritime and marine protection rules. 
I would like to acknowledge and give thanks to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee members to the officials and also to the submitters. I note that there were 48 submitters from a wide range of organisations including Local Government New Zealand regional councils across the country the merchant officers’ guild shipping companies oil companies port companies and also individuals. My colleague Gareth assures me that the select committee worked cooperatively to bring this bill to the House with the amendments that have been agreed to in the report. Personally I would like to see a lot more of that so I encourage the Government to think about other bills that are sensible and solutions-focused that protect our special places and that support our people and are just—quite unlike the previous bill that was in the House the Social Security (Benefit Categories and Work Focus) Amendment Bill. Then we could look forward to more cooperation in the House and much better decision-making. 
But I go back to the Marine Legislation Bill. This is the bill that will become the Act that we should have had in place at the time that the  
Rena 
 crashed into Astrolabe Reef and leaked debris and oil on to our beaches and into our marine environment. At the first reading of this bill in the House my colleague Gareth Hughes said that the  
Rena 
 disaster and aftermath shocked New Zealanders—and I agree with him—and that our people were particularly shocked by the Government’s initial lack of response its failure to act with speed and the lack of urgency expertise and infrastructure that it supplied to deal with the environmental degradation the wreck was causing. Gareth also highlighted in the first reading that the cost of cleaning up after the  
Rena 
 was borne by the taxpayer to the tune of around $130 million because we were not adequately protected by our own laws and because we had not acceded through legislation to three international conventions that would have protected our taxpayers when this accident occurred. 
We do support this bill. In particular we support the bill’s positive changes which I will get to soon but unfortunately there are still within the bill some weaknesses that we raised at the first reading and which remain unaddressed. No doubt we will get to them during the Committee of the whole House. The bill does not go far enough to protect New Zealand against the environmental and economic risks of an oil spill. Even with this bill in place it is likely that the taxpayer will still have to cover some of the cost of potential future marine disasters. For example the bill does not sign up New Zealand to the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund’s supplementary fund. New Zealand is already a party to the 1992 fund. But it is not a party to the supplementary fund which would allow us to access over $1 billion for compensation and clean-up if there were a spill from a tanker. 
The Government has also failed to adequately fund the Oil Pollution Fund. In the case of oil drilling the Government should be increasing the amount of insurance required for companies that wish to engage in oil drilling. The Gulf of Mexico spill cost $40 billion. However our Government is happy to allow oil-drilling companies to have insurance of only $30 million. Who pays the difference? The Government still does not have adequate oil spill protection within the country. I note that this bill does not introduce compulsory shipping lanes which would go some way towards highlighting where the super-highways are on the sea and could even be used in my part of the country—where I live in the Hauraki Gulf—to steer ships away from the endangered Bryde’s whales that live in the Hauraki Gulf. As I said in my speech in the first reading of this bill in the House those whales although endangered have a tendency to live near the surface and so are more likely to be hit by ships particularly when the ships are going fast. 
 We do support this bill though. In particular we support the changes that outline the responsibilities of regulating maritime safety as a function of a regional council and the amendments that involve more comprehensive details for duties and requirements of harbour masters. We support the new section allowing for enforcement officers or constables to exercise the certain same powers as harbour masters and to restrict this exercise to occasions of special request or authority by a regional council. So basically we support the regional councils having some autonomy here. 
Like the other parties in this House we agree with the alcohol limits that should be set for seafarers and again we do note that they are set at a lower level than those for the driver of a car. We also support the new section to create an offence of and prescribe a penalty for the overloading of a ship and to allow consistency with the International Convention on Load Lines. This is an extremely important piece to have in this bill as unstable loads or overloaded ships are at risk of further capsizing. We are also pleased with the proposed insertion of a new definition of “mining discharge” to ensure that hydraulic fracturing or fracking would be subject to this legislation and I think that is a major achievement. Although fracking is not actually occurring in our oceans at present it is good to see that this legislation is being futureproofed if an application were lodged. 
Our oceans are under threat. However we believe this bill goes some way towards supporting some positive changes. It is curious however that this bill comes with 37 amendments to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act which was passed less than a year ago which kind of highlights the sloppiness of the Government’s process of creating that bill. 
However in summary we support this bill. We think it is a good bill. It has been improved through the select committee process. It does not go far enough in terms of protecting New Zealand’s waters or the taxpayer from liability but it does start a process of improving things for our oceans. 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am really pleased to take a call on this love-fest bill. I am sorry; it is not that at all. It is the Maritime Legislation Bill. I just acknowledge the fact that this bill is supported across the House although it is a little bit like Clayton’s support—“beatings will continue until morale improves” support if you like. But none the less there is support across the House. As a new member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I just acknowledge the committee’s work. I have only recently joined the committee as deputy chairman. It has an excellent chairman in David Bennett and it is a very hard-working committee embodied in its name—it is a very industrial committee. I just acknowledge its work and of course the work of the respective Ministers. 
Successful economic policy really does embody successful environmental policy and of this National-led Government this National Party is the one party that actually marries up those two important factors successfully. We hear a lot about it from over in the “watermelon patch” but it is just some sort of crazy ideology—a little bit of printing money and a bit of green stuff thrown in there every now and then. But this National-led Government gets that balance right and this bill really does embody that. 
The Maritime Transport Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act are amended in this bill and the changes include changes to the oversight of port harbour and navigation safety; implementation of international maritime conventions and protocols; changes related to the making of maritime and marine protection rules; and transferring the regulation of the discharge and dumping of waste essentially. This is all very sensible stuff. The changes in this bill will provide greater certainty and reduce compliance costs which I think we can all agree is a very positive addition; increased efficiency and avoiding duplication in process; enhanced management of the environmental effects and impacts; and of course the opportunity to improve public and iwi consultation. I just want to also acknowledge the fact that this bill will provide for and empower the regional councils to set about having a greater involvement and a more effective involvement I believe because regional councils are people who do know their harbours and waterways better than anyone. I think that is infinitely sensible. 
The bill goes on to make some fairly serious improvements and creates the sort of clarity and effectiveness that is absolutely warranted in very very busy waterways. Way back when—I cannot remember how long now; it seems like about five lifetimes ago now—I was a naval officer. Rest assured members of the House. There are plenty of big sharp things floating around out there in the sea and when things go wrong as we found with the  
Rena 
 things get very very concerning for all parties concerned onshore and offshore. This bill creates an effectiveness and an efficiency that will provide some certainty out there. 
It also improves the safety and environmental protection that again as I started to say in my short contribution to the House are so important in terms of getting the right balance between the environmental impacts the environmental consequences and the economic importance. This is a pragmatic bill. It is another good example of what this Government is doing to move things ahead. I am certainly happy to commend it to the House. 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow Mr Sabin and his unique brand of jocular sincerity. I am pleased to rise to take a call on this the second reading of the Marine Legislation Bill. New Zealand First supports this bill. We supported it at its first reading with some reservations. I have had to consult the  
Hansard 
 to discover what those reservations were. Apparently they centred on the  
Rena 
 and the effects of the fuel oil that leaked from that now infamous vessel on to the pristine beaches of the Bay of Plenty. I was uncertain as to the nature of our reservations because during the first reading New Zealand First was represented by the now independent member from Tauranga. The independent member from Tauranga was very concerned about the oil on the beaches and rightly so. We are very concerned about oil on the beaches as well. We remain concerned despite his absence from our caucus. He did not take that concern with him. I look forward to hearing the independent member from Tauranga speaking on this bill again. I look forward to his speech as I am sure it will add to the powerful contribution he is making in his new role as New Zealand’s most effective independent MP. I wish him well with that. As one of my old teachers used to say as my old chemistry teacher at high school used to say when we were facing exams as he used to remark to those of us who were about to be examined I wish him the success that he deserves. But I digress perhaps just a little. 
New Zealand First supports this bill. We are happy to support good legislation as and when we encounter it. If we have any criticism it is perhaps that it has taken this long for this legislation to reach this stage of its passage through the House and that it will be some time yet—some not inconsiderable time yet—before it becomes law. The longer it takes before this bill becomes law the greater the chances will be that another  
Rena 
 disaster may be visited upon us. We may be faced with yet more oil on the beaches. The independent member from Tauranga may be forced or at least feel compelled to avail us of yet more photos on his iPad of oil on the beaches. I can think of little else that I would wish to see less than pictures of oil on the beaches on the iPad of the independent member from Tauranga or indeed anything else that may be on it. I suppose I should be grateful that at least he did not sing. Or perhaps he did—perhaps he did sing. I cannot be sure as I confess that I did not read the  
Hansard 
 in its entirety. If it is indeed the case that the now independent member from Tauranga did burst into song about the oil on the beaches I am sure that some honourable member who was present at the time will remind me of it unless of course they have blanked that occurrence from their memory. It is possible that that happened and perhaps understandable. Again I am digressing. 
New Zealand First is happy to support this bill and we are glad about the various concerns that it will address. The Minister for Building and Construction Mr Williamson made references to the broad aims of the bill during the earlier debate and we agree with those broad aims. He said that “The purpose of this bill is to promote maritime safety and marine environment protection.” and we support that aim. The Minister said much else with which we agree. He remarked that “The bill also transfers the regulation of waste dumping and discharges from ships and offshore installations involved in seabed activities in the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority. This change is achieved through amendments to the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. … It seeks to promote safety in maritime transport protect the marine environment and implement New Zealand’s obligations under international maritime conventions.”—the main issues and benefits of this are of course those very international conventions—“The bill enables New Zealand to accede to three international conventions to protect New Zealand’s maritime interests.” 
The  
Rena 
 disaster has “highlighted the need to update New Zealand’s liability limitation regime for maritime claims. The bill will enable New Zealand to accede to the 1996 protocol to amend the International Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976. … The bill also enables New Zealand to ratify the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage 2001 which makes shipowners strictly liable for bunker oil spills. Claims for pollution damage from ships’ bunker oil will be treated as a separate category of claim. The increased liability limit established by the 1996 protocol will apply to such claims. This arrangement provides a more certain remedy for parties facing economic loss or clean-up costs because of bunker oil spills. Thirdly the bill enables New Zealand to accede to the Protocol Relating to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Pollution by Substances other than Oil 1973. This will help protect New Zealand’s environment in the event of a shipping accident involving hazardous or noxious substances.”—such as perhaps that which occurred with the  
Rena 
—“The bill also implements amendments to the International Convention on Standards of Training Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers 1978 that establish an internationally applicable alcohol limit for merchant seafarers.” I note that other members have made mention of the alcohol limit and how it differs from that which applies to road users in New Zealand. Mr Lees-Galloway I think could be reassured that masters of container ships operating on our roads will indeed be subject to lower alcohol limits. 
“The bill establishes clear functions duties and powers to complement the voluntary guidelines of the New Zealand Port and Harbour Marine Safety Code 2004 and maintains the division of central and local government responsibilities. These measures provide a stronger regime for the management of port and harbour and navigation safety. The bill also contains miscellaneous amendments to improve enforcement modernise penalty levels and clarify the application of the Maritime Transport Act. … The bill also amends rule-making provisions in line with amendments already made to the rule-making provisions of the Civil Aviation Act 1990 and the Land Transport Act 1998. Transfers of discharge and dumping functions from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority are covered. The bill transfers regulation of waste dumping except emergency dumping and certain discharges within the exclusive economic zone and over the continental shelf from Maritime New Zealand to the Environmental Protection Authority. This will enable discharge and dumping applications to be considered entirely within the new exclusive economic zone regime”. 
In short this is a good and necessary piece of legislation and we commend the Government for advancing it although I reiterate we are not entirely happy about how long it has taken for it to be implemented. New Zealand First supports this bill. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 What a pleasure it is to follow Mr Richard Prosser after his dissertation on the previous New Zealand First member fitting in a few details about the Marine Legislation Bill as he went. Those details were significant and I thank him for doing that because he clearly has a details type of mind. I in fact would probably say that I am more of a generalist so I am going to have a general look at this bill. When it came into the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I read that it was an omnibus bill that amends the main Maritime Transport Act 1994 and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012. 
That introduction could lead one to think that this would be an updating regulatory reinterpretation sort of bill which might not be the most riveting part of one’s parliamentary life. It did involve updating it did involve reinterpretation and regulation and it was a very large piece of legislation but what a riveting interesting piece of legislation it has been. I will always remember it for four main reasons: first for the phenomenal reach of the experience knowledge and practical common sense of the officials in response to our questions. There seemed to be little that they could not handle immediately and it was amazing the way they did that. The range of subjects and activities involved in the bill were from oversight of port and marine safety and environmental effects through to the appointment of harbour masters the role of the harbour masters how to deal with putting writs on derelict ships and alcohol limits. 
Listening to the clarity of submissions from groups of people who have saltwater seemingly running through their veins and the accumulated knowledge of generations of master mariners in their profession was a privilege that was a pleasure to experience. They took their work extremely seriously they thoroughly enjoyed their work and they were pleased to put their experiences and opinions as submitters before us. 
The fourth reason why I particularly wish to commend this bill to the House is in recognition that marine regulations and mariners through those regulations carry our country’s wealth. They carry our exports to market and bring our imports in through seaports using the regulations that are legislated in this House. That is 49 million tonnes of product coming through our ports—49 million tonnes a year at a value of $75 billion. 
Good marine legislation has always been critical and crucial to New Zealand. It is crucial to New Zealand and always will be crucial to New Zealand. I commend this bill to the House. Thank you. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I am pleased to have the opportunity to take a call in the second reading of the Marine Legislation Bill and I share my colleague Chris Auchinvole’s enthusiasm for this bill. It was indeed extremely interesting to work on. Also while I have the opportunity may I welcome Mike Sabin as deputy chair to our Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. He is not listening but anyway— 
Mike Sabin 
: No I am listening—absolutely. I appreciate that. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Oh you are listening. OK. But may I also point out that it is actually the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. It has got a lot to do with workers and I fear that it is going to be very challenging for that member when the time comes to consider this Government’s terrible programme for cutting the rights of workers. Can I also assure Mr Sabin that he going to get a ritual beating from me in my speech as well because I have been on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee— 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: For ever. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: For ever—that is right. The member is right. I have since 2005 when I came into Parliament with Kate Wilkinson. Actually we were on the select committee together then too. So I know quite a lot of the history of the events that led to some of the provisions in this bill. 
Also I arrived in Tauranga the day after the  
Rena  
hit the Astrolabe Reef and before the storm. There was a big storm and overnight the sands of Tauranga turned black. I will never forget waking up in the morning and looking out of my window and seeing that all of the beaches surrounding where I was staying were black. It was just devastating. The people of Tauranga were heartbroken. They were already reeling as we know from the impact of Psa on their kiwifruit. What they were looking at was what was happening to their beautiful coastline the wildlife and their kai moana. What was wonderful was how they got out and helped where they could. Although that was more than 2 years ago there are still questions I think that this bill brings up. 
As I said I have been a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee since I entered Parliament in 2005. Maurice Williamson was a member from 2005 to 2008. Kate Wilkinson was also a member during that period. Both became Ministers in the new Government. David Bennett was also a member and he has been there for ever as well but he is now chair of the committee. What is interesting—Kate Wilkinson can speak for herself but I wonder about this—is that David Bennett cannot even remember that in 2005 to 2008 that committee passed a recommendation that the two conventions that this bill introduces should be passed into legislation so that they could be enforced by the New Zealand courts. Those two conventions are the international treaty Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims which would have doubled the $12 million liability limit in the case of the  
Rena 
 and funded compensation for businesses and properties that were adversely affected and the bunker convention the second convention that this bill deals with. 
The then incoming Minister of Transport Steven Joyce had a briefing in 2008 that noted that the ministry was ready to introduce legislation to update the Maritime Transport Act. And guess what? This is now 2013 and we are just on the second reading of this bill—5 years later. It has taken all this time to hit the House. In the meantime what I saw as I sat on that select committee was Maritime New Zealand being engaged in pointless value-for-money exercises demanded by this Government—demanded by the Government—when all the time we had an accident of the size of the  
Rena 
 waiting to happen with dreadful consequences. In fact the consequences could be described as the leaky homes crisis of the sea. 
It goes back even further than that. I think it goes back to Maurice Williamson’s days as Minister of Transport when he deregulated coastal shipping in New Zealand—when he gutted the regulations required for coastal shipping and ships sailing around our coastline delivering freight and basically opened up our seaways to the sort of disaster that we ended up seeing with the  
Rena 
. That is another debate and I am sure we will have that debate at some stage because Labour is certainly committed to reinstating coastal shipping. I think one of the members before described how important shipping is how it brings huge amounts of goods in and how it is worth billions of dollars and so on but what this Government does instead of course is it tends to put all of that freight and other things on the roads when we have perfectly great highways of the sea that currently are not regulated and that need to be regulated. 
But there are other things in this bill and as I mentioned some of them are very interesting. I am fascinated—and this again goes back to the length of time that I have spent on the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee—by the Government’s keenness to introduce the blood-alcohol limit of 0.05 grams for seafarers. Yes we know that it is part of a convention that we signed up for but this issue of the blood-alcohol limit for drivers on New Zealand roads is not new to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and in fact the Government has had several opportunities to introduce it. When we last considered it I think it was 2 years ago and what we were told by the Government then was that there was not enough research available. Actually there are mountains of research but we had to have New Zealand - specific research so we are still waiting. I think actually one of the things that our committee should do is ask for an update as to where that research is because I suspect that it may well have been just a means of putting off a difficult issue that this Government did not want to tackle. 
Anyone who loves the sea as we do in New Zealand and who is fascinated by ships would be fascinated by this bill. There are some really interesting things in it—a whole provision around the removal of wrecks. It had never occurred to me that there would be regional council responsibility for removing wrecks which of course become a hazard in their own right. There was lengthy discussion around responsibilities and the requirements around that. Of course wrecks become not only a hazard to other ships but also an environmental hazard. 
 The other recollection I have of working on this bill are the long discussions we had about harbour masters and the role of harbour masters who are apparently very very difficult to find. We have very few trained and qualified harbour masters in New Zealand and local councils were very concerned about some of the provisions that were being proposed because they say that it is almost impossible to hire trained and qualified harbour masters as required by maritime legislation. When I asked why they were pretty frank. They said that there was no training programme going on and also that the salaries are not attractive enough. I think that is something we will have to address in the future. 
The other thing that I was interested in and that there were some good submissions on were the proposals around the responsibilities of port facilities in ports to ensure health and safety—the responsibilities that they would be required to carry out. Under the original bill they had responsibilities to prevent health and safety accidents that could endanger or were likely to endanger any person or property on a ship or at sea. We all know that ports were a bit of a sensitive topic and still continue to be—actually Auckland port is still not settled. What they did note was that the Government has this great ministerial task force on health and safety. It considers that our health and safety levels are below the levels of other countries and it is absolutely right about that. The Port CEO Group wants to see the task force process actually completed and was concerned that there was going to be a mix-up between the Health and Safety in Employment Act and the requirements under this bill in terms of port facility responsibilities. 
So it is an interesting bill. It is a very long bill. I also want to endorse what Chris Auchinvole said about the contribution of the officials their willingness to answer questions and do the research and their very impressive knowledge of what is clearly a unique part of law in New Zealand that very few people have experience in. Labour is supporting this bill. We look forward to the debate in the Committee stage when I am sure we will get into discussing it in a lot more detail. Thank you. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is a great pleasure to rise to speak on the Marine Legislation Bill. I must say that I enjoyed the contribution from the member Darien Fenton who has just sat down. It betokens the pleasure and enthusiasm I think that members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had in considering this rather arcane but none the less interesting piece of work. A lot of work has been done. The bill enjoys widespread support across the House and that in itself is a pleasure. I would like to acknowledge the chairmanship of David Bennett. I have just had the pleasure of joining this committee and it is of regret to me that I was not there for the consideration of this piece of legislation. 
Trade is of course our lifeblood. It is New Zealand’s lifeblood. We export the majority of our commodities by sea and most of the essential imports that we all appreciate also come by sea. As a principled pragmatic Government we are committed to building a more competitive and productive economy and part of that is growing our exports. The work that Tim Groser has done around the world is legendary and our Prime Minister has just come back from South America and developing new markets there. This bill highlights our commitment to creating strong and sensible legislation that works and allows us to achieve that end. It aims to improve the clarity consistency and effectiveness of the Maritime Transport Act and it will also provide more certainty around the laws involved as well as improving safety environmental practices and environmental protection. That is a crucial part of our plank—economic development that is sustainable with protection of our environment. We have heard that the Marine Legislation Bill makes amendments to the Maritime Transport Act and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act and I will not go into any further detail on that. 
As a young lad I grew up in Taranaki. It is an area I am proud of. You can take the boy away from the mountain but you can never take the mountain away from the boy. One of my earliest memories is going down to Ngamotu Beach and seeing a nodding donkey oil well—an oil well I was told that was one of the longest-serving producing wells in the country. Because of my interest in the region and in the oil industry itself—which incidentally is the third or fourth plank to the New Zealand economy. We export $2 billion - plus of very high-quality oil to the overseas markets which is a fact I was not aware of until some years ago. Of course “Taradise”—Taranaki—is where most of that oil comes from. We are committed to getting more out of that area and also other parts of New Zealand but also to protecting the environment and this is what this legislation helps us do. With the New Zealand Business and Parliament Trust I am hoping to spend a bit of time with the oil industry in Taranaki. The industry has worked very well over the decades—very very well indeed. There has been a very very small number of extremely minor oil spills but this legislation actually provides some clarity in terms of civil liability for pollution of the marine environment from marine structures. The clarity comes about through a committee recommendation amending a particular clause and inserting a new part relating to civil liability for pollution from marine structures and operations. This makes it clear that insurance requirements extend to pipelines that connect to offshore installations. 
So it is a very positive piece of legislation. The other area that it deals with is in a similar part of the legislation in that Maritime New Zealand will remain responsible for oil spill response and emergency dumping as expertise and power to deal with these aspects lie within its scope. I commend this bill to the House. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: This is a split call. The Hon Ruth Dyson. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 It is a split call. I am delighted to join with the other members of the Labour team in supporting this Marine Legislation Bill but I have to say that it really does still beg the question—despite all the National members who have spoken none of them has answered the question—why did this take so long? Why did it take New Zealand ending up losing millions and millions of dollars when in 2008 leading into the election National received the bill? It had this legislation all ready to go. It won the election—and it has reminded us of that on many occasions—yet for 3 long years Steven Joyce sat on this legislation and did nothing. Then he was stripped of that portfolio—clearly he was not up to the job—and blow me down who was it given to but the Hon Gerry Brownlee. He took another excruciatingly long period of time to bring this legislation through. 
Well some people might think that it is not important and often we would not see directly the implications of having legislation that was below standard. But tragically we did know the impact of having substandard legislation caused by the National Government sitting on its hands when the bill was written and given to it. We saw the tragic effects on our economy and on our shorelines when the  
Rena 
 hit the Astrolabe. If that had not happened prior to this legislation then we would not have had to have huge amounts of resources involved in haggling over what will now be our legal entitlement. When damage like that is done to our environment we know who should pay the consequences. But because of the shoddiness of Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee New Zealand taxpayers paid the cost as well as the poor people in the Tauranga area who had to look at the dreadful mess made by that incident. 
I went up to Tauranga just a few days after the  
Rena 
 disaster and I have to say that it was pretty awful looking at the penguins and the birdlife covered in oil. I would like to take the opportunity to put on record my admiration of the passion and the knowledge that was demonstrated by the people who were cleaning those animals and making sure that they were brought back to good health. It really was a fantastic gift that they were giving to the animals themselves obviously and also to the surrounding area. There were a lot of people involved from local community people right through to Government departments and agencies. They did that because they care about the community and they care about the beauty of our beaches and our water. All of that time the Government was sitting on its hands letting the financial liability be carried by those people and their fellow New Zealand citizens as well. It was a shambles and we lost literally millions of dollars as a result. 
This bill really is another indication of how poorly some Ministers are running their portfolios and the cost that we have to bear as a country as a result of their shoddiness and laziness. We will be supporting this bill. It is a good bill to support. It is a long way overdue; it should have been introduced as a priority in 2009. We wish that we had been given a chance by the Government to back this bill earlier. 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 I am also pleased to take a brief call to reiterate our support for this bill the Marine Legislation Bill albeit our somewhat qualified support. It is a good bill. It could have been a great bill. It could have done a great deal more. It could have gone further towards protecting both our economic and our environmental interests in the marine environment particularly in the exclusive economic zone. 
I think perhaps that we tend to take for granted as New Zealanders our uniqueness and that we are literally in the middle of a water hemisphere. We have one of the largest exclusive economic zones of any country in the world a coastline of some 15000 kilometres long. It is a remarkable asset to us. It is something extraordinary which does shape our culture and of course does have a significant economic influence as well. To the extent that we have that extraordinary asset—all this enormous exclusive economic zone; we have control over such a large area of the marine environment—it perhaps equally carries with it a responsibility to protect to enhance and to do the very very best we can to ensure that our human activities our exportation and our transit across that marine environment do not cause it harm. It must be said that that is where this bill does somewhat fall short of what it could have been. 
It was interesting to see the pleasure some of the National members took in getting general support for this legislation. I would have to say that to have that happen more regularly more routinely the answer is in their hands really. It is simply to present bills that give us economic sustainability that enhance and protect our environment and that are socially responsible. Give us legislation bills that are fit for use in the 21st century and we will be very happy to support them as I am sure our Labour colleagues would too. 
But having said that we will support the bill it is worth reiterating also some of the shortcomings of this legislation. It does leave us exposed financially to future maritime disasters on the scale of the  
Rena 
 or lesser or greater. The numbers that my colleague mentioned are compelling. The cost of the Gulf of Mexico disaster was some $40 billion; we are covered in New Zealand to the tune of some $30 million. At the same time it looks as though this Government will allow despite all the evidence and contrary advice deep-sea drilling. If we are going to start drilling for oil in some of the deepest water on the planet if we are going to be drilling for oil in some of the most exposed dynamic seas anywhere in the world one would think even from an economic position that you would protect yourself against almost inevitable disasters and failures of equipment or people that inevitably will have a massive environmental impact as well as an economic one. So it is unfortunate that this bill does not go further towards protecting our economic interests as well as our environmental responsibilities. 
It is interesting that we now have legislation that will recognise that alcohol impairs the behaviour and the performance of seafarers. It was fascinating that just today in the Law and Order Committee in another context we read the Auditor-General’s report on the police performance in terms of monitoring and enforcing drink-driving law in New Zealand. The short story is that they are doing a very good job albeit in the face of a ridiculously high alcohol limit. A Labour speaker mentioned the Government’s excuse for not lowering the alcohol limit on our roads to be lack of research. I encourage the National Party to read the Auditor-General’s report which spells out very clearly the clinical the medical and the behavioural effects on people who are within the existing alcohol limit and the danger to the rest of us imposed by that. So it is a good thing that at least the seafarers in future will be subject to prosecution if they are found to be operating vessels or behaving in a way under the influence of alcohol. 
I will leave it there. As I say there are some good parts to this bill; it could have been a great deal better. We look forward to a future time when we will have the opportunity to make it better legislation that will protect our economic and our environmental responsibilities much more. Kia ora. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I want to begin by acknowledging what really has been cross-party support for this bill the Marine Legislation Bill and that I am conscious that various parties are not completely in tune as to where the Government is going. Two quick points I wanted to make in a sort of retort is that I am not sure that “inevitable disasters” is a fair statement. Of course that is a point for debate I suppose. Any role of the Government is to try to mitigate risk and there is risk involved with everything from getting up in the morning to having a drink and so forth. So I think we do need to be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater and understand that the Government is about mitigating risk particularly around deep-sea drilling. 
We also heard concerns from the Labour Party about why the time frame has been what it has. I suppose there is an element of “good things take time”. But I mentioned last night to the point of consistency—and I just note that the bunker convention was adopted in 2001 during Labour’s time. In 2001 the bunker convention was adopted and Labour sat on that so one has to be very careful about talking around time or making accusations. 
I think it is important to acknowledge the hard work of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I think it was incredibly constructive under the chairmanship of David Bennett. But I think what was most notable was that people coming to present to give their submissions—both written and oral—were heard were listened to. When I think of things around load lines ferry usage and alcohol as well people came and submitted the select committee debated and discussed and it took advice from officials and continued to develop it from there. 
This is a good piece of legislation. It is time as we continue to move it through the House to take it through to Committee stage and on to its third reading. So I commend this bill to the House. 
Bill read a second time. 
Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) 
Second Reading 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 I move  
That the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) be now read a second time 
. This bill amends the rules for local authority elections. The bill’s amendments are designed to instil high levels of public confidence in the integrity of elections. In particular the bill recognises the strong need for increased transparency and accountability around candidates’ campaign donations. It brings the level of transparency and accountability applied to local electoral candidates closer to that applied to parliamentary candidates such as us. It also recognises a need to streamline pre-election processes. The public rightfully expects high levels of transparency and confidence in the conduct of all public elections. For this reason the Government is keen to progress this bill in time for the next local authority elections. These will be held on 12 October this year. 
Local authority elections cover the elections of representatives to regional councils district councils city councils unitary authorities community boards local boards district health boards licensing trusts and community trusts. The scale and diversity of local authority elections is indeed impressive. At the last elections in 2010 over 2.9 million postal voting packs were delivered to electors and electors voted for more than 1800 representatives on more than 250 local authorities. 
The bill’s changes to the Local Electoral Act and regulations are threefold. Firstly the bill tightens and increases transparency in the rules applying to candidates for receiving recording and reporting their campaign donations. It brings these rules closer in line with the rules for parliamentary elections as I mentioned earlier. Secondly the bill streamlines a range of pre-election processes. These changes are about bringing greater efficiency and effectiveness to the electoral process. Thirdly the bill improves the quality of publicly available information about candidates to help electors cast an informed vote and to increase candidate accountability. 
I will now briefly highlight some of the changes that are proposed in this bill. The current definition of “anonymous donation” in the Local Electoral Act is unclear. The bill addresses this issue by requiring greater accountability from candidates. A donation cannot be treated as anonymous if a candidate knows the identity of the donor or the candidate could in the circumstances reasonably be expected to know the identity of the donor. If a person handling a candidate’s donations knows the identity of any donor the details must be passed on to the candidate. The bill also limits the value of anonymous donations from a single donor. There is currently no limit to the amount of an anonymous donation in the Local Electoral Act. The bill stipulates therefore that if a candidate receives an anonymous donation greater than $1500 they will be able to keep the $1500 but will have to forfeit the excess. 
In addition the bill streamlines a number of important pre-election processes. Many of these changes reflect improvements recommended by councils electoral officers and others involved in the running of local authority elections. The changes are based on the practical experience of these people who submitted to the select committee. Specifically the bill gives unitary authorities city councils and district councils greater flexibility to set ward boundaries in a way that better encompasses local communities and communities with common interests. It also streamlines candidate nomination processes and provides electoral officers an extra week to produce high-quality voting documents. 
The bill makes other changes. It requires candidates to inform electors whether or not they live in the local government area—for example in the ward or constituency to which they seek election. It will also require candidates to inform electors of all positions that they are contesting. With the Justice and Electoral Committee’s amendments the bill also provides the public with clear rights of access to candidates’ returns of electoral expenses and donations. Electoral officers will be required to publish all returns and to make copies available to the public when requested to do so. 
These changes will make real and noticeable improvements to local authority elections. The changes are broadly welcomed by the local government sector and others involved in the running of local authority elections. 
I acknowledge the contributions of the New Zealand Society of Local Government Managers and Local Government New Zealand to this bill. Can I thank them for their submissions on this process. I note that most submissions were also positive about the bill’s changes. I also wish to thank the Justice and Electoral Committee chaired by Scott Simpson for its thorough examination of the bill. Thank you to members involved. The committee operated under tight time constraints and I appreciate its support of the need to implement the bill’s changes quickly. 
The committee through its amendments has clearly sought to ensure firstly that the new rules are robust and enforceable; secondly that local electoral rules are aligned as closely as possible with those for parliamentary elections; and thirdly that the law strikes an appropriate balance between transparent processes and compliance obligations. In particular the committee’s amendment to replicate the Electoral Act’s approach of excluding goods and services with a value of $300 or less from the definition of “electoral donation” appropriately balances transparency and compliance obligations. The change will mean that candidates will not need to keep records of lower-value goods and services such as donations of cakes biscuits and stationery. This provides consistent rules for both local and parliamentary elections and will reduce administrative obligations. The new rules will also be simpler to enforce which is good. 
To summarise the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) will strengthen the integrity of the Local Electoral Act and local electoral regulations. It will enhance the transparency and efficiency of local authority elections beginning with this year’s 2013 elections. It will enhance the representation of electors and as a result of these changes it will increase the public’s confidence in the local electoral system as being efficient democratic and transparent. For these reasons I commend this bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to congratulate the Minister of Local Government on his address to the House in relation to this bill the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) as the new Minister taking over this particular responsibility. I really wanted to endorse the words that he used. There were two words. They were “strengthen integrity”—strengthen integrity. That is actually what this bill is about. I just want to remind people about answers to a series of questions that were put to the Prime Minister last year. He said: “the issue of ethical standards applies to Ministers when they are holding their warrants.” He said: “As the member should know the  
Cabinet Manual 
 makes it quite clear that when it comes to ethics it is at the time the person holds their warrant.” He said: “I am satisfied that the Minister has given me an assurance which is the test that he has done everything in accordance with the law.” He said: “There is quite a wide definition of ethics … The test I have to apply is the law.” Well I just want to remind this House why we are debating the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). 
Sue Moroney 
: Yes why is that? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: It is because somebody could not define the difference between “compliance with the letter of the law” and an understanding of what “ethics” might actually stand for. 
Let me quote from the police report into the John Banks affair: “The Police investigation established that on 24 May 2010 Mayor John Banks met with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Skycity Entertainment Group Limited. At that meeting Mayor Banks received a sealed envelope containing a $15000.00 cheque written out to ‘Team Banksie 2010’.” 
Denis O’Rourke 
: Why was it in an envelope? 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well I think it was in an envelope because that enabled things to be sort of—well I think it allowed brain fade to take effect. I have actually renamed this bill the “Brain Fade Bill” because what it does away with is the capacity for individuals to suffer from brain fade. Anonymous donations beyond $1500 will actually be referred to the Electoral Commission. The police report said: “Team Banksie was the name given to Mr Bank’s campaign organisation. This donation was subsequently recorded in the Electoral Return by the Treasurer for Team Banksie as anonymous.” Did Mr Banks know where the money had come from? Yes he did. Did he know that it had been recorded subsequently as anonymous? No. That is where the grey area was and that is how he wriggled out of that particular prosecution. 
What the police said was that they were “therefore of the view that there is insufficient evidence to consider a prosecution”—not because they did not think that Banks knew where the money came from; he just did not know that they had recorded it as anonymous. We believe that. The police report said: “Police have established that in September 2010 Mr John Banks personally solicited a request for help from a Donor who prefers to remain anonymous for the purpose of this correspondence.”—quoting from the police report—“As a result of a discussion between the two it was agreed that the Donor would help with a donation of radio advertising for the campaign. The donation was recorded on the return by the Treasurer for Team Banksie as an ‘Anonymous’ donation … Police were unable to establish that Mr Banks had the necessary knowledge that the donation had been recorded as anonymous in the return before he signed and submitted it.” 
Let us quote a little bit further. It says “Police have established that on 09 June 2010 Mr John Banks personally solicited a donation from Mr Kim Dotcom. This request resulted in Mr Kim Dotcom paying two $25000.00 donations … Both donations were subsequently recorded … as anonymous.”—and here is the quote again from the police report—“Police were unable to establish that Mr Banks had the necessary knowledge that the donation had been recorded as anonymous …”. We are here debating this legislation on a subject that the Minister of Local Government completely failed to mention. We are here because John Banks failed to act in an appropriate way when he was standing for the mayoralty of Auckland—and actually he did not win the mayoralty of Auckland and Aucklanders are very grateful for that fact. But he has come to Parliament and he has found that it does not matter how he behaved when he was a candidate for the mayoralty because our Prime Minister thinks it is OK to behave that way when you are a candidate for the mayoralty as long as you do not have a ministerial warrant in your hand. Well I do not think that that is acceptable and the people of New Zealand do not think it is acceptable either. 
I still find it utterly extraordinary that John Banks cannot remember flying in a helicopter to a large ostentatious property owned by a large ostentatious multimillionaire. I do not know any ostentatious multimillionaires myself but the reality is that this is not an everyday activity for anyone and yet he has completely and utterly overlooked the fact that nobody can accept that. If we think of the amount of time and effort that Parliament has had to invest in addressing this particular matter one has to ask whether this is the best use of Parliament’s time if we are not even prepared to front up and talk about the real reasons why we are here. 
We had a Prime Minister who campaigned from one end of the country to the other in 2008 on holding a referendum on MMP. He said: “We are going to have a referendum on MMP. We are going to let the people of New Zealand kick the tyres.” I remember him saying “kick the tyres” because it is an expression that he used to use quite a bit. He said we were going to kick the tyres on MMP. The referendum was held. What happened with the referendum? Did we get rid of MMP as he wanted? No we did not. We kept MMP. So what was the trade-off for keeping MMP? We were going to have a review of MMP because there were elements of it that people knew they wanted to see changed. What has happened to the review? Well the Electoral Commission held its own review because the Government refused to provide it with any terms of reference. It went to the Government and said: “Have you got any terms of reference for us?” and the Government just did not even reply. So the Electoral Commission feeling that it had a responsibility went ahead and held its review of MMP and it came up with some suggestions. 
A pretty major suggestion also comes back to John Banks and the major suggestion that it came back with was that we had to fix the thresholds. We had to reduce the threshold from 5 percent to 4 percent but more important that was the quid pro quo for getting rid of the one-seat threshold—the John Banks threshold the cup of tea threshold—that everyone now knows the people of New Zealand do not want. But the Government has not introduced any legislation to address that issue. We are dealing with the other John Banks issue: the issue of brain fade. I think it is really important that this Government actually looks at what the real recommendations are in this area and at what we need to be doing in order to ensure that we have a robust electoral law system in this country. If the Prime Minister wanted to address those real issues we would not be addressing this now; we would be addressing those other issues so that when we get to the general election next year we deal with those fundamental changes that people want. John Banks has rorted one system after another. That is what John Banks is responsible for. That is his legacy to this House. 
We are fixing one of those rorts tonight and yes we will support this legislation for that reason. It does need to be addressed. We do need to align the general election law with the local body law. That is what we need to do but there is another law that needs to change as well and that is our general election law. We need to make sure that the rort that John Banks also stands for on the other side of it is dealt with as well. We have to find ourselves addressing the excesses of behaviour on both sides of that spectrum and I believe that it is absolutely irresponsible of the Prime Minister of New Zealand not to front up to this most basic of issues in the House. 
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel) 
: 
 As the new chairman of the Justice and Electoral Committee it is a great pleasure for me to rise in support of the second reading of this Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). 
But before I get into the detail of the bill in terms of its second reading I just want to respond to a couple of the points made by the previous speaker the Hon Lianne Dalziel because today of all days it ill behoves that member and members of her party to be talking about brain fade in any way shape or form. This is a day when her leader her current leader—and the aspirant leader is sitting smiling beside that last speaker. There is a real problem in the Labour Party with brain fade—a real problem—and the delicious irony for members on this side is that the amounts involved appear to be similar except that we do not know the maximum upper limit of the Leader of the Opposition’s secret bank account. It might be US$100000 or it could be a million dollars. We do not know what is in that secret bank account and he should come clean. 
But this is a good bill. Can I just for a moment talk about the proceedings at the select committee. I came a little late to this bill. I took over the chairmanship of the select committee after submissions had been heard but I want to say that from the point when I got involved I thought that this committee worked very very well. It was I think a good example notwithstanding the speech from the Hon Lianne Dalziel of the select committee process working well to achieve a good outcome—refining a bill that was presented to the House and making a few amendments that were good practical suggestions in a way that had broad support across the House. 
The Greens have presented a minority report and they make particular reference to matters concerning third-party donations. That is a matter that the committee simply did not have time to consider in its full complexity or detail. We hope that the Government will see fit to discuss that by way of discussion during the Committee of the whole House because it is an area that does I think need some addressing. 
So what we have here is a piece of legislation that effectively brings candidates for local body elections into line with the same donation regime system that applies to candidates seeking parliamentary elections to this House. I think that is a good thing and I think it has broad appeal across the House. 
As the Minister of Local Government said the purpose of the bill is threefold. It is to improve provisions for the conduct of local elections. We know that ready or not we have elections in October of this year so the intention is that this bill should be passed and enacted by the end of May and that is why we are discussing it now. The second point is to increase transparency and accountability in relation to those candidates and the donations that they receive and in particular in relation to anonymous donations. The third point that this bill seeks to identify and strengthen is the integrity of the local electoral system. Those are three worthy causes. This bill seeks to address those things. 
On behalf of the committee and members on this side I want to acknowledge the work of the committee and thank members for their constructive participation and their collegial approach to this bill. I commend it to the House. 
Su’a WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
Malo le soifua Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to speak on this bill the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) and to say that Labour will support this bill at its second reading. 
I think we all know the reason why the Government has introduced this bill and I think it is worth us reciting again that the introduction of this bill is timely given Mr Banks’ undeclared donations. I think most people would have made judgments that there is a high possibility that Mr Banks has broken the law regarding donations to his mayoral campaign. Most people would have made judgments that his dealings with Kim Dotcom are mired in half-truths that he had to change his declaration in the Register of Pecuniary and Other Specified Interests of Members of Parliament when he was pressed on donations and gifts that he received from Kim Dotcom and that furthermore John Key has refused to ask him about his actions. 
 Most people I have come across have already made judgments on Mr Banks’ situation and believe that an action that requires police investigation would be an issue of ethical standards. They believe that Mr Banks has repeatedly shown through his convenient memory losses that he has not behaved in a manner that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards as required by the  
Cabinet Manual 
. If John Banks is charged and convicted National faces even fewer support partners in Government and a by-election is hardly the strong strong stable Government that that Government there promised. 
When will the Prime Minister ask John Banks directly about his relationship with Kim Dotcom and his knowledge of the Skycity donations? And is it OK to deliberately mislead the media? There are many questions that Mr John Banks should answer for the public. Has he read the Local Electoral Act? Did he tell Kim Dotcom to split the $50000 donation into two cheques? What did Kim Dotcom want in return in admitting that Mr Banks was advocating for him—when to whom and on what subjects? Did he give the Prime Minister the same untrue explanations he has given the media? 
Similarly there are questions that the public would want to know from the Prime Minister. Why did he accept John Banks’ word without personally talking to him? Is he satisfied that John Banks has answered media questions about donations with the fullness and frankness he expects of his Ministers? Does he stand by his statement: “There is quite a wide definition of ethics … The test I have to apply is the law.”? If so is he intending to amend the  
Cabinet Manual 
? Does the fact that grossly unethical behaviour took place in a mayoral election make the perpetrator acceptable as a Minister in his Government? For how long is he prepared to allow John Banks to remain a Minister while he is being investigated by the police for electoral fraud? Does he find it credible that one of his Ministers cannot remember a private helicopter ride that landed at Dotcom’s mansion? And is it acceptable that someone with such a poor memory is a Minister in Parliament? 
Why in April 2012 did John Banks say that he hardly knew Kim Dotcom that his contact was limited to a total of 20 minutes’ conversation and that he had been to Dotcom’s mansion in Coatesville only once for dinner— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: He knew about the donations too. 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO 
: That is right. Yet in April 2010 he took Dotcom’s helicopter from Mechanics Bay to Dotcom’s mansion where he asked Dotcom for a $50000 donation which was to be split in two. He allegedly rang Kim Dotcom a few days later to thank him for his donation later claiming that the phone call related to a $500000 donation from Kim Dotcom towards the New Year’s Eve fireworks held 6 months later. He attended Kim Dotcom’s birthday party at his mansion where he proposed a toast. He lobbied Maurice Williamson— 
Hon Kate Wilkinson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is the second reading of the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). I do not know whether that member has even mentioned it. He seems to be focused on Kim Dotcom and I think he should confine his— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: No no no. Order! The member will be seated. It is not a point of order. 
Su’a 
 WILLIAM SIO 
: So this electoral reform bill is therefore timely given the John Banks fiasco. Labour believes that reform is needed to avoid a situation where someone like John Banks can claim they have not technically broken the law when clearly they have breached the spirit of transparency that New Zealanders expect around political campaigns. 
Labour had a bill in the ballot for months to address the ridiculous situation we have seen regarding John Banks and his so-called anonymous donations. So it was good to finally see this Government presenting something. Interestingly the Government bill also says that as a result of its changes public confidence in local elections will increase! Confidence has fallen to the level that it is because of the Government’s action or rather inaction in relation to John Banks and the Kim Dotcom affair. 
John Key and John Banks are not in a position to criticise anyone’s ethical standards. It is also not the test the Prime Minister applies. When Mr Key was asked by Metiria Turei: “When the Prime Minister said ‘I expect high standards from my Ministers’ … was he applying a legal test or the test of the highest ethical standards as set out in the  
Cabinet Manual 
?’ Mr Key replied: “A legal test.” 
Labour had a member’s bill in David Cunliffe’s name in the ballot for a couple of months before this bill was introduced that would have aligned the Local Electoral Act with the Electoral Act. Labour’s bill aimed to prevent a repeat of the situation we have seen with John Banks. The bill would have placed the same requirements on candidates in local elections or polls—for donations and their disclosure and the filing of electoral returns—as those that are already in place for candidates in parliamentary elections. This was to ensure consistency on these matters between the Local Electoral Act 2001 and the Electoral Act 1993. The provisions in the Electoral Act 1993 are stronger and clearer in terms of the accountability required of the candidate in an election. 
The Prime Minister’s so-called high ethical standards are in tatters today. On the basis of his memory lapse alone John Banks is not fit to serve as a Minister. John Key has handled this issue badly from the beginning. He failed to ask John Banks the hard questions about the donations. He refused to stand him down while the police were investigating him and it now looks like he will continue to stand by him because he has got off on a technicality. 
My colleague raised the point earlier which I want to repeat about what the police found. The police investigation established that on 24 May 2010 Mayor John Banks met with the chief executive officer of Skycity Entertainment Group and at that meeting Mayor Banks received a sealed envelope containing a $15000 cheque written out to Team Banksie 2010. Team Banksie was the name given to Mr Banks’ campaign. I raise that because this bill that we are discussing here—this sort of situation that Mr Banks found himself in aided and abetted by Mr Key and his Government should never have happened. It should never have happened. The police are therefore of the view that there was insufficient evidence to consider a prosecution. Yet everybody in New Zealand knows that what he has done is wrong—and this Government here continues to stick by them. The police were unable to establish that Mr Banks had the necessary knowledge that the donation had been recorded as an anonymous return. How can you believe that? He receives an envelope of cash in his hand and then he does not remember that that happened. 
Hopefully that sort of goings-on is not going to happen again but I have serious doubts. As long as this Government is in power it appears to the public and certainly to this side of the House that it will continue to have this sort of goings-on with the likes of John Banks continuing to take donations pretending as if he had never received anything and calling those who had given the donations to ask that it be anonymous. 
I want to say that it is timely that this bill came through. The Government should have listened to us in the first place and supported the bill that we put forward in the first place instead of playing all these silly games. What it has got to show for it is that its credibility has gone down. I think that every person who supported that Government—who supported that Government—in the last election will be sorely disappointed sorely disappointed because this sort of goings-on just reveals that this Government is about protecting its mates and it is about protecting its friends despite the fact that everybody knows the unethical behaviour that has occurred the underhand tactics that have occurred and its failure in living up to the standards particularly the standards required of Ministers of the Crown. So yes we support this bill—it is timely—but everybody needs to know the background behind why this Government has rushed in to introduce this bill. Thank you. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou e te Whare. The Green Party is pleased to support the modernisation of our local electoral law and to support greater transparency about candidate donations in local body elections. Clearly there are unfortunate gaps in our existing legislation which have allowed candidates to exploit the so-called anonymous donation provision and thanks to the Hon John Banks we all know about this and are finally doing something about it. I am not going to spend a great deal of time talking about John Banks in my contribution this evening largely because as he is the single member of an irrelevant party I think it is really not a great use of this House’s time. We have heard at length from our Labour colleagues about what gave rise to this bill and why it became apparent to the Government that we needed to update and reform our local electoral laws. And after this bill passes I think we will agree that we will have a significant improvement to those local electoral rules and processes. After it passes anyone who works with a candidate and knows the identity of someone who makes a donation of over $1500 must declare the identity of that donor to the candidate. That is a good change and it is one that the Green Party supports and for that reason the Green Party will continue to support this bill. 
However the bill unfortunately is a missed opportunity to even more closely align the rules for local body elections with those governing general elections and the ones that govern us as parliamentary candidates. Both the Minister and our Labour colleagues have identified that one of the aims of this legislation is to bring the provisions governing local body elections more closely into line with those governing general elections. We in the Green Party agree but unfortunately this bill does not go very far towards doing that apart from the change it makes to the rules around anonymous donations. It has been designed to clear up what was identified as the mess that John Banks left but it actually has not taken much of a wider view on what else needs tidying up in our local electoral law. 
The Green Party also has a member’s bill in the name of my colleague Denise Roche here that would do exactly that. It would actually align the provisions governing local body elections much more closely than this bill does with the provisions governing general elections. That would include a $5000 cap on donations by any person or group to a candidate. It would include a lower $500 limit on anonymous donations. It would include a ban on overseas donations. It would include penalties—which I think is very important in the context of the example we have heard—for avoiding rules relating to donations. Very important it would include regulation of third-party spending in local body election campaigns and I will return to that in a moment. It would include a pecuniary interest register for members of local authorities. In an era where unfortunately we are seeing a trend towards greater council amalgamations—and certainly in the era of the Auckland super-city as the John Banks example has demonstrated—campaigning for local election is a big deal and it deserves the same level of scrutiny and public transparency as that for a general election. There is a lot at stake for someone campaigning for the Auckland mayoralty and the public has a right to the same level of transparency about the conduct of those candidates for the Auckland mayoralty as they do for us as parliamentary candidates. 
So when the time comes we intend to move amendments in the Committee stage to implement some of these more substantive changes which would achieve the effect that the Minister himself identified of actually more closely aligning the provisions for local body elections with those of general elections. 
However if there is one area that the House could pull out of what I have just outlined and adopt—if it turned its mind to it in the Committee stage—it would be the regulation of third-party spending in local body campaigns as it seems clear that this is a major gap in this bill. This bill does not change any of the rules relating to how third parties can engage and campaign in local body elections. Just to outline the problem with the current provisions which this bill does not change the current provisions for example would allow for unlimited spending by third parties that campaign against certain candidates. In that situation it would give no obligations for those third parties to disclose what they have spent would impose no cap on what they could spend and would basically require them to meet no regulation at all. I believe that a campaign of this nature—and we heard about this at the Justice and Electoral Committee—is actually planned in 2013 in Hamilton. An individual with the means to do this who does not like any of the incumbent candidates has declared his intention to campaign against the re-election of any of the incumbent councillors in Hamilton. There is absolutely nothing in the current provisions around third-party spending in local body elections to prevent that person from doing that to place any restriction on how much money they can spend doing that or to place any disclosure requirements on that person on what they do and that seems a clear problem in the context of provisions that do impose spending caps in local body elections. 
Similarly third parties may choose to make donations to a campaign ticket. Increasingly it is a common thing in local body elections for candidates to stand under a common ticket. If a third party decided to make a donation to that ticket but not to the individual candidate on that ticket that again would be subject to no additional scrutiny. There is no requirement to disclose the donation and no cap on the spending. That could be spent on general advertising for the ticket effectively promoting those candidates but as long as it was not assigned to one of them in particular it would not be captured by the provisions in this bill. That seems clearly unfair and clearly against the spirit of having campaign spending caps in local body elections. It is my view and the view of the Green Party that this issue should have been given greater attention in this bill but I was pleased to see that it was recognised by the committee in its report which noted that the regulation of third-party spending is “absolutely necessary to prevent inequities in the future.” I want to congratulate my fellow members on the select committee on this item and I am really pleased to see it recognised. It is just a shame that we could not get that provision into this bill in time for it to come back at the second reading. I was encouraged however to hear the chair of the committee Scott Simpson in his contribution earlier express the hope that the Government might consider regulating the spending of third parties through a Supplementary Order Paper in the Committee stage and I hope very much that we will see that in this House. 
Another area of concern to us in this bill is the new powers given to the Minister of Local Government to adjourn local body elections in the case of a natural disaster or similar disruption. Currently the electoral officer is allowed to adjourn the close of voting by up to 14 days and certainly in light of the experience in Christchurch with the devastating earthquakes we can see that there is a rationale for granting some greater flexibility to suspend for longer and to suspend other parts of the election as well as just the close of voting—nomination day for example. But we do not see why it should be the Minister of Local Government through Order in Council who has this discretion to do that particularly given the current Government’s enthusiasm for postponing local elections at Environment Canterbury. It is not especially encouraging to give this power to the Minister and it is our submission that that power should be exercised not by the Minister of Local Government but by the electoral officer who is the proper person to make that judgment and to suspend the election. If we have to give extra powers it should be to the electoral officer and not to the Minister. Again we intend to move amendments to that effect when the time comes. 
There are other provisions we support in this bill that we have heard a little bit about from the Government members. Greater information about candidates will be made available including whether they live within the boundaries although a useful clarification from the select committee is to point out that they do not have to disclose their address in order to disclose that. The exclusion of goods and services of a value of $300 or less—again a sensible amendment made by the select committee. Broadly speaking we support the provisions of this bill but to sum up the basic change made by this bill is an improvement on the status quo and we support it. But it could have done so much more perhaps most important to regulate third-party spending in local body elections. It is a missed opportunity to achieve what the Minister himself has said was the aim of this legislation to bring it into line with the provisions for general elections. It is a great shame that it does not do that but we do support the bill. 
ALFRED NGARO (National) 
: 
 Kia orana Mr Assistant Speaker. I rise to take a call on the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) in its second reading. I just want to acknowledge the previous speaker Holly Walker who is a constructive contributor to our Justice and Electoral Committee. I also want to acknowledge our previous chair the honourable Tim Macindoe who ably led us through the electoral amendment legislation and also through the submissions. 
There is one thing though that I must say about our Green member and about transparency and accountability. If I recall it was last year when the Green Party did not have transparency and accountability when it did not disclose that some of its paid staff members were paid to solicit signatures from the public for the referendum. Again there was a lack of transparency and accountability there. It just somewhat confuses me a little bit about that. In fact— 
Hon Member 
: They were caught. 
ALFRED NGARO 
: No I have got it just fresh off the boat that they were caught out—they were actually caught out. They were not transparent and they were not accountable. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee and its changes have been significant. There is growing public pressure and concern about transparency and accountability especially around candidate donations and particularly around anonymous donations. We are clear about that. But the thing is Labour passed the current loose provisions around anonymous donations and had 9 years to fix them. Instead they waited until they were in Opposition before saying anything. The thing is changes around the local electoral donations will bring the Local Electoral Act closer in line with the Electoral Act. But Labour seems to forget somewhat that both major Auckland mayoral candidates were able to receive substantial anonymous donations under Labour’s legislation. These changes will improve that transparency. 
These changes also reflect the recommendations from the Local Government Commission’s review of the Local Electoral Act. We feel that as a select committee we have put these amendments through we have listened to the submissions and we feel this adequately reflects the concerns of the public and most important the value of trust that we in this Parliament have heard the issues about transparency and accountability and they will be addressed in this Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). I commend this bill to the House. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 This bill the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2) should probably be renamed the “John Banks Problem Avoidance Bill” because that is a big part of it. The other main provisions of the bill amend the Local Electoral Act 2001 to improve consistency with the Electoral Act 1993 regarding electoral donations and expenses limit the amount or value of anonymous donations refine the definition of “anonymous” and “donation” enhance the obligations of candidates for the disclosure reporting and recording of electoral donations—something I think Mr Banks should note very well if he can remember to do so—and introduce penalties for non-compliance. But as I will say later it does fail to address some important issues and a previous speaker has mentioned some of those. 
Something else that the bill does do in clause 15 is require that a candidate profile statement include whether or not the candidate’s principle place of residence is in the local government area in question. That is something that people have wanted to see for quite a long time. The word “area” means a ward or a similar division within a local council’s boundaries. It does not preclude of course a candidate from standing if living outside the area and it does not preclude him or her stating what connections he or she has with the area. In fact it would encourage people with a connection other than residence to make it clear why they should be elected to represent the area in question. Of course some people who do live within the area may in fact have been there a very short time and not have a genuine connection with it. Voters will need to be aware that just living within an area is not necessarily a genuine longstanding connection with it. 
But the most important new provisions concern anonymous donations. This has been the source of continuing problems as we know—especially John Banks’ issues with claimed anonymous donations to his last Auckland mayoralty campaign. As a result there is widespread concern about what appears to have taken place concerning Mr Banks’ return and anonymous donations. The bill contains several new sections about donations. We now have a new definition of what an “electoral donation” is in new section 103A inserted by clause 27. This section clarifies what goods and services are to be included and establishes a threshold of $300 for the purpose. It excludes labour provided free of charge as of course it must. The Justice and Electoral Committee has recommended another provision in schedule 1 requiring candidates to disclose a return of electoral donations and expenses for each office for which the candidate has stood in the election and also that the candidate should be required to specify the campaign to which an anonymous donation of over $1500 was designated. 
The bill as introduced does not specify any particular limitation period for prosecuting offences under the Act. Because the offences of filing a false return and arranging to circumvent the $1500 limit on anonymous donations involve elements of fraud and dishonesty a relatively long time frame for investigation and prosecution is needed. The select committee has therefore recommended amending clause 36 by adding a new section 138AA that specifies the time frame for prosecuting the new offences in new sections 112D and 103I as 6 months from the date on which the prosecutor is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to warrant the commencement of proceedings but of course no later than 3 years after the offence was committed. 
The Banks situation demonstrates why that time frame in needed. Concerning the John Banks problem—at least the one we can address is this bill—the bill does address the one matter that John Banks’ electoral return for the 2010 local body elections has highlighted. It has revealed a gap in the existing legislation allowing persons acting for candidates to call donations anonymous that they did know or ought to have known were not in fact anonymous donations. Clause 27 inserts new section 103F which says: “If any person involved in the administration of the affairs of a candidate in relation to his or her election campaign knows the identity of the donor of an anonymous donation exceeding $1500 the person must disclose the identity of the donor to the candidate.” I do worry a little that it will be necessary to prove actual knowledge under that section which may be difficult and that perhaps the words “or ought to have known” should also have been included but the select committee did not agree with me on that. Nevertheless this is a satisfactory new provision which will help solve the “Banks problem” as I think of it. 
 The bill also provides in new section 103H inserted by clause 27 that an anonymous donation may not exceed $1500 and that “(1) If an anonymous donation exceeding $1500 is received by a candidate in relation to an election campaign the candidate must within 20 working days of receiving the donation pay to the electoral officer responsible for the conduct of the election to which that campaign relates the amount of the donation or its value less $1500.” Section 103H(2) also states: “If an anonymous donation exceeding $1500 is received by a candidate who is seeking election to more than 1 office the candidate must—(a) designate 1 election campaign for election to 1 office for which the donation will be used;”. 
Section 103I provides for offences relating to contravention of section 103H and it says that “A person who enters into an agreement arrangement or understanding with any other person that has the effect of circumventing section 103H(1) or (2) commits an offence and is liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5000.” and that a candidate who contravenes the section would also commit an offence and be liable to a similar fine. So that is a good step forward. It does help solve I think the Banks problem. 
The bill provides for postponement of a local election. I note that the Green Party has expressed concern about the new powers given to the Minister of Local Government to adjourn elections in the case of natural disasters and other such emergencies. The bill would allow the whole election to be postponed by Order in Council by up to 6 weeks at the discretion of the Minister. The Greens’ concern is that it gives the Minister excessive powers but I note that new section 73A(6) in clause 21 says: “Before recommending the making of the Order in Council the Minister—(a) must be satisfied on reasonable grounds that the order is necessary to ensure that the adverse effects of an emergency (whether local or national) or of anything referred to in section 73(1)(a) to (d) do not deny electors a reasonable opportunity to cast a valid vote nominate a candidate or accept nomination as a candidate in relation to the election; and (b) must have consulted every local authority and electoral officer that will be affected.” So I think that section 73A(6) does sufficiently limit the Minister’s discretion about postponement and would preclude the sort of Environment Canterbury situation that the Greens seem to be most concerned about. 
There is however one very serious defect in the bill—and it is the one mentioned by other speakers—and that is the gap concerning third-party campaigners being able to receive donations and to promote a candidate without that candidate’s permission. There has not been time to address that so far but I do trust that before this bill comes into force the Government will see that that matter is addressed and is included in the legislation. Overall the bill is a good one and does deserve support but I note that there it is still work in progress. It is a shame that that work has not been done already. However assuming that it will be New Zealand First will be happy to continue to support the bill as amended by the select committee. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (National—Waimakariri) 
: 
 Can I say it is a real pleasure for me to take a very brief call in support of the second reading of the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). As a recent attendee at the Justice and Electoral Committee can I commend what I think is now a very collaborative and usually bipartisan or multipartisan approach. The irony is that the last time I was on the Justice and Electoral Committee temporarily was for the Electoral Finance Bill and I would have to say that that process was a shocker and an embarrassment to the select committee process. I think and I would hope and I am optimistic that Parliament has learnt from those mistakes because I have the view that constitutional reform and electoral reform require a high threshold of consensus rather than party politics. 
Can I also say in supporting this bill that laws alone cannot however bring integrity to our electoral system. We had in my own electorate a $20000 donation—admittedly it was disclosed—in return for help with a subdivision. Whether that is money for policy I do not know but there will be some who think that there is a huge stench in that. The difficulty with that is that once that donation is disclosed it is too late because the vote has already been passed. Some will say that $20000 for help in a subdivision is not right. It is not illegal but integrity is more than the laws. 
So it is up to us as representatives in this Parliament to ensure not only that we obey the law but that we obey the spirit of the law and that we show good leadership so that our community can have trust and confidence in the integrity of our electoral system. This bill goes a long way towards that but it is not all of it. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). What a pity that in a debate that has been free of the usual sorts of recriminations and acrimony that sometimes characterise debate in this House the last member who spoke Kate Wilkinson should descend into vague non-specific allegations on matters concerning her electorate. It was also disappointing that the honourable member Alfred Ngaro should retreat to the age-old cries which frankly are becoming a little boring now that Labour had 9 years to do something but did not. Then he said that both mayoral candidates for the 2010 Auckland mayoralty received donations and he completely overlooked the fact that the origins of this bill have one place—one place—and it starts with a member who sits on the benches opposite me. The grubby nasty actions of that member have prompted the enactment of this legislation. 
You know the pity of it is—and it is disappointing that the members opposite do not recognise it—that once upon a time we had a culture in this country whether it was around elections or whether it was around the running of businesses that people did not comply just with the letter of the law but with the spirit of it. People understood that in a civilised society we have rules and we have laws that they are there for good reason and that they are about respecting each other and therefore respecting the law. In the last few years the last couple of decades that value and those principles have gone out the window. We now have a culture where that is regarded as acceptable usually by people who flutter on the right politically and who no longer care about the spirit of the law. It is just a black letter. The first question to be asked by those on the right is “What can I get away with? What can I do that is on the margins of the law because I don’t have to worry about values and principles and the spirit of the law any more?”. This legislation this bill tonight has as its origins actions that have that flavour written all over them. 
The thing is that it is bad enough that in our history we have seen some pretty bad shenanigans when it comes to central government elections but we never had local body elections infected and contaminated as badly. We never saw the chicanery the double-dealing and the manipulation that we saw in the 2010 Auckland mayoral election. It was that event and that event alone that has prompted this House to have to give its time and attention to this legislation. It all changed in 2010. It all changed. We have crossed the Rubicon and we will never go back. So we have now had to do what I think probably eventually historically will be seen as a sensible change which is to align the electoral laws covering local government elections with those covering general elections. 
But let us not forget that it all started in Auckland. This bill owes its existence to one person who sits in this House and that is John Banks. He forgot about and did not properly declare donations from Kim Dotcom the largest most colourful figure involved with New Zealand politics in a generation. John Banks did not think to properly declare his Skycity donation that he received in cash in envelopes personally. 
What we have seen is that our ethical standards have dropped. You know the pity of it too is that when members of the Government and members representing this Government including the Prime Minister had the opportunity to indicate that they actually did want to see better ethical standards they fluffed the opportunity. They failed the test. When the Prime Minister John Key was confronted about what sort of ethical standard we are operating at now he said: “There is quite a wide definition of ethics. The test I have to apply is the law.” What a disappointment. It is no longer about principles and the spirit of the law; it is about the black letter of the law. This is in contrast to what the  
Cabinet Manual 
 says which is that “Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards.” So we now have to introduce this legislation to try to get some flavour of that into local government. That is why we are doing this bill. 
There have been some good changes recommended coming out of the select committee process—things like the residence disclosure. For example if you do not live in the ward that you are standing for or in the area that you are standing for you will have to disclose that. It does not prevent you from being a candidate in the ward but people should know. It is good to have the warning on the voting documents about interference in the way people vote. It is good to not have the costs of hoardings particularly the timber involved in hoardings accounted for because we know that that is material that is used and recycled from election to election. It is good that we now have the rules clarified at least for local government elections on the publication of returns and that they can be published online. It is good also that the time frames about prosecuting breaches of electoral laws in local government elections are clarified. Maybe perhaps in the Committee stage we might debate whether or not the prosecution of breaches of electoral law might also be open for private prosecution. 
There is however still a gap in all this and it was a problem raised before the Justice and Electoral Committee by Alan McRobie who is an expert in this country on local government elections. It was a problem that he observed in an election whereby the goods and services that are offered on a recurring basis for below market rates and also below the threshold of $300 might actually lead to an abuse. The example he gave was of a small community newspaper. It happened to be in Kaiapoi—and we know how important Kaiapoi is to the New Zealand Labour Party because that is where one of our greatest leaders Norman Kirk got his political head start—where there was this rort played out. Selected candidates who were regarded with favour by the editor of a small community newspaper were given heavily discounted advertising space. On each occasion it was a small-value transaction but they all flew under the radar and even in aggregate terms the value of that contribution from that editor was not declared and did not have to be declared. We need to make sure that a rort like that is captured under this legislation. I am not confident that it is captured in the wording of the legislation now but that is a matter that we can deal with in the Committee stage. Given the general consensus that we are arriving at around this legislation I would hope that that would be given a good audience. 
On that basis as my colleagues have said we support this legislation. It is timely. The circumstances under which it has had to arrive in this House and we are having to debate it are disappointing but it will be good law. It will have the support of the House and Labour will support it too. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak to the second reading of this Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). It does modernise local electoral law and improve the transparency of local electoral donations. 
We admit there has been growing concern over transparency and accountability of candidate donations particularly anonymous donations and this bill addresses those concerns. It improves the provisions for the conduct of local elections increases transparency and accountability in relation to donations and strengthens the integrity of the local electoral system. Of course this legislation is planned to be passed by May this year in time for local authority elections by October this year. 
The Justice and Electoral Committee made some pragmatic changes and they include the candidate profile statements. They will have to state whether the candidate’s principal place of residence is within the local government area in question. We know from the last local body elections that there were some individuals who stood for multiple positions and I think it is fair enough that the voters know where that individual resides. This is a good bill and I commend it to the House. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member Carol Beaumont and inform the House that this is a split call. Is that correct? 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to speak as my colleagues have in favour of the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). This bill amends the Local Electoral Act 2001 and includes as others have perhaps mentioned limiting the size of anonymous donations; expanding the existing definition of anonymous to include situations where the candidate could not reasonably know the identity of the donor unlike situations we have talked about tonight with Mr John Banks where quite clearly he knew the identity of the donor; requiring third parties receiving donations on behalf of candidates to disclose their identity; and various other disclosure and reporting obligations. They are all positive things and as the speaker from New Zealand First said probably this should be called something like the “John Banks Memorial Bill”. It is probably one of the few things I can think of that we have got to thank John Banks for because after all he has not done too many other positive things. 
This bill was originally proposed as a Labour member’s bill. David Cunliffe had a bill that tried to basically look at provisions of the Electoral Act coming across and being applied in the local electoral situation and I think it is really important that we do that. Democracy requires us to have a process that gives voters confidence. That confidence has been absolutely undermined by the behaviour of people like John Banks and indeed the Prime Minister in the way that he has handled this mess. What it makes people think is that politicians lie that they are deceitful and that they hide things when they obviously know about them. Democracy requires us to have a process where there is transparency and where limits are placed on campaign funding. 
The behaviour over 2011 and 2012 around the Skycity donation the Kim Dotcom donation and all of that was absolutely disgraceful and it did undermine the integrity of our democracy and public confidence. It smelt bad and it was bad. There were a lot of double standards at play in that period of time. The Prime Minister and his lack of requirement for accountability his failure to address this with John Banks and his methods of trying to hide what was really going on—all of that was part of the bad smell around this. As others have reminded the House the police report did not really clear John Banks; it was pretty clear that there just was not— 
Chris Hipkins 
: He did it. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: That is right indeed. So I think that that is something that is important. 
I just wanted to note that in reading the select committee report I think the Justice and Electoral Committee obviously did the best it could with the time available but as others have said there are many other areas that do need addressing. I think that obviously this needs to be done in the time frame available because of the local government elections this year but there are ongoing improvements we need. There were some very helpful contributions made around for example the unpublished roll which have not been mentioned but are important. We have to be vigilant to protect our democracy. We need transparency. People need to know there is a level playing field for all candidates. There is much more work to do. Thank you. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a short call on the Local Electoral Amendment Bill (No 2). The Green Party is pleased to be supporting this bill because of its purpose of ensuring that there is more consistency between local authority elections and general elections with regard to electoral donations and expenses. Certainly the Local Electoral Act is out of step with the Electoral Act which regulates parliamentary elections. Although both pieces of legislation were developed in 1993 the Electoral Act has been revised three times in 5 years to strengthen and clarify its provisions in relation to campaign financing and to provide some additional checks and balances but the donation provisions of the Local Electoral Act have been reviewed only once in 2001. So this bill is timely. 
It is timely of course because of the John Banks saga in 2010 and the fact that the saga highlighted that the controls and obligations in the Local Electoral Act on candidates third parties donors and officials were much less robust. Given that in 2010 we had nearly 4000 candidates standing for 1900 positions on regional councils the Auckland Council community boards and district health boards it is really important to ensure that there is public confidence in the electoral process and that there are robust controls around donations. So this bill is really important in improving that transparency through measures such as the cap of $1500 on the amount for anonymous donations. It will certainly be a strong incentive for these donations to stay at $1500 when any excess has to be paid to the local electoral officer. The bill also improves the definitions of words like “anonymous” and “donations” and it certainly strengthens the candidate disclosure reporting and recording requirements. 
We would like to congratulate the Justice and Electoral Committee. It has done quite substantive work on the bill and the changes that it has recommended certainly improve the bill. Where there has been this cap of $1500 that is one example of getting more alignment between local authority elections and parliamentary elections. Another of the changes in the bill requires a transmitter a third party who receives a donation on behalf of a candidate to disclose to the candidate the identity of the donor if she or he knows it. That certainly would have been helpful in the John Banks case. Another of these areas of alignment ensures that “electoral donation” covers things where you have got a difference between the market— 
Debate interrupted. 
Sitting suspended from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m. (Thursday)